[Senate Hearing 117-869]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-869
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN
ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE POLICIES TO HELP FIGHT HOMELESSNESS
__________
JULY 19, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-962 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chairman
JACK REED, Rhode Island PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
TINA SMITH, Minnesota BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK, Georgia KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
STEVE DAINES, Montana
Laura Swanson, Staff Director
Brad Grantz, Republican Staff Director
Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Pat Lally, Hearing Clerk
______
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
TINA SMITH, Minnesota, Chair
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota, Ranking Republican Member
JACK REED, Rhode Island RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JON TESTER, Montana BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK, Georgia STEVE DAINES, Montana
Tim Everett, Subcommittee Staff Director
Brennan Barber, Senior Policy Advisor for Education, Labor, and Housing
Kathleen Gayle, Republican Subcommittee Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022
Page
Opening statement of Chair Smith................................. 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Rounds................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Ann Oliva, Chief Executive Officer, National Alliance to End
Homelessness................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Responses to written questions of:
Chair Smith.............................................. 113
Senator Warnock.......................................... 117
Isabel McDevitt, Cofounder and Board President, Work Works
America........................................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Kathryn Monet, Chief Executive Officer, National Coalition for
Homeless Veterans.............................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to written questions of:
Chair Smith.............................................. 118
Senator Warnock.......................................... 120
Cathy ten Broeke, Assistant Commissioner and Executive Director,
Minnesota Interagency Council on Homelessness (MICH)........... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to written questions of:
Chair Smith.............................................. 120
Jamie Kirsch, Board Member, Journey On........................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to written questions of:
Chair Smith.............................................. 123
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Letter Submitted by Catholic Charities of St. Paul and
Minneapolis.................................................... 127
Congressional Research Service Memorandum........................ 129
(iii)
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN
ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community
Development,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 2:31 p.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Tina Smith, Chair of the
Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIR TINA SMITH
Chair Smith. The Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation,
and Community Development will come to order.
This hearing is in hybrid format. We will have witnesses
testifying both in person and by video, and Senators may appear
in person or by video as well.
I want to thank Senator Rounds for joining me in this
bipartisan hearing focusing on the issue of homelessness.
Senator Rounds found out late yesterday, I think, that he is
needed at an important markup of the Foreign Relations
Committee, so he will not be able to stay for the entire
Subcommittee, which we understand, and thank you for being
here.
Senator Rounds. Sure.
Chair Smith. And thank you also to our panelists, those of
you in person as well as those of you joining virtually, for
being here today.
So without a safe, decent, affordable place to live,
nothing in your life works. It is nearly impossible to maintain
a job, go to school, or stay healthy. Based on data from 2020,
almost 600,000 Americans experience homelessness on any given
night. Of this number, 61 percent of those experiencing
homelessness are sheltered and another 39 percent are
unsheltered.
Homelessness is a significant challenge in our country and
getting worse. While current national data is sparse, we know
that the number of people experiencing homelessness, already
too high, began rising again around 2015. And, of course, the
pandemic has only exacerbated the challenges that individuals
and families face.
But addressing homelessness is an area of bipartisan
interest in the Senate. For example, Senator Bennet and Senator
Portman, along with our full Committee Chair, Senator Brown,
have introduced the Eviction Crisis Act, which would direct
assistance to families who are most at risk of losing their
homes and help
prevent families from becoming homeless. Their bill draws on
the lessons of the pandemic, and I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses today about that important bipartisan measure.
I also know that several other colleagues on this
Subcommittee have been working on important bills to address
homelessness, and many of them bipartisan. Senator Van Hollen
leads legislation with Senator Young to provide opportunities
for family mobility. Senator Reed and Senator Collins have
worked together for years to strengthen the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness. And while it is outside
this Subcommittee's jurisdiction, Senator Cantwell and Senator
Young have had a bill to reform and expand the low-income
housing tax credit.
These examples illustrate the bipartisan important work
happening in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses today about these pieces of legislation and how we
can work with everyone to try to advance some of these
measures.
It also must be acknowledged that the biggest factor in the
rise in homelessness is the severe shortage of affordable
housing and the lack of housing supply. People sometimes have
the misunderstanding that folks end up unhoused because they
experience mental illness or substance use disorder when the
reality is that most people become ill because they do not have
a safe, affordable place to live.
In my view, the answer is to provide shelter and housing
first and the supportive services that are necessary to help
people get stable and healthy.
The backdrop to the issue of homelessness is that our
Nation is facing an affordable housing crisis. According to
data published by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition,
not one State in our country has an adequate supply of
affordable rental housing for the lowest-income renters. In
fact, for the 10.8 million families with extremely low incomes
in the United States, there is a shortage of more than 7
million affordable homes. This is an incredibly alarming
problem that we all face in every part of the country.
The challenge of finding and keeping a safe, affordable
place to live is real in every part--urban, suburban, and
rural. It affects everyone. However, homelessness also
disproportionately affects some communities more than others,
including Black, Latino, and Native communities. In my home
State of Minnesota, while Native Americans make up about 1
percent of the adult population, the 2018 statewide
homelessness study found that Native Americans make up 12
percent of the adults experiencing homelessness. The experience
of Native people in Tribes around homelessness led me to
partner with Senator Murkowski, Ranking Member of the Indian
Affairs Committee, to write and pass our bipartisan Tribal
Access to Homeless Assistance Act, which makes Tribes eligible
for Department of Housing and Urban Development homeless
assistance funds through the Continuum of Care Program (CoC).
We are now focused on implementing this law and hope to hear
today what we can do to make sure it is successful.
Additionally, homelessness remains a significant challenge
for veterans. No one who serves our country should ever find
themselves without a safe, decent place to call home. In recent
years, bipartisan efforts have sharply reduced the rate of
homelessness among veterans, but there is more that we must do.
I know that this is a priority for Senator Rounds, and I look
forward to working with you on this issue, as well as with the
Tribal and Native housing issues that you and I have
collaborated on frequently.
Homelessness is not only a housing crisis but also a public
health crisis as the lack of housing exacerbates health
challenges. Simply put, housing is a social determinant of
health. The COVID-19 public health emergency created new
challenges for unhoused people, both for people living in
congregate shelters, where there were deep worries about safety
and public health, as well as people without any shelter at
all.
The CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan provided
billions of dollars in emergency solutions grants, rental
assistance, and homeowner assistance to help people avoid
foreclosure and to keep them in their homes. This emergency
funding directed to States and local providers made a huge
difference, keeping people healthy, safe, and sheltered. And it
created opportunities for community organizations to improvise
and innovate.
However, much of that funding is now coming to an end, so I
hope that today we can hear both what we have learned from the
last 2 years in terms of innovative strategies that have worked
and also what our experience has been--what our experience
tells us about the importance of adequate funding for
homelessness prevention efforts.
I often hear from people who work in this field that we
know what to do to solve this problem; we just need the will to
fix it. We have data-driven strategies that have proven
effective in addressing homelessness in recent years. We have
seen this in addressing veterans homelessness in my home State
of Minnesota.
The Housing First model builds on what we know: that if you
do not have, again, a safe, stable place to call home, it is
very hard to hold onto a job, go to school, or get the health
care that you need. It has been successful in reducing
homelessness in many parts of the country, and I believe that
we should build on its success.
Addressing homelessness has long been an issue that
Republicans and Democrats have shared concerns about. I hope
that in this hearing we can continue this bipartisan work and
look for concrete steps to take together to address this
challenge with a comprehensive approach, effective strategies,
and the resources that we need.
Thank you, and I now turn to Senator Rounds for your
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE ROUNDS
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Chair Smith. And, once again, I
will apologize for having to leave early. We have the markup of
the accession into NATO for Sweden and Finland this afternoon,
and this is one that we want to move forward on rather quickly.
First, I would like to thank our witnesses for taking the
time to be here today, especially Jamie, who is coming to us
from Rapid City, South Dakota, this afternoon.
From Sioux Falls to Washington, DC, to Los Angeles,
Americans are experiencing growing housing insecurity.
Homelessness
implicates several critical issues: America's acute shortage of
affordable homes, behavioral and physical health challenges,
addiction and domestic abuse, and violence. Therefore, the need
goes beyond just a safe place to stay. Individuals also need
supportive services, whether it is clinical health, career
coaching, or case management, so they can break the cycle of
homelessness.
That is why organizations like Journey On, which is
successfully working in Rapid City, as well as the Doe Fund in
New York, have an expanding array of supportive services,
including job training, child care, and others that are
successful in going well beyond shelter. Journey On
successfully partners with law enforcement in Rapid City, South
Dakota, to provide social services and casework management for
calls related to unsheltered individuals.
However, Journey On, like many nonprofits across the
Nation, have run into mounds of Government red tape. Even when
they have received Federal dollars, the money takes too long to
be released, and the paperwork burden is onerous. We should be
removing barriers to addressing homelessness, not creating new
ones.
Over the last decade, HUD has pursued a Housing First
approach to helping homeless individuals and families obtain
stable housing as quickly as possible without barriers or
preconditions. However, the Housing First model often ignores
the underlying causes of homelessness and are only proven to be
effective at curbing homelessness at the individual level
rather than at the broader community level.
HUD now allocates roughly 75 percent of all competitive
grants to permanent supportive housing projects, even though
these projects were originally intended to serve just a portion
of the total homeless population who are chronically homeless.
This sole reliance on Housing First has prevented Federal
assistance for any alternative approaches by housing providers
that may better address local housing needs.
The Doe Fund, based on New York City but operating
nationwide, is a stunning example of how Federal policy
disadvantages organizations that have made incredible strides
in combining stable housing, dignified work, and life coaching
to improve their clients' lives.
An analysis of the Doe Fund's work found that in 2020, 82
percent--that is, 82 percent--of graduates maintained their
jobs months after leaving the program with an average starting
wage of $16.60. For every dollar New York City taxpayers spend
on the program, they saved an average of $3.60 in costs from
emergency city services and criminal justice costs.
These successes raise serious questions of how we
prioritize Federal funding. Although a Housing First model may
be effective in some cases, a one-size-fits-all solution is not
the answer. We should instead give communities flexibility to
implement interventions that address their issues.
We also need greater local-level accountability with the
Continuum of Care funding distribution model used by HUD to
make certain more homelessness dollars are used to help those
with the greatest needs. Untargeted Government spending is
particularly inappropriate at a time of elevated inflation. HUD
should put into place performance measures that indicate
whether the program is succeeding or failing in reducing the
number of people experiencing homelessness.
Veterans represent a unique subgroup of the entire homeless
population as they are eligible for specialized Federal
programs and benefits. Despite tremendous success in reducing
the number of homeless veterans over the past decade, tangible
impediments remain in securing adequate housing for this group,
including a severe shortage of affordable homes,
underutilization of the HUD-VASH vouchers, and a lack of VA
support and medical staff.
Every single veteran should have a place to call home,
which is why I have sponsored legislation like the Reducing
Veteran Homelessness Act which would make much-needed
improvements to both the HUD-VASH and the grant and per diem
programs to make sure every veteran has the resources they need
to find a home.
Nationwide, Native Americans have the second-highest rate
of homelessness, according to the National Alliance to End
Homelessness' 2020 State of the Homelessness Report.
Furthermore, for those Native Americans who live on the
reservation, traditional homelessness tends to not be as big of
a problem as under-housing and overcrowding. According to a
2017 Urban Institute report, 16 percent of Tribal area
households were overcrowded and 6 percent were severely
overcrowded.
Overall, there is a major lack of reliable data and
research on Native homelessness and overcrowding, and it is
something I believe HUD should prioritize.
I want to once again thank Madam Chair for holding this
important hearing, and I look forward to this discussion on how
to address homelessness in America, especially among our Native
and veteran populations. This is one area where Republicans and
Democrats really do work together in a bipartisan fashion, and
it is one area that I really think we can find additional
success.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair Smith. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
I am now going to introduce our witnesses. I will introduce
all five of you and then turn to each to make your opening
statements.
We have three witnesses who are with us in person today:
Ann Oliva, who is the chief executive officer of the National
Alliance to End Homelessness; Isabel McDevitt, who is the
cofounder and board president of Work Works America; Kathryn
Monet, chief executive officer of the National Coalition for
Homeless Veterans.
And joining us remotely, we have Cathy ten Broeke,
assistant commissioner and executive director of the Minnesota
Interagency Council on Homelessness; and Jamie Kirsch, board
member from Journey On, based in Rapid City, South Dakota.
Welcome, and thank you all for your willingness to speak
with us today, and I look forward to hearing from each of you.
And before you begin your opening statements, I just have a few
reminders. For witnesses and Senators joining us by video, once
you start speaking, there will be a slight delay before you are
displayed on the screen. To minimize background noise, please
click the mute button until it is your turn to speak or ask
questions. You should all have one box on your screens labeled
``Clock'' that will show you how much time is remaining. And
for all witnesses, you will have 5 minutes for your opening
statements. Your full written statement will be made part of
the record. And for all Senators, the 5-minute clock applies to
your questions. If there is any technology issue, we will just
move on to the next witness until we get it figured out.
And for the information of Senators, we will have
opportunities for everybody to ask all of your questions during
the course of this hearing, so I am happy to stay here as long
as people's questions are still ready to be answered.
I will now turn to Ms. Oliva for 5 minutes of opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF ANN OLIVA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL
ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Oliva. Thank you so much. Chair Smith, Ranking Member
Rounds, and Members of the Subcommittee, again, my name is Ann
Oliva. I am the CEO of the National Alliance to End
Homelessness and a board member of True Colors United. Thank
you again for having me testify today.
I want to commend the Subcommittee for the housing-related
relief measures enacted during the pandemic. I am going to talk
about the positive results of those investments momentarily,
but, first, I want to start with the data.
All the reliable evidence tells us that the situation for
people experiencing homelessness is incredibly urgent and that
the homelessness crisis, which predates the pandemic, will
persist without serious intervention. In 2020, HUD reported two
unfortunate firsts: we saw an increase in the number of people
and families living unsheltered; and we saw the number of
individuals living on the streets exceed the number of
individuals living in shelters for the first time.
More than 580,000 people experienced homelessness on a
single night in January of 2020, and 1.5 million people
experienced sheltered homelessness at some time in 2018. People
of color and historically marginalized people are
disproportionately impacted by homelessness. Families
experiencing homelessness are typically headed by women. Many
are headed by young parents, and they include a high percentage
of young children.
Youth, veterans, and adults experiencing chronic
homelessness are suffering on our streets and in our shelters
every day. And data shows that more than half of sheltered
people and 40 percent of unsheltered people work but still
cannot afford housing.
Most continuums of care that we surveyed believed that
unsheltered homelessness has increased. But our information
from the field also indicates that the number of families
experiencing homelessness seems to have decreased during the
pandemic, and this is likely the result of pandemic relief
measures like the child tax credits, unemployment insurance
supplements, emergency rental assistance, the eviction
moratorium, and other steps that the Federal Government took to
protect extremely low-income families from the impacts of the
pandemic.
Those programs worked. But as those policies and
investments end, at the same time that we see rents skyrocket
nationwide, we can expect to see negative consequences if we
fail to act. Skyrocketing rents make it harder for low-income
people to stay in their homes, create even greater challenges
for people exiting incarcerations or systems like the child
welfare system, and make it even more difficult to get people
experiencing homelessness into safe and affordable housing.
The inability of people to afford housing is the major
driver of homelessness. People experiencing homelessness do
absolutely want and need other resources like health and
behavioral health services and employment services, no doubt.
But a safe, stable, and affordable place to live ends
homelessness and provides the foundation for achieving other
life goals.
The housing investments made as part of the Nation's
pandemic response helped people across the country to keep or
get into housing. For example, about 3.8 million households
received emergency rental assistance so they could stay in
their homes. Nearly 90 percent of the 70,000 emergency housing
vouchers for households experiencing or at risk of homelessness
have been issued or leased. We can learn from what has worked
and what has not as we look to the future, but given the
circumstances, we know that these programs are not enough
because we are facing daunting challenges. Rising rents and low
vacancy rates make finding and keeping permanent housing more
difficult for homeless and at-risk people. Homeless systems
consistently report significant staffing challenges like
shortages, high turnover, and burnout.
Linking mainstream health and behavioral health services
with housing can be a challenge, and criminalization of people
experiencing homelessness is rising. But as you mentioned, we
know what works. Making evidence-based policy decisions in
addition to sustained investments in housing and services at
the national level is critical. This includes protecting the
affordable housing stock we have, increasing supply, increasing
affordability by expanding the housing choice voucher program,
and making the services that people want and need more
accessible.
And, further, it means supporting evidence-based approaches
that prioritize permanent housing and choice as the foundation
for healing from the trauma of homelessness. It also means
partnering with people who have lived experience so the changes
we make are informed by real-world and practical expertise.
The information we have tells us that the public wants an
end to homelessness not by criminalizing people but by
implementing sound housing and service solutions so that people
can thrive. We know how to do that.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chair Smith. Thank you very much. We will now turn to Ms.
McDevitt.
STATEMENT OF ISABEL McDEVITT, COFOUNDER AND BOARD PRESIDENT,
WORK WORKS AMERICA
Ms. McDevitt. Thank you so much. Thank you so much to the
Committee for hosting us today. My name is Isabel McDevitt, and
I am cofounder and board chair of Work Works America, and I
have worked in direct services since 1998 in cities such as New
York, Philadelphia, and metro Denver, Colorado.
I am here today to talk to you about the Work Works model
as an example of how we need to expand our toolkit to address
homelessness in cities across this country. Thank you for my
fellow witness and for both Senator Smith and Senator Rounds
for your
introductions. I do not need to tag on more around the need.
But what I do want to talk about is solutions and what we need
to do to expand our response.
The Work Works model was founded 30 years ago in New York
City by the Doe Fund, and it has since been scaled to six
communities nationwide. We regularly get requests for many,
many more. We are in Atlanta, Georgia, Colorado, Philadelphia,
and working on Denton, Texas, and Portland, Maine.
But what we know is that the combination of paid work and
social enterprise coupled with transitional safe, supportive
housing and support services is fundamental for people
experiencing homelessness that are not qualifying for other
resources.
In a HUD report earlier this year through the House America
Program, it was indicated that for adults experiencing
homelessness, we only have 15 units for 100 people on the
street. This is both an eligibility issue and an availability
issue. So, yes, we need to expand access.
But what I have seen by running services on the ground,
particularly in my work in Colorado where I founded the Ready
to Work Program, we see that, as a shelter provider, it
essentially breaks down a third, a third, a third. A third of
people come in, self-resolve, you do not see them for more than
a couple days, and they are on their way. A third are eligible
for a lot of the HUD-funded programs that you have heard about
today--permanent supportive housing, VASH, and so forth. But
what about that middle third? And this is where I ask you today
to think about expanding our response, and, most importantly,
two key factors: looking at policy and expanding the ability to
act quickly and swiftly with creative models. So this means
flexibility about what we define as housing. There are people
on the streets that would prefer to live in a co-op, would
prefer to live in a tiny home, and, frankly, that can be much
more practical to implement on the ground.
Second, let us share our response with other players, so
the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness already has a
format for doing that. Let us engage other agencies beyond
HUD--Department of Labor, Department of Justice, and others--to
look at these populations that are disproportionately
represented in our homeless populations across this country.
The Work Works model is one example, and what I will say is
it is a great example of how, with creativity, we can leverage
public-private partnerships and bring models to cities across
the country. The Work Works model, like I said, combines paid
work and social enterprise. So what that means is people are
going to work, they are earning money, they are saving money,
and they are preparing to reenter the mainstream workforce. We
all know we have a labor shortage, so why aren't we creating
ways to reach into marginalized communities with not only
access but good better-paying jobs to meet our labor needs.
This is an untapped population.
The second leg of the Work Works model is housing. In
Colorado, we renovated office buildings into high-quality
dormitory housing with privacy as well as community space. We
did it in 16 months in two different locations in Colorado,
renovating existing commercial real estate. That is something
that we should be looking at as another tool in the toolkit. It
is wonderful to build from the ground up, but what about the
cost? What about the timeline? And what about all the issues of
NIMBY? This is a model that is just one example of how we need
to get creative.
And then, last, connections to supportive services. We see
incredible challenges on the ground related to opioid use,
related to all types of behavioral health concerns, and the
public crisis of just the trauma of being on the streets. We
can cut homelessness--the length of homelessness in half or
even less, or we can be swift and respond so much more quickly
if we have more tools in our toolkit.
So I ask this Committee to really think through those two
key points. How can we look at our policies and expanding our
ability to act? And, second, how can we bring more players to
the table? Our communities need it, and we need to promote
innovation on the ground because our communities know what they
need and they need more tools to be able to help them get
there.
So thank you so much, and I look forward to your questions.
Chair Smith. Thank you very much. Ms. Monet.
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN MONET, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL
COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETERANS
Ms. Monet. Thank you for the opportunity to join you today.
As you all know, 82 communities in three States have actually
achieved the Federal benchmarks and criteria for ending veteran
homelessness. But there were still 37,252 veterans homeless on
any given night in 2020. And when we think about how we got to
that point, we know that decreases in veteran homelessness were
due in large part to congressional investment in key Federal
programs, implementation of evidence-based solutions like
Housing First, and dedicated coordination at the national and
local level.
Homelessness is caused by a fundamental mismatch between
the availability of affordable housing in a community's market
and an individual's ability to pay for that housing, and this
mismatch, paired with the results of systemic and institutional
racism, has been the major driver for the nationwide rise in
housing instability, particularly among marginalized and
minoritized people and veterans alike.
During the pandemic what we saw in the veteran space was
that homeless service providers pivoted their programming. They
reimagined what was possible for veterans. They reconfigured a
whole lot of congregate transitional housing, and they worked
so hard to keep veterans in their communities safe and moved on
permanent housing.
The confluence of rising inflation rates in our current
economy and the housing affordability crisis that we are
seeing, paired with the winding down of pandemic assistance
programs like ERA in many communities creates this perfect
storm where we are going to see homelessness increase if we do
nothing.
In my opinion, now is the time that we need to create
permanency among programs, particularly those for VA that have
continued on these 90-day extensions because they were
authorized and that authorization is actually tied to the end
of the public State or local health emergency. We need to
continue to implement lessons that we have learned during the
pandemic, and we also need to double back to address persistent
barriers that slow the housing placement process and perpetuate
further inequities.
It is no secret that normal pre-pandemic was not really a
great normal for a lot of people who were facing housing
instability, and homelessness is really like a symptom of those
challenges, right? And so when we think about the growth of the
unsheltered population, we do need to focus on crisis response
services like shelter and outreach, but really we need to
address the root causes. So we need to think about how we can
develop more affordable housing, address, you know,
affordability rather than thinking about ways that we can
utilize law enforcement as sort of the default response to a
social problem.
Housing affordability I think is the number one challenge
that we hear from our members who are working with veterans who
are exiting homelessness, and nationwide there are
approximately 36 affordable units for every 100 individuals
searching, and that is a recipe for disaster.
The housing shortage has actually driven nationwide rent
increases, and we have seen that rents have increased by over
17 percent just in 2021 alone, and I think by another 5 percent
this year until July 1. So I think what we see is that the
shortage of units is really going to increase the risk and just
create a whole lot of pressure for folks out there who are
looking for housing.
So we know--and I am telling you this again; I hope you are
hearing me--invest in affordable housing, please. Congressional
support for VA's homeless programs was really great during the
pandemic. It created flexibility. It offered new spending
authorities to meet emergent needs, and it ramped up the
capacity of VA programs during COVID. But sufficient funding
must be incorporated permanently into non-emergency
appropriations and authorization caps to maintain our ability
to respond effectively as we move away from COVID-specific
emergency funding.
The GPD program, which is VA's transitional housing
program, awarded two rounds of capital grants for providers to
de-congregate facilities during COVID, and we think that those
grants should be continued and enhanced. We also feel that the
daily per diem rate must be addressed. At the sunset of the
public health emergency, the maximum reimbursement rate will
drop from $152 to $60 a day, and that is a rate that is
designed to provide overnight housing, meals, and wrap-around
services and supports for homeless veterans. So we recommend
that you pass S. 2172 to directly address these issues
immediately.
The SSVF program's shallow subsidy initiative has recently
been expanded due to its success during the pandemic, and we
support its expansion and recommend further studies so we can
continue to improve this program.
And I do want to just touch quickly on the HUD-VASH program
because it has been fairly successful at meeting the acute
needs of veterans. However, I do think that VA has really
struggled with offering case management services to veterans.
Despite the program's successes, we do think that there is
more VA can do to diversify the options there and also to think
about contracting and doing other things to staff up.
The second challenge that they are facing with this program
is that vouchers are just more challenging to use because of
the housing affordability crisis and the stigma that some
landlords have against accepting vouchers as a form of rental
payment.
The last thing I do want to say is that staffing for both
VA and its grantees remains a challenge. There are only so many
qualified providers in any region, and to a certain degree,
they are competing or the same amount of talent--or the same
talent that exists in the pool. So we do think that Congress
needs to look at how they can support VA and providers to
address this challenge.
Thank you for your continued interest in address veteran
homelessness.
Chair Smith. Thank you so much, Ms. Monet.
We will now turn to--let me just--Mr. Chair. I am really
delighted that we are joined by the big Chair of the Banking,
Housing Committee, and thank you for being with us, Senator
Brown. Would you like to say a few words?
Chairman Brown. Thank you, Senator Smith, Madam Chair. And
thank you to the witnesses. Ms. Monet, thank you for your work
on the Veterans Committee and your comments about HUD-VASH and
how important that is. I apologize for not being able to stay,
but I just wanted to stop by and thank Chair Smith and Ranking
Member Rounds for the terrific work they do. They work together
as well bipartisanly as any Chair or Vice Chair I have seen in
this institution, and I appreciate them for that. And Jack Reed
has been working on combating homelessness almost as long as
Tina and I have been alive, certainly before we were in the
Senate.
Chair Smith. Former Chair of this Subcommittee as well.
Chairman Brown. So thank you for that, and this is a
serious public health issue that I am hopeful we can address,
if not in this reconciliation package, down the road for sure.
Thank you.
Chair Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We will now turn to Ms. Cathy ten Broeke, who joins us
remotely. I am delighted to have Cathy join us as well. Cathy
and I have had the opportunity to work together in a variety of
environments over the years, so welcome, Cathy.
STATEMENT OF CATHY TEN BROEKE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON
HOMELESSNESS (MICH)
Ms. ten Broeke. Thank you very much. Chair Smith, Ranking
Member Rounds, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today. I am Cathy ten Broeke,
assistant commissioner and executive director of Minnesota's
Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the council is a
cabinet-level body led by our Lieutenant Governor, Peggy
Flanagan, comprised of the leaders of 13 State agencies.
Minnesota has a strong history of bipartisan leadership on
homelessness. I have worked on the issue for nearly 30 years in
direct service and public policy roles. I have witnessed
progress, missed opportunities, lessons learned, and
heartbreak. We have in this moment a critical opportunity to
shift how we respond to homelessness and to see it as the
crisis and the public health emergency that it is.
Today I want to share with you what is working in Minnesota
and where challenges remain. Minnesota is home to 87 counties
and 11 Tribal nations. Homelessness impacts every part of the
State. Approximately 8,000 people are homeless on any given
night. Half are families with children and 25 percent are
people without shelter, sleeping outside. Approximately 40
percent of all people identified as homeless are in rural parts
of our State.
One-in-four Minnesota households pays more than they can
afford for housing, putting them at risk of homelessness. Over
the last two decades, rents rose 21 percent while incomes rose
by just 3 percent. Homelessness shows the impacts of racism. In
Minnesota, if you are Black, you are 15 times more likely to be
homeless than a White Minnesotan. If you are Native American,
you are 27 times more likely to be homeless.
Our work on homelessness in Minnesota has shown uneven
progress. Where we have had engagement and investment from all
levels of government, we have had the greatest success. Our
best proof that ending homelessness is possible is our
collective work to end veteran homelessness. With the dedicated
resources guided by data and evidence, the outcomes have been
stunning. We have effectively ended veteran homelessness in 85
of Minnesota's 87 counties.
Being a veteran in Minnesota is now a protective factor for
homelessness. I look forward to the day when being a child is a
protective factor, when having a serious health condition is a
protective factor, and when your race does not increase your
likelihood of becoming homeless.
In Minnesota, we have increased resources for families with
children, and that has driven a 32 percent decrease in family
homelessness statewide in the decade starting in 2010. We
credit these reductions to targeted prevention, coordination
with employment services, and investments in families with the
very highest barriers to accessing housing. We have learned
over the years that all people are ready for housing. We need
housing that is ready for them.
The pandemic, while devastating and traumatic, was also a
moment of great learning. Minnesota and Federal resources
helped us save lives during the pandemic. Statewide we
established 2,800 hotel rooms and other safe spaces to allow
for physical distance, provide emergency staffing, food and
supplies, isolation, and additional State housing support. The
increased resources helped a struggling hospitality industry
and expanded shelter services, created a hotel-to-home model,
which connected people staying outside with permanent housing.
In addition to the resources that helped protect people in
shelters and outside, Federal rental assistance during the
pandemic was critical to stemming the tide of homelessness.
Minnesota administered Federal emergency rental assistance to
every county in our State. Hennepin County reported that over
1,000 fewer children experienced homelessness in 2021 than they
did 2 years earlier, and they credit that to the widespread
availability of rental assistance.
Sadly, as those Federal resources come to an end, we are
starting to see a return to the 2019 rates of family
homelessness. Federal investment during the pandemic has given
Minnesota the opportunity to show what is possible. Federal
partnership in tackling the challenges ahead will be critical
to our success going forward.
I have four high-level recommendations to share with you,
and you will find many more details in my submitted testimony
as well.
One, the homeless response workforce system is overwhelmed
and underfunded. We need Congress to make more and sustained
investments in housing and homelessness program. During the
pandemic we witnessed the life-saving work of shelters and
outreach workers, and we also know that while shelters do save
lives, housing is what ends homelessness.
Housing is out of reach for the lowest-income Americans. We
need Congress to increase the supply of housing as well as its
affordability by making bold investments in rental assistance.
Three, people with complex medical conditions, including
substance use, mental illness, and other physical health
issues, are not well served in existing systems or
interventions. We need increased investments and a stronger
alignment of social services, health care, and housing.
And, finally, our system to prevent and end homelessness
for veterans works. We need to sustain that commitment, and we
need to expand it to reach all populations.
All of these solutions will require that we center the
voices and experiences of people who have faced homelessness.
They are the experts in what works. We know that housing is a
social determinant of health, but it is also a social
determinant of educational achievement, workforce growth, and
neighborhood, community, State, and national well-being.
The resources that were invested to respond to the pandemic
taught us what was possible, and it is my hope that we will
continue to respond with that same level of urgency. I have
never stopped believing that in Minnesota and in this country,
we can achieve the vision that all people have a safe place to
call home, that children and youth need not sleep in cars one
night and go to school the next day, and that we can live in a
State and a country without homelessness. This is a problem we
know how to solve, and it is not a question of ``Can we?'' but
``Will we?''
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Ms. ten Broeke.
And I am now happy to welcome virtually to the Committee,
Jamie Kirsch.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE KIRSCH, BOARD MEMBER,
JOURNEY ON
Ms. Kirsch. Thank you so much to the Committee for inviting
me to be here today. I am a current and active board member for
Journey On, and I am also a nonlaw enforcement of the Rapid
City Police Department.
Journey On was incorporated as a nonprofit in 2018 by
founder Tracy Sigdestad who is a member of the Mohawk Tribe. In
early 2020, Journey On was focused on youth mentorship and
substance abuse recovery. It was also in early 2020 when the
Rapid City Police Department was awarded a community-based
crime reduction grant through BJA. When determining what to
focus the grant on, it seemed essential to address
houselessness, given that it was roughly generating 65 percent
of calls. Additionally, it was clear that Native Americans
suffered from houselessness disproportionately, making up over
80 percent of those who are considered literally houseless. The
high call volume resulted in low morale among officers as they
were not equipped with the tools to address the causes of
houselessness nor the resources to provide sustainable
solutions.
Realizing the need for greater collaboration and
coordination with Native-led social service organizations, the
Rapid City Police Department approached Journey On to see if
they would consider building capacity for a community-initiated
response to Rapid City's growing houseless community. Soon
thereafter, a core group of partners from Journey On, the
police department, and the University of South Dakota applied
for a HUD-ESG CARES Act funding grant. Since, this grant has
funded 75 percent of Journey On outreach efforts.
In January of 2021, the city approved a contract with
Journey On, funding three full-time positions and providing two
city vans to conduct outreach in. Since early December of 2021,
Journey On has responded to nearly 5,000 calls through 911
dispatch. Journey On operates as part of a larger coresponse
that includes the police department's Quality of Life Unit, the
fire department's mobile medic team, Great Plains Tribal
Leaders Health Board, Pennington County Health and Human
Services, and Volunteers of America. And since early December,
we estimate that Journey On has saved the city of Rapid City
nearly $873,000.
Journey On has 13 employees, and all but one is Native
American. All have lived experiences with houselessness, the
criminal justice system and/or addiction. Each of Journey On's
team members are credible messengers and use culture forward
approach to service. Most of Journey On's board members are
Native American as well. Our Native American community members
do not believe in the stigmas that come with the concept of
homelessness and prefer the terms ``houselessness'' or
``houseless relatives''.
In March of 2022, a collection of partners, including
Volunteers of America, Journey On, RCPD, and the city of Rapid
City developed the ``We Connect Business Toolkit.'' The 29-page
booklet focuses on educating businesses about the houseless
population, Native American culture, mental health challenges,
appropriate responses to our houseless community, and many
other topics. This was a critical piece of connecting Journey
On to the broader community and solidifying the roles of first
responders to our houseless community members.
Now, for the challenges. Some of our key organizational
challenges are with Federal funding. Federal funding does not
allow for staff to receive paid time off and provides no avenue
for health care or retirement benefits. The 10 percent de
minimis rate is too low to accommodate the needed staffing to
run a team effectively or to meet the administrative burden
created by data tracking requirements.
The reimbursement-based nature of Federal grants makes it
difficult for organizations that are small, minority led, and
exist in rural or smaller urban settings to secure Federal
grants and maintain them. Developing capacity for community-
based organizations like Journey On is difficult. When Journey
On agreed to develop a Street Outreach Program for Rapid City,
they had one employee, no functioning board members, and no
sustainable revenue streams. Over the past 2 years, a
collective group of board members invested an incredible amount
of time to develop capacity for Journey On. Journey On is one
of three local Native-led organizations now working with the
White House on the Community Violence Intervention
Collaborative, or CVIC. Through CVIC, Journey On is receiving
technical assistance and mini-grant support to grow their
capacity. The White House CVIC initiative needs much more
funding over a longer period of time to support the types of
local innovations it has set out to create and support.
Housing challenges. First, in Rapid City we have very few
options for emergency shelter. According to the 2022 Point in
Time Count, Rapid City reported 35 percent of the overall total
of unsheltered houseless individuals and families in the State,
which is more by 15 percent than what the largest city in South
Dakota reports, with nearly 2 \1/2\ times the population.
Second, while we understand the Housing First model, some
folks are not ready to go straight into permanent housing and
require transitional housing options. Folks who are not used to
living in a home on their own need to relearn how to care for
their home, they need to create new social networks, and they
need to learn new routines and methods to comply with rules in
this space to do that.
Third, Rapid City is 3,000 affordable housing units short
of what it needs. The wait list for the South Dakota Housing
and Development Authority's rehousing programs is 180 people
long, and Pennington County Housing has maintained a wait list
of 3,200 people for years. In Rapid City it is nearly
impossible to incentivize developers to get involved in
affordable housing projects. Market rate apartments are going
at a premium, and developing in the Black Hills is costly.
There are very few Federal incentives that developers can take
advantage of to develop enough inventory to address the need.
And, last, the PIT count does not allow communities to
truly capture those who are housing insecure, and it certainly
does not allow us to capture houselessness in the way that our
Native American community members experience it. Many of those
living in our Tribal areas do not have access to any form of
emergency shelter and are living sometimes 20 people to a one-
bedroom home because they have to. Some of these homes are not
fit for human habitation, having no roof or siding to keep it
safe from the elements, and no running water, electricity, or
trash collection.
With that, I would like to thank the Committee and the
Members of the Senate who invited Journey On here to speak
today and for taking time to learn about how our innovative
model works here in Rapid City and the challenges we face and
still making it sustainable.
Senator Smith. Thank you so much to all of you.
We will now begin our round of questions from Senators.
Each Senator will have approximately 5 minutes, and I would
like to have Senator Reed go first.
Senator Reed. Well, I thank the Chairwoman for her
graciousness, and thank you all for your excellent testimony.
And I can tell you the same story you just told us. In
Providence, Rhode Island, the average rents have jumped 23.8
percent in the previous year. That is extraordinary. We are
running out of our emergency rental assistance funds. The
emergency shelters are closing down. Our front-line staff, as
you well know, is really burning out after the pandemic. And
that is why it is essential, I think, that we increase funding
for the homelessness assistance grants, and that would include
the Continuum of Care Program, which serves over 750,000
people, also the Emergency Solutions Grants serving another
approximately 350,000.
So, Ms. Oliva, why are Federal resources like homelessness
assistance grants essential to combating homelessness,
particularly as the pandemic-specific programs begin to wind
down?
Ms. Oliva. Thank you so much, Senator Reed, for that
question. As you might remember, I actually ran those programs
at HUD for about 10 years, so they are near and dear to my
heart.
You know, those programs that are funded through the
homelessness assistance grants account--and I would also count
HUD-VASH in that sort of general group of homelessness-specific
programs--really form the backbone of our homelessness response
in this country. And in a lot of communities--not all
communities, but in a lot of communities, they are most of the
funding that is available for homelessness assistance programs.
So increasing resources in the Continuum of Care Program
and through the ESG program and HUD-VASH are sort of the
backbone and the lifeline for many communities in their
response to homelessness. It also creates a way for HUD to be
able to put forth promising practices and evidence-based
approaches and prioritize funding for those types of resources.
Since we are talking about the Continuum of Care Program, I
would note three things.
First is thank you so much for the legislation that allows
Tribes to receive and be eligible for the Continuum of Care
Program. It is incredibly important. There are some issues
related to implementation that we are all working out right
now, but it was incredibly important.
Two, in HUD's last budget request, they asked for two tools
that I think are going to be really important in addition to an
increase in the funding for those programs. One is increasing
the cap on planning for continuums of care. That is really
important because continuums of care are really the subject
matter experts. And as funding is coming into communities that
goes through other types of sort of mechanisms, it is important
for CoCs to have planning dollars to work with them.
They also mentioned wanting a 2-year NOFA cycle, and we
would support that. The National Alliance supports that, in
part for some of the reasons that Ranking Member Rounds
mentioned. Local CoCs need some time to be able to do
implementation, and having a 2-year funding cycle would be
really helpful there.
The last thing that I would note that was raised by one of
my colleagues up here on the panel is around staffing and
increasing
--the CoC Program requires increases in fair market rents and
leasing amounts that are commensurate with what is happening in
the community. I would say we need to do the same for staffing
so that providers are properly resourced and can provide their
staff with cost-of-living increases when they need to.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much.
Let me just shift quickly, because you mentioned HUD-VASH,
to your colleague Ms. Monet. One of the things I have observed,
first of all, the HUD-VASH program is extremely useful. But
there are many areas where the vouchers are going
underutilized. Is that an issue you have identified? And can
you give us some insights why they are being underutilized?
Ms. Monet. Absolutely. I think that there are a number of
issues to unpack there, from a lack of staffing at VA for case
managers, to a rental market that may not be as willing to
accept vouchers. I think we hear from communities across the
country that it is just getting harder and harder to move
veterans with vouchers into permanent housing, and I think even
for some of the veterans that already have vouchers, to retain
the housing they have because the housing market is just so hot
and landlords can move on to other higher-paying clientele. And
so I do think that we need to get creative around how we can
incentivized landlords and PHAs to get vouchers out the door,
but also how we support VA to better case-manage folks who are
utilizing vouchers and how we can give them some flexibility
there.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Thank
you. My time has expired, but I want to thank all the panelists
for not only your thoughtful testimony today but for your
incredible efforts.
Thank you very much.
Chair Smith. Thank you, Senator Reed.
I want to start here. I think each of you in one way or
another talked about the great benefit of the--during the
course of the pandemic, the impact of the resources that we
were able to provide for rental assistance and the child tax
credit and other strategies to help lift people's income and
also help make housing more affordable. And several of you also
talked about how this was an opportunity for some time around
innovation and really trying some new things and finding some
examples of real success on the ground.
Ms. ten Broeke, I am going to turn to you first. I have
been really heartened to see some real successes in Minnesota
where in Hennepin County we have seen the lowest number of
people experiencing homelessness, I think, in the last 17
years. So could you just share with us briefly what we have
seen in Minnesota about the impact on the ground of COVID
relief funding streams? And what are the key lessons or
takeaways in terms of what we have learned to do, good lessons
that we have learned during the course of this terrible time?
Ms. ten Broeke. Thank you very much, Senator Smith. I am
happy to respond to that. You know, we were able, with the
COVID Federal resources, just to be so much more flexible and
to get those dollars out to communities quickly to respond to
the crisis at hand. And because of that and because we were
turning to communities and saying, ``What is going to work?''
and ``What do you need to make this work?'' they were coming up
with innovations that we had not seen before. You know, when
the pandemic hit, as many of you know, many, many people sought
refuge in encampments. At one point in Minneapolis we had an
encampment in South Minneapolis with over 200 tents, people
really struggling, and we were able to use Federal resources
quickly to stand up some new programs, one being a culturally
specific shelter that could bring people inside, that but for
that kind of a shelter that could meet their needs, they may
have remained outside and unsafe.
One of our housing providers who was helping us stand up
hotel-to-home models, which was another very, very innovative
project, of course, that we had never done before, helping the
hospitality industry but also standing up models that would
work with people, bring them into hotels to protect them from
the pandemic, but then very intensely work with them to get
them out of those hotels into permanent housing so they did not
return to the streets. During that big, large encampment, that
same provider went into the encampment, they literally talked
with almost every single person staying in the encampment to
find out from them what would work to bring them in and make
them feel safe. And they developed a program called Avivo
Village. It is literally an indoor village of structures where
people had their own privacy, their own space. They could come
in, they could be safe, and once again, like the hotel program,
they could work individually to help try to get people out and
into permanent stable housing, which is the goal of all of the
programs that we are working on.
So I cannot say enough about how important the flexibility
and the way they were delivered with urgency made such a
difference, and it was not just in the metro area, even though
that is where maybe things were most visible in terms of the
challenge. In Rochester, multiple organizations, including the
city library system partner to operate warning space and
overnight shelter, and, you know, moving people in Ramsey
County out of hotels and into supportive programs, the American
Indian Community Development Corporation was just an amazing
partner the whole time with trying to increase the amount of
really specific Native-focused work, which is who was really
most dramatically impacted by unsheltered homelessness during
the pandemic.
So we are very grateful in Minnesota for the resources we
were able to use, along with rental assistance that kept people
in their housing. Hennepin County really truly did see fewer
people experiencing homelessness during the pandemic than
before because of rental assistance, and I think that proves to
us that that is the kind of intervention, sometimes for very
small amounts of resources, we can keep people in housing and
prevent long-term costs, and obviously the trauma of
homelessness on children.
Chair Smith. Thank you so much.
I am going to return to the other members of the panel to
ask kind of a follow-up to that question, but I believe that
Senator Tester from Montana is online.
Senator Tester. I am.
Chair Smith. And I would like to give Senator Tester a
chance to ask questions.
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to
be here. Unfortunately, this is an issue that is fundamental to
communities and life and families and all that stuff.
Ms. Monet, it is good to see you again. As you know, one of
the most successful initiatives in the effort to end veterans
homelessness is the HUD-VASH program. This program continues to
suffer from VA's ability to hire case managers, so I would love
to know what your thoughts are on VA's current effort to
resolve this issue, both internally and through contracting.
Ms. Monet. So I think I will start by saying that
contracting is a really great opportunity to address some of
the shortages, but I do think that there is a lot more that VA
can do. What we saw during the pandemic was that VA was getting
creative about using some of the Rescue Plan and CARES spending
to actually pay for hiring incentives and moving costs to
recruit HUD-VASH case managers to communities where they might
have otherwise had a hard time doing that.
Now, they are not able to do that once the current
emergency health designation ends, so I think that that is one
thing. I do think we have also seen communities where the VA
has gotten really creative around what constitutes HUD-VASH
case management, meaning that they are taking a more
multidisciplinary approach and utilizing the support of peers
to kind of help stretch the ability of a licensed clinical
social worker, for example, to be able to successfully case-
manage the veterans on their caseload.
So I think that there is a lot more that we can dive into
if Congress is willing to support them in doing that.
Senator Tester. OK. So this goes to you, Ms. Monet, again.
I think I will also see if Cathy ten Broeke would like to visit
about this. I hear your opening statements, but housing is not
only not available for low-income folks, it is not available
for workforce folks. And I would say in Montana, it is not
available in Montana, but I would bet you Chairwoman Smith
could say it is not available in Minnesota, and I would bet you
Senator Cortez Masto would say it is not available in Nevada.
It is not available anywhere, workforce housing. It is an
incredible bone anchor. It is one of the reasons I wish we
would have done something this Congress, but we are doing
nothing. And, in my opinion, it is a problem that will solve
itself, but it will probably take 30 to 40 years to do it.
What do you two think we could do to help speed up
availability--and I will leave low-income out of it, just
affordable housing for folks, to be able to fill jobs and
important jobs, too, whether it is a teacher or an auto
mechanic or a bricklayer or whatever it might be. Is there
anything the Federal Government can do or is this just live
with it and communities continue to struggle to find places for
entrepreneurs and for folks in the working class to live? Go
ahead. You can go first, Ms. Monet.
Ms. Monet. Well, I think what we have seen during the
pandemic is that some communities have gotten really creative
around taking existing space and converting it into housing,
and I think we have seen this predominantly for affordable
housing, but I think it is a model that could work for
workforce housing as well, and potentially might be easier to
execute because you would not be worrying about rental
subsidies and such.
Senator Tester. What do they use for money to do this
rehab?
Ms. Monet. I want to pitch this to Ann Oliva on the panel
who might be better equipped to answer the question.
Senator Tester. Well, go ahead. Pitch it to her. I just
want answers. I do not care who answers them.
Ms. McDevitt. Ann was pointing to me. So the Work Works
model is all about work and all about getting people back to
work, but also creating opportunities for people who have jobs
to be able to sustain housing, so----
Senator Tester. Well, here is the problem. Stop. Here is
the problem: We have got people--we do not have any people. We
have got jobs up the gazoo. I mean jobs up the gazoo. You can
walk in, have no experience, and you can get a good-paying job,
but they cannot hire you because there is no place to live. How
do we fix that problem?
Ms. McDevitt. So what I was going to say is the part of the
model where we can create cost-effective affordable housing is
through converting commercial spaces. The problem is there is
no funding to do that from the Federal level because it is not
traditional units, you know, and all the regulations. But you
can have very high-quality residences like, you know, the
former SROs reimagined that can accommodate workforce
populations that we know we need to invest in higher wages and
training so that people can move up the career ladder, but for
that first-rung workforce, it is practical and cost-effective
to convert commercial spaces, hotels, and other types of
housing stock, because it is quicker and faster. The problem is
the funding stream.
So as we talk about innovative solutions, we should not
only expand on the existing funding streams, but we need to
think more about other models that can be funded so that it is
possible for developers on the ground to quickly act and create
housing.
Senator Tester. OK. Since you are from Minnesota, Cathy,
maybe the Chairwoman would let you respond to that real
quickly, because I am out of time.
Chair Smith. I would be happy to let Cathy respond. Go
ahead.
Ms. ten Broeke. Thank you, Chairwoman Smith. I think it is
an all-in strategy, Senator. I mean, there is frankly no wrong
affordable housing investment. I think in Minnesota, as
probably is true everywhere, our largest source of housing,
resource to create housing is the Federal low-income tax
credit, and I think increasing the opportunities to invest in
that is hugely important. But many, many think the various ways
that we create housing are all needed. And to your point,
Senator, I could not agree more. We need housing supply at all
price points. So that is not just low-income. And it is also
true that we need to make sure that our tools in our toolbox
will work to create lower-income housing as well. We are
100,000 units short of housing that people at the very lowest
incomes in Minnesota can afford, and that is more dramatic than
the rest of the population. But I agree with you. We need it at
all levels.
Senator Tester. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
hospitality, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you.
Chair Smith. Thank you, Senator Tester.
I believe that we have Senator Cortez Masto, who is ready
from her office.
Senator Cortez Masto. I am. Madam Chair, can you hear me
OK?
Chair Smith. Yes, we can.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. So thank you to all the
panelists, because I am going to follow up on what my colleague
from Montana got absolutely right, and you all know this, is to
address the affordable housing needs in our communities to make
sure that those that are homeless, those that are the
workforce, we are providing a roof over their head, there is a
role for Congress to play. And you guys have touched on it, and
I have been talking to the housing coalitions in my State about
this. At the end of the day, we have to pencil out for the
builders; we have to cobble together financing to figure out
how we build more of a supply so that we can make it affordable
housing.
One of the things--and for the panelists, if anybody
disagrees with this, please let me know, but I think one of the
things we can focus on to do that here in Congress is just to--
and this is, I believe, Senator Cantwell's bill, and I think
there is bipartisan support for it--is expand the low-income
housing tax credit. It is the number one thing I hear from my
builders, from people in my community. There are some positive
provisions in there that will enable us to pencil out for those
builders the opportunity to add additional units.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Ms. Oliva. No, definitely not. But I would add the HOME
Program and the National Housing Trust Fund to the list of
programs that could be expanded to increase the affordable
housing supply.
Senator Cortez Masto. Absolutely, and that is on my list as
well, and that actually is something that we could work through
appropriations to get done, so thank you. If there is anything
else on your list, please let me know, but I think it is
important for us to hear that here in Washington, in Congress,
that there are some very simple things for us to do that if we
just focus on, we could address this issue. In my State, I will
tell you, my concern and the number one calls I am getting
about housing--and it is not just workforce housing. But I am
hearing from veterans and seniors in my State who are facing
sharp increases in their monthly rent and who are worried that
they will be out on the streets because there is not enough
affordable housing options.
Let me ask Ms. Monet, with respect to veterans, can you
talk a little bit about this? Is there a certain type of
housing that is needed? What should we be looking at
particularly when we are looking to address the homelessness of
veterans? Which has increased in my State, unfortunately, and
we have to be focused on it.
Ms. Monet. So I think an all-in approach is what is needed.
We hear so much from veterans that certain approaches like
permanent supportive housing are great, and for other groups
they are not, right? Some folks want to be in project-based
sites; others do not. But I think when you are thinking about
the at-risk population, so folks who are, you know, living
somewhere and the rent is increasing dramatically, really what
is going to help is not necessarily new housing, but direct
cash transfers, right?
So when you think about the VA's shallow subsidy program
via the SSVF program, that is a really great approach to help
folks who are kind of on the brink retain their housing and
stay housed. So I think more of that, and potentially maybe
even the ability for HUD to do something similar would be
helpful.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Now, let me touch on
something else which is interesting. I am looking at the
statistics from HUD. What is interesting to me is in the past
few years, Nevada and some other States have seen a decrease in
the percentage of youth experiencing homelessness. Federal
continuum of care grants support critical services, including
homelessness prevention and wrap-around services.
Is there a lesson to be learned there? There is a decrease
in youth homelessness, but now we are seeing it in other areas.
And I guess my question for the panel, maybe I will start with
Ms. Oliva, is: What are we learning from there? Have we done
something that really opens the door for more services or
opportunities to work with our youth? I am just kind of curious
if you have any ideas about what is happen there?
Ms. Oliva. Yes, that is a great question. The first thing I
want to do is go back to make one point from your earlier
question. There are three things that we need to do on
affordable housing: we need to preserve the affordable housing
that we have; we need to increase supply through the programs
that we talked about; and we need to increase affordability to
pencil those projects out, as you mentioned, by expanding the
Housing Choice Voucher Program. Those three things together
will make a huge difference.
On the question about youth, yeah, you know, Congress
appropriated funds for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration
Program. That program has provided a lot of funding, pretty
flexible funding and system-level funding to help communities
build resources that really meet the needs of young people who
are experiencing homelessness, especially young people of color
and LGBTQ young people. The difference about that program--and
it actually changed the way that I think about my work--is that
young people are involved in every aspect of that program. They
are involved in the design; they are involved locally with
decisionmaking. They actually have helped score applications at
the national level, and that really points to what we can do
more broadly, which is make sure that we are partnering with
people who have lived experience of homelessness and these
systems that we are trying to change, so that we are leaning on
their expertise and learning from them and partnering with
them.
So I think there are a number of things to learn from the
Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program that can be applied
across the board.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Cortez Masto.
We are now joined by Senator Van Hollen from his office.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
for holding this hearing and for the focus you have had on
these really important issues of affordable housing, which
become more urgent and severe with every passing day. And I
think we all
recognize there are two big pieces to this equation. One, of
course, is supply, but the other is making sure that we
continue to make available, as was just indicated in the
testimony, housing choice vouchers. And thank you, Madam Chair,
for also mentioning the legislation that Senator Young and I
have proposed, bipartisan legislation that would allow more
families to move to areas of opportunity with more flexible
wrap-around services.
I think we all saw that during the pandemic, the Congress
together with President Biden provided important emergency
services, and things in my view would have been a lot worse but
for those important emergency supports. But now we, of course,
have got the long-term challenges that we continue to face.
Ms. Oliva, if you could talk about the challenge we are
facing right now with respect to the purchasing power of the
Housing Choice Voucher Program. As you see rising rental rates
and you see, you know, a demand for rental housing that is
increasing, more and more landlords want to lease to the person
who can quickly make a security deposit or somebody who can
defray other costs that are not currently covered by the
housing choice voucher. So should we be asking HUD to use some
of its existing authorities to make the use of those vouchers
more flexible? Because in Maryland, for example, we are seeing
about 80 percent of the vouchers for 2022 are not able to be
used. People are not able to match those vouchers up with
landlords because of the intense competition and the fact they
cannot use the voucher purchasing power for some of those
expenses. Could you speak briefly to that?
Ms. Oliva. Sure. I think that there is actually quite a bit
to learn from the Emergency Housing Voucher Program
implementation. As I mentioned in my testimony, we are up to
about 90 percent either leased up or issued to families and
individuals who are experiencing homelessness. And in some
communities, like King County in Washington State, the
utilization rate is quite high even in really tight markets,
and the reason that we are seeing that is because of the
flexibilities that Congress provided to HUD for the
implementation of that program, including alternative
requirements and waivers that make it easier to get people into
the program, but most importantly, providing funding to allow
for landlord incentives, housing navigation, the kinds of
things that programs can use, that PHAs can use to partner with
landlords and create ways--be flexible and be creative in how
they partner at the local level.
So I think--and I think that Kathryn would agree--that we
should implement those kinds of flexibilities and those kinds
of flexible funding for programs like HUD-VASH and other parts
of the Housing Choice Voucher Program generally so that other
programs that are not the EHV Program can use them and
hopefully bring up utilization.
Senator Van Hollen. Ms. ten Broeke, would you agree with
that assessment with respect to using the authorities to be
flexible?
Ms. ten Broeke. Yes, I do actually agree with what Ann just
shared. Thank you.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. So let me ask a question of
Ms. Oliva about the Housing First approach, because I think
there is sometimes confusion where some people suggest that
Housing First excludes a number of the wrap-around services,
when, in fact, at least to my understanding, that is an
important part of the model, but we want to make sure that
people do have a safe place to live and call home as they
access those wrap-around services.
Can you talk a little bit about the benefits of the Housing
First approach?
Ms. Oliva. Yes, of course, and thank you for that question.
I agree with you that there is a lot of misinformation out
there, and I am happy to try and dispel some of that
misinformation as part of this hearing today.
So Housing First is really an approach rather than a
program. It is an approach that is grounded in treating people
with dignity and providing choice to people who are in
vulnerable situations and experiencing homelessness. It means
that accessing permanent housing is prioritized, so that people
who are experiencing homelessness have a safe and stable
foundation to support achieving other goals.
I recently heard somebody describe it something like this:
You do not give a drowning person a swimming lesson. You bring
them to safety on shore and then decide whether they actually
need a swimming lesson or whether something else was happening.
And let me be really clear on this point. Housing First is
never housing only when it is implemented according to the
model. Services are offered even before a person moves into
their permanent housing, and they are tailored to the needs of
the person or family. The evidence base is incredibly strong.
We have high retention rates.
And then the last thing I will also say is the data also
shows cost savings for the Housing First approach in a lot of
cases, because as people have more consistent support and they
do not have to access emergency services, the cost to the
community goes down.
So there is a lot of evidence behind Housing First. It is
really rooted in dignity and choice, and it is not housing
only.
Senator Van Hollen. Well, thank you, and thank you for
dispelling some of the myths that I think we have heard. I have
a lot more questions, but I see that my time is up. So, Madam
Chair, thank you very much for bringing us together around this
important subject.
Chair Smith. Thank you very much, Senator Van Hollen.
I am going to ask a few more questions while I have the
opportunity with all of you, and I want to actually go back
to--I would like to go to Ms. Kirsch, who is with us remotely.
I really appreciated very much the comments that you made
around the unique challenges in Native communities and on
Tribal land. So, Ms. Kirsch, this question is for you. Can you
describe for us what you have seen in your work around good
approaches to addressing the challenges and overcrowding in
Native and Tribal communities? And how can we best be sensitive
to this issue from a policymaking perspective as we look at the
programs and policies that we want to advance?
Ms. Kirsch. Sure. Thank you so much for that question,
Senator. So I guess I would say first and foremost what we see
here in Rapid City is--what is having the greatest impact is
doing the outreach, putting culture first, and allowing folks
to access resources and individuals who are Native American and
who can provide Native American resources to them. Helping them
access support from there that is either housing or addiction
recovery or mental health support or medical services, being
able to connect folks to those spaces that are offering, you
know, sage burning or smudging, offering folks connection to
Inipis, these can all be healing factors and make a person far
more successful in their housing search and their securing of
services throughout the spectrum.
It is challenge, right, because in Rapid City we are
flanked by some of the most impoverished counties in our
Nation, and there is a vast issue, I think, with
underdevelopment, underinvestment in our Tribal areas. In a lot
of cases, it is hard to do affordable housing development
because there is no infrastructure, there is no water
infrastructure, electrical infrastructure. And so there is a
lot more costs associated and affiliated with trying to do
affordable housing development in those areas.
In Rapid City, because we are such an urban center and
because folks come from hundreds of miles to seek support here
in Rapid City, I think the key is really creating models
through which folks can get supported in the way they want to
be supported and feel comfortable in those spaces, whether it
is--you know, I totally support the Housing First model, but
because we have absolutely no permanent housing available or
affordable housing available for individuals, folks are feeling
most comfortable in congregate shelters that put culture first,
and they are more successful with their goals once they are
able to access that culture and that community.
So I hope I answered your question, and I----
Chair Smith. No, that is very helpful. That is very
helpful. And as I listened to your response, I am struck by
what we know, which is that one of--the connection, the
challenge that people feel around just deep isolation as they
are experiencing housing insecurity or houselessness, and to me
that makes it particularly clear that taking kind of a culture
first approach or housing first/culture first approach, putting
culture at the center of the work makes the most difference
because that is a way of overcoming that sense of isolation
that people feel. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Kirsch. Oh, 100 percent I would agree with that, yes.
Chair Smith. I want to touch also on the question of the
connection between housing and health, and, Ms. Oliva, I think
I will direct this question to you. Can you just discuss this
connection between housing and health and specifically how
permanent supportive housing or what we can do to sort of
understand that we cannot really address people's health issues
if we are not finding--if they do not have a safe place to
live?
Ms. Oliva. Well, I think you actually just summarized it
perfectly, and it is the biggest lesson or one of the biggest
lessons we have learned during the pandemic, is that you cannot
shelter in place if you do not have a home, and housing is
absolutely core to being able to be healthy from a behavioral
health standpoint and from a physical health standpoint.
So I think the biggest lesson, as I mentioned, from the
pandemic is really about this connection between the ability to
be healthy and having a safe and stable place to live. Safe and
stable places to live also sort of help advance the positive
impacts of other types of investments that the Government is
making in health care, in education, in employment. All of
those things are better when somebody--as we have seen from the
Housing First model and permanent supportive housing, really
housing provides the foundation by which all of those other
aspects of life can be improved and people can thrive in their
communities.
So it is not just about health care. It is actually about
all of those other pieces and what housing brings to the table
to improve them.
Chair Smith. I really appreciate that. I am proud that
Minnesota has been an innovator in this area, really
understanding the social determinants of health. The Minnesota
Medicaid program covers housing supportive services to help
Minnesotans find and maintain affordable housing and making
that connection directly. This is honestly a weakness of lots
of Federal strategies, right? Because we are very siloed and we
do not connect the dots as best we could, and then that means
that providers like, you know, people that are out there trying
to make things work are struggling all the time because those
dots do not connect a well as they should. And I think that
that is--it is one example of what we are doing in Minnesota
with the Medicaid program that I think helps with that.
Would anybody else like to comment on that connection? Yes,
please, Ms. McDevitt.
Ms. McDevitt. Yes, thank you so much, and I would just
build upon what Ann was saying as far as, you know, access to
employment and income is another metric around stability and
health. And I think one thing that gets sort of lost in some of
these conversations is there is a group of people, using the
metaphor of drowning, that do not even have access to a life
ring. And so we need to create more life rings, whatever
metaphor you want to use. And I think that this is about
expanding our ability to use a Housing First approach beyond
just the tools that we have to promote health, stability, and
access to economic opportunity I would argue is part of the
social determinants of health, especially for those people who
not only need the income because they are not going to qualify
for other benefits, but also our parents and taking care of
their families and returning from incarceration and need access
to jobs that, while they might be available, they are not
prepared for or stable enough for.
So when we talk about Housing First, I would argue that we
should also look at it, as Ann said, as a category, a
philosophy, but we need to look at it beyond just, you know,
units themselves and really start talking about how do we help
people stabilize, off the streets, out of institutions, with
the support services they need to live the best lives that they
can. And there is a group of people, as I mentioned, that is
about 40 percent of folks that are coming into our shelters
every day that are not self-resolving and need--you know, do
not have those access--even if we had enough units, even if we
had enough vouchers, they are not qualifying. And so that is
why I think when we talk about models that can bring in the
public and have also other benefits to the community. The
reason that something like Work Works can really add value to a
community is it brings in the business community; it creates
better conditions for quality of life for the whole community,
which gets more people involved in wanting to solve this issue.
And I think that that is an important point that we have to
remember as we need a community-wide approach, not just, you
know, one that is focused just on government or service
providers.
Chair Smith. Thank you. I am going to wrap up in just a
moment, but I want to see if Ms. Monet or Ms. ten Broeke would
like to add anything more to this question about the connection
between housing and health and what we need to do to break down
the barriers around those two issues. Ms. Monet?
Ms. Monet. Yes, I think I am happy to add on, because, you
know, VA is the largest healthcare system. It is also providing
a really great deal of housing resources to veterans. And I
think what we see is that access to housing helps people manage
chronic conditions when you think about the fact that certain
medications need to be refrigerated, and you cannot really do
that when you are unsheltered, when you think about the fact
that you are able to access healthier food and store healthier
food in a home to help you manage your chronic conditions
through diet and other things.
But I do think that there are also, you know, psychological
benefits to being housed and not being subject to, you know,
all of the violence that we see unsheltered people face on the
streets on a daily basis. And, you know, the fact that you have
somewhere that you can call your own is a really big deal, I
think, especially as we look to the ways that many cities and
communities across the country are starting to criminalize
homelessness and, you know, rely on encampment sweeps, that is
really traumatic when you think about the fact that everything
you own, what little you have been able to retain, could be
gone in an instant--and, repeatedly, right? I mean, that is the
really hard thing for people to deal with, I think.
So, you know, housing is a really critical resource, and I
think that is why we all have tended to look at the fact that
we need to put people in housing and then wrap them with the
services that, you know, they want and need.
Chair Smith. Thank you very much.
Ms. ten Broeke, Ms. Kirsch, would you have anything final
to add before we wrap up?
Ms. ten Broeke. Thank you, Chair Smith. I think you have
summed this up so well, and I think the experience during COVID
puts such a spotlight on your question and the importance of
the question. One thing we knew is that when the pandemic hit,
people who were experiencing homelessness were at greatest risk
of really devastating results because of the pandemic, not only
because of the settings where people were living, where they
could not be distanced, but obviously many people also have co-
occurring, very serious health conditions. And I think the data
that we have from the pandemic, for example, if people were
sleeping outside and they contracted COVID, they were 11 times
more likely to end up in the hospital than other Minnesotans
that had COVID and 8 times more likely to end up in the ICU. So
both the conditions and the settings are so important, and we
need to start to connect the dots between our housing systems,
our social service systems, and our health systems to be
successful in serving people better.
Chair Smith. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kirsch. And I will just offer quickly that, in terms of
public health, I think trauma and the impact of traumatic
experience of houselessness, especially in our youth, can have
a lifelong effect on our young people. And we see it time and
time again here in Rapid City, where we see youth who are
affected by houselessness or coming in contact with law
enforcement, and really coming up with creative ways to respond
to our houseless community members to minimize that trauma and
to truly support innovative practices and sustainable
solutions, creating opportunities with individuals to identify
the resources they truly need to become housing successful, and
that includes everything from culture, which I have talked a
lot about, but all the way through to helping folks stay housed
once they are housed. Housing prevention--or preventing
houselessness is incredibly important, and I would say as
important as addressing the actual houselessness occurring on
our streets. If we can help minimize the amount of trauma youth
are experiencing as a result of evictions and instead coming up
with innovative ways to help families stay in homes, I think we
are far more successful in the end with our efforts than we are
just responding at the crisis.
Thanks again for allowing me to be here today to testify.
Chair Smith. Thank you so much. Thank you to all of our
witnesses for being here today and providing such great
testimony. I am struck, as I listened to the questions and also
your answers and testimony, that there is broad agreement about
what needs to be done. As I said at the outset, I think we know
what to do. We understand the centrality of housing to work, to
health, to physical and emotional health, and we have also been
able to see the innovation and the success that we have seen
because of the resources that we put into the deep COVID
challenge. Those challenges are still there, and, in fact, I
think we are seeing the great impact of some of those resources
going away right now.
So I think this hearing has given, I think all of us, lots
of good thoughts for where we can go from here and the work
that we have to do together.
Before we adjourn, I would like to enter into the record a
letter from Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Without objection, and I see none.
For Senators who wish to submit questions for the record,
those questions will be due 1 week from today, which will be
Tuesday, July 26th. For our witnesses, you will have 45 days to
respond to any questions for the record.
Thank you again so much, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and responses to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN OLIVA
Chief Executive Officer, National Alliance To End Homelessness
July 19, 2022
Introduction
Chairwoman Smith, Ranking Member Rounds, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am Ann Oliva, Chief Executive Officer of the National
Alliance to End Homelessness and a Board Member of True Colors United.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you at today's hearing
entitled ``Opportunities and Challenges in Addressing Homelessness.''
The National Alliance to End Homelessness (the Alliance) is a
nonpartisan, nonprofit, mission-driven organization committed to
preventing and ending homelessness in the United States. It was founded
in 1983 by a group of national leaders from both parties, deeply
disturbed by the appearance of thousands of Americans living on the
streets of our Nation. In its early years it focused primarily on
meeting the emergency and service needs of this emerging population.
However, as it became apparent that emergency measures alone would not
solve the problem, we turned our attention to pursuing permanent,
evidence-based and structural policy and program solutions. Today, the
Alliance and our thousands of nonprofit, faith-based, private and
public sector partners across the country work to end homelessness
through funding and implementation of interventions that meet the needs
of people experiencing homelessness--primarily affordable housing and
services--supporting livable incomes, partnering with people who have
lived experience of homelessness and housing instability, and
addressing inequities that lead to homelessness.
Our years of collective experience make it clear that we know how
to end homelessness in our Nation--and when local leaders have the
resources they need alongside smart, effective policy, we can make
substantial progress. But it is also clear that the homelessness
assistance system cannot do this work alone. We need affordable
housing, health and behavioral health services, employment
opportunities, homelessness prevention resources, and the political
will to work together to address the challenges we face.
Overview
The Nation is experiencing a homelessness crisis that both predates
and has been deeply affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The last
complete Point-in-Time Count released by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) was for the count conducted in 2020. \1\
HUD reported that more than 580,000 people were experiencing
homelessness on a single night in January 2020. Sixty-one percent were
in sheltered locations, while 39 percent were unsheltered. The total
number of people experiencing homelessness included nearly 172,000
people in families (60 percent of them children), more than 110,500
people experiencing chronic homelessness, \2\ and more than 37,000
veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Henry, M., de Sousa, T., Roddey, C., Gayen, S., and Bednar,
T.J. (January 2021). ``The 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report
(AHAR) to Congress, Part 1''. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/
2020-AHAR-Part-1.pdf.
\2\ People who are chronically homeless have experienced
homelessness for at least a year, or repeatedly over several years,
while struggling with a disabling condition such as a serious mental
illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. See National
Alliance to End Homelessness, ``Chronically Homeless'', https://
endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/who-experiences-
homelessness/chronically-homeless/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While overall homelessness at a point in time decreased between
2007 and 2016, it increased slightly every year between 2016 and 2020.
In 2020, HUD reported that 30 States across America saw a rise in
homelessness from one year earlier, and, for the first time since HUD
began tracking this data, more single individuals \3\ experiencing
homelessness were unsheltered than sheltered, and there were more
people in families living unsheltered than the year prior. \4\
Unsheltered homelessness has increased every year since 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ HUD's definition of ``individual'' refers to a person who is
not part of a family with children during an episode of homelessness.
Individuals may be homeless as single adults, unaccompanied youth, or
in multiple-adult or multiple-child households.
\4\ Henry, M., de Sousa, T., Roddey, C., Gayen, S., and Bednar,
T.J. (January 2021). ``The 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report
(AHAR) to Congress, Part 1''. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/
2020-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Point-in-Time Count that typically takes place in January (and
is the only enumeration that includes people who are unsheltered) was
not fully conducted in 2021 due to the pandemic. As a result, the
number of people currently experiencing homelessness is not clear.
However, the Alliance conducted several surveys of the Nation's
Continuums of Care (CoCs) during the pandemic, and respondents reported
the following:
the number of shelter beds significantly decreased as
shelters followed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) guidance to ``decompress;''
most CoCs believed that unsheltered homelessness had
increased; and
though many people from shelters and unsheltered locations
were placed in motel/hotel rooms for quarantine and isolation,
those incremental beds did not make up for those lost through
decompression.
It should be noted that since many jurisdictions have closed their
hotel/motel beds, but are likely maintaining COVID protocols, the
number of available beds may continue to be low.
Continuums of Care were required by HUD to conduct a full count
this past January. Although that data has not been publicly released by
HUD, the Alliance tracks information released from local Continuums of
Care through media releases. Based on this information, the Alliance
expects that unsheltered and chronic homelessness has likely increased
nationally, and it is possible (although not certain) that overall
homelessness has increased.
While overall and unsheltered homelessness appear to be up, the
numbers are down for certain subpopulations. The 2020 data from just
before the pandemic showed a slight decrease in homeless family
households, veterans, and youth. Both the Alliance's CoC surveys and
anecdotal evidence from the field seem to indicate that the number of
families experiencing homelessness decreased during the pandemic. This
is likely the result of Child Tax Credits and other tax credits,
unemployment insurance supplements, Emergency Rental Assistance, the
eviction moratorium, and other steps that Congress took to protect
vulnerable households from the health and economic impacts of the
pandemic. It is also possible that some families chose to double or
triple up with relatives or friends rather than enter congregate
shelter facilities during the pandemic.
In addition to the snapshot of homelessness that the Point-in-Time
Count provides, it is important to understand how many people use
homelessness assistance programs over the course of the year. Capturing
and reporting longitudinal data, which HUD does through the Annual
Homeless Assessment Report, Part 2, helps us understand flow through
the system and the characteristics of people experiencing sheltered
homelessness. Over the course of a year, nearly 1.45 million people
experience sheltered homelessness at some time. \5\ Important
information from HUD's longitudinal data include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Henry, M., Mahathey, A., and Takashima, M. (September 2020).
``The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, Part
2''. Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://
www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2018-AHAR-Part-2.pdf.
Families experiencing homelessness are typically headed by
women and include young children. \6\ About 501,100 people in
156,000 households with children used an emergency shelter or
transitional housing in fiscal year 2018 (the most recent
longitudinal data released by HUD). Of those persons, 62
percent were children and nearly 30 percent were children under
age 5. Nearly 90 percent of sheltered family households were
headed by women. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Henry, Mahathey, and Takashima, op. cit.
\7\ HUD defines ``head of household'' as the member of the family
or household with whom all other members of the household are
associated in homeless management information systems. For families and
adult-only households, the head of household must be an adult. In a
child-only household, the parent of another child is designated as the
head of household; otherwise, each child in a household without adults
is designated as a head of household.
113,330 unaccompanied youth experienced sheltered
homelessness during 2018. Unaccompanied youth experiencing
sheltered homelessness were more likely to be people of color
(Hispanic or Latino, Black or African American, multiracial, or
another race other than White) than youth in the general
population. LGBTQ youth are at more than double the risk of
homelessness compared to non-LGBTQ peers; among youth
experiencing homelessness, LGBTQ young people reported higher
rates of trauma and adversity, including twice the rate of
early death. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Morton, M., Dworsky, A., and Patel, S. (2018). ``LGBTQ Young
Adults Experience Homelessness at More Than Twice the Rate of Peers''.
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. https://www.chapinhall.org/
research/lgbtq-young-adults-experience-homelessness-at-more-than-twice-
the-rate-of-peers/.
Youth and young adults experience homelessness both as
family heads of household and as individuals. \9\ In 2018,
families with children headed by a parenting young adult aged
18 to 24 accounted for 17 percent of all family households
experiencing sheltered homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Henry, Mahathey, and Takashima, op. cit.
As evidenced by the description above, current data on the number
of people experiencing homelessness is not firm. We will have a more
comprehensive grasp on the impacts of the pandemic and economy once the
results of the 2022 Point-in-Time Count and the 2019 and 2020
longitudinal studies are released by HUD.
Finally, it is important to note that people experiencing
homelessness often work but still cannot afford housing. In the report,
Learning about Homelessness Using Linked Survey and Administrative
Data, \10\ the authors found that 53 percent of adults experiencing
sheltered homelessness had formal labor market earnings in the year
they were observed as homeless, and an estimated 40.4 percent of
unsheltered persons had at least some formal employment in the year
they were observed as homeless.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Meyer, B.D., Wyse, A., Grunwaldt, A., Medalia, C., and Wu, D.
(May 2021). ``Learning About Homelessness Using Linked Survey and
Administrative Data''. National Bureau of Economic Research Working
Paper No. 28861. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28861.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pandemic Response
The pandemic brought into sharper focus the importance of housing.
Simply put, a person cannot quarantine if they do not have a home. It
is clearer than ever that housing is, indeed, a social determinant of
health. Further, millions of Americans who have a home are severely
rent burdened and a crisis could cause them to lose that home without
proper protections in place.
Four major funding streams designed to assist people experiencing
homelessness and housing instability were included as part of pandemic-
related relief packages passed by Congress. Each one plays a distinct
but interrelated role in the Nation's response to the health and
economic crisis.
Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA). The $46.6 billion program
operated by the Department of the Treasury was designed to prevent an
eviction crisis and has assisted more than 3.8 million households to
remain in their housing. \11\ Although it was slower to start than
anticipated, many State and local funding recipients now report that
they have exhausted their funding and are no longer taking new
applicants--as evidenced by the decreasing number of unique households
served nationally since the program's height in September 2021, as
reported by the Treasury. Two major lessons can be learned from the
implementation of ERA: first, the Nation needs a permanent program that
can be scaled up in times of crisis rather than creating a new program
each time a crisis emerges; second, that flexibility can be
successfully balanced with accountability to get critical funding into
the hands of households in need quickly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance
Program: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/
assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/emergency-rental-
assistance-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Housing Vouchers (EHVs). This $5 billion program operated
by HUD allocated 70,000 Housing Choice Vouchers to provide permanent
housing to people experiencing and at-risk of homelessness. As of July
17, 2022, HUD reports that nearly 40 percent of these vouchers are
leased up, with another 50 percent issued. \12\ The EHV program is
pushing communities to create new or stronger partnerships between
homeless services providers and Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) so
that people experiencing or at risk of homelessness can more easily
access safe and affordable housing. Although the housing market is
extremely tight in many areas and increasing rents pose a challenge to
using vouchers, some communities are not only successfully using the
EHVs they have, but are requesting more. The alternative requirements
and waivers that allow for more flexible implementation as compared to
regular Housing Choice Vouchers have made a positive difference for the
communities using them. Flexible funding provided to Public Housing
Authorities for landlord incentives, security deposits and housing
navigation are helping with lease-up. However, because EHVs were not
appropriated as a permanent program, these vouchers can currently only
be issued until September 2023. Congress should consider making EHVs
permanently available to individuals and families experiencing
homelessness and housing instability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Emergency
Housing Voucher Program: https://www.hud.gov/ehv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME-ARP). The $5 billion allocation
of HOME program funding is providing rental assistance, support for
noncongregate shelter, acquisition and development, and supportive
services for homeless and at-risk people. Uniquely, it is helping
communities build affordable and supportive housing, a longer-term
investment that will improve housing capacity. The HOME-ARP funding
provides an opportunity to address the shortage of deeply affordable
housing by implementing promising practices adopted during the
pandemic. For example, some States and localities--most notably
California--acquired hotel and motel properties to use as both
temporary and permanent housing at a cost far lower than new
construction or conventional rehabilitation. While the supply of hotel
and motel stock has been shrinking, there is still some available. In
some jurisdictions, office and retail space could potentially be
developed for affordable housing at lower cost than new construction or
rehabilitation. HOME-ARP can help creative jurisdictions take advantage
of opportunities like these to increase the stock of affordable
housing. According to HUD, 36 allocation plans have been reviewed and
accepted by HUD to date. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development HOME-ARP
Program: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/home-arp/
allocation-plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG-CV). The $4 billion ESG-CV program
has helped communities respond to the needs of people living
unsheltered and provides support to emergency shelters that must
respond to shifting environments and health guidance as the pandemic
progresses.
The Federal Government took two additional unprecedented steps
related to housing and homelessness during the pandemic: the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention issued a national eviction
moratorium and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) allowed
communities to be reimbursed for eligible emergency protective measures
in response to the COVID-19 emergency through its Category B Public
Assistance program. Specifically, this provided communities with the
opportunity to open noncongregate shelter programs to protect
vulnerable people from the spread of COVID-19.
These investments represent a combination of short-, medium-, and
long-term resources that communities are using to address the
homelessness crisis, which (as noted previously) was already growing
worse before the pandemic and has been exacerbated by the health and
economic crisis of the last 2 years.
It is clear that pandemic-related affordable housing, homelessness
policy, and funding is having a positive impact and is deeply
appreciated by communities that have received it. However, the evolving
economic environment and rapidly increasing rents indicate that there
is still much work to do toward ending homelessness.
Challenges Facing the Field
Even with new pandemic resources, homelessness assistance systems
are facing significant challenges. Some are long-standing, like the
lack of available supportive and affordable housing units dedicated to
people experiencing homelessness. This shortage makes exiting the
homeless system difficult and results in people waiting for long
periods of time in shelter or on the street. New challenges have also
emerged as a result of the pandemic.
First and foremost are the challenges faced every day by people
experiencing homelessness and housing instability, and by the frontline
staff who serve them. For example:
We are seeing an increase in criminalization. According to
the National Homelessness Law Center, 48 States have at least
one law that criminalizes people experiencing homelessness.
\14\ Sweeps--along with anti-camping, pro-criminalization laws
and ordinances--are increasingly being pursued by local
officials as a path to addressing community concerns, even
though they do not solve homelessness and make life more
difficult for homeless people and frontline staff. In fact, two
States (Missouri and Tennessee) have recently enacted
legislation making it a crime to sleep on State property. The
Missouri law also requires cities to use State funding for
temporary camps/shelter rather than long-term housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ National Homelessness Law Center. (November 2021). ``Housing
Not Handcuffs State Law Supplement''. https://homelesslaw.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021/11/2021-HNH-State-Crim-Supplement.pdf.
Many homeless systems and providers are reporting staff
shortages. Homeless systems--which rely heavily on front-line
workers to provide essential services to people experiencing
homelessness--report staffing challenges due to the pandemic.
However, these staff shortages are also attributed to long-
standing and systemic issues, like low pay, that create
environments with high staff turnover and burnout for the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
people who work in them.
The inability of people to afford housing is the major driver of
homelessness--a factor outside the control of homelessness assistance
systems. A substantial increase in the cost of rent and utilities over
the past year \15\ has the potential to negatively impact both inflow
into the homelessness assistance system and the ability of households
experiencing homelessness to exit homelessness. A recent Washington
Post article reported on this emerging challenge, stating that ``Every
$100 increase in median rent is associated with a 9 percent increase in
the estimated homelessness rate, according to a 2020 report by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office. Economists say that figure is
particularly troubling as rents continue to soar to unprecedented
highs. The national median asking rent jumped to a record $2,002 in
May, up 15 percent from $1,738 a year ago, according to Redfin.'' These
increases make it harder for people experiencing housing instability to
remain in their units and create housing challenges for people exiting
incarceration or institutions like child welfare or hospitals. Higher
costs of living also make it more difficult for homeless assistance
systems to place people into safe, stable, and affordable housing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Bhattarai, A., and Siegel, R. (July 2022). ``Inflation Is
Making Homelessness Worse''. Washington Post. https://
www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/03/inflation-homeless-rent-
housing/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically Marginalized People and Racial Inequities
People of color and other historically marginalized people are
disproportionally affected by homelessness and housing instability.
Nearly 40 percent of those experiencing homelessness in
2020 were Black and 23 percent were Latino, although these
groups make up 13 and 18 percent of the U.S. population,
respectively. Similarly, Native Americans represent 1 percent
of the population but 3 percent of people experiencing
homelessness, and Pacific Islanders represent .2 percent of the
population but 1.5 percent of people experiencing homelessness.
24 million people in low-income renter households pay more
than half of their income for rent and utilities. \16\ Most of
the renters in these households (62 percent) are people of
color: 6.8 million are Latino, 5.8 million are Black, 1.4
million are Asian or Pacific Islander, 725,000 are multiracial,
and 242,000 are American Indian or Alaska Native.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Mazzara, A. (May 2021). ``Expanding Housing Vouchers Would
Cut Poverty and Reduce Racial Disparities''. Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/expanding-housing-
vouchers-would-cut-poverty-and-reduce-racial-disparities
Not only are people of color overrepresented in the
population of people experiencing homelessness, but there are
also racial disparities in the outcomes of homelessness
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
interventions.
Data also shows that LGBTQ people \17\ and people with
disabilities \18\ are more likely to experience housing
instability and homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Wilson, B.D.M., Choi, S.K., Harper, G.W., Lightfoot, M.,
Russell, S., and Meyer, I.H. (2020). ``Homelessness Among LGBT Adults
in the U.S. Los Angeles, CA''. Williams Institute. https://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-homelessness-us/
\18\ Bailey, A., de la Huerga, R., and Gartland, E. (July 2021).
``More Housing Vouchers Needed To Help People With Disabilites Afford
Stable Homes in the Community''. Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/more-housing-
vouchers-needed-to-help-people-with-disabilities-afford-stable-homes
We must develop and examine all homelessness strategies and
activities through the lens of racial justice and equity. Historical
and systemic racism in the key areas of housing, health care, and
employment have a major impact on homelessness, resulting in the
disproportionality identified above. Once homeless, people of color and
other marginalized groups experience disparities in the effectiveness
and nature of the assistance they receive. While the homelessness
system alone has little ability to prevent marginalized groups from
becoming homeless, it must be diligent in assessing the impact of its
assistance on all of the people it serves. To remedy these disparities,
homelessness systems must develop models, practices, and interventions
that are culturally competent and trauma informed, so as to
deliberately address inequities and discrimination faced by people in
the homelessness assistance system.
Unsheltered Homelessness
A critical challenge is the need to address growing unsheltered
homelessness. As noted above, the Nation has seen a rise in unsheltered
homelessness every year since 2015.
It should not be acceptable that 230,000 people sleep on the
streets every night. And it should also be unacceptable that people
living unsheltered are criminalized for simply trying to survive and
live in public places that are not meant for human habitation. The
unsheltered population includes people with behavioral health
conditions; youth and young adults; pregnant women and families living
in cars or tents; older adults whose needs can no longer be met in
shelter and end up on the street, and many others.
Data indicates that people who are unsheltered have much more
serious health problems than people living in shelter. For example,
data indicates that 50 percent of unsheltered people are tri-morbid,
with co-occurring physical, mental and/or substance use conditions,
while only 2 percent of sheltered adults are tri-morbid. And it is
important to point out that many unsheltered people did not become
homeless as a result of tri-morbidity, but became ill as a result of
being unsheltered.
While it can be a challenge to permanently house higher need or
unsheltered people for a variety of reasons, some communities are using
resources like EHVs in efforts to resolve encampments or otherwise
serve unsheltered people. This requires strong partnerships with
outreach providers, landlords, and service providers. For example, the
King County Regional Homelessness Authority recently reported \19\ the
successful closing of an encampment through a person-centered approach
that included shelter and housing for encampment residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Taylor, S.G. (May 2022). ``Officials Tout Outreach Success at
Seattle's Woodland Park''. Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/
seattle-news/homeless/officials-tout-outreach-success-at-seattles-
woodland-park-mayor-bruce-harrell-promises-homelessness-plan-in-may/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Older Adult Homelessness
Focused data collection and interventions have rarely been pursued
for older adults experiencing homelessness; as a result, there is
little data on this population, how and why they become homeless, the
trajectory of their homelessness, or tailored solutions. This is likely
because of the small number of older people who have historically
experienced homelessness.
However, the situation is changing: as the percentage of the
general population that are older adults increases, so does the
percentage of older adults experiencing homelessness. This is only
exacerbated by the fact that their age cohort is one that
disproportionately became homeless as a result of recessions in the
late 1970s and early 1980s. This cohort was the largest group of people
experiencing homelessness then, and it remains so today--except now the
group is in its 50s and 60s. Over the next decade or so, these
demographic shifts will result in the older adult homeless population
increasing significantly: nearly tripling by 2030. \20\ People of color
are and will continue to be over-represented in this population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Culhane, D., Treglia, D., Byrne, T., Metraux, S., Kuhn, R.,
Doran, K., Johns, E., and Schretzman, M. (2019). ``The Emerging Crisis
of Aged Homelessness''. Actionable Intelligence for Social Policy.
https://aisp.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Emerging-Crisis-of-
Aged-Homelessness-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One implication of the increase in older adults experiencing
homelessness is the increase in healthcare costs associated with this
population. Culhane, et al., estimate that this will be in the range of
$5 billion annually within the next decade. But because homelessness,
and especially prolonged homelessness, is so detrimental to the health
of older adults, this spending is unlikely to achieve positive
outcomes. Older people experiencing homelessness have significantly
higher medical utilization costs and shortened life expectancies.
A much better investment would be to use, or to view, these
healthcare costs as an offset to housing subsidies. Funding housing
would not only end people's homelessness; it would improve their health
and prolong their lives, and at a comparable cost.
Workforce Concerns
Jurisdictions are beleaguered after 2 solid years of the pandemic,
and the recession and its aftermath. The Alliance's surveys of CoCs
show consistent reports of employee shortages in homeless service and
housing organizations. In a May 2021 survey, 72 percent of CoCs
reported shortages in frontline shelter staff; 69 percent had a
shortage of case managers; and 62 percent had shortages in street
outreach workers. The organizations reported the cause of the
challenges as stress, exhaustion, and low morale; illness; family
responsibilities; and fear of COVID. It should also be noted that
homeless services staff typically receive relatively low salaries for
very difficult and challenging work. A recent study found that the
average shelter staff member earned $24,000 per year, and the average
permanent supportive housing staff member earned $36,000 per year. Low
pay may be another reason that it is difficult to keep staff.
Staff shortages are not the only capacity issues for CoCs and the
organizations that they fund. With the challenges of working through a
period of constant change as COVID numbers rise and fall, guidance
changes, multiple new initiatives are introduced, immediate results are
expected, and new partnerships must be formed--years of these
compounded hurdles have worn down many program staff. Although they
appreciate and welcome the resources and share the sense of urgency, in
many localities they are overwhelmed.
The necessity to create substantial new partnerships has also been
a frequent challenge. For example, the Emergency Housing Voucher and
HOME-CV funding sources are targeted to people experiencing
homelessness or at risk of homelessness. However, the funds were not
given to entities in the CoC that routinely work with people
experiencing homelessness. EHVs were given to Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) and HOME-CV funding was given to HOME Participating
Jurisdictions (PJs). PHAs and PJs were then required to work with the
CoCs to run the programs--an atypical proceeding.
Accessing Services
Community leaders and homelessness assistance providers struggle to
connect new housing resources to mainstream supportive services in many
communities. In addition to the challenges with creating new housing-
related partnerships mentioned above, housing high-need individuals and
families experiencing homelessness generally requires that they be
connected to supportive services--services that are critical to housing
stability. This often requires that funding recipients or their
nonprofit partners develop new relationships with health partners. Such
partnerships can be hard to achieve and take time to establish,
especially when these healthcare entities are in the midst of pandemic
response. People experiencing homelessness who do not require intensive
or ongoing services to stay housed may still require assistance
connecting to employment and education opportunities, which may
similarly require the creation of new partnerships.
Funding Evidence-Based Approaches and Using Lessons Learned
Congress should focus its policy and funding on solutions that we
know work. At the same time, Congress should provide communities
support to innovate when needed. The unprecedented nature of the
pandemic and its health and economic impacts, coupled with rising rents
and affordable housing supply shortages, mean that communities,
providers, and people experiencing homelessness are facing uncharted
waters. It is imperative that we learn from the implementation of
pandemic-related resources and apply those lessons to our work moving
forward. Returning to the pre-pandemic status quo should not be the
goal.
To address the affordable housing crisis that drives homelessness,
it is also imperative that Congress invest in four areas:
1. keeping the stock we already have through affordable housing
preservation;
2. increasing affordable housing supply through investments in
targeted programs like HOME, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and
the National Housing Trust Fund;
3. increasing affordability through an expansion of the Housing
Choice Voucher Program; and
4. helping individuals and families maintain housing by increasing
access to health and behavioral health services and employment.
Partnering With People With Lived Experience
People with lived experience of homelessness bring a critical
policy and program design perspective based on how our systems actually
function, and can make important recommendations based on their
experience using these resources. At the launch of the Framework for an
Equitable COVID-19 Homelessness Response Project, \21\ project leaders
asked people experiencing homelessness or housing instability for their
input on what challenges should be prioritized and addressed in the
Nation's homelessness response systems. Four themes emerged from the
discussions and focus groups:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See https://housingequityframework.org/partners for partner
organizations.
The most important priority is to address the lack of
affordable housing options. Adequate affordable housing options
and support (e.g., long-term rental assistance, affordable
housing development, services) must be developed and targeted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to those most impacted by structural inequities.
Systems should treat people experiencing homelessness and
trauma with dignity. Dignity-based services led by the
communities most impacted by homelessness should be designed
and supported in a post-COVID environment.
Congregate shelters should be re-imagined. Current
congregate emergency shelter options are often inadequate and
can cause further trauma for the people who use them.
Criminalizing people experiencing homelessness causes harm.
Communities should end practices that criminalize people
experiencing homelessness. Law enforcement should not be the
primary responder when people experiencing homelessness need
assistance, because the interactions between law enforcement
and people experiencing homelessness are often negative and
cause harm.
System planners and policymakers at all levels should actively and
deliberately partner with people who have experience with the systems
we seek to change. This can take a number of forms, including
compensated work as advisors, board members, and technical assistance
consultants. It can and should also take the form of increased
employment opportunities for (and priority of) people with lived
experience of homelessness. Having staff--including management staff--
with lived experience ensures more extensive and deliberate involvement
in critical decisions about policy, program design, and resource
allocation. Such a strategy would not only increase the employment of
people experiencing homelessness, but improve the overall performance
of the sector.
Housing First
It is important to focus our resources on proven solutions such as
Housing First. Housing First is an evidence-based approach to ending
homelessness for individuals and families that prioritizes safe,
permanent, affordable housing as the foundation for healing and pursing
life goals. By providing rental assistance, Housing First directly
addresses the primary driver of homelessness--the lack of affordable
housing. There is a large and growing evidence base demonstrating that
Housing First is an effective solution to homelessness.
Voluntary supportive services that support an individual or
family's housing stability and healing from trauma are also a critical
part of Housing First. Under a Housing First approach, participation in
services and other prerequisites are not required to access housing.
But Housing First is never, when implemented according to the model,
housing only. In fact, Housing First services are generally available
to people while they are in shelter or other temporary accommodation
and waiting for housing placement.
Housing First programs are based on the premise that people are
better able to benefit from services, become employed, and achieve
stability if they are receiving services from the safety and security
of a home. Using a Housing First approach does not mean that structured
programs--like those that support sober living--are not made available.
The focus of a system rooted in Housing First principles is about
providing choices that can meet an individual or family's needs. Sober
living or other more structured service approaches should be made
available to people who prefer them.
This approach recognizes that housing is a basic human need and
people should not have to prove they deserve a place to live. This is
also rooted in behavioral science and theories that people are more
successful at achieving goals or making changes when they are self-
motivated to do so, as opposed to having goals imposed upon them.
Centering choice is more than a value--it is essential to success.
Housing First is also the most cost-effective strategy for ending
an individual or family's homelessness and providing long-term housing
stability. There is evidence that, for some people experiencing
homelessness, funding housing and supportive services may produce net
savings by reducing the use of emergency departments, emergency
shelters, hospitals, law enforcement and incarceration, and other
expensive community services. Housing First is also cost-effective
because it produces much better housing, health, and economic
outcomes--especially for children--and improves other measures of
wellbeing compared to other approaches.
Housing Choice Voucher Expansion and Universal Vouchers
Homeless assistance systems alone cannot end homelessness. This
crisis requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the large
number of households who cannot afford rents in their communities
because their incomes are too low to afford reasonably priced housing,
an insufficient supply of reasonably priced housing, or both. The
approach must also address access to services for people who need and
want them.
The evidence about the positive impacts of Housing Choice Vouchers
on families experiencing homelessness is clear. HUD's Family Options
Study \22\ showed that enrolling in Housing Choice Vouchers improved:
housing stability and reduced family separations, psychological
distress, and alcohol/drug problems for the head of household; intimate
partner violence; the number of schools that children attended and the
number of absences for children; children's behavioral problems; and
food insecurity among families as compared to usual care in the
homeless system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Department of Housing and Urban Development, ``The Family
Options Study'', https://www.huduser.gov/portal/family-options-
study.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most effective policy we could take to address the Nation's
homelessness crisis is to provide a Housing Choice Voucher for every
eligible household. Vouchers effectively fill in the gap between the
cost of rent and utilities and how much a household can afford to pay,
ensuring that those with very low incomes can afford housing. This step
would fundamentally alter the landscape for people experiencing
homelessness, institutionalization, and housing instability. Such a
policy change would ultimately prevent many stints of homelessness:
households with low incomes would be able to afford housing, and thus
would be less likely to fall behind on rent and face eviction. It would
lift millions of children out of poverty and improve educational
outcomes, help seniors and people with disabilities, and provide youth
and young adults with a brighter path to adulthood. \23\ This is the
goal we should be working toward, even if we cannot get there in one
step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Fischer, W., Acosta, S., and Gartland, E. (2021) ``More
Housing Vouchers: Most Important Step To Help More People Afford Stable
Homes''. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/
research/housing/more-housing-vouchers-most-important-step-to-help-
more-people-afford-stable-homes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ending Homelessness Act of 2021 (H.R. 4496) and the Housing for
All Act (S. 3788) both include a path to universal vouchers over 10
years, a goal also discussed by President Biden during his campaign.
Homeless Assistance Grants
The backbone of the Nation's homelessness crisis response system
and permanent supportive housing stock are HUD's Homeless Assistance
Grants programs. Congress should continue to invest in these core
programs and provide increased and sustained funding for efforts to
address unsheltered, rural, and Tribal homelessness. In addition, the
Alliance urges Congress to consider two requests made by HUD in their
Fiscal Year 2023 budget request: to increase the statutory cap on
planning dollars for CoCs, and to allow HUD to issue a 2-year Continuum
of Care Notice of Funding Opportunity. These simple changes will allow
CoCs to conduct better planning with the partners needed to address
critical challenges and create new partnerships as described earlier in
this testimony, and will provide time to conduct these important
activities between competitive cycles.
Pending Legislation
There are several pieces of legislation within the jurisdiction of
the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs that
deserve strong bipartisan support because they either help people
experiencing homelessness become housed or prevent homelessness from
ever occurring. The Alliance supports the following bills.
The Flexibility in Addressing Rural Homelessness Act (H.R.
7196) would provide rural areas with additional options to use
Federal funds to reduce homelessness. This bill, which enjoyed
bipartisan support in the House, was approved without any
opposition by the House Financial Services Committee at a May
17 mark up. It has since been passed by the House as part of an
en bloc amendment to the FY23 National Defense Authorization
Act (H.R. 7900).
This legislation would not increase costs to the taxpayers.
However, it would give rural communities three new
flexibilities when using the annual Federal homelessness
funding that flows through the Transportation-HUD
Appropriations Bill, particularly the Continuum of Care program
dollars that make up the bulk of the Homelessness Assistance
Grants:
payment of short-term, emergency lodging, including in
motels or shelters,
either directly or through vouchers;
repairs such as insulation, window repair, door repair,
roof repair, and
repairs that are necessary to make premises habitable; and
capacity building activities, including payment of staff
training and staff
retention.
The Alliance supports H.R. 7196, which would simply allow rural
areas to spend precious homelessness funds on their most
pressing needs, which are not always the same as urban and
suburban areas.
The Coordinating Substance Use and Homelessness Care Act
(H.R. 7196, S. 4482) would help local homelessness systems to
access supportive housing services so that people experiencing
homelessness with the most acute needs could be safely and
securely housed. The House bill was marked up by the House
Financial Services Committee on May 17.
Some people who experience homelessness need more than rental
assistance. They need additional help to become housed--and
stay safely and securely housed--because of more acute needs,
which might mean help finding a suitable rental unit, working
with landlords to address concerns, case management, and other
services. However, supportive housing services are not normally
available with housing vouchers, including the Emergency
Housing Vouchers provided by the American Rescue Plan Act.
The Alliance supports S. 4482, which would establish in HUD a
program to provide grants to homelessness organizations that
would help them to develop the capacity to access supportive
housing services, including billing Medicaid or paying a third
party to bill Medicaid.
The Safe Parking Programs Act (H.R. 2965, Section 301 of S.
3788) would require HUD to provide grants to interested local
governments to establish or expand safe parking programs that
lead to permanent housing. Safe parking lots provide people
experiencing homelessness who live in their vehicles with safe
places to park and reside in their vehicles overnight to help
them transition to more stable housing.
The Alliance's support for the legislation is contingent on safe
parking programs actually providing services to facilitate
transitions to more stable housing for residents, and that the
grants are paid for with new money--not with Federal funds
already committed to fighting homelessness.
The Eviction Crisis Prevention Act (S. 2182), bipartisan
legislation introduced by your colleagues Senators Bennet and
Portman, would, among other things, significantly increase
housing stability through the creation of a national $3 billion
Emergency Assistance Fund (EAF).
Building on the success of the COVID Emergency Rental Assistance
program, the EAF would be a permanent program that would help
families stay housed, and help communities and households avoid
the significant financial and psychic costs of homelessness.
The Family Stability and Opportunity Vouchers Act (S.
1991), bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Van Hollen
and Young, would establish 500,000 new Housing Choice Vouchers
over the next 5 years. These vouchers would be designated
specifically for families that are experiencing homelessness or
housing instability, or wish to live in areas with quality
schools, less crime, more resources such as grocery stores and
parks, and other opportunities for healthy development as well
as educational and professional success.
The bill pairs mobility vouchers with customized support services
to help families escape the cycle of poverty and move to high-
opportunity areas. Pregnant women and families with a child
under age 6 would qualify for these new vouchers if they have a
history of homelessness or housing instability, live in an area
of concentrated poverty, or are at risk of being pushed out of
an opportunity area. This includes families who are fleeing, or
attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
assault, or stalking; families who are living in housing
conditions that are dangerous or life threatening; and families
who are living in units that are not accessible to a disabled
family member.
The Fair Housing Improvement Act (S. 2182, H.R. 8213) would
make it easier for households across the Nation to use Federal
rental assistance in neighborhoods where they want to live.
The Federal Government provides vouchers to help 2.3 million
veterans and low-income households live in decent, stable
private market housing. It is understood that Federal rental
assistance helps families avoid housing insecurity and
homelessness, improves health and educational outcomes, boosts
children's prospects for long-term success, and increases
racial equity. However, landlord discrimination against
families who pay the rent with vouchers, even including those
awarded to veterans, can leave those families with
significantly fewer options as to where they can live. S. 2182
would extend protections against source of income
discrimination across the entire Nation, thus making it easier
for all families with vouchers to live in their communities of
choice.
Conclusion: Advance Equity and End Homelessness With Investments Scaled
to the Need
Homeless assistance and housing providers, local leaders and their
staff are struggling to keep up with the demands placed upon them.
People experiencing homelessness--who are disproportionally people of
color and other marginalized people--are being increasingly dehumanized
and criminalized as unsheltered homelessness increases and communities
become frustrated with a lack of affordable housing options.
The good news is that we know what works to solve homelessness for
youth, individuals, and families. We have a strong and motivated field
that can execute well-designed, flexible programs and policies even in
the toughest of circumstances. Congress should make investments and
policy choices that maximize the positive impact of our knowledgeable
and compassionate workforce, and scale those investments so that we
have a clear path to meet the needs of all people experiencing
homelessness and prevent homelessness when possible.
Imagine a homelessness assistance system that, instead of being
forced to prioritize people based on how sick or in danger they are,
can quickly offer a family, youth, or individual in crisis a permanent
housing option. A system that prioritizes working with landlords to
create and maintain positive relationships that benefit people
experiencing homelessness, the business community, and neighborhoods. A
system that provides outreach to people living on the street--outreach
that actually includes a housing option rather than only a blanket,
bottle of water, or granola bar.
We have much work to do to realize that vision. The Alliance stands
ready to assist with this important and necessary work.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ISABEL McDEVITT
Cofounder and Board President, Work Works America
July 19, 2022
Thank you for the opportunity to testify to the United States
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on
Housing, Transportation and Community Development on the topic of
homelessness. It is an honor and privilege to collaborate with you to
meet this moment of urgency by sharing innovative models that WORK.
My name is Isabel McDevitt and I am Cofounder of Work Works
America. I have worked in the field of homeless services since 1998 in
New York City, Philadelphia, and in Metro Denver where I founded the
Ready to Work program. Work Works America is a nonprofit dedicated to
helping communities develop and implement employment-based solutions,
including the award-winning Work Works methodology, to address
homelessness for the estimated 40 percent of adults not served by
Federally funded housing nor self-resolving out of emergency shelter or
off the streets.
As we know, homelessness is not yet eradicated in our great
country. In fact, despite our best efforts, it is getting worse. The
number of unsheltered people is growing \1\ and, as the price of
housing continues to rise in proportion to household earnings, our
abilities and tools to prevent and intervene with traditional housing
resources are dwindling. Employers are struggling to find workers while
nearly 80 percent of people experiencing homelessness are un or under-
employed. And homelessness disproportionally affects people of color as
Black Americans who make up 13 percent of the general population
represent 40 percent of the homeless population. \2\ It is time to
reinvigorate our resolve to more holistically, equitably and
effectively create policies and resources in our response to address
homelessness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2020-
AHAR-Part-1.pdf
\2\ https://endhomelessness.org/resource/racial-inequalities-
homelessness-numbers/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We need fresh, bold solutions to combat this crisis, especially
those that promote de-siloed, collaborative approaches across Federal
agencies as well as those that empower communities arming them with an
array of best practice models, flexible policies, and funding that
encourages innovation while leveraging the support of a broad spectrum
of stakeholders. With coordination we can solve multiple-interrelated
problems at once. We must be open to new ideas that enhance existing
continuums of care and provide more tools in our toolkit.
We need to embrace a multi-faceted approach for both the sake of
the more than 580,000 unique individuals who experience homelessness
each night in America \3\ as well as for the benefit of cities and
towns of all regions and sizes struggling to break the cycles of the
interrelated crises of homelessness, addiction, incarceration, and
unemployment that plague their communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2020 Point in Time survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Works Works model is one example of a solution that can enhance
our collective response to homelessness. Work Works combines paid work
in social enterprise with transitional housing and support services as
a stepping stone to mainstream jobs and housing. Founded in 1990 and
pioneered by The Doe Fund's Ready, Willing, & Able (RWA) program in New
York City, the Work Works model has been scaled to 6 other communities
with great success including right here in Washington, DC, with Ready,
Willing, & Working. In Metro Denver, Colorado, the Ready to Work, Work
Works program houses and employs 94 people at any given time and 72
percent of trainees graduate each year into mainstream employment and
housing. In Georgia, Georgia Works indicates that every $1 invested in
Georgia Works yields as much as $3.44 in cost savings related to
recidivism and incarceration, emergency room visits, and public
services according to a study conducted by Georgia Tech in 2020.
Today, I will share my experience with the Work Works model in
multiple regions and ask that we partner to make Work Works, and other
specialized, targeted approaches like it, additional, complementary
resources to existing interventions as we strive to end homelessness.
We need to create the conditions for communities to expand housing-
based, service delivery models for the more than 73 percent of adults
experiencing homelessness that do not meet the threshold of chronically
homelessness and, therefore, do not qualify for permanent supportive
housing. \4\ While our collective goal should be homeless prevention,
we need chronic homeless prevention too.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Alliance to End Homelessness--endhomelessness.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, Housing First is the most widely supported approach--
both philosophically and financially--by Federal policy and resources.
But, homelessness is a symptom of myriad systemic failures, therefore,
housing alone in many cases cannot solve it. Communities need
additional tools that address the root causes of homelessness and
remove the barriers people face--not just in getting, but in keeping
permanent housing. Barriers that include un- and under-employment,
addiction, mental illness, and lack of access to behavioral health
care.
People experiencing homelessness are victims of a lack of
investment--beginning upstream with failing schools, substandard
housing, unequal access to healthcare, racial inequities, and
inadequate access to living wage jobs. Street homelessness, mass
incarceration and drug abuse are downstream results of these systemic
failures. Of course we would want to prevent homelessness in the first
place but when we can't and people find themselves on the street after
a life event or exit from an institution or at the proverbial ``rock
bottom'', we need quick, accessible interventions and resources to
provide tangible, sustainable pathways back to housing that include
access to employment and behavioral health services. We need to provide
swift access to targeted resources and opportunities that meet the
diverse needs of the homelessness population to disrupt the trauma of
being unhoused and prevent the devastating effects of chronic
homelessness.
Our lack of investment in dynamic solutions doesn't just affect
marginalized populations, it hurts everyone. The costly cycles of
incarceration have not only a massive financial price tag but a
profound impact on communities. Individuals with histories of
incarceration, are nearly 10 times more likely to experience
homelessness than the general public. \5\ The un- and under-employment
of people who have experienced homelessness and incarceration leads to
a loss of 1.7-1.9 million workers and between $78-$87 billion in GDP
per year. \6\ Of people experiencing homelessness in America, an
estimated 78 percent are jobless or underemployed. \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Low Income Housing Coalition.
\6\ Center for Economic Policy Research--The Price We Pay:
Economic Costs of Barriers to Employment for Former Prisoners and
People Convicted of Felonies.
\7\ Working Population Grows in America, Parade Magazine and
program services data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When addressing homelessness, the link between employment and
homelessness has been grossly ignored. Now, in 2022 as the country
strives to recover and invest in workforce development, policies and
programs that create jobs and foster economic growth cannot repeat past
mistakes by excluding the most marginalized including people at risk of
or experiencing homelessness. Work Works is a bridge that reaches,
prepares, supports and stabilizes people--and brings them into our
mainstream economy and society yielding a massive return on investment
both socially and financially.
For more than two decades, approaches such as Housing First and
Permanent Supportive Housing have been the focus of funders and
policymakers. While Housing First appears to be a logical and immediate
solution, dig deeper and you will see that traditional housing models
are only viable for an estimated one quarter of adults experiencing
homelessness based on economic and eligibility criteria set by Federal
policy. Additionally, despite massive allocations of funds the cost and
requirements for each unit of housing has slowed development to a
trickle and, despite increased funding for voucher programs, many
vouchers go unused due to lack of housing stock for people to rent.
In a recent ``House America'' webinar, a senior HUD representative
presented statistics from the 2020 Point in Time count that illustrate
the fact that across the country we are lacking housing resources for
85 percent of the population of adults experiencing homelessness. \8\
Put more simply, of 100 people experiencing homelessness only 15 will
have access to housing resources. This is partially due to the supply
of units compared to the Stated development target for housing
development and, importantly, this is also due to eligibility criteria
set that disqualifies people who are not chronic or ``vulnerable''
enough to qualify in the first place even if there was enough supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.hud.gov/house_america
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Permanent Supportive Housing is an important and much needed
resource for those it serves, we need to build upon its success and
expand our impact by creating opportunities and resources that reflect
the diversity of people experiencing homelessness. We need to rethink
what types of housing we can site and afford including flexible models
such as co-ops and single room occupancies.
On the ground perspective:
In the 1980s, George McDonald who founded The Doe Fund and the Work
Works model spent 700 nights in a row handing out food in Grand Central
terminal where he listened to and acted on the needs of the people he
met and served who said over and over ``thank you for the sandwich,
what I really need is a room and a job to pay for it''.
For more than 30 years thousands of people have echoed this
statement and have credited the opportunity to work for resolving their
homelessness and the transformation of their life.
This is just one story:
As a child growing up fatherless in Washington Heights, Johnny
watched helplessly as his mom struggled to put food on the
table for her three children, to keep a roof over their heads
and clothes on their backs. But no matter how hard she worked,
there was never enough money.
For a 12-year-old living in poverty, desperately wanting to
help his family survive, the lure of the streets--the lure of
easy money--can be hard to resist, no matter the risks. ``I
hung out with an older crew and we did all kinds of things to
make money,'' says Johnny. ``We robbed people. Broke into
apartments. Sold drugs. Sure enough, I started to bring money
home. It made me feel like a man.''
But he wasn't a man. He was a 12-year-old boy who was in over
his head. By the time he realized that his life was spiraling
out of control, it was too late. The crimes and violence had
escalated so much that he was getting arrested three to four
times a week. By the age of 25 Johnny had spent half his life
behind bars--in and out of prison again and again.
``That's the problem with the streets,'' he says. ``They trick
you. You think you're working them and getting this big pay
out. But the whole time, the streets are working you. Taking
from you.''
Johnny's family was evicted from their apartment. He was alone,
with nowhere to go. But everything changed when he joined
Ready, Willing, & Able. ``For the first time since I was 12, I
wasn't a criminal,'' he says. He was a young man with a future
. . . a real future. ``I was someone who deserved a chance in
life.''
While I have never experienced homelessness, I have worked with tens of
thousands of people who have. From my perspective working in this field
for 24 years in places as different as New York City and Boulder, CO, I
have seen the universal power of opportunity and the stark need for a
more comprehensive, pragmatic continuum of services that includes work
and embraces opportunity.
When I was a shelter provider on the ground in Colorado, I saw how
the monolithic Housing First approach excluded people and that spurred
me to bring Work Works to the community.
After seeing people like Kurt, 39-years old using heroin since
his twenties, divorced due to addiction, living under a bridge
in the dead of winter;
And Nellie, age 62, who found herself on the streets after
losing her husband to cancer and crushed by a pile of medical
bills. Frail, vulnerable, and unable to afford her own hearing
aids, sleeping under a tree, scared and alone;
And Kristie, age 31, released from 3 years in prison to the
streets. With no relationships or support and a criminal
background looming, looking for a fresh start, a platform to
begin her new life and to build a foundation to regain custody
of her 7-year-old son.
I was compelled to start Ready to Work. Kurt, Nellie, and Kristie,
none eligible for the Housing First resources available in Boulder. All
successful participants in the Ready to Work, Work Works program.
Other communities feel this, too, and as a result seek Work Works.
We receive hundreds of inquiries a year and are in active conversations
with local stakeholders from Texas, Maine, Kentucky, and California.
What can we do? The Work Works Solution as a Complement to Housing
First
The Work Works model empowers adults experiencing homelessness who
do not self-resolve out of shelter, off the streets, or reentering from
incarceration, AND who are not vulnerable enough to qualify for
traditional, HUD funded resources. Work Works encompasses a dynamic
approach with a holistic combination of paid transitional work in a
social enterprise coupled with housing and support services as a
pathway to mainstream employment and independent housing in one,
voluntary program. Work Works, and its holistic design, is a complement
to Housing First and an additional tool for communities. This is not an
``either/or'' choice, rather it is a ``yes and'' proposition.
Over 85 percent of participants in Work Works are people of color,
88 percent self-report a history of substance abuse, over 70 percent
have a history of incarceration, 25 percent have been unemployed for 5
or more years before joining the program. Zero percent reach the
threshold to qualify for permanent supportive housing.
The first element of Work Works is paid work for participants to
gain work experience and earn an income. A Work Works model operates
social enterprises that offer work experience and training for
approximately 30 hours per week. Social enterprises are businesses that
integrate a social mission with a market-based, competitive, revenue
earning business. Not only do program participants build resumes and
references, participants are empowered and often emotionally
transformed by the powerful purpose of work. Work Works enterprises can
support up to 40 percent of total program operating cost through earned
revenue. Each year Work Works social enterprises pay millions of
dollars in earnings to program participants.
The second element of Work Works is housing, which in this case
means transitional, safe, affordable accommodations for program
trainees. The Works Works housing type includes dormitory-style
housing. In the case of Ready to Work in Boulder and Aurora, Colorado,
the program converted commercial office buildings into community living
with a private living space at 20 percent of the cost of building
traditional units and in less than 18 months from concept to opening
for a net gain of 94 units of housing. \9\ Unfortunately, these
projects were not eligible for HUD funding and relied on local sources
and philanthropy. Living in Work Works housing that is part of the
program from day one and provides a sense of community and positive
living environment to support participants as they transition out of
homelessness or reenter from incarceration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ www.readytoworkco.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the third element of the program, support services, trainees
meet with case managers and participate in life-skills training such as
financial management, debt relief and addiction recovery. Workforce
Development services include Adult Basic Education and occupational
training. Participants are required to establish a savings account to
ensure financial stability after they graduate and are living
independently.
All of these elements working in tandem are required for Work Works
to be successful in the goal for participants to graduate into full-
time mainstream jobs and housing after one year.
So what's next? Let's make ``Work Works'' and other models like it work
for more Americans
I am here today to ask for your partnership in making cost-
effective, replicable and successful models like Work Works available
on a wider scale. To do so, we need recognition from Federal policy
makers that there is a vital, complementary role for creative housing
solutions coupled with interventions such as access to employment and
behavioral health services to enhance the current Housing First
practices. Without such support we will continue to fail to provide
opportunities for a large proportion of people experiencing
homelessness especially those who, with the right support, can
successfully integrate into the community.
The public health crisis of COVID-19 and the associated economic
challenges have illuminated the need for innovative and collaborative
efforts. The growing numbers of encampments on streets not just in
major metropolitan areas but small cities too, has led to a boiling
point and recent reports of skyrocketing housing costs point to a
looming eviction crisis that must be averted. Your leadership can set
the stage for and create conditions for our Nation to reimagine its
response not just the circumstance of being unhoused but the myriad
factors that cause and perpetuate homelessness.
Thankfully funds have been committed at the Federal level through
the CARES Act and America Rescue Plan. To best leverage these
resources, communities must have a policy framework that allows them to
be creative, targeted, and quick in their approaches to addressing
homelessness. Nontraditional forms of housing that are not currently
funded by HUD or Low Income Housing Tax credits, such as co-ops,
dormitories and single room occupancies converted from commercial
spaces or vacant hotels, must be considered. This type of housing has
proven to be successful with Work Works locations in every region.
Supportive services that allow for people to be ready and successful in
housing are critical and need to be not only funded but coordinated
with agencies such as SAMSHA to intentionally link support services to
housing especially, for example, as we see increasing links between the
opioid crisis and homelessness. And, of course, given the current state
of the labor market it is also critical to seek ways to align workforce
development efforts with the Department of Labor to meet the needs of
employers in every sector, especially the construction trades, with the
human capital of people who are experiencing homelessness that have the
capacity and desire to work.
In the case of Work Works, the model can be mobilized quickly and
effectively and brings benefits to numerous stakeholders. Because our
cost-effective model leverages earned revenue in social enterprise and
combines housing with supportive services, it better deploys taxpayer
funds than traditional homeless services. Work Works offers ways for
agencies to pool resources for a more comprehensive, de-siloed approach
to addressing homelessness.
The ultimate goal of Work Works is for trainees to graduate the
program with a full time, mainstream job, independent housing, and
sobriety. Every successful completion of Work Works represents not only
a personal victory but an individual breaking free of the costly cycles
of homelessness, unemployment, and, often, criminal recidivism. Most
people eligible for Work Works have a history of cycling in and out of
government systems including frequent contact with the criminal justice
system. The publicly funded programs include foster care, shelters,
prisons, and drug treatment centers--costing tax-payers billions of
dollars each year. Work Works' holistic design, innovative model, and
work-oriented culture provides an opportunity for individuals caught in
these cycles to truly change their lives.
Even before participants graduate into full-time jobs and housing,
they are reducing strain on the community. From the day they join a
Work Works program, they are integrated into the workforce through
their employment in social enterprise demonstrating the real
contribution they can make to the community. They are earning and
saving money, contributing to the economy, are out of prison and off
the streets.
In addition to the cost savings and graduation numbers, Work Works
has significant impacts on the individual including but not limited to
increased self-esteem, improved health, and family reunification.
With policy support and funding, Work Works can be deployed quickly
to make an immediate, measurable impact on communities of all kinds.
Our recommendations include:
Recognizing the holistic model of Work Works--which
combines employment, housing, and supportive services--as a
new, necessary category of the continuum of care that brings
multiple benefits to communities in need.
Broadening the current, restrictive definition and on-the-
ground implementation of Housing First. Setting policy for a
broader view of housing first to allow complementary efforts
for communities to provide and fund congregate living/
transitional housing for special populations.
Allocating funding to the Work Works model that can be
accessed by States, counties, and municipalities for the
purpose of launching and sustaining transitional paid work,
coupled with housing and support.
Leveraging funding from a broad range of sources--including
Federal agencies and private/public ventures--to support Work
Works, given that its holistic approach not only addresses
homelessness but also offers economic development, workforce
development, behavioral health care, reentry services, and many
more benefits.
By investing in human capital, the Work Works model has the
potential to move hundreds of thousands of people off the streets each
year into jobs and housing. Our vision is to advance economic and
racial justice while saving hundreds of millions of dollars for the
communities we empower through our cost-effective Work Works solution
that integrates previously marginalized communities into the mainstream
economy in order to break cycles of poverty, homelessness, and
incarceration.
Thank you for this opportunity.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHRYN MONET
Chief Executive Officer, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans
July 19, 2022
Chair Smith, Ranking Member Rounds, and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee: On behalf of our Board of Directors and Members
across the country, thank you for the opportunity to share the views of
the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV) with you. NCHV is
the resource and technical assistance center for a national network of
community-based service providers and local, State and Federal agencies
that provide emergency, transitional, and supportive housing, food,
health services, job training and placement assistance, legal aid and
case management support for thousands of homeless, at-risk, and
formerly homeless veterans each year. We are committed to working with
our network and partners across the country to end homelessness among
veterans.
Eighty-two communities and three States have achieved the Federal
Benchmarks and Criteria for Ending Veteran Homelessness. While veteran
homelessness decreased by 50 percent between 2010 and 2020, HUD's 2020
Point-in-Time Count data revealed a slight uptick in veteran
homelessness to 37,252 individuals on any given night. Decreases in
veteran homelessness were made possible over the last decade due in
large part to Congressional investment in key Federal Programs,
implementation of evidence-based solutions like Housing First, and
dedicated coordination at the national and local level.
I'd like to first touch on why people experience homelessness. At
its very core, homelessness is caused by a fundamental mismatch between
the availability of affordable housing in a community's housing market
and an individual's ability to pay for housing. According to HUD, the
average rental price has increased by 4 percent annually over the last
decade and a staggering 66 percent between 2010 and 2020. Yet the
Federal minimum wage has remained unadjusted since 2009. This mismatch,
paired with weak social support networks and institutional and systemic
racism, has been the major driver for the nationwide rise in housing
instability that we have seen over the last several years.
Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID years have taught those of us working on homelessness
many lessons. Homeless service providers pivoted programming;
reimagined what was possible for veterans; reconfigured space in
congregate settings; worked incredibly hard to keep veterans in their
communities safe from COVID; and moved as many veterans as possible
into permanent housing.
Now that many communities are out of an emergency response posture
and are getting back to prepandemic practices, it is more important
than ever that we work to address the underlying causes of housing
instability. The confluence of rising inflation rates in our current
economy, the housing affordability crisis that we are experiencing, and
the wind down of pandemic assistance programs like ERA in many
communities is exacerbating housing stability challenges for the
general population and veterans alike who have far too little income in
tight housing markets.
Now is the time to:
create permanency among programs, particularly those for VA
that were authorized through the end of public, State or local
health emergencies;
continue to implement lessons learned,
double back to address persistent barriers slowing the
housing placement process and perpetuating inequities; and
focus on research and data analysis to improve our
understanding of how to close gaps in support for veterans, and
key populations of veterans in particular.
As we look toward the future, we need to proactively ensure that we
have solutions available to meet the needs of veterans. That means
scaling up interventions that create a housing-focused system in
communities while also ensuring the availability of crisis-response and
treatment options for those who need them. It is no secret that the
version of prepandemic normal so many of us experienced was one that
exacerbated inequity and homelessness is but one glaring symptom of
those challenges. While growth in the unsheltered population requires a
focus on providing crisis response services like shelter and outreach,
we also need to address the root causes of their homelessness rather
than utilizing law enforcement as the default response to a social
problem. We need to commit at a national, and local level, to investing
in and improving our own communities around the issues causing veterans
near us to become homeless. This means addressing systemic &
institutional inequities, partnering with unorthodox bedfellows who
could close gaps, addressing the shortage of affordable housing, and
shoring up support for homelessness prevention and housing stability
resources.
Rising inflation rates, the housing affordability crisis that we
are experiencing, and the wind down of pandemic assistance programs
like ERA in many communities have created a perfect storm for increases
in veteran homelessness. This confluence of risk factors will create
housing stability challenges for people and veterans alike who have far
too little income in tight housing markets.
The Housing Supply and Affordability Crisis
The lack of affordable housing is one of the biggest challenges
that service providers face as they work with veterans who are exiting
homelessness. The National Low Income Housing Coalition reported \1\
that nationwide, there are approximately 36 units available for every
100 individuals searching at 30 percent of the area median income. This
forces extremely low income veterans into paying more rent than they
can afford and making hard choices between housing and food or
utilities or other essential needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://nlihc.org/gap
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only is there a shortage of affordable housing, but that
shortage has been driving nationwide rent increases. The July 2022
National Rent Report from Apartment List \2\ found that rents increased
by over 17 percent in 2021 and by another 5 percent in 2022 to date.
The average renter is facing a shortage of units and higher prices,
increasing their risk of falling into homelessness. While the lack of
affordable housing is a contributing factor to veteran homelessness,
neither this problem nor its solutions are unique to veterans. Congress
needs to invest in affordable housing production, subsidies to ensure
that low income veterans and civilians can afford housing, and
additional supports to help with housing stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/national-rent-data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services and Supports
Despite the gap in affordable housing, it is unlikely that we will
be able to build our way out of homelessness quickly enough to meet the
needs of people experiencing homelessness today. Development takes
time, and it is no easy task to make projects on the affordable end of
the market pencil out for developers. These realities set the stage for
one of VA's top 5 priorities of moving an additional 38,000 unsheltered
veterans into permanent housing by the end of 2022.
NCHV thanks Congress for supporting VA's homeless programs by
creating flexibility, offering new spending authorities to meet
emergent needs, and ramping up the capacity of VA programs during
COVID. Utilizing section 4201 authority under the recently passed
Isakson/Roe P.L. 116-315, 80 VAMCs have been able to provide services
for an additional 29,883 veterans during COVID as well as provide
transportation for an additional 26,712 veterans as of 6/30 of this
year. It is worth noting that VA has seen that much of the program's
expenditures have occurred in the past three months. The need for
sufficient funding must be incorporated into non-emergency
appropriations and authorizations as we move away from COVID-specific
emergency funding. If we are to move out of this emergency while
continuing to decrease veteran homelessness, VA must implement program
expansions enacted earlier this year, and begin planning to incorporate
program changes included in current legislative proposals before
Congress.
The Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program has been making adjustments to
program grants and has awarded two rounds of capital grants for
providers to de-congregate these transitional housing facilities during
COVID in accordance with improving the public health risk. These grants
should be continued and expanded to include facility improvements
beyond emergency needs and the end of emergency designations. The daily
per diem rate must also be addressed. At the sunset of the public
health emergency declaration, the maximum reimbursement rate GPD
providers can receive will drop from $152.73 to $60.06 a day. This rate
is intended to provide overnight housing, meals, and wraparound
services and supports for homeless veterans. NCHV recommends Congress
pass S. 2172, or the House companion H.R. 5606 to directly address
these issues.
The Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program's
shallow subsidy initiative has recently been adjusted, increased and
expanded nationwide due to its apparent success during the pandemic.
Yet, exactly because of COVID there is a dearth of information on how
many veterans utilized the Treasury Department's ERA, and other
resources, making it harder to get our arms around the true scope of
the challenge in a data-driven method. NCHV is supportive of this
expansion and has recommended further study and data collection to
gauge effectiveness incorporating recent program operation updates.
The HUD-VASH program has been a successful best practice, due to
the pairing of a section 8 voucher with case management to connect
veterans to services and supports that will help them remain stably
housed. The acute nature of veteran needs in this program is exactly
why this pairing has been so successful. The availability of, and
access to, case management services through the Nation's largest
healthcare provider, VA's VHA and the Medical Centers (VAMCs) and
Community based Outpatient Centers (CBOCs) throughout the Nation has
been successful where VA is able to staff and or contract for case
managers to administer the program. Despite the program's successes,
work can be done on two fronts. First, to improve the case management
veterans are able to access. Second is that vouchers have become more
challenging to use due to the housing affordability crisis and the
stigma that some landlords have against accepting section 8 vouchers as
a form of rental payment. A veteran may finally get a voucher in hand,
only to have no place to rent.
Staffing for both VA and providers remains a challenge. There are
only so many qualified providers available in any given region, with
even fewer graduating each year. This means that the community
healthcare providers, VA, and service providers are all recruiting from
the same pool, exacerbating staffing issues. NCHV will continue to work
with Congress and VA to address this issue.
In Summation
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your
continued interest in ending veteran homelessness. It is a privilege to
work with all of you to ensure that every veteran facing a housing
crisis has access to safe, decent, and affordable housing paired with
the support services needed to remain stably housed.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CATHY TEN BROEKE
Assistant Commissioner and Executive Director, Minnesota Interagency
Council on Homelessness (MICH)
July 19, 2022
Chairwoman Smith, Ranking Member Rounds, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I am Cathy ten Broeke, Assistant Commissioner and Executive
Director of Minnesota's Interagency Council on Homelessness. I am
honored to be here.
The Minnesota Interagency Council on Homelessness is a cabinet-
level body led by our Lt. Governor, Peggy Flanagan, and cochaired by
the members of the Governor's cabinet leading our housing and human
services programs and policies. It is comprised of the leaders of 13
State agencies with the understanding that they all have a role to play
in preventing and ending homelessness--whether removing barriers to
employment, education, or transportation; providing high-quality
housing; or access to health care, supports and services. Minnesota has
a strong history of bipartisan leadership on the issue of homelessness.
The first statewide effort to address the issue was in 2004, led by
Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. The work of the following two
Democratic administrations has built on the commitment that all
Minnesotans deserve a safe and stable place to call home.
I have worked on the issue of homelessness for nearly 30 years,
first in direct service at a Minneapolis shelter followed by various
public policy roles at all levels of government. I have witnessed
progress, missed opportunities, lessons learned, and heartbreak. We
have in this moment, in the wake of the pandemic, a critical
opportunity to shift how we respond to homelessness as the crisis and
public health emergency that it is.
Today, I want to share with you what is working in Minnesota and
where we still have significant challenges to address together.
Minnesota is home to 87 counties and 11 Tribal nations.
Homelessness and housing instability impacts every part of the State
from rural areas in Greater Minnesota to the larger population centers.
Approximately 8,000 people are homeless on any given night in
Minnesota. Half are families with children and 25 percent are people
without shelter--meaning they are sleeping outside, in cars, or other
places not meant for human habitation. This number and percent have
been rising for the last several years, even before the pandemic.
Approximately 35-40 percent of all people identified as homeless are
outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area in rural areas of our State.
In fact, the fastest rate of growth in unsheltered homelessness between
January 2019-January 2020 occurred in Greater Minnesota. Rural and
Tribal communities have the same challenges related to lack of
affordable housing options but often struggle with the unique
challenges associated with far greater distances people must travel to
get to services and employment opportunities.
In addition to the approximately 8,000 people homeless on any given
night in Minnesota, one-in-four Minnesota households is paying more
than they can afford for housing, putting them at risk of homelessness
every day. Over the last two decades median rents rose 21 percent while
median incomes rose by just 3 percent, adjusted for inflation. No
community in our State has an adequate supply of affordable housing for
those who need it.
And we are living with the continuing impact of racism in access to
housing. Explicitly and intentionally racist policies of the past are
compounded by the complex and insidious way that racism shapes access
to housing options today, and the economic and wealth-building
opportunities connected to them. In Minnesota, if you are Black, you
are 15 times more likely to be homeless than a White Minnesotan. If you
are Native American, you are 27 times more likely to be homeless than a
White Minnesotan and 31 times more likely to be sleeping outside,
without shelter.
Our work to prevent and end homelessness in Minnesota shows uneven
progress. Not surprisingly, where we have had bi-partisan, strategic
investment from all levels of government we have had the greatest
success. Our best proof that ending homelessness is possible is our
collective work to end Veteran homelessness in this country. With
dedicated resources focused on Veterans' specific needs and using data
and evidence to guide practice the outcomes have been stunning. In
Minnesota, we have effectively ended Veteran homelessness in 85 of our
87 counties. This does not mean that no Veteran will ever again face a
housing crisis in these counties. Rather, this means that these
communities have proven, through a rigorous data evaluation conducted
by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and United
States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), that they have a
system in place that can prevent homelessness for Veterans whenever
possible. If a Veteran does become homeless, those communities can
ensure that the instance of homelessness will be brief, and they will
be connected back to stable housing with supports they need to maintain
that housing. Being a Veteran in Minnesota is now a protective factor
against homelessness. I look forward to the day when being a child or
youth is a protective factor against homelessness, when having a
serious health condition is a protective factor against homelessness,
when working in lower-paying jobs that we desperately need filled in
this country is a protective factor against homelessness, and when your
race does not increase your likelihood of becoming homeless.
In Minnesota, we have also been able to increase resources and
supports for families with children. Many communities have used these
resources strategically to reduce homelessness among families with
children--down 32 percent statewide between the years 2010-2020. We
credit these reductions, especially in Hennepin County, which includes
the City of Minneapolis, to targeted prevention, coordination with
employment services, and investments in families with the highest
barriers to accessing housing. These efforts have meant that many
families either never entered the shelters due to their housing crisis,
or if they did, they had targeted interventions to help ensure they
found and kept their new housing. Our thanks to HUD for the emphasis
they have placed on targeting and prioritizing resources to those with
the greatest barriers. This directly led to reductions in family
homelessness.
Other trends in Minnesota are deeply concerning. The number of
people sleeping outside has been rising rapidly for the last several
years, even prior to the pandemic. As housing becomes increasingly out
of reach for lower-income people, it
becomes next to impossible to access for people with both the lowest
incomes and the greatest health needs. People in these unsheltered
settings experience the greatest risks from fire, infectious disease,
violence, and exploitation. This was also where we see the greatest
intersection with the opioid epidemic and highest barriers to housing.
The housing that will work for people who have been homeless the
longest and have chronic health conditions may need to include a
greater number of services and supports. Permanent supportive housing
(housing linked to services) has been the most successful tool we have
had to help hundreds of people off the streets and into housing, even
those who have been homeless the longest. We have learned over the
years (and especially during the extra challenges brought on by the
pandemic) that all people are ready for housing. We need housing that
is ready for them.
The pandemic, while devastating and traumatic, was also a moment of
great learning. Minnesota's collective response to COVID-19 for people
facing homelessness showed the urgency and resourcefulness one would
hope a crisis would create. We witnessed what was possible when
resources were paired with creative determination to save lives and
bring people inside.
Federal resources provided by Congress through the CARES Act and
the American Rescue Plan helped us save lives during the pandemic. When
the pandemic hit, we were deeply concerned that thousands of people
living with complex medical conditions in congregate spaces would get
very sick and potentially die.
Prior to the release of Federal COVID-19 resources, our State
legislature committed over $30 million to protect people experiencing
homelessness. In partnership with local governments, Tribal nations,
and direct service providers throughout the State, we quickly
established 2,800 hotel rooms or other single occupancy shelter spaces
to allow for physical distance, provided emergency staffing support,
food and supplies, isolation spaces, and additional State housing
support. The increased resources helped a struggling hospitality
industry, ensured medical personnel in hotels, on-site clinical
behavioral health staff, and culturally specific programming. These
resources expanded shelter services and created a hotel-to-home model,
connecting people staying outdoors with permanent housing. These hotel-
to-home projects partnered with Tribes and nonprofits in both the Twin
Cities Metro and in rural areas of the State, moving entire encampments
into hotels, and moving several hundred people into permanent housing.
While lives were no doubt saved, it was also very clear during the
pandemic that people without a place to be inside and safe were at a
far greater health risk. In fact, compared to other Minnesotans who
tested positive for COVID, Minnesotans sleeping outside are 11 times
more likely to end up in the hospital if they tested positive for COVID
and 8 times more likely to end up in the ICU.
During the height of the pandemic, when there was a ``stay at
home'' order, we witnessed many people seeking refuge in encampments in
Minnesota as in many places around the country. The largest of these
encampments was at a neighborhood park in south Minneapolis. At one
point there were over 200 tents. To respond, we needed a different
approach. One of our housing providers who had been assisting us with
protective hotels went to the encampment and talked with almost every
person staying there. Through that process and a collaboration that
involved the city, county, State, and philanthropy, they developed a
program called Avivo Village. This is essentially an indoor village of
small structures where each person has their own space, a door they can
close, privacy and dignity. It was intentionally designed to serve
people that no other existing program worked for. Their goal is to
prioritize people with the greatest challenges to enter this program.
At Avivo Village there is a sense of community and connection, and the
main goal of this program is to move people onto permanent housing
options that will work for them. They have been able to do that for
dozens of residents. This is one example of many in Minnesota, showing
the creativity of partners in solving for some of our most significant
challenges during the pandemic.
In addition to the resources that helped protect people in shelters
and outside, Federal rental assistance during the pandemic was critical
to stemming the tide of homelessness. We knew people were struggling to
pay rent and find housing that was affordable before the pandemic, but
we have seen increasing needs over the course of the pandemic.
Minnesota paid out nearly $450 million in Federal Emergency Rental
Assistance Funds through RentHelpMN. Funding went to every county in
Minnesota. Over the months the program operated, we saw that need for
assistance continue to increase.
Hennepin County reported that over 1,000 fewer children experienced
homelessness in 2021 (during the pandemic) than did in 2019 (before the
pandemic). The dramatic and accelerated reductions they saw in 2020 and
2021 are credited to the widespread availability of rental assistance.
Sadly, as those Federal resources come to an end, we are seeing a
return to our 2019 rates of family homelessness. The correlation could
not be clearer. Rental assistance works. When it is not there, the
number of people experiencing homelessness rise.
The level of Federal investment during the pandemic has given
Minnesota the opportunity to show what is possible. It has transformed
many aspects of our work together. Federal partnership in tackling the
challenges ahead will be critical to our success going forward.
1. The homeless response workforce is overwhelmed and underfunded.
More and sustained Federal investments in housing and
homelessness program are needed.
The workforce challenges we are seeing everywhere are also
impacting homeless services. These providers have never been well paid.
Staffing shortages not only undermine overall capacity but also
efficiency and effectiveness as crisis services must focus on the bare
necessities of keeping their doors open, rather than the work of
providing case management and housing navigation. The scrappy
nonprofits running these vital programs must have a way to attract,
develop, and retain talent. This is hard to achieve without increased
funding.
While more investment in the homeless crisis response is critical,
homelessness is not a problem that homeless service providers can solve
alone. Homeless service providers are like an emergency room, dealing
with the crisis of the moment. But just as we would not expect an
emergency room to solve the Nation's health problems, our homeless
service providers cannot make up for the lack of housing needed to
solve the problem.
2. Housing is out of reach for the lowest-income Americans. We need
to increase the supply of housing as well as its affordability
by making bold investments in rental assistance.
Every year the need for housing that is affordable to lower-income
Americans outpaces the production of units at those needed price
points. The result is a net loss. In Minnesota alone, we are short
nearly 100,000 units of housing for the number of households at 30
percent and below area median income ($35,200 for a family of four). As
the gap between what housing costs and how much low-income people earn
continues to grow, homelessness will continue to grow.
Most evictions in Minnesota are based on nonpayment of rent. Often,
relatively small amounts of money are needed to prevent homelessness
for a family and ultimately even greater public costs. In Hennepin
County, for example, the average amount of rent owed is just over
$4,000. Simply put, rental assistance keeps people, including children
and their parents, in their homes during periods of a financial crisis
and avoids the trauma of homelessness and the costs that comes with it
to society, both immediate and long-term.
3. People with complex medical conditions, including substance use,
mental illness, and other physical health issues are not well
served in existing systems or interventions. We need increased
investments and a stronger alignment of social services, health
care, and housing.
The opioid epidemic is at the epicenter of the most challenging
situations around unsheltered homelessness. We desperately need to
develop and invest in models to serve people who are actively using
opioids. Models that promote easier access to housing and harm
reduction principles can provide much needed options to bring people
inside.
4. Our system to prevent and end homelessness for Veterans works. We
need to sustain that commitment and expand it to reach all
populations.
Developing a system to end homelessness will require investment,
aligned efforts across levels of government and private sector
partners, and policy changes designed to improve access to housing
outcomes for people who face the greatest challenges to housing now. A
system to prevent and end homelessness that works for everyone cannot
be its own island. As with the example of ending Veteran homelessness,
it needs strong and deep connections to address the health and
behavioral health care that contribute to and complicate people's
housing challenges. The Federal Government must play a prominent role
for it to be successful.
All these solutions will require that we center the voices and
experiences of people who have faced homelessness. They are the experts
in what works.
In these nearly 30 years of work on this issue, I have never
stopped believing that in Minnesota and in this country, we can achieve
the vision that all people have a safe place to call home; that
children and youth need not sleep in cars one night and go to school
the next day, but rather be home preparing for exams and play dates and
their future; that we can live in a State and in a country without
homelessness. This is a problem we know how to solve. It is not a
question of can we but will we.
During the pandemic, we have witnessed the life-saving work of
shelters and outreach workers. And we also know that while shelters do
save lives, housing is what ends homelessness. The resources that were
invested to respond to the pandemic taught us all what was possible. We
can prevent homelessness. We can bring people home. We can protect
children from the trauma that homelessness brings. We can provide
people the care they need and deserve. I believe this is the very
moment to be bold, to build on what we just did together, to not go
backward, to not take incremental steps that will only prolong our
national housing crisis, but rather to make bold new investments and
commitments that will ensure a more stable future for all of us.
It is my hope that we continue to respond with the same level of
urgency we have seen these last 2 \1/2\ years, recognizing homelessness
as the public health emergency that it has always been. Recognizing
housing not only as a social determinant of health but also a social
determinant of educational achievement, workforce growth, and
neighborhood, community, State, and national well-being.
Thank you.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMIE KIRSCH
Board Member, Journey On
July 19, 2022
Good Afternoon, my name is Jamie Kirsch and I am a current Board
Member of Journey On and an employee of the Rapid City Police
Department where I serve as nonlaw enforcement in community engagement.
I don't represent the Native community but I do represent a Native
organization. Journey On selected me to testify today because of my
special knowledge of its Street Outreach Program and my experience with
the Federal grants processes in the area of houselessness. I was
directly involved in establishing Journey On's Street Outreach Program,
serve on the Black Hills Regional Homeless Coalition and am a member of
the South Dakota Housing and Development Authority Policy and Advisory
Committee.
Journey On was incorporated as a nonprofit in 2018 by Founder and
President Tracy Sigdestad who is a member of the Mohawk Tribe. In early
2020, Journey On was focused on youth mentorship and substance abuse
recovery programming in Rapid City's Native American community.
Realizing the need for greater collaboration and coordination with
Native led organizations after participating in its 2018-2020
Collective Healing Initiative, the Rapid City Police Department (RCPD)
approached Journey On to see if they would consider building capacity
for a community-initiated response to Rapid City's growing houseless
community.
As part of RCPD's 2020 Community Based Crime Reduction Grant
through the Bureau of Justice Administration, which was developed as a
continuation of the Collective Healing Initiative, it was essential to
address houselessness given that approximately 65 percent of the calls
for service to RCPD were generated by the houseless community. Many of
these calls for service required social service responses, not criminal
justice responses, through violence and victimization very much follow
this community. The high call volume related to the houseless community
resulted in low morale among patrol officers because officers are not
equipped with the tools needed to address the varied causes of
houselessness or the resources needed to provide sustainable solutions.
In short, these calls were creating burn out at the individual level
and resource drain at the institutional level. Given these factors,
RCPD felt Journey On was a much-needed partner for its post-CHI focus
on public safety strategy.
Over the next year-and-a-half, a core group of partners from
Journey On, the City, RCPD and The University of South Dakota applied
for a Housing and Urban Development Emergency Solutions Grant-Cares Act
Funding to launch Journey On's Street Outreach Program. Journey On was
successful in securing ESG-CV funding and until recently, this grant
has funded over 75 percent of its outreach efforts. In January of 2021,
the Mayor of Rapid City and the City Council approved a contract with
Journey On to expand the role of Journey On in the City's emergency
response strategy, funding three full-time positions dedicated to
responding to calls for service and two City vans to conduct outreach
in. This contract marked the first time City emergency services were
handed over to a community organization; a point that cannot be
overstated given its essential role in advancing Collective Healing
Initiative priorities of allowing for greater roles for Native-led
organizations in the city's power and resource infrastructure.
Since early December 14th, 2021, Journey On has been responding to
calls for service through 911 dispatch and has taken 4,877 calls for
service involving the houseless community through July 9th of this
year. The call types that Journey On responds to are welfare checks,
intoxicated subjects, panhandling and other low-level calls. Journey On
operates as part of a larger coresponse team that includes the Rapid
City Police Departments Quality of Life Unit (a small team of
ununiformed officers and nonlaw enforcement staff), the Rapid City Fire
Departments Mobile Medic and Co-Response Coordinator, Native-led Great
Plains Tribal Leaders Health Board (behavioral health support),
Pennington County Health and Human Services and Volunteers of America--
Northern Rockies (for housing navigation and case management).
Journey On methods of outreach engagement follow three main paths:
1. Journey On is dispatched as a coresponder serving Rapid City
through Pennington County Emergency Communications (the 911
system). We work under a contract with Rapid City and are
responsible for calls for service from the community to the 911
system in the areas of intoxicated persons, welfare checks,
unwanted persons, and public disturbances. In responding to
these calls for service we are helping to reduce the reliance
on law enforcement to respond to situations that are better
handled by community responses to community public health and
public safety challenges.
2. Journey On is accessible to the entire community through calls
for service to the Journey On telephone number. We maintain
internal dispatch operators handling the many calls to the
Journey On phone line each day. From these calls, outreach
teams are dispatched, resources are navigated, and solutions
are sought that serve our community in reducing violence and
victimization. All calls to the Journey On phone line that
require an outreach response by a Journey On outreach team are
coordinated with the 911 system to avoid the stacking of
multiple calls on any single outreach team.
3. Journey On conducts proactive outreach. We are out in the street
6 days per week seeking to support our relatives and assist our
coresponder partners. Most of our proactive outreach is
designed as early intervention work, identifying potential
needs for community responses, and preventing later calls for
service to the 911 system or the Journey On phone line. A small
percentage of our proactive outreach involves holding meetings
to share our model with community stakeholders, businesses, and
similarly focused service providers to ensure effective
collaboration and the broadest understanding of our mission and
available services.
(Please see attachment 1 for a breakdown of the estimated cost
savings to the City.)
Currently, Journey On has 13 employees on its Street Outreach Team.
All but one of these team members is Native American; all have lived
experience with houselessness, the criminal justice system or
addiction; most are from the North Rapid area, where the largest
percentage of the Native American community resides. Each of Journey
On's Street Outreach Team members are considered credible messengers
and use a culture forward approach to service individuals and families
in need. Team members provide community members with access to sage
burning (or smudging), cultural music, and familiar ways of
interacting. Journey On's Outreach Program has a plethora of community
partners they can refer to who have Inipis, Talking Circles, and a host
of other culturally relevant services to offer those who desire
cultural as a cure or as solace from behavioral and developmental
health disabilities. The lived experience and the culture-forward
approach is what makes Journey On's Street Outreach Team so well-
positioned to respond to the houseless community.
The Journey On Outreach Program is a human-to-human contact
program, providing folks first with an opportunity to develop a trust-
based relationship with someone who can help them navigate the service
system when they are willing and ready to make that choice. The model
for the program was informed by Community Violence Intervention (CVI)
work done by the Newark Community Street Team developed by Aqeela
Sherrills that puts public safety in the public's hands. It is a
community based public safety model. Sherrills was first invited to
Rapid City as a technical assistance provider for the Collective
Healing Initiative and has been providing technical assistance,
networking and mentoring to RCPD and Journey On for over 2 years now.
More can be learned about community safety partnerships that adopt this
model, including in Los Angeles, CA, Newark, NJ, and Rapid City, SD, by
reading the research reported submitted in support of this testimony in
Attachment Three: ``Collective Healing and Community Safety
Partnerships.''
Most of Journey On's Board members (with the exception of two) are
Native American, one of whom is a young person who once served on the
Youth Advisory Board. The current Director of Operations, Toby
McCloskey, is also Native American. Our Native American community
members don't believe in the stigmas that come with the concept of
homelessness and prefer the terms houselessness, houseless relatives.
Journey On currently operates Monday through Saturday from 7:30 am to
10:30 pm and is looking for ways to extend their work 24/7/365.
Engaging the broader community and involving them in solutions was
an essential step for Rapid City. Partnering with Journey On as a
viable option for folks to call on to respond to issues involving the
houseless community has improved
community and RCPD officer moral, it has proved a successful
intervention for the houseless, and is becoming part of a successful
national movement of community safety partnerships.
Locally, through the partnership with Volunteers of America,
Journey On, Rapid City Police Department, and The City of Rapid City,
our community developed the ``We Connect Business Toolkit'' to guide
community responses to many challenges presented by houselessness in
Rapid City. The 29-page booklet focuses on educating members of our
community about the houseless population, Native American culture,
mental health challenges, appropriate responses, and many other topics.
Included in the toolkit was a quick reference response guide,
displaying who to call in what situations, and a window cling with a QR
Code to direct folks on how to donate or get more involved. Since many
of our calls involving the houseless community are generated by the
business community, it was important that they see themselves as part
of the solution and to know that they have tools that they can utilize.
(Please see Attachment Two: ``We Connect Business Toolkit'').
Journey On is also working on expanding its programs to include a
Safe Passage program to guide and provide support for youth going to
and from Rapid City's most vulnerable schools and a Youth Homeless
Demonstration Project grant to support houseless community members who
are under 24-years old. Both new programs are deeply rooted in the
community safety partnership model working formally and collaboratively
with both Native and non-Native community partners of LGBTQ family
Connections Center, Wambli Ska, and Volunteers of America.
Key Challenges
Working with the houseless community is very difficult and creates
high burn out among outreach staff. Federal funding does not allow for
staff to receive paid time off, mental health days, and provides no
avenue for health care or retirement benefits. The 10 percent de
minimus rate is far too low to accommodate the needed staffing
resources to run a team effectively or to meet the administrative
burden created by data tracking requirements of Federal grants. Federal
grants also don't support important executive roles and other
administrative staff needs, as Federal grants with reimbursement
structures only pay for services rendered.
Journey On struggles to offer competitive salaries to executive
staff, especially when the organization also cannot provide benefits.
The Federal grants that fund Journey On don't allow for team members to
take advantage of training or professional development as they usually
only pay for services rendered. The reimbursement-based nature of these
Federal grants makes it very difficult for organizations--especially
those that are small, minority led, and exist in rural or smaller urban
settings--to secure Federal grants and maintain them. In Tribal, Native
urban, and in rural setting--there are typically no corporate, or
university connections like in larger urban settings. For programs like
Journey On, the upfront investment dollars just aren't there.
Very few of the local corporations or philanthropic organizations
can invest the start-up money needed to support younger community
organizations. The one local philanthropic organization that can fund
larger amounts won't fund any organization that hasn't been a
registered 501(c)3 for at least 5 years. And then, once you reach that
threshold, the largest grant you can secure in the first year is
$25,000, which isn't even enough to cover the cost of one full-time
outreach position for Journey On. Lastly, while the HUD ESG-CV grant
was the primary source of funding for Journey On over the last 2 years,
that will no longer be the case because the CV dollars that have
facilitated Journey On's successful start are gone. South Dakota will
resume getting its traditional $630,000 to $640,000 per year for the
entire State with a cap on grant amounts at $80,000 this year. This
funding level is far below what Journey On secured to start the Street
Outreach Program and is substantially less that what it needs to
sustain its vital services to the community at-large. The greatest
challenge to Journey On over the next several months will be capacity/
staff development, funding, and continued/responsible growth.
Developing organizational and operational capacity for community-
based organizations like Journey On is incredibly difficult and time
consuming. When Journey On agreed to develop a Street Outreach Program
for Rapid City, they had one employee, no functioning Board members,
and no sustainable revenue streams. Journey On did not have an employee
handbook or any operational policies and protocols. Over the last 2
years, a collective group of working board members have invested an
incredible amount of time to develop capacity for Journey On. This is
still very much a work-in-progress. Journey On is one of three local
organizations working with the White House on the Community Violence
Intervention Collaborative (CVIC). Through CVIC, Journey On, Wambli
Ska, and I Am Legacy are receiving technical assistance and mini-grant
support to grow their capacity. This initiative started at the
beginning of 2022 and is set to end in December. CVIC has helped
somewhat, but capacity building is a hands-on mentoring process that
requires a great deal of resources. Like with any new business venture
or innovative idea, the upfront financial and capacity investment is
important, though, we don't often think of investing in innovation in
our nonprofit/community sector quite like we do in the private sector.
The White House CVIC initiative needs much more funding over a much
longer period of time to support the types of local innovations it has
set out to create and support.
Community organization capacity building is just one piece of the
equation--there are system-wide gaps that need to be addressed to truly
reduce the need for emergency response/emergency room department visits
and create to sustainable solutions for the houseless community. Some
examples of gaps:
1. We have very few options for emergency housing. Volunteers of
America is able to help a few folks with emergency housing
vouchers but it is limited at best. According to the 2022 Point
in Time Count, there was a 30-40 percent increase in the amount
of houseless individuals/families in South Dakota. The total
number of unsheltered houseless individuals in our State is
342. Rapid City reported 35 percent (120) of that total,
whereas Sioux Falls reported 6 percent (20) of that total. The
overall number of houseless counted in the State was 1389. Just
Rapid City's portion of that was 31 percent (458) and Sioux
Falls was 29 percent (407). For reference, the population size
of Rapid City is 74,703 according to the 2020 census and Sioux
Falls reports a population size of 192,517--that is more than
2.5x the population size of Rapid City. This communicates a
clear sheltering gap in West River, South Dakota communities.
Additionally, for the 2021-2022 school year, the Rapid City
Area Schools McKinney Vento program identified 760 youth
enrolled in the RCAS school district that did not have homes.
Traditionally, West River Communities secure only 6 percent of
the Federal funding coming to the State of South Dakota to
address homelessness. There are many barriers to accessing this
funding. One such barrier is that the cost of administering
this funding is sometimes greater than the overall awarded
amount to an agency.
2. It is our understanding that the Federal Government has
disinvested in transitional housing. While we understand the
housing first model, some folks are not ready to go straight
into permanent housing--even supported permanent housing from
the street. Folks who are not used to living in a home on their
own need to re-learn (or learn for the first time) how to care
for their home, they need to create new social networks, and
they need to learn new routines and methods to comply with
rules. To achieve any of these individually, it is important
for folks to have structure and daily mentorship. When those in
need of these services are scattered across several different
housing structures across town it can be nearly impossible to
keep up with the supports needed for success.
3. Affordable housing is nonexistent in Rapid City. Rapid City is
3,000 affordable housing units short of what it needs to serve
those who need homes. The current waiting list for the South
Dakota Housing and Development Authority's rehousing programs
is 180-people long and Pennington County Housing has maintained
a waitlist of 3,200 people for years. The majority of those
placed into SDHDA housing programs are single female led
households (66 percent), with 65 percent reporting a
disability. In Rapid City it is nearly impossible to
incentivize developers to get involved in affordable housing
projects. Market rate apartments are going at such a premium
and developing in the Black Hills is cost-heavy. There are very
few Federal incentives that developers can take advantage of to
develop enough inventory to address the affordable housing
needs. The result is extremely long wait lists that provide no
practical solutions for most of our houseless community
members.
4. Houseless prevention is an important component of the spectrum of
houseless services. It is far more cost effective to keep
individuals housed than it is to respond them once they become
houseless. Helping folks remain housed prevents youth from
being exposed to this form of trauma and the ongoing impacts it
has on a young person into their adult lives.
5. The Point In Time Count does not allow communities, especially
Tribal communities in Western South Dakota, to capture those
who are housing insecure settings. More, the PIT Count
certainly does not allow us to capture houselessness in the way
that our Native American community members experience it. In
Rapid City, only 15 percent of those who were identified during
the 2022 PIT Count in South Dakota were considered chronically
displaced as defined by a report of homeless for 3 years or
more. Most of our houseless community is living in hotel or
slum housing from week to week, are couch surfing or are
doubled up. Many of those living in our Tribal areas don't have
access to any form of emergency shelter and are living
sometimes 20 people to a one-bedroom home. Some of these homes
are not fit for human habitation, having no roof or siding to
keep it safe from the elements. In Tribal communities some
locations used as housing don't have plumbing, running water,
electricity, or trash collection.
6. Once a person makes the choice to address their addiction, it can
sometimes take up to 6 weeks to get individuals in for a drug
and alcohol assessment, which means folks are, in most cases,
living on the street trying to stay sober while waiting for
their assessment. As you can imagine, we lose quite a few
people to this gap. Additionally, we have very few options for
local addiction recovery programming. Most options are several
hours away and many have no transportation to get to these
programs. Very few recovery programs will accept children,
meaning we have to separate families or folks choose not to go
to recovery. We also have no options for Native-led or culture
forward inpatient addiction recovery programming.
7. Medicine management is key to helping folks stabilize both
medically and mentally. It is incredibly difficult to address
housing insecurity if someone is in a mental health crisis or
isn't managing their diabetes well. In Texas, they have a
program designed to address high utilizers of 911 and 35
percent of their clients are simply just needing help managing
their medications. Having the ability to address this need
through a coresponse or crisis response effort would have a
significant impact on reducing emergency responses or
presentations to emergency departments.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIR SMITH
FROM ANN OLIVA
Q.1. In your testimony, you highlighted that Congress could
consider two requests made by HUD related to the Continuum of
Care programs: first regarding the statutory cap on planning
dollars and second allowing for a 2-year Notice of Funding
Opportunity. Could you please elaborate on why these changes
would be helpful?
Second, are there other similar, small but meaningful
changes to the Homeless Assistance Grants programs that would
be helpful?
A.1. The backbone of the Nation's homelessness crisis response
system and permanent supportive housing stock are HUD's
Homeless Assistance Grants programs. Congress should continue
to invest in these core programs and provide increased and
sustained funding for efforts to address unsheltered, rural,
and Tribal homelessness. In addition, the Alliance urges
Congress to consider two requests made by HUD in their Fiscal
Year 2023 budget request:
1. To increase the statutory cap on planning dollars for
Continuums of Care (CoCs), and
2. To allow HUD to issue a 2-year Continuum of Care Notice
of Funding Opportunity.
These fairly straightforward changes will help CoCs in
several ways.
The statutory cap on planning funds for CoCs was set by
Congress in 2009 as part of the reauthorization of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and was appropriate at
the time. However, as funding for homelessness activities has
diversified over the past 10 years--including significant
investments made as part of the Nation's COVID-19 response--the
planning funds made available for CoCs are no longer adequate
to meet the need. CoCs are often the local subject matter
experts on homelessness and are needed as key partners for a
variety of funded programs and organizations, including Public
Housing Agencies, HOME participating jurisdictions and other
State/local formula funding recipients. Increasing the cap
would allow for more robust information sharing, planning and
collaboration between partners, and facilitate better outcomes.
Because CoCs have responsibilities related to the planning
and operation of much more complex systems than were in place
when McKinney-Vento was reauthorized in 2009, they also need
more time to be thoughtful and intentional. The statutory and
administrative requirements for the annual CoC competition are
enormous and time consuming for both HUD staff and CoC leaders/
recipients. Moving to a 2-year renewal cycle (while still
allowing for newly appropriated funds to be awarded annually)
would allow CoCs to properly plan and conduct more robust
collaboration rather than preparing for what can often feel
like back-to-back competitions for renewal funding.
The Alliance also urges Congress to make small but
meaningful changes that will allow Tribes to more easily
participate in the CoC program. The CoC program requires
structure and knowledge that many Tribes do not yet possess
because they have not been historically eligible for the
program. Therefore, capacity building and other formative
activities should be eligible as part of the process of
engaging with Tribes.
Also see the response below on providing for COLA increases
for frontline staff.
Q.2 How should policymakers balance the need to collect data
and appropriately steward taxpayer funding in Federal programs,
while also ensuring that small, often under-resourced nonprofit
organizations can carry out good and important work in their
communities?
A.2. This is an important question. We must be able to both
sustain nonprofits currently doing important work to end
homelessness and create new partnerships and opportunities for
smaller nonprofits--especially those in underserved
communities.
The Alliance's surveys of CoCs show consistent reports of
employee shortages in homeless service and housing
organizations. In a May 2021 survey, 72 percent of CoCs
reported shortages in frontline shelter staff; 69 percent had a
shortage of case managers; and 62 percent had shortages in
street outreach workers. The organizations reported the cause
of the challenges as stress, exhaustion, and low morale;
illness; family responsibilities; and fear of COVID. It should
also be noted that homeless services staff typically receive
relatively low salaries for very difficult and challenging
work. A recent study found that the average shelter staff
member earned $24,000 per year, and the average permanent
supportive housing staff member earned $36,000 per year. Low
pay may be another reason that it is difficult to keep staff.
Staff shortages are not the only capacity issues for CoCs
and the organizations that they fund. With the challenges of
working through a period of constant change as COVID numbers
rise and fall, guidance changes, multiple new initiatives are
introduced, immediate results are expected, and new
partnerships must be formed--years of these compounded hurdles
have worn down many program staff. Although they appreciate and
welcome the resources and share the sense of urgency, in many
localities they are overwhelmed.
The following offer concrete examples of actions that
Congress could support to help maintain a healthy balance
between accountability and the desire to engage more partners
in the work to end homelessness at the community level.
Fund critical programs at scale. Nonprofit service
providers are increasingly asked to do more with the
same or fewer resources, and tight funding allocations
make it hard for newer organizations to access funds or
even build the capacity needed to access Federal funds.
This situation could be alleviated by funding the
needed housing and services resources (like HUD's
McKinney-Vento programs and Housing Choice Vouchers) at
a scale that better meets the need, and could include
incentives to partner with smaller, community-based
nonprofits that are located in underserved areas.
Include regular cost of living increases for
operations and supportive services staff. The CoC
program includes annual funding adjustments for rental
assistance, leasing and operations line items--all tied
to any increases in the annual Fair Market Rents.
However, there is no such corresponding increase for
supportive services or HMIS--line items that primarily
pay for staffing. Therefore, funded programs have not
gotten increases for staffing in many years. We urge
Congress to provide for COLA increases for these
critical staff positions to allow for more equitable
pay and minimize staff turnover.
Capacity building activities and planning funds to
engage new partners. Funds for capacity building
activities, especially for underserved, rural and
Tribal areas, would help build capacity over time and
encourage meaningful partnerships between CoCs and
smaller community-based nonprofit organizations.
Evaluate the impact of regulatory and statutory
waivers provided in COVID-19 response programs and make
effective waivers permanent. Many of the waivers and
alternative requirements implemented through the
programs funded as part of the COVID-19 response
provided flexibility to programs and funding recipients
so that programs were easier to operate and could be
more nimble in rapidly changing environments. Congress
should evaluate the efficacy of the waivers provided,
and make those waivers that increased the speed at
which assistance was provided and promoted equitable
outcomes permanent.
Fund permanent eviction/homelessness prevention
programs. In 2009 due to the Great Recession and again
in 2020 due to COVID-19, communities were forced to
create new eviction/homelessness prevention programs--
like the Emergency Rental Assistance Program--from the
ground up. Congress should consider a permanent program
dedicated to this purpose that could be scaled up when
needed, which would decrease planning time and be able
to respond to need quickly in the event of another
crisis.
Q.3. What are the hallmarks of successful conversion projects?
How should these projects be incentivized?
A.3. The Alliance commissioned Mary Tingerthal, the longtime
former Minnesota Housing Commissioner, to conduct independent
reviews of conversion projects in several jurisdictions. Ms.
Tingerthal now works as an independent consultant and continues
to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing
as a board chairman of the National Housing Trust and a board
trustee of the National Community Investment Fund, among other
things. Ms. Tingerthal's reviews are included on the Alliance's
website: https://endhomelessness.org/resource/hotels-to-
housing-case-studies/.
Following are several hallmarks of successful conversion
projects, as indicated in Ms. Tingerthal's case studies:
Flexibility in program design allows for a wide
range of communities to meet the goal of providing
housing for people experiencing homelessness that best
reflects their local needs.
Local public entities are needed to step up with
significant financial and technical resources to match
the resources provided by the State in order to make
projects work.
Imposition of serious deadlines for the use of
Federal funds can be very effective at overcoming
typical barriers and in creating thousands of units of
housing in a short period of time.
Availability of technical assistance to aspiring
applicants is critically important.
Streamlining the bureaucratic process can be very
helpful. For example, ``the State statute establishing
(California's) Homekey contains a specific provision
which provides that any project receiving a financial
award from the CRF for uses under Homekey was deemed to
be consistent and in conformity with any applicable
local plan, standard, or requirement, and allowed as a
permitted use, within the zone in which the structure
is located, and shall not be subject to a conditional
use permit, discretionary permit, or to any other
discretionary reviews or approvals.''
Partnering with Housing Authorities is strongly
encouraged.
With respect to incentivizing conversions, best practices
that were identified include:
``Operating support and reserves are important to
the overall strategy of converting hotels/motels,
vacant property, or commercial office/retail into
housing and successfully positioning the sites in the
broader community and service portfolio.'' Operating
funding continues to be a big question mark for
California's Homekey. Projects are able to access State
funding for the initial 2 to 3 years. Afterwards,
communities will have to identify new sources of
funding.
``Accessing traditional funding sources such as tax
credits, bonds, and gap financing is critically
important to encouraging public entities and developers
to become involved in supportive housing.''
``Access to vouchers, preferably to project-based
vouchers, but also to tenant vouchers, helps to
solidify rent payments and support the project.''
A robust, existing network of community-based
housing nonprofits that are ready to identify potential
properties, and to develop, own and manage new housing
is invaluable.
Q.4. How can the Federal Government forge better connections
between Medicaid and our housing and homelessness systems?
A.4. Providing health care and behavioral health services for
people experiencing homelessness and housing instability--as
well as those living in supportive and affordable housing--is
important to the work of ending homelessness. However,
connecting these systems remains a challenge in many
jurisdictions. The Alliance recommends the following actions
that would help support and strengthen these connections at the
State and local levels:
Continue to enhance Federal Medicaid matching funds
for home and community-based services (HCBS) that
strengthen programs to help address the complex needs
of people experiencing homelessness. States also need
Federal assistance to build capacity to integrate
systems that can respond
adequately to varying needs. Working across systems can
be
challenging and locales will need support in building
multiple partnerships to navigate programs like HCBS,
housing and other connected interventions.
Extend the Money Follows the Person (MFP) program
beyond 2023.
Provide continued flexibility in 1,115
demonstration waivers to allow States to test new ways
of providing care.
Incentivize States that are contracting with
Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) to require
coordination between health plans and community-based
organizations/housing organizations.
Provide Federal grants to facilitate data-sharing
between housing, health, and other cross-sector
partners: Data-sharing can help organizations identify
if they have shared clients or if there are high-need
communities who are not well served. Technical
assistance and resources are needed to support these
types of exchanges.
Create a funded liaison position at the Federal
level to manage the work of building relationships with
new partners--someone who can speak the lingo of other
sectors, and who can formalize relationships and roles
between partners.
Promote/revisit the Innovation Accelerator Program
(IAP). Specifically, review how much the State
Medicaid-Housing Agency Toolkit from the IAP has been
utilized and identify successful components to further
build out.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARNOCK
FROM ANN OLIVA
Q.1. Can you quantify the effect the eviction moratorium had on
preventing homelessness during the pandemic? Are there data you
can point to that support your answer?
A.1. Eviction does not necessarily directly precede
homelessness. In many cases, households facing eviction access
all the resources and relationships they can in order to avoid
homelessness for as long as possible. The pandemic may have
changed this dynamic, but not enough research has been
completed yet to understand exactly how the eviction moratorium
or other pandemic relief measures impacted homelessness.
Princeton's Eviction Lab routinely provides data and
analysis on evictions in select cities and nationwide. In
particular, this article assesses eviction prevention policies
at the State level during the pandemic. This analysis looks at
trends after the CDC eviction moratorium expired.
While much research about the impact of the eviction
moratorium on homelessness is underway, we would urge
consideration of a paper called Feedback Dynamics of the Low-
Income Rental Housing Market: Exploring Policy Responses to
COVID-19, research carried out by the University of Nevada at
Las Vegas, Washington University in St. Louis, and Case Western
Reserve University. A summary is available on the National Low
Income Housing Coalition's website: Research Finds Eviction
Moratorium and ERA Reduced Evictions/National Low Income
Housing Coalition (nlihc.org).
This research (https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12647?context=cs)
ultimately estimated that the Federal moratorium had reduced
evictions by 51 percent prior to its expiration at the end of
July 2021. Notwithstanding the moratorium's success, arrearages
continued to accumulate, households continued to overcrowd, and
homelessness increased--reminding policymakers that a
moratorium on evictions can be a very useful tool, but it is
only one of many tools necessary to address the twined crises
of affordable housing and homelessness, whether in an
extraordinary pandemic or simply in an economy which
historically has failed to produce millions of units of
affordable housing and in which rents consistently exceed
wages.
Q.2. You noted in your testimony that the Point-in-Time Count
was interrupted in 2021 due to the pandemic, and, as a result,
the number of people experiencing homelessness is unclear. When
can we expect more up-to-date data to help us better understand
the issue at hand?
A.2. As noted in your question, the Point-in-Time Count that
typically takes place in January (and is the only enumeration
that includes people who are unsheltered) was not fully
conducted in 2021 due to the pandemic. As a result, the number
of people currently experiencing homelessness is not clear.
The Alliance conducted several surveys of the Nation's
Continuums of Care (CoCs) during the pandemic, and respondents
reported the following:
the number of shelter beds significantly decreased
as shelters followed Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) guidance to ``decompress;''
most CoCs believed that unsheltered homelessness
had increased; and
though many people from shelters and unsheltered
locations were placed in motel/hotel rooms for
quarantine and isolation, those incremental beds did
not make up for those lost through decompression.
Continuums of Care were required by HUD to conduct a full
Point-in-Time count this past January. We expect that the 2022
national report will be available by the end of the calendar
year, although individual communities are releasing their data
publicly.
HUD also recently released the longitudinal data from 2019
and 2020, called the Annual Homeless Assessment Report: part 2.
That data can be found here: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/
datasets/ahar/2020-ahar-part-2-pit-estimates-of-homelessness-
in-the-us.html.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIR SMITH
FROM KATHRYN MONET
Q.1. In your testimony, you shared that the COVID-19 era
flexibilities put in place with respect to caseworkers under
the HUD-VASH program have been very helpful. Can you please
elaborate on why extending these flexibilities would be
helpful?
A.1. Flexibility has been integral in improving access to case
management and supports for veterans. For example, improved
telehealth capabilities have revolutionized the way case
managers can interact with their clients when transportation is
limited for the individual or the distance from medical center
is excessive. These flexibilities have allowed VA to provide
services and benefits to rural veterans more efficiently,
particularly in communities facing staffing shortfalls due to
location or access issues. These pair with the flexibilities
for the other homeless programs like the Supportive Services
for Veteran Families (SSVF) program's ability to cover a
broader range of telecommunication devices and transportation
options, expanding access to these telehealth services through
our service providers as well. SSVF also has had the ability to
provide for housing navigators which have been integral in
placing veterans quickly from the rapid rehousing of
individuals in hotels and motels, and to get them HUD-VASH
Vouchers if eligible and eventually into permanent housing. In
addition, Grant and Per Diem (GPD) providers in some
communities have received approval to offer short-term case
management to veterans in need who are enrolled in or recently
graduated from HUD-VASH.
Q.2. A bipartisan succession of Presidents have focused on
ending homelessness among veterans, and they've had
considerable success. From 2010 to 2019, homelessness among
veterans' was cut in half, as a result of funding commitments,
better coordination of services, and a commitment to effective
models like Housing First. Despite this progress, there's more
we must do to address veterans' homelessness. What do you
believe Congress should be doing keep up the progress made over
the last decade?
A.2. Congress must deal with short-term crises and look to
issues with long-term lens and recognize that many of those
housed during that period of considerable progress are still
utilizing these homeless programs. Additional short-term crisis
response needs include a higher reimbursement rate than $60.06
a day for Grant and Per Diem providers to house a provide
services for a veteran, low-barrier options, with longer term
investments in program maintenance until the services are no
longer needed. Congress should look proactively at deep
investments in affordable housing and incentivization of both
developers and landlords to participate. We must maintain
services to those currently supported by the programs on the
books, and then expand capacity by enhancing those programs for
currently ineligible veterans or creating entire new programs
to provide them these wraparound services. VA has systems that
assist over 107,000 veterans a year with their homeless
prevention and transitional housing programs. To continue to
make progress in reduction of veteran homelessness we are going
to have to expand the eligibility of current programs to the
remaining subsets of veterans or envision entirely new programs
that will prevent and assist those veterans that are currently
homeless. To truly service all veterans that vision would even
need to include removing barriers for more subpopulations based
on discharge status, race, gender, and age.
Q.3. How can we apply the lessons learned in addressing
veterans' homelessness to addressing homelessness in other
communities?
A.3. Key lessons learned in efforts to end veteran homelessness
include the importance of collaboration at the Federal and
local levels especially with continuity of outcome reporting
and interdepartmental systems integration; the importance of
leadership in galvanizing a community or Nation around a shared
goal like the administration's House America campaign and VA's
recent pledge to house an additional 38,000 veterans by the end
of the year; and the importance of ensuring that key components
of the response system were adequately resourced with Federal
funding. NCHV supports $3.6 billion in overall funding for the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homeless
Assistance Grants and $32.1 billion for Tenant Based Rental
Assistance. Making sure that affordable housing is available
for individuals, paired with access to services remains a
priority. Where with VA, the housing is provided mostly in the
private sector but it is paired with world class health care
from the VHA.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR WARNOCK
FROM KATHRYN MONET
Q.1. You noted in your testimony, ``According to HUD, the
average rental price has increased by 4 percent annually over
the last decade and a staggering 66 percent between 2010 and
2020.'' Are there any immediate solutions to help veterans and
low-income renters so that we can prevent fewer families from
falling into homelessness? Do you believe offering a tax credit
to rent burdened individuals would help keep more service
members and their families housed?
A.1. Additional PHA (Public Housing Authority) and landlord
incentives for current programs to augment their uptake of
vouchers as participation is by choice. Ramp up the contracting
out of case management so we can start addressing VA's capacity
issue. VA is a healthcare system, not a housing provider, if we
contract out most of the other housing-based programs it may
make sense to better integrate the service providers case
management capabilities per congressional intent.
Yes, a tax credit would assist in stemming a good number of
individuals from becoming homeless and those at risk, yet it
will not have the same effect for those who have already, are
in the process of losing their homes, and only for failure to
pay their landlord or mortgage.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF CHAIR SMITH
FROM CATHY TEN BROEKE
Q.1. Thanks to the Federal eviction moratorium, millions of
individuals and families were able to stay safely in their
homes and not fall into homelessness or housing instability at
the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. How critical was the
eviction moratorium for Minnesota's work in responding to
homelessness?
A.1. We have no doubt both the Federal and State eviction
moratoriums not only prevented mass displacement and
homelessness but saved lives. In addition to the Federal
moratorium, Governor Tim Walz also issued Executive Order 20-14
on March 14, 2020, which suspended all evictions, writs of
recovery, and tenancy terminations during the peacetime
emergency. On June 5, 2020, Executive Order 20-73 was issued,
which clarified the application of
Executive Order 20-14. Then in early summer of 2021, the State
legislature and the Governor agreed to an ``offramp'' that
protected households from having an eviction filed against them
while they had a pending application to RentHelpMN (Minnesota's
rental assistance program funded by ERA1 and ERA2). The
protections were phased over the course of the next year and
ended completely on June 1, 2022. Perhaps the clearest (and
most troubling) evidence of the effectiveness of the eviction
moratoriums and emergency rental assistance is now that the
State and Federal moratoriums have ended and Federal funding is
not available, there has been a steady increase in eviction
filings throughout the State, with some areas exceeding
prepandemic levels.
Q.2. This Subcommittee also oversees public transportation
policy, and thinking about housing and transit together is
important for understanding both issues. For transit to be
effective, it needs to reach people's homes and jobs,
healthcare facilities and grocery stores. And for affordable
housing to be truly affordable, especially in rural areas, it
needs to be accessible by transit. I support Senator Ossoff's
bill to create a joint HUD and FTA grant program that would
support the mutual development of housing and transit, and I
think this would be an excellent tool to increase the supply of
housing. How do you see the connections between transit and
homelessness?
A.2. We see the connection of housing and transit as vital and
would be very interested in new resources that are intentional
about connecting these services. Minnesota Housing has a long-
standing principle that ``Housing development must be part of a
comprehensive community development effort that links housing,
jobs, transportation, recreation, retail services, schools, and
social and other services'' and that ``Housing must be
developed near regional and interregional transportation
corridors and transit ways.'' A good example of this priority
is the opportunity for applicants seeking Housing Tax Credits,
which are Minnesota's largest source of capital to preserve and
develop affordable housing, to gain significant points in our
State's Qualified Allocation Plan by prioritizing transit and
walkability. Additionally, for prospective supportive housing
developers the agency provides resources and information, which
strongly recommends that transportation is either provided or
easily accessed.
Q.3. In Minnesota, housing for Native and Tribal communities is
very limited, whether in urban areas or on Tribal lands. A
recent HUD study found that overcrowded housing was a real
challenge for Native communities, and often resulted from
individuals having nowhere else to go for housing--and is a
phenomenon closely related to homelessness. To me, this is an
example of how solutions for Native and Tribal communities need
to be culturally competent and in tune with the unique needs
and challenges in these communities. How has overcrowding in
homes in Native and Tribal communities been addressed?
A.3. We wanted to hear the perspective of our Tribal partners
and consulted with several representatives on this question.
Here were their responses:
``I believe that being culturally responsive to housing
on our lands is a need (not only our lands but across
the United States). Dollars are needed to build more
housing as more and more of our people want to come
back home to live and be a part of the community.''
``Housing on Fond Du Lac reservation has been difficult
due to the drug epidemic, COVID with turning houses for
new rental due to short staffing and material costs.
The problems our reservation has seen before the
epidemic and pandemic was the background of individuals
with felony convictions. A person coming out of prison
with serious convictions will never be eligible for
housing even after serving their time or being
rehabilitated. These are the crowded homes.''
``The funding for Federal Indian housing programs has
been virtually frozen for decades, in violation of the
promises made in treaties Tribes signed with the
Federal Government in the 19th century. When Tribes
ceded millions and millions and millions of acres in
exchange for all that land that was worth a fortune,
the Tribes got forever to have all their health care
taken care of, all their education needs taken care of,
all their infrastructure taken care of. We always see--
the trickle-down effect. By the time the actual dollars
get to the Tribe, it's such a small pot of money. It's
like, jeez, why did we go through all of these
administrative hoops? And we end up with this. But for
now, we're doing what Indian country always does during
a crisis--taking care of our own with what resources we
have.''
``This is a generational problem. Homelessness is
byproduct of much bigger problems. Our relatives have
to live with multiple generations in one unit because
there are no other options. There is a massive shortage
of housing for Native American Indians. Not only
because we don't have the means to pay for it due to
the poverty that most of our relatives endure but that
most of the land is no longer ours and it makes it
difficult to even find property to build on.''
While there is more to do, there are a few things Minnesota
Housing has done and will continue to build upon. The agency
regularly consults and works with the 11 Tribal nations located
within Minnesota's borders to better understand needs, adapt
policy and funding to be responsive, and increase capacity to
preserve and build housing in Tribal communities. Development
funds are regularly awarded to Tribal nations through our
annual Consolidated Request for Proposal process. An Indian
set-aside was created in our State appropriated Economic
Development and Housing Challenge program, which provides a set
amount of funds every 2 years available exclusively for the 11
Tribal nations in Minnesota. The agency is also working with
the legislature to amend enabling
statute to clarify Tribal nation eligibility for all agency
appropriated programs.
------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF CHAIR SMITH
FROM JAMIE KIRSCH
Q.1. Can you share some examples of why programs that are
culturally relevant, and those that have been developed by and
for Native people are important?
A.1. It is impossible to talk about why programs that are
culturally relevant are important without discussing the
historical trauma that has occurred in the Black Hills area,
and across our Nation over centuries. This acknowledgement of
history is critical and fundamental to any community which
decides to employ strategies geared toward community safety
partnerships. Without this acknowledgement, the value of
culture in addressing systemic issues like houselessness,
community violence and cycles of poverty is overlooked and
minimized, and therefore, less effective. In an effort to
acknowledge our history, I will quickly lay out the context
within which we attempt to solve the issues of houselessness,
violence and poverty in the Rapid City area.
Generally, there exists a deep distrust between the Native
and Non-Native communities throughout Rapid City. The Fort
Laramie Treaty of 1868 established the Great Sioux Reservation
and designated the Black Hills as ``unceded Indian Territory''
for the exclusive use of Native peoples. But when gold was
discovered in the Black Hills, the United States reneged on the
agreement, redrawing the boundaries of the treaty and confining
the Sioux people--traditionally nomadic hunters--to a farming
lifestyle on the reservation. It was a blatant abrogation that
has been the center of legal debate ever since.
In June 1874 General George Custer led an expedition to
search for gold in the Black Hills. By 1875, some 800 miners
and fortune-seekers had flooded into the Hills to pan for gold
on land that had been reserved by the treaty exclusively for
the Indians. Lakota and Cheyenne warriors responded by
attacking the prospectors, which led the United States to pass
a decree confining all Lakotas, Cheyennes, and Arapahos to the
reservation under threat of military action. That decree not
only violated the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, but it flew in
the face of Tribal ideas of freedom and threatened to destroy
the way of life for the Northern Plains Indians.
The conflict set the stage for the famous ``Battle of the
Little Bighorn'' in 1876 where Custer made his last stand and
the Sioux Nations were victorious--their last military victory.
The following year, Congress passed an Act that redrew the
lines of the Fort Laramie Treaty, seizing the Black Hills,
forcing the Indians onto permanent reservations and allowing
the United States to build roads through reservation lands. In
the years that followed, the Great Sioux Reservation continued
to lose territory as White settlers encroached on their land
and the expansion of the United States marched steadily on.
In 1896, not long after the redrafting of the Great Sioux
Reservation territorial lines, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) made the first purchase of land for the Rapid City Indian
School, which by 1906, grew to 1,200 acres. By the 1920s,
enrollment grew to as many as 340 students with enrollment
periods lasting 3 years. Like other on- and off-reservation
boarding schools built in the late nineteenth century, the
Rapid City Indian School was designed
explicitly to destroy Indian Tribes by separating children from
their families and cultures, while training them to live as
laborers or farmers. While treaties between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes had created reservations across
the Midwest and western United States, Congress and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs were determined to eliminate the reservations
and end treaty obligations as quickly as possible, by
destroying Tribes as cultural and political entities. One means
used to attack Tribes was to break up Tribal landholdings on
the reservations into small, individual parcels, and also allow
non-Native families to purchase them, through the policy of
allotment.
The other strategy intended to destroy Indian Tribes was to
remove Indian children from their parents, and raise them
instead in Government-run boarding schools, with the intention
that the children would lose their Tribal identities, and
assimilate and disappear into the general population. Kept from
contact with their families for extended periods of time in a
harshly regimented boarding school environment, children were
forbidden from using their native languages, and the practice
of their customs and religions. The disciplinarian and matrons
could beat children, and before the BIA banned the practice,
students could be confined to cells or cages. Children
sometimes ran away from the school, but were seldom able to
avoid being captured and returned. Most runaways tried to
return home, and were quickly caught by reservation police.
Some children suffered horrific injuries in their attempts to
escape the school. Many school attendees suffered death at the
hands of tuberculosis, small pox, and the Spanish flu. The
location of the remains of children who died at the Rapid City
Indian School is often unclear, for the school kept minimal
records of student deaths, rarely recorded causes of death, and
made no effort to record the disposition of students' remains.
This backdrop serves as the context within which we attempt
to address issues that disproportionately affect the Native
American community--issues such as houselessness, higher rates
of violent crime and overrepresentation in the juvenile and
criminal justice system. Rightly so, many community
conversations focused on engaging Native American buy-in hinge
on the historical fact that the land that Rapid City resides
upon was unfairly taken from the Native American community. The
experiences of those family members who spent time in boarding
schools is still fresh and the many atrocities that have been
suffered as a result of ``assimilation'' has scarred
generations of Native American families. Today, Native
Americans continue to suffer at the hands of blatant racism
across all facets of the community.
Traditionally, the North Rapid community is largely
distrustful of city government and local law enforcement, as
well as traditional service provider systems. There is a sense
that many of the services offered are not supportive of Native
American community interests or integrate cultural competency
into the design of their programming. There is also a sense
that Native American voices are not represented at the table
when key decisions are being made or when strategies are being
developed. For the above reasons, which are relevant both
historically and currently, it is important that we be
intentional about including the Native experience in the design
of programs, particularly those that are meant to serve Native
populations.
There are a multitude of innovative models to pull from
across the country such as in Los Angeles, CA, and Newark, NJ,
where credible messenger programs have been successfully
employed to reduce violent and gang-related crime, rates of
houselessness and to address systemic issues in the criminal
justice system. And it is from these models and through
acknowledging the history of our community--both good and bad--
that we have been able to employ our own Native-led and Native-
informed initiatives to address complicated issues in Rapid
City. Journey On is Native-led and staffed organization
currently partnering with the City and other community
organizations to provide a culture-forward and social service-
oriented response to the houseless community. Outreach workers
all have lived experience with houselessness and the criminal
justice and/or service systems. All staff members have lived in
our most violent neighborhoods and are considered credible by
those they conduct outreach with. Journey On keeps cultural
medicines with their outreach teams such as sage, cedar,
tobacco ties, and traditional music for those who choose that
method of healing. Journey On also works with a network of
Native-led and non-Native led agencies to support the needs
that houseless community members have (i.e., food, housing,
cultural healing ceremonies, mental health--both Native and
non-Native options, addiction recovery, etc.).
Marginalized communities can successfully direct their own
public safety outcomes. Native-led, or minority-led strategies
are effective because they include the perspectives of those
most affected by the issues they are trying to address. They
have first-hand knowledge, as a Native person or a minority, of
what it is like to navigate these systems and have developed
their own methods on how to be successful in these systems.
They understand why families don't access things like free
after-school programs and they understand the family networks
that exist to keep these neighborhoods and communities alive.
The credible messenger movement has emerged based on a core
belief that communities have within them transformative
resources to lift up those who are struggling with
houselessness, are justice-involved and trying to overcome
cycles of poverty and violence in a comprehensive and positive
way. Initiatives that are led by communities themselves boast
results such as: Increased family engagement with programs and
services, reduction in re-arrests, violations, and antisocial
behavior, increased compliance with court mandates, improved
relationships between system stakeholders and community members
and increased community capacity to support system-involved
families. The credible messenger movement is emerging based on
a holistic, comprehensive approach to justice that transforms
and improves individual lives, rearranges the relationship
between communities and the justice system, and empowers
neighborhoods to use the resources they have within to maintain
public safety. Using this people-forward perspective, the
credible messenger approach seeks to build trust and inspire
change from within communities so that they can feel positive
about possibilities rather than facing a future of frustration.
From the same background and speaking the same language,
credible messengers are able to break through to these
individuals and form powerful, transformative, personal
relationships. With the development of trust over time, they
provide communities a living example of hope and opportunity
and are able to equip them with new tools, or reconnect them
with traditional Native tools, to manage their emotions and
behavior and thus change their lives.
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
LETTER SUBMITTED BY CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ST. PAUL AND MINNEAPOLIS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MEMORANDUM
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]