Request for Mandatory Funding for the National Housing Trust Fund

The President’s budget request to Congress today includes $1 billion in mandatory funding for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD’s) National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF). President Obama has requested $1 billion in mandatory funding for the NHTF in his last four budgets but has not specified sources. The NHTF would not be funded on the discretionary side of the budget where it would compete with HUD’s housing programs for funding. While $1 billion is not sufficient to meet the need for homes affordable to the lowest income households, it is important that the White House continue to show support for the National Housing Trust Fund to meet the housing needs of the nation’s lowest income households.

Request for Discretionary Spending for HUD, USDA Rental Housing Programs

On the discretionary side of the budget, the request for HUD programs partially restores funds to programs cut in recent years and attempts to maintain funding for existing tenants. However, the budget proposes significant cuts to block grant programs.

The request includes increases over the FY13 enacted level of $1 billion for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance, nearly $1 billion for Project-Based Rental Assistance, $300 million for Public Housing Operating, and $200 million for Public Housing Capital. These programs were level or underfunded in FY13 and FY12 so the proposed increases would partially restore the current deficit of funding.

The President also requests an increase of more than $350 million for Homeless Assistance.

The President’s budget request is stronger for rental assistance than for housing production. The budget cuts the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, HUD’s primary currently-funded production program, to below the $1 billion mark.

The request for the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Housing programs is roughly level with the FY13 pre-sequestration funding amounts for the rental housing programs serving extremely low income households.

Budget Request Specifics

The Administration requests funding on the mandatory side of the budget:

• National Housing Trust Fund- $1 billion (Funding for the NHTF is separate from the HUD appropriations process.

For the HUD rental housing programs serving extremely low income households, the Administration requests:

• Tenant Based Rental Assistance- $19.989 billion, up from $18.940 billion (includes $75 million for Veterans Supportive Housing Vouchers, level funded and Section 811 Mainstream Vouchers at $111 million, down from $112 million)
• Project Based Rental Assistance- $10.272 billion, up from $9.340 billion
• Public Housing Operating- $4.6 billion, up from $4.262 billion
• Public Housing Capital- $2 billion, up from $1.875 billion
• Homeless Assistance- $2.38 billion, up from $2.033 billion
• Section 811- $126 million, down from $165 million
• Section 202- $400 million, up from $375 million

For HUD block grants, the Administration requests:

• HOME- $950 million, down from $1 billion
• CDBG Formula Grants- $2.798 billion, down from $2.948 billion

For rural rental housing, the Administration requests:

• Section 514- $24 million, up from $23 million
• Section 515- $28 million, down from $31 million
• Section 516- $14 million, up from $8 million
• Section 521- $1.015 billion, up from $907 million

For other housing and community development initiatives:

• Housing Counseling- $55 million, up from $45 million
• Choice Neighborhoods Initiative -$400, up from $120 million

Additional Information

FY14 Budget Chart: View a detailed chart of the HUD and USDA affordable housing and community development requests included in the President’s FY14 budget: http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/FY14_Budget_Chart.pdf

HUD FY14 Hearing Webcast: The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development will hold a hearing on HUD’s FY14 request on April 11 at 10am ET. The hearing will be webcast: http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/. HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan will testify.

For those families and individuals experiencing homelessness, possessing or obtaining the kinds of identification, such as a birth certificate or a Social Security card, necessary to obtain a government-issued photo identification card can be a significant barrier to voting.   In many cases, homeless voters cannot afford to buy a copy of their birth certificate or pay for transportation to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to get an ID card or go to the polls. Further, many homeless voters do not know they have the right to vote without having a permanent address.  This issue is gaining more attention since there has been an alarming growth in the number of homeless individuals and families since the recession began, due to record foreclosure rates and high unemployment.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2012 Point –in-Time survey, 636,017 individuals were homeless nationwide on any given night.  That same survey revealed that in Indiana, there were 6,259 individuals experiencing homelessness on any given night.  These individuals represent a significant number of eligible voters in Indiana, but based on NCH data, only about one-tenth of these individuals will exercise this right.  IACED members, who work with homeless clients directly affected by federal, state and local legislation and policies about housing, healthcare, transportation, and employment, can play a role in helping empower homeless voters.

We have prepared some information and links below providing context for these issues, clarifying current regulations and offering tools for our member agencies to engage in homeless voter outreach in the future.

Current Regulation in Indiana:

If you are registering to vote for the first time in Indiana by mail, a copy of an ID is required (photo not necessary). If a copy of an ID is not submitted, you will be asked to show it the first time you vote. When voting in person a photo ID is required.

Acceptable Photo ID is not specifically listed by law, but it must:

• Be issued by the state of Indiana or the U.S. government
• Show the name and photo of the voter
• Be current or have expired after the last general election
• If you are unable or unwilling to show a photo ID you may vote by provisional ballot. This photo ID can be obtained from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles free of charge for individuals who will or those who will be at least 18 years of age and eligible to vote in the next general, municipal, or special election.

The National Council of State Legislatures has prepared a tool that provides up-to-date information about each state’s voter ID laws, including any court decision that may affect these laws: http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx

For info on state identification cards, go to http://www.in.gov/bmv/2358.htm.

How can homeless-serving agencies engage their clients in the voting process?

Below, we have listed a few ways you can engage in voter outreach and raise awareness about your organization’s work with candidates for elected office:

• Let your clients use your agency as a mailing address for voter registration
• Provide transportation to a polling site on Election Day
• Organize a candidates’ forum and ask the candidates to address your issues
• Help clients to organize a candidates’ forum in your community
• Talk to your peers in other non-profits, and encourage them to involve their clients in the democratic process

As part of the “You Don’t Need a Home to Vote” project, NCH has prepared a comprehensive manual designed to help non-profit organizations engage in voter outreach and education.  http://www.nationalhomeless.org/projects/vote/Manual_2012.pdf

Each year, they also sponsor a National Homeless and Low-Income Voter Registration Week that homeless-serving agencies can participate in.  More information can be found here: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/projects/vote/index.html

The IBJ commended Gennesaret for its work in providing free health care to the homeless and uninsured population at nine locations throughout Indianapolis.

In the article, the IBJ states that Dr. James Trippi, M.D., a cardiologist with The Care Group at Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital, founded the organization in 1988.   Gennesaret served 2,000 patients that year.

Now, a staff of 14 and nearly 230 volunteers—physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists and non-medical volunteers—serve over 12,000 patients each year.  The organization now offers a broader range of services as well including dental care, respite housing, vision care, social work services, medications and medical supplies, and screenings and preventive services, such as early detection for breast and cervical cancer.

In 2000, Gennesaret launched its Health Recovery Program.  This program provides transitional housing to men after major surgery or medical illness.  In the article, Rebecca Seifert, the Executive Director of Gennesaret, noted that Gennesaret is the only organization in Indiana that provides medical respite for homeless men coming from the hospital.

IACED is proud of the important role Gennesaret plays in supporting Indianapolis citizens in need!

To read the full article, click here.

The bill, sponsored by the chair of the committee, Rep. Judy Biggert, (R-Ill.), amends the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) definition of homelessness to include children, youth and their families who are verified as homeless by designated school district liaisons, Head Start programs, and Runaway and Homeless Youth Act programs.

Further, the bill was amended during the Committee markup to require local homeless counts to include those children classified under the definitions listed in the bill.

The legislation was contained in the original version of the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition to Housing introduced by the late Congresswoman Julia Carson (D-Ind.) in the 110^th Congress.  While the HEARTH Act was eventually signed into law, negotiations in the House and Senate yielded weaker language regarding the definition of homeless children.

The enacted law does address children and youth, but includes restrictive and burdensome documentation that effectively denies HUD assistance to many vulnerable children, even though they meet the definition of homelessness as defined by other federal agencies.

H. R. 32 would streamline this qualification process by clarifying that all children and youth who are verified as homeless by other government agencies would be counted by HUD and eligible for shelter and supportive services.

On December 15, 2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation and included testimony from children and youth who experienced homelessness, but were not eligible for assistance under HUD’s current regulations.  IACED will keep you updated when the bill will moves to the full committee for markup.

We ask that our members who support this expansion call their Representative to ask them to cosponsor the bill and support its final passage in the House.  Currently, none of the members of Indiana’s congressional delegation have signed on as a cosponsor.  Both Rep. Andre Carson (D-Indianapolis) and Rep. Joe Donnelly (D- South Bend) serve on the Financial Services Committee that has jurisdiction over this legislation.

You may call (202)225-3121 for the U.S. House switchboard operator.

For a link to the archived video of the December 15 hearing, click here. http://financialservices.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=271819

To read an analysis by the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth on the barriers to service HUD’s current regulations present, click here. http://www.naehcy.org/dl/NAEHCYAnalysisTestimony.pdf

For a list of advocacy and trade organizations that support this legislation, click here. http://www.naehcy.org/dl/nationalgroups.pdf

H.R. 1743 requires this commission to identify properties and make sale recommendations to the administration. The president would then approve or disapprove these sales then Congress would have to pass a resolution approving of the recommendations before they take effect.  Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), the sponsor of the legislation stated that both parties reached an agreement on this provision in the bill that would allow for review of properties suitable for homeless providers, but House Democrats homeless advocate organizations widely expressed dissatisfaction with the amendment’s review process.  Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced a similar bill, S. 1503 , but it has yet to move forward in the Senate committee process.

To read the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty’s statement on the bill’s passage, click here.

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) notes that under current law, the GSA and the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) make suitable surplus properties available to private nonprofit organizations, units of local government, and States for use as facilities to assist the homeless. These properties are leased, deeded, or made available on an interim basis at no cost to approved homeless assistance providers.  (To read more on this process, click the following link for the HHS Program Support Center’s notes:  http://www.psc.gov/administrative/federalprop/titlev.html).

The Obama Administration also weighed in on the legislation through a Statement of Administration Policy(SAP) on issued yesterday.  The administration expressed concern regarding the legislation’s exemption for several large categories of property that the commission could not propose for sale and its limits on the ability to review the environmental impact of property sales.  Further, the administration took issue with the bill’s provision to require congressional approval of the commission’s recommendations. To read the full SAP, click here.

When the bill went to mark up, however, Rep. Denham clarified in a substitute amendment that federal surplus properties would no longer be subject to Title V of the McKinney Vento Act, which states that homeless shelter providers have preference in acquiring such excess property.

Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC), expressed opposition and attempted to strike the amendment, but those efforts failed in a roll call vote.  Rep. Denham’s substitute language was accepted, but he expressed a desire to work with Delegate Norton to craft a provision addressing the needs of the homeless before the bill goes before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform or the full House for a vote.

Twenty-eight states approved ten-year state-level plans between 2002 and 2008.  ICPH conducted 49 phone interviews with government and nonprofit representatives involved in the development and implementation of these plans.  The plans were created in response to the federal priority of ending chronic homelessness in a decade, defined by HUD as “unaccompanied individuals with a disabling condition who have been homeless for more than one year or who have had four or more episodes of homelessness in the last three years.”

The ICPH report finds that 26 of the 28 state plans include other vulnerable populations, such as families with children.  Respondents justify focusing on a larger target population by noting that a more inclusive policy may be better suited to the demographics of the state’s homeless population.  Families with children constitute the fastest growing homeless population today, and interviewees expressed unanimous support for broad-based plans that include multiple target populations.  ICPH agrees that plans must be tailored to local demographics of the homeless.

ICPH identified the following five additional areas for improving current and future plans.

• The need to identify realistic and quantifiable action steps to assist stakeholders implementing the plan’s recommendations and to ensure that resources are used efficiently.
• ICPH also found that 15 states do not report or intend to report on their plan’s progress; of the remaining states, only 3 already make regular reports.  The authors recommend that annual progress reports be made for all state programs to create accountability and transparency; such reports could also track changing demographics or policies that should affect next steps.  Regular reports help ensure the plan remains a living document that is sensitive to changing macroeconomic conditions.
• Of course, even the most detailed plan requires ongoing support from people throughout the community to be successful.  Collaboration was reported as one of the top three factors influencing goal implementation.  The involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in an interagency council, including those who are not typically engaged in homelessness services, improves the services provided and creates a stronger network for addressing policy gaps.
• ICPH notes the importance of executive leadership in prioritizing plans for ending homelessness.  Meetings stall when decision-makers are absent, so the presence of agency directors is important.  Gubernatorial support is especially critical for setting homelessness as a policy priority.
• With much of the work shared across agencies, ICPH’s final recommendation is for the appointment of dedicated support personnel who can take responsibility for coordinating meetings, writing progress reports, procuring funding, and performing other administrative work.  These functions are essential for the plan’s success but may be neglected by council members whose primary responsibilities lie elsewhere.

To read the full report, click here.

Out of Reach compares the Housing Wage, the minimum wage, and the average renter’s wage for every state, metro area, and county in the US. It defines the Housing Wage as the full-time hourly wage necessary to afford a two-bedroom unit at HUD’s estimated Fair Market Rent if no more than 30% of income is spent on housing. (Full-time work is defined as 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year; the average employee actually works 34.3 hours per week so would have to earn a higher hourly wage to afford the FMR.) Nowhere in the US is the minimum wage sufficient to afford a two-bedroom unit, and in only a few counties in Illinois and Municipios in Puerto Rico is the minimum wage enough to afford a one-bedroom unit. Out of Reach determines the number of full-time minimum wage jobs necessary to equal the Housing Wage.

The US Housing Wage is $18.46, an increase of 47% since 2000. The FMR for a two-bedroom unit is $960, over two hundred dollars above what the average renter, with an hourly wage of $13.52, can afford. Renters earning minimum wage would have to work 2.6 jobs to afford the FMR.  From 2005-2009, there were 703,556 renter households in Indiana, accounting for 29% of all households. The Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit in Indiana is $713. The average renter earns $10.76 per hour and would need to work 51 hours per week to afford the FMR. Indiana’s Housing Wage ranks 20^th in the nation at $13.70. The current Indiana Housing Wage is an increase of 32% since 2000. A household would need an income of $28,501 to afford a two-bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent. An Extremely Low Income household, defined as earning 30% of the area median income, only makes $18,307 so can afford only $458 in rent. A minimum wage earner can afford $377 in monthly rent; a renter would need 1.9 full-time minimum wage jobs to afford a two-bedroom unit at FMR.

These numbers vary across the state. In Indianapolis, the Housing Wage is $14.63; it would take two people working minimum wage jobs full-time to afford a two-bedroom unit. The highest Housing Wage for a metropolitan area is $15.67 in Gary, where it would take 2.2 full-time jobs at minimum wage to make a two-bedroom unit affordable. Lake, Newton, and Porter Counties have the highest Housing Wage by county, also at $15.67. The lowest Housing Wage in Indiana is $11.46 in a number of counties across the state, which is equivalent to 1.6 full-time minimum wage jobs.

The Pew Research Center found that over half of American workers were affected by job losses, reduced work hours, pay cuts and underemployment during the recession. Falling wages for low income households have not been compensated for by an increase in affordable housing; in fact, such housing has become more scarce. Demand for rental housing has increased as a result of lower incomes and the foreclosure crisis, and in 2009 there was a shortage of 3.4 million affordable units. The amount of affordable housing units actually shrank as units were converted to serve higher income tenants or demolished; from 2000 to 2007, Extremely Low Income households lost access to 900,000 units previously available to them at the same time as the number of ELI renter households increased by over a million. The authors warn of continuing and increasing challenges for low income households seeking affordable housing if these trends continue.

A key strategy within Opening Doors is to identify and promote the use of best practices to end homelessness. As a result, USICH is building a searchable database that will serve as a central repository for information on promising practices and innovative programs.  IACED members have a chance to contribute their best ideas.  Of primary importance is that you send 1) agency/program name, 2) location, and 3) topic area.

Download this PDF document with more information about the possible solutions. Send the best practice information to Kristy Greenwalt (kristy.greenwalt@usich.gov) with the US Interagency Council on Homelessness or via the postal service at:

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Attn: Kristy Greenwalt
409 3rd Street, SW, Suite 310
Washington, D.C. 20024

The number of chronically homeless individuals declined by one percent; the steady and continual decline of chronic homelessness reflects the success of local and federal efforts to implement best practices to serve chronically homeless people. The report also offers findings from annual prevalence data and the impact of the federal Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP)

Details of the report for Indiana include a homeless population of 6,452 persons in 2010.  The percent change from 2009 to 2010 was a decline of 7.62 percent in the overall homeless population.  The overall homeless population declined from 2007-2010 by 12.31 percent.  From a quick investigation of the data it appears that the St. Joseph County Continuum of Care accounted for the majority of the reduction, while the Indianapolis Continuum of Care and the Indiana Balance of State Continuum of Care were relatively flat.

Download the report here.