    [Senate Hearing 109-872]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 109-872

                       MCKINNEY-VENTO REAUTHORIZATION AND
                    CONSOLIDATION OF HUD'S HOMELESS PROGRAMS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

    EXAMINATION OF S. 1801, TO AMEND THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
      ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE ACT, AND PROVIDE FOR CONSOLIDATION OF HUD'S
                               HOMELESS PROGRAMS

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 30, 2006

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
                                    Affairs

       Available at: http: //www.access.gpo.gov /senate /senate05sh.html

    39-712 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2007
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office  Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
    DC area (202)512-1800  Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

                      RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman

    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
    WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado               CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska                JACK REED, Rhode Island
    RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania          CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    JIM BUNNING, Kentucky                EVAN BAYH, Indiana
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina       ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    MEL MARTINEZ, Florida

                 Kathleen L. Casey, Staff Director and Counsel

         Steven B. Harris, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel

       Joseph R. Kolinski, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator

                           George E. Whittle, Editor

                                     ______

                   Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation

                        WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman

                    JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ranking Member

    RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania          DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina       ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    MEL MARTINEZ, Florida                CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

                        Tewana Wilkerson, Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

                                                                       Page

    Opening statement of Senator Allard..............................     1

    Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
        Senator Reed.................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and
      Urban Development..............................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Response to written questions of Senator Shelby..............    48
    Philip F. Mangano, Executive Director, U.S. Interagency Council
      on Homelessness................................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................    28
        Response to a written question of Senator Reed...............    49
    Gail Dorfman, County Commissioner, Hennepin County, MN...........     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    32
    Steven R. Berg, Vice President for Programs and Policy, National
      Alliance to End Homelessness...................................    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
    Charles W. Gould, National President, Volunteers of America......    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Anthony Love, President/CEO, Coalition for the Homeless of
      Houston/Harris County, Inc.....................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    43
    Dennis Patrick Culhane, Ph.D., Professor of Social Welfare Policy
      and Psychology, University of Pennsylvania.....................    19
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
        Response to written questions of Senator Shelby..............    49

                  Additional Material Supplied for the Record

    Letter submitted by Ellen Bassuk, MD, President, the National
      Center on Family Homelessness dated March 28, 2006.............    51
    Statement of Martha R. Burt, Ph.D., Principal Research Associate
      and Director, Social Services Research Program, Urban Institute    54
    Statement of Gloria M. Guard, President, People's Emergency
      Center Philadelphia, PA........................................    69
    Statement of Carla Javits, President, Corporation for Supportive
      Housing........................................................    83
    Statement of Amy Knudsen, Interim Director of the Iowa Coalition
      for Housing & the Homeless.....................................   114
    Statement of the National Council of State Housing Agencies......   120

                                     (iii)

                         MCKINNEY-VENTO REAUTHORIZATION

                              AND CONSOLIDATION OF

                            HUD'S HOMELESS PROGRAMS

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

                                   U.S. Senate,
       Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs,
                    Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Subcommittee met at 3:34 p.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Allard, (Chairman of the
    Subcommittee) presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. In brief, I will call the hearing to order.
        I would like to welcome everyone to this hearing of the
    Housing and Transportation Subcommittee hearing on the
    McKinney-Vento Act Reauthorization and Consolidation of HUD's
    homeless programs. I want to thank all of you also for being
    patient while we finished the full Committee action and also
    had a chance to go down to the floor to vote, and I am sure
    that later on, I will be joined by Senator Reed.
        In 1987, Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
    Assistance Act, now known as the McKinney-Vento homeless
    assistance programs. The Act was the first comprehensive law
    addressing the diverse needs of the homeless, including
    programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, the
    Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the
    Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development.
        Until enactment of this law, the problems confronted by the
    homeless were mainly addressed at the State and local level.
    The McKinney Act represented a consensus that had developed
    that a major Federal commitment was required in order to end
    homelessness. Currently, the Federal Government devotes
    significant resources to the homeless. In fiscal year 2006,
    HUD's homeless grant programs were funded at $1.34 billion.
        Yet, despite the enormous Federal resources directed toward
    homelessness, the problem persists. We need to bring more
    accountability to homeless assistance, increasing funding for
    successful programs and initiatives, and replacing those that
    are ineffective. There seems to be consensus that the McKinney-
    Vento bill has been an important tool to help some of society's
    most vulnerable members and that the first step should be
    reauthorization of the Act.
        There also seems to be consensus that the second step
    should be consolidation of the existing programs. I originally
    introduced consolidation legislation in the year 2000, and
    Senator Reed offered a proposal in 2002. HUD has also advocated
    for a consolidated program for several years now.
        While we differed in some of the details, including the
    funding distribution mechanism for a new program, these
    proposals offered consensus on the important starting point of
    consolidation. After extensive discussion, Senator Reed
    introduced Senate bill 1801, the Community Partnership to End
    Homelessness Act, a bill I was pleased to cosponsor. The bill
    will consolidate the existing programs to eliminate
    administrative burdens, multiple applications, and conflicting
    requirements.
        The streamlined approach will combine the efficiencies of a
    block grant with the accountability of a competitive system.
    Localities will submit applications outlining the priority
    projects for their area based on outcomes and results. I am
    especially supportive of approaches such as this one that focus
    on results rather than processes.
        In considering reauthorization of such an important
    program, especially given the scope of the potential changes, I
    believe it is important to solicit a variety of viewpoints.
    Thus, I have convened today's hearing to facilitate that
    discussion. I would like to hear the witnesses' views as to
    what is and is not currently working in the McKinney-Vento
    programs as their suggestions for reauthorization, including
    their comments on Senate bill 1801 or any other reauthorization
    proposal.
        We have an excellent lineup of witnesses today. First, we
    will hear from Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary of the Department
    of Housing and Urban Development. In addition to his
    perspective as the second in command at HUD, Secretary Bernardi
    has the added advantage of his service as a mayor.
        He will be followed by Phillip Mangano, who has provided
    excellent leadership for the Interagency Council on
    Homelessness, partnering with cities nationwide in developing
    10-year plans to end homelessness, and I appreciate your
    efforts, Mr. Mangano, with our Denver Mayor, Mayor
    Hickenlooper. He tells me that he felt like his working
    relationship has been just superb, so we appreciate you helping
    us out there.
        Our final witness on the first panel will be Gail Dorfman,
    County Commissioner of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin
    County has been active on the issue of homeless and on Tuesday
    announced a commission to end homelessness in the country.
        The second panel will begin with Steve Berg, Vice President
    for Programs and Policy at the National Alliance to End
    Homelessness. The Alliance is a national nonprofit organization
    dedicated to addressing the root causes of homelessness.
        Next, we will hear from Charles Gould, who is the National
    President of the Volunteers of America, an organization that
    has been helping people in need for 110 years; Anthony Love,
    President and CEO of the Houston Coalition for the Homeless
    will be able to give a front line perspective on
    reauthorization based on his daily work providing homeless
    assistance. Finally, we will hear from Dennis Culhane of the
    University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Culhane is known nationwide as
    one of the leading experts on homelessness.
        I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here
    today. Your testimony will be helpful as the Subcommittee moves
    forward with these issues.
        Now, I would like to call on my colleague, Senator Reed
    from Rhode Island, to make an opening statement, and then, we
    will proceed to the panel.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
    thank you not only for holding this hearing on reauthorization
    of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act but also for your leadership
    in championing Senate bill 1801, the Community Partnership to
    End Homelessness Act. And let me thank the witnesses, all of
    them, for their testimony today. We look forward to it.
        How we deal with homelessness is not just an issue of
    policy. It touches on the values that we cherish as a Nation.
    What do we say to children whose parents cannot afford adequate
    housing? To women in abusive relationships who have to flee and
    find shelter, to veterans who served their country and cannot
    find a home, to the mentally ill, who are challenged in finding
    adequate places to live, if we cannot respond with adequate and
    safe housing?
        This is about values as well as about policy. We have to
    tackle this complex issue. We have learned a great deal since
    the passage of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 20
    years ago.
        For one, we learned that keeping a chronically homeless
    person off the streets saves money. If you look at the medical,
    enforcement, emergency shelter, other expenses that these
    individuals accrue, it is far more cost-effective to find them
    permanent housing. We also know that many people who are
    temporarily homeless often experience homelessness as a result
    of a job loss, a medical crisis, a discharge from a medical
    facility or even a correctional facility. For these people,
    allowing communities more flexibility in trying to help them
    through assistance in paying utility bills, with planning for
    transition is effective and could be more effective.
        We know that. We know that coordinating discharge, as I
    said, from hospitals and from jails makes sense. We know that
    communities are making substantial inroads with limited Federal
    dollars they are receiving. Thanks to many of these programs,
    households that typically lacked housing stability have moved
    into supportive housing environments. Eighty-five percent of
    such households have remained in permanent housing 2 years
    later, thanks to the services they receive, so we know that
    supportive services can make a key difference.
        We know giving communities flexibility will allow them to
    target the populations that need the most assistance to prevent
    family homelessness, provide successful support of housing
    programs, and quickly provide transitions for individuals from
    homelessness to permanent housing. We also know that the HUD
    implementation of the Continuum of Care has stimulated
    increased coordination within communities, better programs, and
    real results.
        As we move forward in this process of reauthorizing
    McKinney-Vento, we are in an unusually strong position not only
    to reauthorize the Act but also to improve it. And we can
    codify the structural improvements that have already been put
    in place by HUD and agencies throughout this country.
        And by asking communities to provide better documentation
    on homelessness, on the steps they are taking to combat it, and
    on the effectiveness of these steps, we increase their ability
    to share information on what works, enhancing the potential for
    future improvements.
        Through a collaborative effort with HUD, the Interagency
    Council on Homelessness, homeless advocates in communities
    throughout the country, and service providers, Senator Allard
    and I and 11 other Senators from both sides of the aisle
    crafted the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act, S.
    1801, legislation--and the Senator has described it before--
    consolidates existing homelessness programs into one program;
    creates a unified, performance-based process of funding that
    would allow more funding to flow to communities that
    demonstrate a commitment to ending homelessness and
    accomplishing the goals they set; focuses public and private
    sector on ending and preventing homelessness, not just simply
    warehousing people time and time again; encourages
    collaboration and planning; and ensures that multiple Federal
    agencies are involved as appropriate for their missions to
    serve homeless people.
        With limited Federal dollars, our legislation promises to
    make significant progress in giving communities the flexibility
    and creativity they need to combat homelessness. Tackling this
    issue along with the issue of affordable housing are of
    paramount importance to the American public. I look forward to
    working with Senator Allard on these goals, as we have worked
    before, and I thank him again for his cooperation and his
    collaboration.
        And Mr. Chairman, I have three letters from homeless
    service providers I would like to put in the record.
        Senator Allard. Without objection.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Again, let me thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
        I am going to run a pretty tight hearing. The reason for
    that, I have been told that at least on our side, we may have
    votes around 5:00, in which case, we are going to have our
    clock running here. When we get on 5 minutes, I am going to
    start cutting you off, just because I see three witnesses on
    this panel and I have four on the other. And by the time we get
    into some questioning, we are going to eat it up. I would just
    hate to have us break at 5:00, and maybe we have two or three
    votes, and you sit around for an hour, and then, we are back.
        So, I would like to get this wrapped up within the next
    hour and a half if we can. And your full statement is going to
    be made a part of the record as a lot of other information. We
    are not going to get all of our questions presented to you in
    the hearing. I am going to have some that I do not think I will
    be able to ask; same thing with Senator Reed.
        But the way we handle that is we then request the witnesses
    to respond to those questions in writing. So we will give those
    to you, and then, if you can get back to us, to the Committee,
    within 10 days on your responses to that, we will then make
    them part of the record. We will hold the record open that
    long.
        Okay; having shared that good news with everybody, Mr.
    Secretary, we will start with you.

            STATEMENT OF ROY A. BERNARDI, DEPUTY SECRETARY,

            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Bernardi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Reed. I will be brief. I will ask and I know that you will
    hopefully allow me to submit my written testimony for the
    record.
        Senator Allard. We will, without objection.
        Mr. Bernardi. Mr. Chairman, it is important to begin by
    thanking you for holding this hearing and recognizing you and
    Ranking Member Reed for your leadership in the fight against
    homelessness. We have been going at this for a number of years.
        Each of you has played a pivotal role in this effort, and
    it is appropriate to acknowledge that your bill, S. 1801,
    introduced last fall, represents a major step forward in the
    effort to consolidate the three Continuum of Care programs and
    codify them in statute to allow far greater flexibility which
    will enable improved performance and effectiveness of the HUD's
    homeless assistance grant programs.
        I am pleased to report that in the House of Representatives
    yesterday, Congressman Rick Renzi introduced the
    Administration's bill. As you know, the Administration's
    proposal to consolidate our three competitive homeless
    assistance programs, our Supportive Housing Program, our
    Continuum of Care, and our single room occupancy Section 8
    program into a single program is aimed at alleviating
    homelessness in this country.
        In our view, consolidation would provide more flexibility
    to localities; devolve grantmaking responsibilities to local
    decisionmaking bodies; fund prevention of homelessness;
    dramatically reduce the time required to distribute the funds
    to the grantees, which right now is a very onerous process; and
    further the Administration's goal to end chronic homelessness.
        These two bills are the culmination of several years of
    hard work and I am proud to say bipartisan good faith work that
    has included input from so many, including some of you who are
    going to be appearing on the next panel.
        Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Reed, I would be remiss if
    I neglected to recognize two staff members in particular who
    have served each of you with great distinction: Ms. Tawanna
    Wilkerson and Ms. Kara Stein have worked tirelessly with us to
    produce solid legislation that is represented by Senate bill
    1801 and the Renzi bill in the House.
        These bills are very complementary, and while there are
    differences between them, I think the most remarkable feature
    is that there is common ground there to really go ahead and do
    some wonderful things. Both of these bills consolidate the
    three competitive programs into a single program with a single
    match, and both affirm the role of local planning entities to
    provide for more local decisionmaking authority and
    flexibility.
        Both bills would greatly simplify how HUD's resources can
    be used to effectively and efficiently solve homelessness. Both
    bills would greatly compress the time it takes to get Federal
    funds into the hands of grantees and the providers.
        As I mentioned, while the two bills are similar in overall
    design, in a number of areas, there are differences that merit
    our attention. The Administration bill ensures broader
    participation in the Continuum of Care; that is, we feel,
    greater participation by the nongovernmental entities. It
    ensures greater accountability in the expenditure of funds for
    homelessness by each Continuum of Care by requiring each
    Continuum to be a legal entity; focuses more on chronically
    homeless persons living on the streets; provides for renewal of
    all types of projects, including transitional housing; provides
    greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed to solve
    homelessness; provides greater flexibility in using supportive
    program funds to prevent homelessness and we feel better
    targets its permanent housing resources for those who are the
    most vulnerable, the disabled.
        It is my view that if we continue our dialogue and work
    together, we can bring these bills to closure, and in closing,
    I want to thank you for holding this hearing once again; look
    forward to participating and answering your questions.
        Senator Allard. Thank you for your brief testimony.
        Mr. Mangano.

          STATEMENT OF PHILLIP F. MANGANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

                U.S. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

        Mr. Mangano. Thank you, Chairman Allard and Senator Reed.
    Thank you for your opening statements and for having this
    hearing committed to homelessness.
        Having been committed to the abolition of homelessness for
    the past 20 years, beginning then as a full time, bread line
    volunteer and now as the Executive Director of the U.S.
    Interagency Council on Homelessness, I want to first
    acknowledge the historic and heroic role that countless
    community and faith-based groups have demonstrated on this
    issue. They have been on the front lines and in the forefront
    of response to homelessness in our country for 30 years, and
    the McKinney-Vento resources have been critical in that effort
    for 20 years.
        While I know it is unusual and even unorthodox, I want to
    report some good news on homelessness. We are now achieving in
    this country what we have sought for a quarter of a century:
    Results on homelessness, change, progress on our streets, in
    our shelters, for our neighborhoods and communities. Visible,
    measurable, quantifiable change. Mayors reporting these
    results: In Miami, a 30 percent reduction in street
    homelessness; in Portland, Oregon, a 20 percent reduction; in
    Nashua, New Hampshire, a 26 percent reduction; in Raleigh,
    Durham, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a 17 percent
    reduction; in San Francisco, a 28 percent reduction; and in
    Philadelphia, an 81 percent reduction in Central City street
    homelessness.
        At a hearing 2 weeks ago, the VA and providers reported a
    reduction in the number of homeless veterans.
        Why is this new results-oriented mindset and approach
    working? For the past 20 years, Federal investment has
    increased. From the McKinney Act of 1987 to the President's
    record $4.15 billion level of proposed funding for 2007, the
    increase is tenfold, 1,000 percent. In that time, homelessness
    has increased. Researchers tell us that more than 2 million
    Americans experience homelessness in a year.
        Increased resources and increased numbers are a frustrating
    reminder that while new resources are important, new ideas are
    just as important. We cannot simply take the new resources and
    expend them on the old status quo. That is why these new
    resources and bills are so important, and that is why change is
    happening.
        We have learned much in the last 20 years. In the past few
    years, the Council has encouraged the creation of
    jurisdictional plans in States and cities that are informed by
    a management agenda that prioritizes results and outcomes.
    Informed by GPRA and the President's Management Agenda that
    calls for every Federal investment to be research and data
    driven, performance based and results oriented, those plans put
    new ideas and innovative initiatives to work for homeless
    people.
        Who benefits when Federal and other public and private
    resources are invested for results? Homeless people benefit, as
    do our neighborhoods and communities, businesses and police, ER
    workers, pedestrians, librarians, and we join with them. We are
    changing the verb of homelessness. No longer managing the
    crisis but ending the disgrace. We are moving from funding
    programs that serve homeless people endlessly to investing in
    the result of ending people's homelessness. We have seen it
    work in England, and now we are seeing it work here.
        And we have discovered that our attention to measurable and
    quantifiable outcomes makes common sense to jurisdictions that
    measure every other initiative in that way, and dollars and
    cents to the taxpayer. Shuffling homeless people between
    homeless programs or cycling them through expensive systems of
    health and law enforcement is expensive. Studies in a number of
    communities around our country indicate what that expense is in
    emergency rooms of hospitals, in police and law enforcement, in
    court costs.
        We have learned through those studies that the old status
    quo of ad hoc, siloed crisis interventions is more expensive
    and less effective.
        Of course, we have learned that what makes the most sense
    is to prevent homelessness in the first place. We save the
    human tragedy and taxpayer resources in that dollars and cents
    strategy.
        I am proud to be here today with Commissioner Dorfman, who
    this week joined with Minneapolis Mayor Rybak to become the
    212th community joining with us in a partnership across the
    country that includes 53 governors and 20 Federal agencies.
        Thankfully, the Community Homeless Assistance Act,
    forwarded by both of you and others is informed by 20 years of
    learning. With expansive input from stakeholders in and out of
    government, Committee staff is to be commended for their
    inductive approach to create added value in emphasizing
    housing, prevention, and performance to affirm in the law what
    is working and to dismiss what is not.
        And the HUD intent to consolidate several HUD homeless
    programs into a single initiative makes sense, common sense. It
    would be better in the field, for communities, for Continuums,
    and for the front lines. I endorse that consolidation and
    affirm the common direction in initiatives in both of these
    bills.
        Finally, our common intent through a national partnership
    is to end chronic homelessness in our Nation. The initiative is
    a priority, not an exclusivity. We have not forgotten homeless
    families. And the research and data is now being created to
    inform family policy and investment.
        Is everything perfect? No. Is progress being made? Yes. And
    the act and the consolidation will forward that progress. We
    have much work to do, but we are better prepared and equipped
    than ever before.
        Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony. Secretary
    Bernardi had a minute left over. I just gave it to you.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Mangano. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Commissioner Dorfman, you are next.

                       STATEMENT OF GAIL DORFMAN

            COUNTY COMMISSIONER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA

        Ms. Dorfman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Reed. I
    am honored to address the Committee this afternoon. And I first
    want to remember former Minnesota Congressman Bruce Vento. He
    spent his life dedicated to improving the lives of people
    experiencing homelessness. Congressman Vento left us too soon,
    but he left behind a legacy of working effectively on behalf of
    America's homeless, and that legacy will not be forgotten in
    Minnesota or in the Nation.
        I applaud you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed for
    introducing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act.
    Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento is absolutely critical if we
    are to change the paradigm, as Mr. Mangano said, from managing
    homelessness to ending homelessness in our communities.
        Yesterday, as has been said, we began an intensive 100-day
    effort to develop a blueprint for ending homelessness in
    Minneapolis and Hennepin County. Mr. Mangano joined us as
    leaders from the public and private sectors, nonprofit and
    philanthropic communities and the homeless--and I say that
    again, and the homeless--came together to commit to ending
    homelessness over the next 10 years. In partnership with the
    Federal Government and our State government, we will be
    successful, and will do it before the 10 years is up.
        In Hennepin County, we well remember what it was like
    before McKinney-Vento. Our shelters were overflowing, and we
    were vouchering families into hotels and motels, about 100 of
    them across the Twin Cities every night. Our average shelter
    stays were three times what they are today, and an alarming
    number of families were cycling in and out of shelter on a
    regular basis. McKinney-Vento dramatically improved upon the
    situation by supporting results-oriented programs.
    Additionally, through our partnership with the Federal
    Government, we have been able to leverage significant amounts
    of local dollars, $12.4 million in 2005 alone.
        Together, we have ended homelessness for thousands of men,
    women, children, and unaccompanied youth in our community. Over
    the past two decades, we have learned a great deal in Hennepin
    County about what does and does not work to end homelessness.
    We no longer look to shelters as the solution. Instead, we
    first focus on preventing people from becoming homeless
    whenever possible and rapidly rehousing them when they do.
        It costs 10 times more to house and resettle a homeless
    family than to prevent them from losing their housing in the
    first place. Through the support of McKinney-Vento funds, we
    have established one of the best family homeless prevention
    models in the Nation.
        In Hennepin County, we work hard to keep people in the
    housing they have. We have learned that prevention is the best
    and most cost-effective way to end homelessness. When families
    do become homeless, we work with them through our Rapid Exit
    program to quickly place them in permanent housing. Rapid Exit
    is a supportive services program funded by HUD, McKinney-Vento,
    and is listed on the HUD website, as a national best practice.
        Through Rapid Exit, Hennepin County contracts with highly
    effective, community-based providers who support both clients
    and landlords, the landlord piece is really critical, providing
    housing stabilization assistance while maximizing mainstream
    resources. They provide ongoing case management, help clients
    resolve personal issues that are barriers to their housing, and
    build relationships and build on the strength of their clients.
        As one provider told me, most homeless people are
    survivors. They have the innate strength to be successful, and
    we encourage them to use that strength. The case managers also
    assist landlords in resolving issues when their clients'
    housing is in jeopardy, cosign leases, provide financial and
    legal assistance. They are the intermediaries with the private
    landlords, and that is the single most effective way to recruit
    and maintain landlords, who are willing to rent to high barrier
    tenants.
        Our 2005 results, like past years, far exceed expectations.
    During the one year, 588 families, an average of three children
    per family, and 48 chronically homeless adults were placed into
    housing by Rapid Exit. Of the families, 94 percent remained out
    of shelter for the full 12 months. Of the 48 chronically
    homeless, we followed them for 6 months; 79 percent remained
    out of shelter. Additionally, 30 percent of the families, 60
    percent of the single adults who have been chronically
    homeless, increased their incomes during that period. Through
    the expansion of our prevention efforts in Rapid Exit, we have
    seen dramatic reductions, as I said, in the average length of
    stays, and the number of parents and children sheltered per
    year.
        And these kinds of results highlight the importance of
    innovative, results-oriented practices and our ongoing
    partnership with the Federal Government through McKinney-Vento.
    But, you know, the numbers are good, but the personal stories
    are the best, like the single mom from Illinois who fled from
    an abusive relationship with her four children and showed up in
    our county shelter in Minneapolis. She struggled with finding
    work, caring for her children, and getting them to school on
    time.
        Our Rapid Exit worker helped her locate a job and an
    apartment she could afford. Now, 10 years later, she owns her
    own modest home. Two of her children have graduated high school
    and are attending college, and she still calls her case manager
    every 6 months to proudly report on her success.
        The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act and
    McKinney-Vento will bring us another step forward in our quest
    to end homelessness and provide stable housing. We support
    consolidation of McKinney-Vento programs, renewal of rent
    operating subsidies, automatic renewal; the 30 percent
    permanent set aside for individuals and families with
    disabilities; and the recognition of the critical importance of
    prevention.
        We are, however, concerned with just one point, the
    proposal to curtail certain services after 3 years. It is
    critical that services that directly support housing placement,
    coordination with the private landlords, and housing
    stabilization remain intact.
        Last, we support increased flexibility. The more creative
    we can be at the local level, the more likely we will be able
    to end homelessness for people in our community.
        Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today.
        Senator Allard. I would just add that I served with
    Congressman Bruce Vento on the Ag Committee when I served in
    the House of Representatives, and he was truly dedicated to--at
    that time, we served on the Nutrition Committee on the Ag
    Committee, so he was truly committed, and I very much enjoyed
    working with him at that time on nutritional programs and how
    they would impact the homeless.
        So now, I am over here on the Banking Committee and taking
    a little different perspective, and I could not agree more with
    you that having a home to start with is a great starting spot.
    And then, things get much easier from that point on.
        My first question is to you, Mr. Secretary: What outcome
    and performance measures does HUD currently use for grantees?
    Given that the Continuum of Care has been rated as an effective
    program by the PART analysis, why is HUD proposing to change
    these highly effective programs.
        Mr. Bernardi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We are very pleased with the performance measurement score
    that we received from OMB. To end chronic homelessness and move
    families and individuals to permanent housing, we want to make
    sure that we use GPRA, and we use the measurements that are in
    place. We have increased the percentage of homeless persons
    staying in permanent housing over 6 months. That was at 70
    percent last year, and we are looking for an incremental
    increase in 2006; increase the percentage of homeless persons
    moving from transitional housing to permanent housing; we also
    measure the increase in the percentage of homeless persons
    becoming employed by 11 percent.
        I would like to state some accomplishments, if I may. In
    2005, HUD assisted nearly 125,000 homeless persons in moving
    from the streets or other living situations into the HUD
    McKinney-funded transitional housing or permanent housing. Of
    these, over 27,000 were chronically homeless, over 20 percent.
    Only 1 percent of people in HUD McKinney-funded housing fell
    back into the streets in 2005.
        Persons employed in 2005: Almost 30,000 persons became
    employed while in HUD-funded housing, and of those, 5,700, or
    approximately 20 percent, were chronically homeless. With our
    homeless management information system, of the 450 Continuums,
    about 75 percent of them right now have that system in place.
    And it is a collection of data; it is working with Mr. Mangano
    and the Interagency Council on the Homeless on their effort to
    end chronic homelessness. Both of those paths run parallel. And
    each and every year, the Continuums are doing more when it
    comes to measurement, when it comes to performance and
    reporting back to us.
        The difficulty that we have and the purpose of this
    legislation is that anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the
    individuals that are homeless are what we identify as
    chronically homeless. And yet, they use up to 50 percent of a
    community's emergency resources. Now, that is an incredible
    number. So we feel very strongly, this Administration, the
    President, Secretary Jackson, and ourselves, that we really
    need to address that, and that is what the bill we have been
    working for does, with the consolidation of these three
    programs.
        I will stop there. I would like to go further into how
    strongly I feel about this consolidation; hopefully, I will
    have the time to do it, but we really need--as a former mayor,
    I can tell you, the Continuums of Care in this country, those
    450, they represent 3,700 jurisdictions, about 92 percent of
    the population.
        And with the Interagency Council on the Homeless, with
    their 200-plus States and cities that have signed onto their
    own individual plans and with the resources, $1.3 billion this
    year; a $200 million proposed increase for 2007, we feel we can
    do more with the resources that we have; that we can take these
    chronically homeless individuals and stop that revolving door;
    place them, these disabled individuals, into permanent housing,
    and with the supportive services that the Continuums provide
    and other agencies, we can bring them back to a productive life
    and eliminate that kind of expenditure not only from the
    Federal Government but also from the communities.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Mangano, I believe that you look
    around, and you see what programs are working and what are not,
    and those that are working, you try and replicate their
    success.
        As you look around the world, what countries have taken
    approaches to homelessness that have been effective, and what
    best practices can you see us adopting?
        Mr. Mangano. Well, I appreciate the question, and I was
    just at a meeting with 25 European countries who are all
    meeting together specifically on the issue of homelessness, and
    I would have to say the countries that had results as the
    orientation of their investment were England and Ireland. And
    there is no question that one of the best practices in the
    world is what is known as the Rough Sleepers Initiative in
    England, which targeted specifically people who were living on
    the streets of England.
        That best practice involved modest new resources from
    central government in England; had the political will of the
    Prime Minister; and was oriented to local planning processes
    that themselves were results oriented. The modest new resources
    of central government were invested in those results oriented
    plans, and in 3\1/2\ years, 3 out of every 4 people who were
    sleeping on the streets of England were no longer there, not
    through punitive means but through solution-oriented efforts.
        We have committed an act of ``legitimate larceny'' on that
    effort, and I think what we are doing here in the United
    States, thanks to the investment of HUD resources, and the
    Secretary mentioned the $200 million additional in the HUD
    budget, which is the Samaritan Initiative in the President's
    proposed budget; those would be important new resources in the
    investment that we are making in ending the homelessness of
    those who are the most visible and on the streets of our
    country.
        We are certainly learning from England and from Ireland
    where jurisdictionally based plans that are targeted to end the
    homelessness of the most visible. I will finish with this, as
    they achieved success in terms of the Rough Sleepers
    Initiative, 3 out of every 4 off the streets; people in
    Parliament were going home to their districts. There were fewer
    people on the streets in Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham;
    fewer people as they walked to their offices in London.
        That remoralized Parliament, who had been reluctant to
    invest in any more, because they had not seen any results or
    outcomes. That remoralized them to reinvest in the issue of
    homelessness, and now, there is a deeper investment in family
    homelessness as a result of the achievements that were secured
    in the Rough Sleepers Initiative.
        Senator Allard. Success breeds success.
        Mr. Mangano. Exactly.
        Senator Allard. Okay; Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
    ask, if I can, one question to each person and then reserve the
    right for additional questions later.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for recognizing Kara Stein and
    the staff members. She would be here, but she has about a 3\1/
    2\ week-old child to care for, and you understand that.
        Mr. Bernardi. That is the priority.
        Senator Reed. Indeed.
        In 1993, HUD created the Continuum of Care. It is a very
    effective program. What additional benefits do you see by
    essentially codifying the Continuum of Care in legislation that
    we are looking at?
        Mr. Bernardi. Well, I think it puts all the Continuums
    throughout the country basically in the same situation to be
    working together as they presently do. The part of the
    legislation that I really like is the prevention that we do not
    have now, and we have a little difference in our bills. We want
    to allow the Continuums to use 10 percent of the resources, and
    your bill, I believe, speaks to 5 percent.
        But we need to do more with prevention. If we can do more
    with prevention, obviously, I think, in the final analysis, we
    can begin to decrease the numbers. The Continuums, our
    proposal, as you know, calls for at least a 65 representation
    of nongovernmental entities. Those are the not for-profits, the
    foundations, the hospitals, the homeless people, people who
    have been homeless, and about a 35 percent representation of
    local officials.
        To codify that, to give them the emphasis that they need,
    right now, we at HUD receive--let us see, the notice of funding
    availability went out March 8; the 6,000 applications will be
    there by May 25, the close of business. We spend 6 months going
    over those applications and another 2 or 3 months putting that
    all together and making the announcements.
        By changing this and by codifying the Continuums, having a
    single application with a single match and comprising boards
    throughout the country in each one of these Continuums, we push
    where we should back to the local level. And then, they will
    hold their own individual competitions among their projects
    that they will prioritize and that they need the most.
        Again, I think this is the legislation that we need. I know
    legislation is difficult to come by, but I think we are very
    close on it, and with the support in the House and with your
    continuous support and the Chairman's, I feel very strongly
    that the Continuums, the 450 that we have in the country, I
    believe we have met with many of them; they are in favor of
    this; this would really address the chronic homeless situation
    that we have in this country by providing more permanent
    housing and even bonuses for these Continuums as we have these
    competitions; if their first priority is the chronically
    homeless, they can receive, after the pro rata share for need,
    15 percent more in their application, with a maximum of $6
    million, so the large cities do not take too much of the money,
    but that would provide additional dollars to really address
    those individuals.
        Now, some people may say to you, well, what about families,
    and what about other people that are homeless that are maybe
    not disabled? Well, the way the funding works right now, it is
    about 52 percent goes toward the chronically homeless and about
    47 percent for all the remaining homeless population.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Mr. Mangano, I just want to thank you for your over 20
    years of dedication to this issue and your help in working with
    the staff along with the Secretary and developing this
    legislation. And because time is dwindling, let me ask a
    question of Ms. Dorfman. Your project, Homeless Connect, is one
    that has been noted, and it features one-stop-shopping. I would
    hope and assume that the legislation we are talking about would
    facilitate these types of one-stop-shopping arrangements. Might
    you just briefly comment on that?
        Ms. Dorfman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed.
        Project Homeless Connect I believe started with Mayor
    Newsome in San Francisco, and we thought it was a good idea, so
    we took it up last year. And it really is getting all the
    resources in one room from our community and broad-based
    participation and volunteers. And the way it works, and I will
    give you one success story, is we had a guy who was homeless
    come in at our last Project Homeless Connect who had serious
    and persistent mental illness, and there was a housing provider
    there who had a vacancy. But he needed to get on SSI, and he
    needed to get a mental health assessment in order to be
    eligible.
        But the mental health providers and psychiatrists were in
    the room, and the Social Security Administration was in the
    room, and so, they could fill all of those eligibility slots
    and problems that day, and this one individual was moved into
    supportive housing that very day. And in addition to that, he
    got a haircut before he moved in and a pair of shoes.
        And so, that is what it is all about breaking down those
    barriers that the chronically homeless have faced in having
    access to services. So if we have Project Homeless Connect
    combined with the McKinney-Vento supportive housing programs,
    it works beautifully, and that is what we are trying to do.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Allard. Well, I think we are going to have to move
    on to the other panel. I was hoping maybe we might get another
    round of questioning. We have used up about 45 minutes or 40
    minutes right now, and we have about 45 minutes.
        And I do not think we have heard anything different on the
    vote schedule, have we? We have not yet, so let us still assume
    we have 5:00 votes.
        Senator Reed. We have warned everyone that we could send
    questions out and ask you to respond, and I think they waited
    for awhile before we did CFIUS.
        Senator Allard. They have already done a lot of waiting.
        Senator Reed. You have paid your time.
        Senator Allard. Thanks for your time and showing up here. I
    know it is not always easy to break away from your daily
    routines to be here, but your participation is very valuable,
    and we appreciate your taking the time to be with us.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Bernardi. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Mangano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed.
        Ms. Dorfman. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. If the second panel would please come
    forward.
        I would like to welcome the second panel, and we will start
    with you, Mr. Berg, and then go right down the line until we
    hit Dr. Culhane. You will have the privilege of wrapping things
    up.
        Mr. Berg, you are on.

                       STATEMENT OF STEVE R. BERG

                VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS AND POLICY,

                 NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS

        Mr. Berg. Thank you.
        Good afternoon. I am Steve Berg. I am the Vice President
    for Programs and Policy with the National Alliance to End
    Homelessness. I would first like to thank you for holding this
    important hearing, for inviting us to testify and for
    introducing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act.
        I would like to start by saying that this is a particularly
    exciting time to be working on the issue of homelessness. Over
    the past few years, people at every level are beginning to see
    homelessness as a problem with a straightforward solution and
    that undertaking that solution is the right thing to do, and it
    is the smart thing to do.
        We are at the point where in the past year, a small number
    of communities that have been leaders at reforming their
    approach to homelessness are beginning to see quantifiable
    results in the form of fewer homeless people. Hundreds of other
    communities are now working hard to replicate that success and
    to end homelessness. We regard the introduction of this bill as
    an important step toward that goal, newly awarded we are proud
    to support the bill.
        To a very large extent, this bill codifies the practices
    that have evolved in the HUD Continuum of Care. Given the
    positive record of the Continuum of Care, that is completely
    appropriate. The most important and far reaching change that
    this bill would make is to give to communities that are ready
    to accept it the responsibility and the authority to direct
    their local efforts more strongly toward an outcome-based
    approach that holds the promise of ending homelessness. Now,
    this kind of strong leadership at the local level is one of the
    key elements in communities that have had positive results.
        The bill codifies some important specific provisions that
    provide for balancing good results. It ensures that some
    attention will be paid to people with severe disabilities, many
    of whom tend to remain homeless for the longest periods of
    time. Fortunately, the answer for this population is well
    known. It is supportive housing, with its strong record of
    cost-effectiveness and positive results for people.
        The bill would require that 30 percent of the funding
    nationwide be used for permanent housing for people with
    disabilities. That is something that has been in appropriations
    bills for the last 8 years. It has tended to give balance to
    the program and achieve good results.
        The bill makes important changes involving family
    homelessness. For a number of the communities that have had
    these quantifiable results, it has been reductions in
    homelessness among families with children that have driven
    those results. The stakes are huge, because the trauma of
    homelessness can affect children for years afterward. The bill
    would provide incentives to develop housing stock for families.
    It would encourage rental assistance. It would reward
    communities that quickly rehouse homeless families, and it
    would provide more money for prevention. These are all things
    that experience has taught us will be useful in reducing
    homelessness among families with children.
        Now, there are some issues that I believe are going to
    require continued consultation to attempt to resolve. We will
    need to continue to work on how to deal with communities that
    may not have the capacity to immediately undertake all the
    activities that collaborative applicants are expected to carry
    out under this bill. We will need to spend time working out the
    right approach to matching, since it is the experience of some
    providers that a cash match might cause inefficiencies and hurt
    communities that need the help the most.
        The extent to which HUD would be involved in funding
    services as opposed to housing remains controversial, and we
    will need to seek the input of people working in communities to
    see if the approach in this bill is an approach that would
    promote or hamper program effectiveness. I am personally
    confident that consensus on these issues, which are somewhat
    esoteric and technical, can be achieved and that we will be
    able to move forward.
        Finally, I would like to note that there are other areas of
    Federal policy beyond the structure of the HUD homelessness
    programs that have a huge role in determining whether we will
    be successful. A strong Interagency Council on Homelessness has
    proved to be crucial in moving us forward. Increased resources
    and good incentives in other Departments such as HHS, Labor,
    and VA are critical, and I would specifically like to note the
    Services for Ending Long Term Homelessness Act, Senator
    DeWine's bill, which, of course, Senator Reed is the chief
    Democratic sponsor and which would provide a much needed
    funding stream out of HHS to match up with the HUD funds on
    chronic homelessness.
        Finally, it is important to have strong programs to address
    the larger needs for housing for the most vulnerable Americans
    with the lowest incomes. The strong targeting that is in the
    affordable housing fund in the House version of the GSE bill
    would be an important step in this direction. It is of
    incalculable importance to retain the good features of the
    Section 8 voucher program, including targeting to the people
    who need it the most and in general to have strong support for
    HUD programs.
        I would like to thank the Subcommittee once again for its
    consideration of our testimony and offer to answer any
    questions either now or at any point in the future.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Gould.

                     STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GOULD

               NATIONAL PRESIDENT, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA

        Mr. Gould. Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, thank you
    for inviting me to testify this afternoon, and thank you for
    the leadership that you are providing on this vital challenge.
    My name is Charles Gould. I serve as the National President for
    Volunteers of America. I have submitted a written statement for
    the record, and I would like to summarize that.
        Volunteers of America is a national, nonprofit, faith-based
    organization that is dedicated to helping those in need to
    rebuild their lives and reach their full potential. For 110
    years now, since 1896, our ministry of service has supported
    and empowered America's most vulnerable groups, including
    homeless individuals and families. Our interventions both
    prevent and end homelessness in urban and in rural communities
    across the country. Last year, we provided assistance to about
    80,000 homeless children, youth, and adults.
        As a homeless service provider, my comments and
    recommendations today reflect the views of our staff from
    around the country, people who are on the ground every day
    working to end homelessness. Volunteers of America believes
    that by consolidating current programs, by broadening the lists
    of eligible activities, by focusing on homelessness prevention
    and by expanding the population to whom housing and services
    can be provided, reauthorization of HUD's homeless assistance
    programs will allow local communities to take full advantage of
    the best practices that have been developed over the past 20
    years.
        Since 1987, we have learned three key lessons about
    homelessness in America: First, McKinney-Vento programs are not
    a substitute for mainstream housing and social service programs
    or systems of care; second, family homelessness has
    significantly increased; and third, both permanent and
    transitional housing can be effective tools to end
    homelessness.
        Each of these lessons has significant policy implications
    in the context of the McKinney-Vento reauthorization bill
    before the Subcommittee, and my written statement details all
    of our recommendations, but I would like to focus on three in
    particular. First, we know that McKinney-Vento programs cannot
    end homelessness without ensuring that homeless persons are
    able to access the far greater resources that are available in
    mainstream housing and social service programs.
        So we must increase the percentage of McKinney-Vento funds
    being spent on homeless prevention and ensure that mainstream
    programs do not discharge people into homelessness. Intervening
    to end homelessness is considerably more expensive than
    ensuring that we prevent it, and preventing homelessness must
    be our primary social objective, so no individual or family
    spends time on the street or in emergency shelter.
        Second, recognizing that family homelessness continues to
    increase, any reauthorization of McKinney-Vento programs must
    allow local communities the flexibility necessary to assist all
    homeless populations. In this regard, Volunteers of America
    supports provisions of Senate bill 1801 that permit funds to be
    spent on permanent housing for nondisabled homeless families.
    We ask, however, that this Committee take additional measures,
    such as ensuring that the HUD definition of who is homeless
    includes persons who are doubled up or living in hotels or
    motels due to the lack of adequate alternative housing and
    requiring that the HUD definition of chronic homelessness
    include families.
        And finally, since we now understand that both permanent
    and transitional housing are effective at ending homelessness,
    we ask the Committee to provide incentives for both of these
    interventions so that every American community may plan to end
    homelessness and receive targeted funding to assist local
    individuals and families who are most in need. Thank you again
    for inviting me to testify, and I look forward to answering any
    questions.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
        Mr. Love.

                       STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LOVE

             PRESIDENT AND CEO, COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS

                     OF HOUSTON-HARRIS COUNTY, INC.

        Mr. Love. Thank you.
        Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Love. I am the President
    and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston-Harris
    County. Thank you for inviting the Coalition for the Homeless
    to testify in support of the reauthorization and amending of
    the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
        The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston-Harris County,
    known as the Coalition, is a private, nonprofit organization
    whose mission is to educate and advocate for the needs of
    persons who are homeless through support and the coordination
    of services. Founded in 1982 at the request of then City of
    Houston Mayor Katherine Whitmayer and then-Harris County Judge
    John Lindsay, the Coalition was formed to support those
    entities that provide direct support to people that are
    homeless through advocacy, education, collaboration, and
    community partnerships.
        The Coalition currently serves as the lead coordinator for
    the local Continuum of Care system. We serve in this role
    through the support and partnership with the City of Houston
    and Harris County. This collaborative was developed in 1992,
    and the foundation of this process is based on two principal
    concepts: Implementation and evaluation. Under the guidance and
    coordinating efforts of the Collaborative Continuum of Care
    Approach, Houston-Harris County's strategy became a model that
    HUD used to encourage other jurisdictions to develop.
        Last year, our local Continuum of Care provided funding for
    27 agencies, representing 62 programs and/or projects that
    spanned the spectrum of outreach, emergency shelter,
    transitional housing, and, of course, permanent supportive
    housing.
        In Houston-Harris County prior to Hurricanes Katrina and
    Rita, there were 12,000 to 14,000 men, women, and children
    without a place to call home on any given night. Last year,
    approximately 34,000 individuals accessed homeless services in
    our community. All of these services represent McKinney-funded
    agencies that function as the existing system to exit
    homelessness in Houston-Harris County.
        Since 1992, McKinney-Vento homeless assistance funding has
    been the major source of funding for the majority of homeless
    service agencies in Houston and Harris County. This funding has
    provided housing, employment, and other essential services to
    tens of thousands of individuals who have experienced
    homelessness in our community.
        McKinney-Vento for years has served as the impetus for
    collaboration and community solutions to ending homelessness.
    McKinney-Vento has enabled many communities to leverage
    millions of dollars in private funding and investment while
    also providing housing opportunities to thousands of low-income
    Americans who otherwise might not be able to afford housing of
    any sort.
        On the other hand, the current bill being considered would
    enhance the Act's ability to serve more people who are at risk
    of being homeless, realize that any reduction in HUD service
    dollars will not take place until adequate alternative funding
    is provided and expand who qualifies as chronically homeless.
        The Coalition supports this bill, especially the following
    three items: Provision of funding for preventing homelessness.
    By allowing communities to use up to 5 percent of their grant
    funding to prevent homelessness, a huge barrier to ending
    homelessness is significantly reduced. This provision truly
    provides a means of closing the front door to homelessness. The
    Continuum is incomplete without prevention as part of the
    collaborative process to create a seamless system of service.
        Involvement of more Federal agencies: One agency should not
    be expected to do it all or bear the burden of ending
    homelessness in our country. This measure ensures that multiple
    Federal agencies are involved in the provision of housing,
    health care, human services, employment, and other services as
    necessary and appropriate.
        Adjusting the role of the Interagency Council on
    Homelessness provides a nationally coordinated effort to
    complement local and State efforts. It also makes the issue of
    homelessness a national priority and serves as encouragement to
    local communities that this issue will remain important
    nationally.
        A broader definition of chronically homeless: The current
    definition of chronically homeless is restrictive and disallows
    much needed services to individuals and families, who also
    demand much from the current homeless assistance system. This
    new definition is more inclusive than the current definition,
    because it includes families who have an adult head of
    household with a disabling condition and people who are
    homeless other than only those who are sleeping in an emergency
    homeless shelter or in a place not meant for human habitation.
    This definition provides a more accurate picture of the
    individuals and families that are served by these community
    agencies every day.
        Again, the Coalition supports this legislation. However, we
    are concerned about the 25 percent match requirement and its
    possible effect on smaller nonprofits and their ability to
    apply for these funds. We are not opposed to this provision,
    but we are uneasy about the possible consequences and wonder
    aloud what type of barrier does this requirement create for
    smaller agencies that perform at a high level but with a
    smaller budget?
        Once again, I thank you for your invitation and this
    opportunity to speak on behalf of the Coalition. The Coalition
    supports your efforts to reauthorize and amend the McKinney-
    Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the critical resources it
    will provide to communities in their efforts to end
    homelessness.
        Senator Allard. Dr. Culhane.

               STATEMENT OF DENNIS PATRICK CULHANE, PH.D.

           PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY AND PSYCHOLOGY,

                       UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Culhane. Thank you, Chairman Allard, Ranking Member
    Reed, and Members of the Subcommittee for the invitation to
    come here today.
        Like the others, I want to commend you for your leadership
    in bringing this bill up, bringing some consolidation to these
    programs and codifying, as people have said, some of the best
    practices and knowledge that have developed over the years.
        I am going to speak to a few of the provisions in the bill
    that I support and a couple of the concerns that I may have,
    and then, I would be happy to answer any questions.
        The permanent housing setaside for the chronically
    homeless, of course, is something that I feel that research
    strongly supports. There has been a lot of research to show
    that a significant percentage of the shelter beds, more than
    half of them in the single adult population, are being used by
    people who are chronically homeless. They are effectively
    living in the shelter system, and they bounce around between
    jails, hospitals, and other very expensive systems of care at
    great cost, and research has shown that placing people in
    permanent supportive housing actually reduces their use of
    those services and saves money. So the setaside, I think, makes
    ample sense with regard to the single adult population.
        I did have a couple of concerns about the specifics in that
    area. One was that the language did not at present include a
    disability requirement among the single adults. Nearly all of
    the chronically homeless adults do have a disability, but I
    think we would want to be careful not to incentivize long stays
    in shelters as the sole means of accessing this rather limited
    resource.
        A second concern I have is about the inclusion of families
    in the category of chronically homeless. I go in greater detail
    in my written testimony on this, but to my knowledge of the
    research literature families are not considered within the
    category of chronically homeless people. While there are
    families who experience long shelter stays, and that is a
    problem that deserves to be addressed, they really have not
    been considered within the whole theory and research about the
    population who, without shelters or permanent supportive
    housing, would be living and even dying on our streets.
        Now, I think as a matter of principle, what we should be
    working toward is that no family should stay in a shelter long
    enough to qualify as chronically homeless. The fact that
    families are staying in shelters or transitional housing for up
    to a year is the problem, and that is what we need to address.
    I think that Ms. Dorfman from Hennepin County, who was on the
    last panel and described the work of that county and all that
    they are doing with the Rapid Exit programs and prevention,
    this is the direction to go.
        Recent research we have done shows that those long stay
    families in shelters are using about $22,000 each in shelter
    resources. That is the equivalent of 3 years of a Section 8
    vouchers in the City of Philadelphia. So you can either get 270
    days of shelter, 9 months, or you can get 3 years of housing
    for that same resource. So, I think it makes a lot of sense for
    us to be thinking about taking the resources that are going
    into long stays in shelters and into transitional housing and
    focusing on the Rapid Exit component. And I think that the
    evidence supports the fact that indeed, for families who linger
    in shelters, it only works to their detriment.
        If indeed there is going to be permanent supportive housing
    that is targeted for families, I would suggest that you
    recommend that the transitional housing stock is converted to
    that purpose, because right now, those transitional housing
    units are not targeted to special needs populations, and they
    do not have a demonstrable benefit for those families. We do
    not see in the literature that there is a benefit to longer
    stays in transitional housing as opposed to being in housing in
    the community.
        Another point is that I think that including families in
    the set aside could potentially dilute the intent of the bill,
    which is to codify what we have learned about targeting the
    chronic homeless initiatives for single adults.
        Another provision that I very much support is all the
    accountability measures in the bill, particularly the support
    for the homeless management information systems. We know that
    data and research has been critical to informing decisionmaking
    at the local level, and having these data systems is going to
    be the most important thing going forward.
        Many of the people coming into the homeless system are
    coming from other places, whether it is jails, prisons, or
    hospitals, and the only way we can put that fact on the radar
    screens of these other agencies is by having data which is
    tracking that and which we can show to these other entities,
    ``Hey, you are not only having an impact on homelessness, but
    also these people end back up in your institutions if we do not
    do something about this.'' So really, I think it is critical in
    terms of the whole prevention agenda to have that kind of
    information infrastructure.
        Last, I just want to credit the 10-year planning processes
    that have been started and the way that the Interagency Council
    on Homelessness has really galvanized communities and changed
    the nature of the discussion about homelessness in this
    country.
        Finally, I am just a little concerned, I want to note,
    about the local planning boards described in the bill. One of
    the things I think we have learned from the Continuum of Care
    is that local government really needs to have a majority say in
    how these decisions are made, because they control all the
    policy levers; they control most of the resources in these
    communities; and only they have the public authority and
    accountability, I think, that can be driving consistency with
    the Federal agenda.
        Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Thank you all for your testimony.
        My first question is both to you, Mr. Berg and Mr. Gould.
    What is your opinion on the matter of a required setaside of
    Federal funding for permanent housing? We have heard from Dr.
    Culhane on that matter, and then, while you are answering the
    question, kind of share with us what you think might be an
    appropriate level for a setaside.
        Mr. Berg.
        Mr. Berg. Thank you.
        We have found over the last 8 years that the 30 percent
    setaside that has been included in appropriations bills has
    provided a balanced approach. It has directed new resources to
    practices; really driven a lot of the serious progress in a
    number of communities about that. And the bill, of course,
    retains that requirement, so that is the level we would
    support.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Gould.
        Mr. Gould. We also support the 30 percent setaside.
    Volunteers of America provides a great deal of permanent
    housing, and we think that the 30 percent level is an
    appropriate balance as well. However, we also find that
    transitional housing is a very important program to provide,
    and the bill would go further in providing additional
    incentives for permanent housing.
        We would prefer to see those same sorts of incentives
    provided for transitional housing to really balance out those
    needs.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Love, I have a different question for
    you. Please share with us your opinion of the requirement for
    State and local matching funds. Under a consolidated approach,
    what do you believe would be a reasonable matching fund?
        Mr. Love. Thank you; I do agree with the idea of having a
    matching fund, because that demonstrates the local level of
    investment in ending this condition of homelessness. I think an
    appropriate level would be 20 percent as opposed to 25 percent.
        In HUD's supportive services, there is a 20 percent
    requirement, and I know in our community, that level of match
    has been a lot easier to attain than the 25 percent level.
        Senator Allard. Okay; and then, on to you, Professor
    Culhane: Based on your research, what are the common elements
    among successful approaches toward ending homelessness?
        Mr. Culhane. Well, of course, common to all of those would
    be having some kind of housing, and usually, that is in the
    form of some kind of subsidized housing. That is a common
    component. And for people who need supportive services in order
    to maintain that housing, that is also a critical ingredient.
    But I think, yes, that is pretty much it.
        Senator Allard. Okay. I have a question for all of you.
        Now, we have heard a great deal about collaborative
    approaches and how that can approach, you know, promote
    coordination within the city. I believe also, it is important
    to have some coordination between jurisdictions, from neighbor
    city to another city down the road. And let me give you an
    example: One city has an excellent program; another one does
    not. Then, you know, you have a migration of homelessness from
    one part of the country to another.
        How much coordination currently happens between
    jurisdictions, and what can be done to promote greater
    coordination, and we will start with you, Mr. Berg, and just go
    right down the line if you want to respond.
        Mr. Berg. I think current practice, it very much varies. As
    you know, the current HUD program allows jurisdictions to come
    together to apply for the HUD programs. In many places, cities
    and counties, several cities in a county along with the county
    will apply for funding. Rhode Island, of course, the whole
    State applies as one entity. Other places, it is very much
    individualized, and each little town has its own Continuum of
    Care.
        I agree. I think the importance of consolidation of
    cooperation and collaboration across governments, between
    levels of governments, is very important. I think HUD has tried
    to encourage places to form larger Continuums just because they
    tend to get a little better results in terms of the score they
    get on their results, but I think there is probably some more
    that could be done there.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Gould.
        Mr. Gould. I would simply support that as well. Anything
    you can do to incent larger Continuums or that kind of
    collaboration, we would certainly support. I think it is very
    much across the board in a community by community experience.
        Senator Allard. Mr. Love.
        Mr. Love. I would also support that, and at the same time,
    I think when you have smaller communities that are surrounding
    a larger community, it is critically important for that smaller
    community to maintain their sense of identity and not feel
    that--I will give you an example. There are smaller communities
    around Houston. They seem to feel that Houston should be the
    sole source or the sole provider of coordinating services for
    individuals that are homeless. If they decided, as smaller
    communities, to take that mantle, they feel that they would
    draw people who are homeless to their communities.
        So a great deal of education would first and foremost have
    to take place, and then, I think increased incentives for those
    smaller communities to want to participate in that form of a
    collaboration would be necessary.
        Senator Allard. Dr. Culhane.
        Mr. Culhane. Yes, I would only add that I think that the
    10-year planning processes which have unfolded around the
    country have probably done more than anything to share
    information and collaboration across these regions. I think, in
    fact, there are some areas of the country where there are
    regional 10-year plans. And the State interagency councils on
    homelessness that have also emerged I think also have a role to
    play, where they can do the kind of information sharing and the
    kind of brokering of relationships among these localities.
        Senator Allard. Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    gentlemen, thank you not only for your excellent but also
    succinct testimony. I appreciate that very much and thank you
    also for the dedication over many years to this issue of
    homelessness.
        Mr. Berg, could you just comment briefly on how the
    proposed legislation would help underserved homeless
    populations?
        Mr. Berg. Well, I think it provides incentives. It provides
    incentives to communities that I think are doing the most
    outreach and dealing with the problem. I mean, the current
    system does this a lot. I think this bill moves a little
    further in terms of rewarding communities that have a very
    comprehensive approach, including addressing all aspects.
        I think the underserved populations include the people who
    have lived on the streets for years and years; there is
    definitely a push there. One of the things I would mention is
    that we have to make some more progress in the area of
    homelessness in rural areas, and I think by opening up the
    process a little bit, this bill does that, but we are
    definitely going to have some work to do there. I think we are
    starting to see some progress.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Gould, you made a very good point, I think, in your
    testimony about the homelessness programs do not operate in a
    vacuum. If we do not support CDBG and Section 8, we are going
    to have a real difficult problem, and you might elaborate on
    that, if you could.
        Mr. Gould. Well, it is a real concern that we not create a
    system here that requires that people be discharged from those
    programs into homelessness in order to access these funds. This
    bill would do a great deal of good. But if we focus too much at
    one end and force people to really become chronically homeless
    before we help them, we really are going to increase the cost
    on the other end, and that is a very real concern for us in
    this bill.
        Senator Reed. Good.
        And Mr. Love, you have had extensive experience over 10 or
    more years in dealing with homelessness issues, and you
    actually run the Houston Continuum of Care, I think, through
    your office.
        Mr. Love. Yes.
        Senator Reed. And I will ask you the same question I asked
    the Secretary, how codifying this Continuum of Care, we
    presume, in the legislation, will be very helpful from your
    perspective.
        Mr. Love. Yes.
        Senator Reed. What do you hope will happen?
        Mr. Love. Absolutely. In particular, certain provisions
    within the legislation that the Continuum has not been able to
    access; in particular, the prevention measure. Usually,
    prevention funds came from ESG, which kind of sat outside of
    the Continuum of Care. By making it a part of it, when you look
    at the Continuum of Care chart, all of it functioned based upon
    the person actually becoming homeless and then going through
    the system. Adding this prevention measure, in my opinion,
    expands the Continuum of Care and creates a real system in
    terms of addressing the issues of homelessness.
        Senator Reed. I think we have heard from everyone that the
    prevention issue might be one of the key aspects of this new
    legislative approach if we can codify it and support it with
    real resources.
        And Dr. Culhane, again, thank you for your extensive
    academic expertise on this issue and your presence here today.
    Part of the legislation we are proposing would have a
    collaborative applicant panel and would serve under our bill to
    look at some of these proposals, and I wondered if you have any
    comments about the composition of that. I think you referred to
    it before about making sure that there is a heavy government
    presence, and might you elaborate?
        Mr. Culhane. Yes, I think one of the things that we learned
    from the Continuum of Care process in a number of the
    communities that I have had the opportunity to work in is that
    local government has been frustrated that they have not always
    had a significant enough decisionmaking power on those local
    Continuums, so even though they may control most of the policy
    levers, and they may spend most of the money on emergency
    shelter. In a place like Philadelphia, for example, they pay
    for the entire shelter bill or in New York City, they pay the
    entire shelter bill. But yet, they do not control the Continuum
    of Care process.
        Now, I am not saying that partnership and collaboration is
    not valuable. We need the input of the provider community, the
    advocate community, et cetera, but only local government really
    has the authority, really has the resources, has the policy
    levers to pull all of this together to meet a specific, set of
    policy objectives.
        And so, I would encourage you to think about making sure
    that there was some kind of majority composition of those
    boards that was local government.
        Senator Reed. Mr. Love, since you are right there in the
    middle of it all, your comments on this issue.
        Mr. Love. Yes, in Houston, in particular, we serve as the
    lead agency, but it is a collaborative process, and the
    collaboration is made up of the Coalition for the Homeless as
    the lead agency; representatives from the City of Houston and
    representatives from Harris County, and we operate as that
    collaborative, meaning that there has to be two votes before
    anything is done or any initiatives are moved forward.
        One of the reasons that the Coalition was made as the lead
    agency because of the flexibility and the lack of bureaucracy
    entailed within a 501(c)(3).
        Senator Reed. So essentially, how your operation works, you
    have three voters.
        Mr. Love. Yes.
        Senator Reed. The county, the city, and the Coalition.
        Mr. Love. And the Coalition.
        Senator Reed. You are the lead agency; you develop the
    ideas, but if they both dislike it, then, you cannot do
    anything.
        Mr. Love. Absolutely.
        Senator Reed. Good.
        Mr. Berg, Mr. Gould, any comments on this issue?
        Mr. Berg. I would agree. This is done different ways in
    different places, but when we look at the places that are
    really having success, they all have a very strong role by the
    public sector, for the reasons that Dr. Culhane spelled out. We
    need to ensure that the process will work in a community where
    the public sector is not particularly interested, and there are
    those communities. That is the only caveat to that.
        Senator Reed. Good point.
        Mr. Gould. And just that the collaborative effort among the
    nonprofit organizations I think is also an essential component
    to that that really brings a lot of value to it.
        Senator Reed. Indeed.
        Mr. Chairman, do you have another round?
        Senator Allard. Do you want to do another round?
        Senator Reed. It is up to you. I think we have----
        Senator Allard. I think we have pretty well covered
    everything that we need to. I think you have all given us very
    good testimony. You have given us good responses to the
    questions, and I hate to tie your day up any more than what we
    already have. I think maybe if you had any flights later on
    today, you may have already missed them; I do not know. If you
    have not, we want to give you an opportunity to catch them.
        And so, I just remind you again that the record is going to
    stay open for 10 days. There might be some questions that
    Members on the Committee or from the Committee itself will
    submit to you, and if you would expedite responding to those
    questions and get your answers back in 10 days, we would
    appreciate that very much.
        And so, with that, we will go ahead and adjourn the
    hearing, and thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Prepared statements, response to written questions, and
    additional material supplied for the record follow:]
                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY A. BERNARDI
       Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
                                 March 30, 2006
    Introduction
        Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here to discuss the proposed
    consolidation of HUD's 3 competitive Homeless Assistance Grant programs
    into a single program aimed at alleviating homelessness in this
    country. Consolidation would provide: (1) more flexibility to
    localities; (2) grant-making responsibility with local decisionmaking
    bodies; (3) funds for prevention of homelessness; and (4) dramatic
    reduction in the time required to distribute funds to grantees. The
    proposal would also further the Administration's goal to end chronic
    homelessness.
        HUD has been providing funding for homeless programs since 1987.
    Through its programs, HUD has awarded billions of dollars to
    communities across the country. Approximately 5,000 projects each year
    receive funds to alleviate homelessness in their communities.
        In 1994, HUD developed the Continuum of Care planning and grant
    process, which calls for communities to develop local plans for solving
    homelessness. It is a community-led effort that involves a diverse
    group of organizations, including State and local government, public
    housing agencies, nonprofit providers, foundations, and homeless and
    formerly homeless persons. The Continuum identifies the community's
    housing and service needs, as well as the existing inventory to address
    those needs. The Continuum then assesses remaining needs and determines
    how to best address them, proposing an overall plan and specific
    project requests for HUD funding. Since 1994, the Continuums have
    proven to be effective as a coordinating body for fighting
    homelessness; among the reasons for their effectiveness are the broad-
    based partnerships they have forged at the local level.
        The Continuum of Care program is made up of three programs:
    Supportive Housing Program; the Shelter Plus Care Program; and Section
    8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Dwellings for Homeless
    Individuals, or SRO. Senators Reed and Allard have introduced a bill
    that would affirm the role of local planning entities, bring HUD's
    three competitive programs into one program, and provide for even more
    local decisionmaking authority and flexibility. I want to recognize the
    two Senators for their longstanding commitment to alleviating
    homelessness. I also want to acknowledge their hard work in developing
    this very worthwhile proposal. Their bill would greatly simplify how
    HUD's resources could be used to effectively and efficiently solve
    homelessness.
        I also want to thank Congressman Rick Renzi who has introduced the
    Administration's bill. Our bill is similar in many ways to the
    legislation introduced by Senators Reed and Allard. For example, both
    bills would decentralize the Federal role in selection of applications
    for funding and speed up the award process. Currently, staff at HUD
    headquarters reviews nearly 6,000 individual project applications each
    year. This is one of the largest and most intensive grant competitions
    in the Federal Government. It takes the Department nearly 6 months to
    review the applications; once selections are made, 3-6 additional
    months are needed to finalize the nearly 5,000 awarded contracts. Both
    bills would greatly simplify this process by reviewing an overall
    application from each community and then having the communities award
    local projects for funding. Rather than taking up to a year to review
    and execute contracts, the proposals would reduce the timeframe to a
    few months. This would result in the timely obligation of funds and
    assistance to those who literally have no place to live.
        The bills would also greatly simplify the match requirements.
    Currently, one of the programs, the Supportive Housing Program, has, by
    statute, a 100 percent match requirement for capital costs such as
    acquisition and rehabilitation, a 25 percent match for operating costs,
    a 20 percent match for supportive services and no match requirement for
    leasing. Both bills would establish a single match requirement of 25
    percent for all activities.
        HUD's Continuum of Care programs maintain a unique and
    comprehensive public-private partnership for ending homelessness. The
    programs work within broad national goals. We have established through
    the Continuum concept a resource-driven planning and allocation system,
    with emphasis on local decisionmaking processes. The Continuum also
    provides a focus on performance as a key element of local planning
    outcomes. The proposed consolidation starts with all of these strengths
    and expands on them, by decentralizing Federal processes and moving
    community planning to the local level. This way, decisionmakers can
    more effectively work to solve homelessness and end chronic
    homelessness in their communities.
    Unique and Comprehensive Program
        The Continuum of Care is a unique and comprehensive public-private
    partnership. It calls for all stakeholders within a community to be
    involved in shaping solutions to homelessness. They identify the needs,
    assess existing resources, and prioritize projects needing funding.
    State and local government officials, nonprofit homeless providers
    including faith-based and other community organizations, foundations,
    businesses, hospitals, law enforcement, schools, and homeless and
    formerly homeless persons are all part of the Continuum of Care. Over
    3,700 jurisdictions participate in the Continuum of Care process,
    representing over 92 percent of the U.S. population. The skills,
    abilities, and resources of each stakeholder are maximized and
    leveraged to make a visible difference within their community. Both
    bills would codify this concept, which was created by HUD through
    administrative means.
        A significant enhancement in these bills would add prevention as an
    eligible funding activity. Prevention is a key part of solving
    homelessness, and is an important element in both bills. The proposed
    legislation would allow projects to spend HUD funds on prevention
    activities, such as utility payments or rental assistance, for persons
    at risk of becoming homeless. This way, HUD can help keep people in
    their homes and prevent people from actually becoming homeless. Not
    only would this reduce additional, unnecessary costs on a city's
    homeless system, but it would improve continuity of housing for
    individuals and families, improving their ability to function as
    productive members of society.
        In HUD's current competitive grant programs, applicants must
    explain and document their efforts to prevent homelessness. By allowing
    the Continuum programs to fund homelessness prevention, both bills
    would place greater emphasis on its importance.
    Targeting Most In-Need Populations
        In addition to preventing homelessness for those at risk, HUD's
    homeless programs are addressing another portion of the population: The
    chronically homeless. These are the hardest-to-serve individuals; they
    have been in and out of homeless shelters and on the street for long
    periods of time. In 2002, the Administration set a goal of ending
    chronic homelessness for this population. Through the Continuum of Care
    grants, HUD funds have been working to effectively achieve this goal.
        In fact, while representing just 10 to 20 percent of the homeless
    population, they consume up to 50 percent of emergency resources in a
    city. Instead of having these individuals cycling through the various
    public systems and using these emergency resources, this Administration
    has focused on providing permanent housing as a way to improve cost
    effectiveness for the community and quality of life for the individual.
    In fact, $365 million, or 30 percent of HUD competitive homeless
    assistance funds, were awarded to projects targeting the chronically
    homeless in 2005.
        While this Administration has not shied away from serving this
    difficult population, it has also not forgotten about the needs of
    homeless families with children. In fact, 70 percent of funds awarded
    this past year went to projects that targeted persons who were not
    chronically homeless, especially homeless families.
    A Results-Oriented System
        The Continuum of Care approach is also a resource-driven planning
    and allocation system. Prior to the Continuum of Care, individual local
    projects independently applied in separate HUD competitions for a
    particular homeless assistance program. This previous approach did not
    promote local coordination or strategic planning. The Continuum of Care
    requires thoughtful, strategic planning across a community so that the
    needs are identified and prioritized. The community then chooses from a
    menu of existing HUD homeless resources, including the Supportive
    Housing, Shelter Plus Care, and the Section 8 SRO programs.
        Moreover, the Continuum of Care ensures that the community links
    its efforts to other plans and funding sources. For instance,
    Continuums are scored on whether they are part of HUD's resource-driven
    Consolidated Planning process. This helps ensure linkages and resources
    from other parts of HUD such as the Community Development Block Grant,
    HOME, the Emergency Shelter Grants, and the Housing Opportunities for
    Persons With AIDS Programs. The Continuum also encourages active
    linkages with existing jurisdictional 10-year plans to end chronic
    homelessness.
        The consolidation bills would enhance the existing resource-driven
    and allocation system of the Continuum of Care by providing a modest
    amount for administrative costs, including strategic planning and
    monitoring. The bills would also provide a more efficient resource-
    driven system by consolidating and greatly simplifying the various
    homeless assistance programs into a single program.
    A Performance-Based System
        The Continuum of Care approach is performance based. The
    application contains a performance section that represents 30 percent
    of the score in the annual Continuum of Care competition. The core of
    this performance section is the Government Performance and Results Act
    (GPRA) indicators by which Congress assesses HUD for the area of
    homelessness. Our GPRA goal is to end chronic homelessness and help
    families and individuals move to permanent housing. The specific
    indicators with which we measure a community's progress in achieving
    this goal include: The percent of homeless clients who move to
    permanent housing; the percent of clients in permanent housing who
    remain stably housed; and the percent of homeless clients we serve who
    become employed. In addition, creating permanent housing units has been
    another important aspect of achieving this goal. Finally, we measure
    the extent to which the Congressional directive to implement and use a
    Homeless Management Information System is achieved in each community.
    By connecting HUD's performance with that of our grantees and
    ultimately homeless clients we are seeing success.
        HUD's GPRA efforts have been touted by the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) as exemplary for other Federal programs to emulate. HUD's
    Continuum of Care programs were recently rated ``Effective'' when
    assessed by the Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).
    That rating underscores the efficacy of the Continuum of Care approach.
    Key Differences
        While the two bills are similar in the overall design and a number
    of specific areas, there are also some differences between the bills.
    For example, the Administration bill:

     Ensures broader participation in the Continuum of Care Board
        (that is, greater participation by nongovernmental entities);
     Assures greater accountability in the expenditure of funds for
        homelessness by each Continuum of Care by requiring each Continuum
        to be a legal entity;
     Focuses more on chronically homeless persons living on the
        streets;
     Provides for renewal of all types of projects, including
        transitional housing;
     Provides greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed
        to solve homelessness;
     Provides greater flexibility in using program funds to prevent
        homelessness; and
     Better targets its permanent housing resources for those who
        are most vulnerable: The disabled.

        Overall, consolidating the three Continuum of Care programs and
    codifying it in statute would allow far greater flexibility, which will
    enable improved performance and effectiveness of HUD's Homeless
    Assistance Grant programs. Thank you very much for inviting me to be
    here. I am looking forward to more discussions on this issue that is so
    critical to the future of our nation.
                                   ----------
                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP F. MANGANO
          Executive Director, U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
                                 March 30, 2006
        Chairman Allard, Senator Reed, and distinguished Members of the
    Committee, I appreciate the commitment you are expressing to
    homelessness in today's hearing.
        I appreciate the work of Senators Reed and Allard to bring this
    bill before the Subcommittee, knowing its long development and
    thoughtful integration of the experience of the last 19 years. The
    inclusive process that Committee staff employed in creating the bill is
    appreciated. The input from stakeholders across the country in and out
    of government assured that the bill represented a broad constituency.
        I am pleased to endorse the Administration's proposal to
    consolidate the Homeless Assistance competitive grants at the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development to more effectively assist
    individuals and families in leaving homelessness and moving to
    permanent housing and self-sufficiency. Consolidation of these programs
    would also give localities more decisionmaking power over their funds
    and provide a greater focus on prevention of homelessness.
        I have been the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council
    on Homelessness since March 2002. The Council is an independent Federal
    entity with a mission to coordinate the Federal response to
    homelessness and to create a national partnership at every level of
    government to reduce and end homelessness in the Nation and forward the
    Administration's goal of ending chronic homelessness. Since
    revitalization by the President in March 2002, the U.S. Interagency
    Council on Homelessness (USICH) has fostered interagency,
    intergovernmental, and intercommunity partnerships in the creation of
    an unprecedented national partnership focused on homelessness. Over the
    past 3 years, the Council has worked with Governors to create State
    Interagency Councils on Homelessness to mirror the work we are doing in
    Washington in the Federal Council. These State Councils make State
    resources more available and accessible. Fifty-three Governors are now
    partnered in the creation of such Councils.
        There are 20 Federal agencies which make up the Council membership,
    meeting regularly in Washington and 53 State level Councils, but the
    frontlines of homelessness are in local communities. Building on the
    10-year planning process set in motion by the National Alliance to End
    Homelessness, the Council has been active for the past 3 years through
    its Regional Coordinators and the encouragement of HUD through its
    Continuum of Care grants to foster local 10-Year Plans to End Chronic
    Homelessness. Two hundred twelve localities are now committed with the
    full support of their Mayors and County Executives to ending chronic
    homelessness. As part of the partnership, the Council has provided
    technical assistance to cities to ensure results in their communities
    in ending chronic homelessness.
        These local planning processes have created unprecedented local
    partnerships that have brought together the nonprofit sector, business
    sector, faith and community-based organizations, in results oriented
    business plans to achieve the outcome of reducing and ending chronic
    homelessness.
    Introduction
        Having been involved in the response to the problem of homelessness
    for a quarter century now, I want to first express my appreciation and
    solidarity with those who have been on the frontline of response, in
    the forefront of local efforts.
        A decade before the McKinney Act came into existence, countless
    faith and community-based nonprofit groups, as well as the
    philanthropic and business community joined by concerned citizens
    provided extraordinary and heroic work to our homeless neighbors.
    Unfortunately, the need and numbers grew despite these efforts.
    McKinney-Vento Importance
        In 1987, the passage of the McKinney Act contributed a range of new
    resources and restored morale to the work that local groups were doing
    to assist those who had fallen into homelessness.
        I was Director of Homeless Services in the City of Cambridge that
    summer in 1987, and I can assure you that all across that city, the
    State, and the Nation there was relief that reinforcements and
    resources had arrived.
        Thankfully, over the last two decades the McKinney-Vento programs
    at a range of Federal agencies have supplemented other public and
    private resources all across the Nation. Without that Federal funding
    there is little question that homelessness would be even more pervasive
    than it is now.
        In the nearly 20 years since then, the McKinney-Vento programs have
    been an important source of resources for our local and national
    responses.
    The Role of Federal Agencies
        Much credit must go to the important role that HUD and a number of
    other Federal agencies has had in prioritizing homeless people and
    focusing both targeted homeless funds and mainstream funding to assist
    in the national effort. HUD, along with other Federal agencies, has
    been central in the national quest to reduce and end homelessness by
    funding vital research, direct services, employment resources, and
    permanent housing, Through HUD's Continuum of Care grant process, local
    Continuum of Care boards--in nearly every locality across the country--
    receive funds to help end the problem of homelessness in their
    communities.
        Through collaborations and initiatives by Department of Housing and
    Urban Development, Department of Health and Human Services, Department
    of Veterans Affairs, Department of Labor, Department of Education,
    General Services Administration, Department of Justice, and the Social
    Security Administration significant investments over the last several
    years have made a difference for our most vulnerable and disabled
    citizens.
    Increased Federal Investment
        In the past 5 years, targeted Federal resources have increased to
    record levels each year, including the President's proposed budget for
    2007 which includes an increase to bring total targeted Federal funding
    to a record level of over $4.1 billion.
        That increase includes the Samaritan Initiative at HUD which
    targets $200 million to help those who are chronically homeless--those
    who are on the streets and long term in our shelters. Samaritan is an
    important resource to continue efforts to spur the Administration's
    goal to reduce and end chronic homelessness, now a national initiative
    supported by Governors, Mayors, County Executives, nonprofit providers,
    and private sector partners all across the Nation.
        If the President's proposed funding level for 2007 is approved,
    there will have been nearly a tenfold increase in targeted resources
    for homelessness since the McKinney Act first passed in 1987. In fact,
    just in the past 4 years, McKinney Act programs have increased more
    than 20 percent. Overall targeted homeless funds have increased by over
    30 percent during that time.
        Homelessness remains a significant problem across the United
    States. Researchers tell us that on any given night, there are between
    600,000 and 800,000 Americans who are homeless. A recent USA Today
    article indicated over 700,000 on that night. In the course of a year,
    researchers tell us that more than 2 million of our neighbors
    experience homelessness.
        Increased resources and increased numbers are a frustrating
    reminder that, while new funding is important, new ideas are just as
    important. We cannot simply take the new resources and expend them in
    the status quo.
    Twenty Years of Experience and Learning
        We have learned a great deal to inform policy and investment over
    the past 20 years and those insights need to inform any changes to
    McKinney-Vento.
        Here are a few of those insights:
        1. No one level of government, no one element of the private sector
    can get the job done alone. We need to be partnered in every facet of
    the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. And the entire community
    must be partnered from the jurisdictional CEO--whether Mayor, County
    Executive, or city manager--to those nonprofit providers who are on the
    frontlines to business, academia, philanthropy, advocates, formerly and
    currently homeless people, to each level of government, all partnered
    together as stakeholders on this issue.
        2. Federal resources must be invested in the result of ending
    people's homelessness. Resources should be aimed at creating
    opportunities for individuals and families to rebuild their lives by
    funding case management, employment services, benefits coordination,
    and permanent housing.
        Public and private sector partners have also joined us in moving
    beyond managing the crisis to reducing and ending homelessness. The
    National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National
    League of Cities, National Association of Counties, United Way, the
    International Downtown Business Association, National Alliance to End
    Homelessness, The National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, and others are
    partnered with us nationally. And they have committed to join with us
    in beginning that effort to end the homelessness of those who are the
    most disabled and most vulnerable, people experiencing chronic
    homelessness.
        3. Federal resources should be invested according to what works.
    Investments should be data and research driven, performance based, and
    results oriented.
        4. People experiencing chronic homelessness are expensive. Research
    tells us that, while they number only between 10 and 20 percent of the
    homeless individual population, they consume half of all emergency
    shelter resources. And recently through research conducted in local
    communities across the country, we are learning that chronic
    homelessness is costly in expensive mainstream health and law
    enforcement systems. Funding of housing, treatment and services and
    planning for these individuals must be coordinated across all sectors
    in local communities.
        5. 10-Year Plans to End Chronic Homelessness encouraged by the
    Council bring the entire community together in a stakeholder informed
    planning process focused on results. When those strategies are business
    plans driven by the political will of the local jurisdictional leaders,
    change happens, results are quantifiable.
        HUD has encouraged its local Continuums of Care to partner in
    jurisdictional 10-Year Plans. These plans not only ensure that all
    levels of government are partners in the community-based strategies and
    include resources from a variety of Federal agencies, they importantly
    provide a place for all stakeholders--from the Chamber of Commerce to
    downtown business associations, law enforcement, hospital
    administrators, providers, librarians, and all others who are concerned
    and impacted.
        6. Perhaps most importantly, jurisdictional plans are creating
    inclusive local partnerships that are achieving results and leveraging
    resources. Two hundred eleven communities are now partnered with the
    Council through their Mayors and County Executives. Jurisdictionally
    led planning infused with local political, social, and civic will are
    achieving visible and measurable outcomes in implementing their 10-Year
    Plans.
        In a 40 city survey conducted by the Council, jurisdictional plans
    and our increase in Federal resources have leveraged more than $2
    billion in State, local, and private funds in the past 3 years.
        7. We know that permanent supportive housing works for vulnerable
    and disabled populations. When McKinney-Vento was first passed, this
    technology developed in the mental health system of response was not in
    common use. Today, communities across the country are targeting this
    technology to those experiencing chronic homelessness and achieving 80-
    85 percent retention rates on average. And another technology borrowed
    from the mental health system, Assertive Community Treatment Teams,
    known as ACT, is making a significant difference on the streets,
    engaging those who were thought to be intractably homeless there and
    providing the clinical and multidisciplinary strategies to end their
    street homelessness and support them in housing. A consumer-centric
    response rooted in opportunities for housing, services, benefits, and
    employment is working.
        8. We now understand the priority that needs to be placed on
    prevention. For too long we bailed the leaking boat of homelessness,
    some moved out, more moved in.
        Again, research helped us understand that, without prevention
    strategies, especially focused on effective discharge planning
    protocols from mainstream systems of care and incarceration and
    services, our intervention efforts would not create the results we
    expect.
        9. Employment must be part of the strategy to reduce dependency and
    increase self-sufficiency.
        10. Research and innovation investments have shaped initiatives
    that are evidence-based and produce results. Both have been essential
    in advancing policy in this Administration.
    Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento and Consolidation of HUD's Homeless
    Assistance Grants
        The Administration's proposal as well as the Bill introduced by
    Senator Reed would reauthorize McKinney-Vento and consolidate HUD's
    competitive Homeless Assistance Grants. Both of these proposals would
    provide: (1) more flexibility to localities, (2) grant-making
    responsibility to local boards, (3) provide a significant amount of
    funds for prevention of homelessness, (4) continued support for the
    creation of permanent housing opportunities, and (5) dramatically
    reduce the time required to distribute funds to grantees. The
    Administration's bill would also further the goal of ending chronic
    homelessness.
        The proposals to consolidate the Homeless Assistance Grant programs
    would address the needs identified by the lessons learned over the past
    20 years.
        1. An increased focus on prevention activities including the
    development of discharge planning protocols, research, and innovations
    will forward the national objectives on homelessness. Prevention stops
    the human tragedy before it begins and is less costly than
    homelessness.
        2. The focus on permanent housing and the targeting by HUD and the
    Congress is the right direction to reduce and end homelessness.
    Prioritizing McKinney resources to create and access permanent
    supportive housing makes sense.
        3. Cost benefit analyses continue to demonstrate that housing and
    supportive service solutions for chronic homelessness may be less
    expensive than this population randomly ricocheting through the
    homeless system and expensive mainstream health and law enforcement
    systems.
        4. Coordination at the local level of all relevant local
    government, nonprofit, and private sector players is key to making
    Continuum of Care funding and 10-year jurisdictional plans successful.
        5. Coordination of Federal investments ensures that each agency
    initiative is supporting a national strategy. Cooperation of Federal
    agencies ensures that such investments are monitored for evidence based
    results.
    Conclusion
        Across the Nation, localities in partnership with all stakeholders,
    public and private, have been reenergized on the issue of ending
    homelessness in their communities. The mind set across our country has
    changed in the past few years. The creation of State Interagency
    Councils on Homelessness and jurisdictional 10-Year Plans have
    stimulated this new sense and provided a nexus point for their joint
    impact. The commitments of Federal agencies to new initiatives and new
    investments have provided inspiration. HUD's partnerships in the field,
    especially through the Continuum of Care, have offered resources and
    coordination among providers. The Continuum of Care process would be
    strengthened by consolidation of programs with an even greater focus on
    local collaborations and prevention of homelessness.
        There is now a national intent to end the disgrace of homelessness
    beginning with chronic homelessness, visible on our streets and in our
    shelters. We have much work to do, but we are better prepared and
    equipped than ever before.
                       PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAIL DORFMAN
                    County Commissioner, Hennepin County, MN
                                 March 30, 2006
        Chairman Allard, Senator Reed, and Members of the Committee, I am
    Gail Dorfman, County Commissioner from Hennepin County, Minnesota, and
    the City of Minneapolis. I am honored to address the Committee this
    afternoon on the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento and the
    consolidation of HUD programs for the homeless. I first want to
    remember former Minnesota Congressman Bruce Vento, who throughout his
    life of public service was dedicated to improving the lives of people
    experiencing homelessness. Congressman Vento left us too soon, but left
    behind a legacy of working effectively on behalf of America's homeless,
    a legacy that will not be forgotten.
        I applaud you, Mr. Chair and Senator Reed, for introducing the
    Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2005. Reauthorization
    of McKinney-Vento is critical if we are to change the paradigm from
    managing homelessness to ending homelessness in our communities.
    Yesterday, we began an intensive 100 day effort to develop a Blueprint
    for Ending Homelessness in Minneapolis and Hennepin County. Mr. Mangano
    joined us as leaders from the public and private sectors, nonprofit and
    philanthropic communities and the homeless came together to commit to
    ending homelessness over the next 10 years. In partnership with the
    Federal Government and our State government, we will be successful, and
    we will do it before the 10 years is up.
        In Hennepin County, we well remember what it was like before
    McKinney-Vento. Our shelters were overflowing and we were vouchering
    families into more than 100 hotel and motel rooms across the Twin
    Cities every night. Our average shelter stays were three times what
    they are today and an alarming number of families were cycling in and
    out of shelter on a regular basis. McKinney-Vento has helped to
    dramatically improve upon this situation by supporting results-oriented
    programs. Additionally, through our partnership with the Federal
    Government, we have been able to leverage significant amounts of local
    dollars--$12.4 million in 2005 alone. Together, we have ended
    homelessness for thousands of men, women, children, and unaccompanied
    youth.
        Over the past two decades we have learned a great deal in Hennepin
    County about what does and does not work to end homelessness. We no
    longer look to shelters as the solution. Instead, we focus on
    preventing people from becoming homeless whenever possible and rapidly
    rehousing them if they do. It costs 10 times more to house and resettle
    a homeless family than to prevent them from losing their housing in the
    first place. Through the support of McKinney-Vento funds, we have
    established one of the best family homeless prevention models in the
    country. In Hennepin County, we work hard to keep people in the housing
    they have. We have learned that prevention is the best and most cost-
    effective way to end homelessness.
        When families do become homeless, we work with them through our
    Rapid Exit program to quickly place and support them in permanent
    housing. Rapid Exit is a supportive services program funded by HUD and
    is listed on HUD's website as a national best practice for its
    excellent results and low cost. Through Rapid Exit, Hennepin County
    contracts with highly effective community-based organizations to
    support both clients and landlords, providing housing stabilization
    assistance while maximizing mainstream resources. They provide on-going
    case management to help clients resolve personal issues that are
    barriers to housing while also building on the strengths of their
    clients. As one provider told me, ``Most homeless people are survivors!
    They have the innate strength to be successful and we encourage them to
    use that strength.'' The case managers also assist landlords in
    resolving issues that place the client's housing in jeopardy, cosign
    leases, and provide financial and legal assistance. Providers serving
    as intermediaries with private landlords are the single most effective
    way to recruit and maintain landlords willing to rent to high-barrier
    tenants.
        Our 2005 results far exceeded expectations. During this 1 year
    period, 588 families and 48 chronically homeless adults were placed
    into housing by Rapid Exit. Of the 588 families, 94 percent remained
    out of shelter for at least 12 months. Of the 48 chronically homeless,
    79 percent remained out of shelter for at least 6 months. Additionally,
    30 percent of the families and 60 percent of the individuals increased
    their incomes during the first 6 months in their new housing.
        Through the expansion of our prevention efforts and the Rapid Exit
    program, we have also seen dramatic reductions in the average length of
    stays in our family shelters and the number of parents and children
    sheltered per year. Between the years of 2000 and 2003, we saw a 47
    percent decrease in length of shelter stays for families, a 42 percent
    decrease in the number of parents and children sheltered, and a 70
    percent decrease in the number of shelter beds purchased per year.
    These kinds of results highlight the importance of innovative, results-
    oriented practices and our on-going partnership with the Federal
    Government through McKinney-Vento.
        The numbers are good, but the personal stories are the best, like
    the single mom from Illinois who fled from an abusive relationship with
    her four children and came to our county shelter. She struggled with
    finding work, caring for her children, and getting them to school on-
    time. Our Rapid Exit worker helped locate a job and an apartment she
    could afford. Now 10 years later, she owns her own modest home, two of
    the children have graduated high school and are attending college, and
    she still calls her case manager every 6 months to proudly report on
    her success.
        The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act will bring us
    another step forward in our quest to end homelessness and provide
    stable housing for every member of our community. We support the
    consolidation of McKinney-Vento programs, the noncompetitive renewal of
    rent/operating subsidies for permanent housing, the 30 percent
    permanent set aside for individuals and families with disabilities, and
    the recognition of the critical importance of prevention. We are,
    however, concerned with the proposal to curtail certain services after
    3 years. It is critical that services that directly support housing
    placement, coordination with private landlords, and housing
    stabilization remain intact. Our Rapid Exit program depends on
    McKinney-Vento to ensure our continued success--and this, our most
    effective McKinney-Vento program, would be at risk of termination.
    Last, we support increased flexibility within McKinney-Vento funding
    streams. The more creative we can be at the local level, the more
    likely we will be able to end homelessness for people in our
    communities.
        We know what works to end homelessness in our communities.
    Prevention, Rapid Exit, and supportive housing are key ingredients to
    keeping people in housing rather than in shelters and on the streets.
    Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento is critical to our success. I am
    confident that we will end homelessness in Hennepin County by
    continuing our strong local, State, and Federal partnership.
                                   ----------
                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. BERG
                    Vice President for Programs and Policy,
                     National Alliance to End Homelessness
                                 March 30, 2006
        The National Alliance to End Homelessness would like to thank
    Chairman Allard and Senator Reed for holding this hearing, for inviting
    us to testify, and for introducing S. 1801, the Community Partnership
    to End Homelessness Act. We are looking forward to continuing our
    cooperative work with this Subcommittee.
        We are beginning to change the terms of the conversation about
    homelessness in the United States. Since the summer of 2000, when the
    National Alliance to End Homelessness made public its Ten Year Plan to
    End Homelessness, many people around the country who for years had
    viewed homelessness as endemic are beginning to see that it is a
    problem with a solution. Over 220 cities, counties, and States have
    publicly committed the energy to adopt local and State plans to end
    homelessness. Congress and the Administration have established goals of
    solving important pieces of this problem. Major national media outlets
    have covered the issue, stressing the solution-oriented approaches that
    communities have adopted. And a small number of leading communities,
    those that over several years have carried out commonsensical reforms
    to their approach, are showing quantifiable declines in the number of
    homeless people, even while the numbers go up in most places.
        In this context of change and opportunity, we will discuss the most
    important lessons we have learned about homelessness in recent years,
    the kinds of responses that lead to solutions, and the importance of
    this bill in moving to the next level of progress.
    What We have Learned about Homelessness
        Over the past 20 years of concerted efforts to address
    homelessness, and particularly over the past 5 years as we have worked
    to change our approach to the issue, we have improved our understanding
    and programmatic know-how. The following are our most important
    insights.
        HUD McKinney-Vento programs are effective and useful. Often when
    Congress sets out to reauthorize a program, it is because of a
    perception that something is broken. That is not the case here. As they
    have evolved over the past decade under both Republican and Democratic
    leadership, the HUD homelessness programs are effective tools in
    helping communities. In reauthorizing the programs, Congress, instead
    of fixing a broken system, is in a position to take an already strong
    program and jumpstart a new phase of development, looking toward using
    these programs to drive a widespread effort to solve the problem of
    homelessness.
        Managing homelessness and taking care of homeless people is
    essential. Homelessness is damaging to people and communities. It must
    be regarded as an emergency situation that requires a strong response.
    The basic survival needs of homeless people must continue to be met.
        At the same time, we now have the know-how to do more, to end
    homelessness--it is a problem with a solution. The solution to this
    expensive and dispiriting problem is more apparent. It involves four
    elements: Outcome-based planning using reliable data; preventing at-
    risk people from becoming homeless; more quickly moving homeless people
    back in to housing; and making some progress on housing affordability,
    incomes and the availability of support services to all low-income
    people.
        We are now at the point where a small number of leading communities
    have put these principles into action over the course of several years,
    and have achieved excellent outcomes in the form of reductions in
    homelessness. In Columbus, OH, family homelessness declined 53 percent
    between 1997 and 2004. In Hennepin County, MN (including Minneapolis),
    family homelessness declined by 43 percent between 2000 and 2004. In
    San Francisco, chronic homelessness declined by 28 percent from 2002 to
    2005. In Westchester County, NY, family homelessness declined by 60
    percent in 2 years. And in New York City, the number of homeless
    children declined by 19 percent in 1 year. As more cities develop
    reliable data systems tracking the number of homeless people, we expect
    to find similar results elsewhere.
        Solutions require aggressive steps by local communities, and
    Federal leadership in providing resources and incentives. Communities
    that have made the most progress have had strong leadership on the
    issue from elected officials, in order to develop a community-wide
    commitment to solving this problem. These communities have responded to
    Federal funding opportunities and incentives to use their funding in
    new ways. To bring these solutions to scale around the country, this
    national leadership is indispensable. The U.S. Interagency Council on
    Homelessness has played an indispensable part in coordinating the
    Federal role and building strong collaborations between the Federal and
    other levels of government.
        The solution is about getting people housed as quickly as possible
    and keeping them housed. ``Housing First'' has become a watchword for
    many of the reforms. Many homeless people have problems, some of them
    extremely severe. Yet, in nearly all cases, the problems are better
    solved after people are provided with housing, whether they be
    stabilizing a mental illness, conquering an addiction, improving
    earning power, or strengthening family relationships. Trying to solve
    these problems for people while they are homeless is extremely
    difficult.
        Interestingly, Housing First is responsive to the expressed desires
    of homeless people. When asked in a major Federal survey what would be
    most helpful to them, the most common responses by far from homeless
    people were help finding housing, and help finding a job so they could
    afford housing.
        The homeless system cannot do it by itself. Mainstream systems and
    indeed the entire community need to make it their project.
    Collaboration is key. The homeless system does not have the ability by
    itself to prevent people from becoming homeless on a large scale.
    Fortunately, by far the majority of people who become homeless are
    eligible for help from extensive systems of care directed toward low-
    income people in general. In fact, many who become homeless were
    previously residents of government-funded institutions--hospitals for
    people with mental illness, child welfare, and foster care agencies,
    jails and prisons. This provides the opportunity for government to do a
    better job of ensuring stable housing.
        The homeless services system also does not have the capacity to
    provide large quantities of new housing, at the scale necessary to end
    homelessness. The small amount of permanent housing that the homeless
    system can afford to fund must be directed toward those least likely to
    be housed in any other manner. Meanwhile, market-based approaches and
    mainstream housing programs must be used more aggressively and targeted
    toward those least able to afford housing without intervention.
        Homeless people are a diverse group and there need to be
    interventions appropriate to all. This is especially the case regarding
    how much supportive services are needed to get and keep people housed.
    The stereotype of a homeless person who lives on the streets year after
    year at the mercy of severe mental illness often combined with
    addiction is only too accurate for many people. Supportive housing,
    discussed below, is crucial for people who fit this pattern, and has
    excellent results. On the other hand, most people who experience
    homelessness have problems that are largely economic in nature,
    combined with thin social supports. The help they need to achieve
    housing stability is relatively modest--communities have had very good
    results with programs that build relationships with local landlords,
    help people fix credit problems, and perhaps provide a small amount of
    financial help for security deposit and initial rent, with referral to
    mainstream programs that help with employment stability.
        The hardest to serve often do not get served. For most of the time
    the HUD McKinney-Vento programs have been in effect, a certain portion
    of the funding was explicitly directed by the Federal Government to
    permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities. The exception
    was a 5-year period in the late 1990's, when HUD developed the
    ``Continuum of Care'' model allowing communities to exercise more
    centralized control over what projects would be funded. The Continuum
    of Care improved the system in many ways; but during this short period,
    spending on permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities
    fell precipitously. While it is unclear why this occurred, the
    possibilities include the difficulty of carrying out supportive housing
    projects, particular the difficulties siting permanent housing for
    people with mental illness, a well-documented phenomenon. The
    bipartisan enactment by Congress of a floor of 30 percent on spending
    for permanent housing brought the system back into balance.
    The Right Models are Proven Cost-Effective Interventions that Work
        Leading communities are already answering the question of the right
    kinds of models that flow from these lessons. The following describes
    the most effective approaches.
        Supportive Housing. ``Supportive housing'' is a generic term
    describing housing where the rent is subsidized, and where treatment
    and support services are provided to those who live in the housing.
    This kind of housing can include everything from large apartment
    buildings dedicated to this use, to scattered site programs where rent
    subsidies are paid to for-profit landlords and visiting teams provide
    services and treatment.
        This model is particularly designed for homeless people with the
    most severe problems, including mental illness and addiction. Careful
    research has demonstrated that such housing can be provided to homeless
    people with mental illness at virtually no cost to the taxpayer,
    because people who leave the streets in favor of supportive housing
    reduce sharply their use of expensive emergency services such as
    psychiatric emergency hospitals and detoxification facilities, as well
    as jails and shelters.
        The proven success of permanent supportive housing has driven the
    campaign to end chronic (long-term) homelessness. The research on
    homelessness and housing for people with mental illness has provided
    strong incentives to State mental health systems to prevent
    homelessness among their clientele. A push to rehouse those who are
    already homeless can reduce the incidence of homelessness among people
    with severe mental illnesses to minimal levels.
        Emerging conclusions on families. Approximately half a million
    families with children become homeless in the United States each year,
    and a similar number leave homelessness each year and reenter housing.
    But at any given time approximately 100,000 families are homeless,
    staying in shelters, ``welfare hotels,'' cars, abandoned buildings and
    outside. Because of the greater numbers and the wider range of
    circumstances, a scenario for ending family homelessness has been more
    difficult to develop than has a solution for chronic homelessness.
    Thanks to the leadership of communities like Minneapolis, Columbus, and
    New York, however, the scenario is becoming increasingly clear.
        Because of high rates of entry into and exit from the homeless
    system among families, prevention is especially important. Successful
    prevention programs involve outreach to find families that are on the
    brink of homelessness; work with landlords and short-term financial
    assistance to stave off evictions; and social and employment services
    to stabilize circumstances and improve incomes and the ability to pay
    rent. Some communities target these resources to neighborhoods from
    which homeless families most often arrive in the shelter system. In New
    York City, shelter entry data is fed back to prevention programs to
    help tailor outreach and services to the kinds of families that are
    being missed.
        Housing First is a key element for progress on ending homelessness
    for families. It involves developing close working relations with
    landlords, combined with financial assistance so that homeless families
    can be quickly placed into housing. The vast majority of families that
    experience homelessness are facing problems of an economic nature--they
    are those with the lowest incomes, and probably those that lack strong
    social support networks. Interventions that focus on these barriers are
    the most effective.
        Services after placement in housing are another piece of the puzzle
    for families. Services must be evaluated based on their impact on
    housing stability. Intensive employment services are used in the most
    successful communities, so that families can afford rent. The ability
    to intervene if there are landlord-tenant problems is effective.
        Finally, data and planning are essential in communities that are
    succeeding at ending family homelessness. Data systems identify cost-
    effective solutions, help fine-tune interventions, and allow a focus on
    performance.
        Recognizing different issues in rural areas. There are significant
    problems of homelessness in rural areas. While the basic approaches of
    prevention and rapid rehousing apply in rural areas, they will take
    different forms. Few rural communities will be able to support programs
    dedicated exclusively to addressing homelessness--many will rely on
    structures that address poverty or development more generally. Market-
    based approaches to housing the lowest-income people will be
    particularly important.
        System-level outcome orientation. The most important reforms are
    taking place at the level of local systems. Leaders have put into place
    outcome-based systems that reward individual programs for achieving the
    best results. A key intervention has been a system of matching
    individual homeless people and families to programs that provide a
    level of support services that is appropriate--enough to overcome
    barriers to housing stability, while not so much as to hamper cost-
    effectiveness or delay exit from the homeless system.
    This Bill is a Positive Reaction to this Know-How
        The approach to McKinney-Vento reauthorization that is adopted by
    the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act would have a positive
    impact.
        The existing program combines the best aspects of a block grant and
    a competitive program, and the bill improves both parts. As noted
    recently by the Office of Management and Budget, the HUD homelessness
    programs combine the best aspects of a block grant and a competitive
    program. This bill would improve both aspects.
        The bill simplifies the system by consolidating three programs. It
    provides communities with more flexibility. It gives communities the
    resources and authority to move their homeless system in the direction
    it needs to go in order to get better results.
        At the same time, the bill makes the overall program more outcome-
    oriented. It provides financial rewards to communities that work most
    effectively and achieve the best results.
        The bill provides the necessary incentives to meet the needs of the
    hardest to serve. The bill retains the approach adopted through the
    appropriations process for the past 8 years, requiring that 30 percent
    of appropriated funds nationwide be used for permanent housing for
    people with disabilities. This is a balanced approach that ensures that
    the most severely disabled homeless people will secure what they need,
    while leaving substantial resources for other parts of the homeless
    population.
        The bill includes an appropriate balance between getting people
    housed and meeting emergency needs. As has been HUD's practice in
    recent years, the bill allows 15 percent of appropriated funds to the
    Emergency Shelter Grants program; and allows the use of bonuses to
    communities that develop permanent housing. For the first time, the
    bill allows program funds to be used for permanent housing for homeless
    people without disabilities.
        The bill includes strong incentives for collaboration and
    involvement of mainstream funding. The criteria for competitive awards
    includes the ability to involve mainstream systems in planning and
    coordination, and to leverage mainstream dollars as part of the
    homelessness system. This approach, already used by HUD in its
    administration of the current programs, has a great impact on improving
    the quality of the system.
        The bill allows additional investment in prevention. It retains
    prevention as an eligible activity for the Emergency Shelter Grants
    program, while allowing a small portion of the competitive grant
    programs to also be used for prevention. It is extremely important
    nonetheless to avoid encouraging communities to see preventing
    homelessness as the exclusive responsibility of homelessness programs,
    rather than mainstream programs.
    There are Issues that will Require Further Exploration
        Does the capacity exist at the local level to undertake the
    planning, evaluation, and other functions? Is the funding for those
    activities appropriate? The bill increases the expectations places on
    those entities that run the local homeless systems, and provides
    additional administrative funding. Consultation with local communities
    should focus on whether capacity exists for immediate implementation of
    these expectations, and whether the amount of administrative funding is
    sufficient.
        Does the bill have appropriate expectations regarding leveraging
    other resources? Matching requirement in the current system are a
    hodgepodge of different requirements. The bill simplifies this system
    with a uniform requirement of a 25 percent cash match for each program
    operator. The important thing is to ensure that clients have access to
    mainstream services. It is less important that the cash to pay for
    those services pass through the bank account of the entity operating
    the HUD-funded program. There has been support in Congress for a
    provision allowing the value of in-kind services to count toward a
    match requirement where there is a memorandum of understanding with the
    entity providing the services. Solutions such as this should be
    explored.
        Does the bill take the right approach to the need for capital,
    housing operating funding, and services including rehousing services?
    The provision of the bill limiting program funding of support services
    after 3 years has proven to be controversial, especially in light of
    growing understanding of how support services stabilize housing for
    homeless people. The percentage of HUD homeless funding going toward
    support services has declined since earlier versions of this bill were
    introduced. Meanwhile, there have been no new Federal initiatives to
    provide new funding for support services for homeless people.
    Revisiting these provisions may be appropriate.
        It is important to note that a bipartisan bill, the Services to End
    Long-Term Homelessness Act, has been introduced. This bill would
    partially solve the problem of insufficient resources for support
    services for homeless people, by creating a funding stream from the
    Department of Health and Human Services that would match up well with
    the HUD services that are the subject of this bill. The National
    Alliance to End Homelessness strongly supports SELHA.
    Conclusion
        The National Alliance to End Homelessness is proud to support the
    Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. We look forward to
    continued debate to allow all affected interests to be heard. We
    believe that such a consensus-oriented approach can produce a final
    product that would move our collective efforts on homelessness forward,
    while attracting support from a wide range of interests. A real
    opportunity exists to make progress.
                                   ----------
                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GOULD
                   National President, Volunteers of America
                                 March 30, 2006
        Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. My
    name is Charles W. Gould, and I serve as the National President of
    Volunteers of America.
        Volunteers of America is a national, nonprofit, faith-based
    organization that is dedicated to helping those in need rebuild their
    lives and reach their full potential. Through thousands of human
    service programs, including housing and healthcare, Volunteers of
    America helps nearly 2 million people in over 400 communities. Since
    1896, our ministry of service has supported and empowered America's
    most vulnerable groups, including at-risk youth, the frail elderly, men
    and women returning from prison, homeless individuals and families,
    people with disabilities, and those recovering from addictions. Our
    work touches the mind, body, heart--and ultimately the spirit--of those
    we serve, integrating our deep compassion with highly effective
    programs and services.
        In the context of today's hearing, our interventions both prevent
    and end homelessness, in urban and rural communities across the
    country. Last year, we provided assistance to over 80,000 homeless
    children, youth, and adults. We are working to end homelessness in
    almost every State represented by a Senator on this Subcommittee--and
    on the full Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Appendix for a summary description of Volunteers homeless
    programs in States represented by Members of the Subcommittee.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As the only representative of a homeless service provider
    testifying today, my comments and recommendations reflect the views of
    our staff from around the country--the people who are on the ground,
    every day, working to end homelessness. I will begin with lessons
    learned in the 20 years since the passage of the McKinney-Vento Act,
    and from those lessons will draw a series of recommendations for how to
    most effectively reform the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development's (HUD's) homeless programs. We have a significant
    opportunity before us--the opportunity to closely reexamine every
    portion of the McKinney-Vento programs, and of the Federal, State, and
    local partnership to prevent and end homelessness. We should take
    advantage of that opportunity.
        McKinney-Vento's housing programs have not been reauthorized since
    1994. Since that time, Volunteers of America has significantly
    broadened our understanding of how to provide cost-effective housing
    and supportive service interventions to prevent and end homelessness
    for all populations. Based on this understanding, the time is right for
    a complete reauthorization and streamlining of HUD's McKinney-Vento
    programs. By consolidating current programs, broadening the list of
    eligible activities, focusing on homelessness prevention and expanding
    the population to whom housing and services can be provided,
    reauthorization will allow local communities to take full advantage of
    the best practices developed over the past 20 years.
        Reauthorization will also ensure that Congress makes important
    decisions about the structure and emphasis of Federal homeless
    programs. Over the past 12 years, lack of input from Congress has led
    to HUD making significant policy changes through the annual Notice of
    Funding Availability (NOFA) process. Volunteers of America has not
    always been comfortable with this approach, which has often appeared to
    be ``legislation by NOFA.'' Making abrupt policy changes in a February
    or March NOFA, with applications due in May, does not allow communities
    the certainty and consistency they need to implement long-term plans to
    end homelessness.
    Twenty Years of McKinney-Vento--Lessons Learned
        I want to highlight three important lessons that Volunteers of
    America has learned in the 20-year period since McKinney-Vento was
    first passed: (1) McKinney-Vento programs are no substitute for
    ``mainstream'' housing and social service programs or systems of care;
    (2) Family homelessness has significantly increased; and (3) Both
    permanent and transitional housing can be effective tools to end
    homelessness. I will follow my discussion of these ``lessons learned''
    with Volunteers of America's policy recommendations for S. 1801--the
    reauthorization bill that is currently before this Subcommittee.
    McKinney-Vento Programs are no Substitute for ``Mainstream'' Housing
            and
    Social Service Programs or Systems of Care
        Americans are homeless for many reasons. However, over the past 20
    years it has become clear to Volunteers of America that many people
    become homeless due to the failure of Federal and State ``mainstream''
    programs or systems of care to meet their needs. These ``mainstream''
    programs and systems can be defined as interventions designed to assist
    all low-income Americans--not just persons experiencing homelessness.
        In recent years, we have discovered just how these programs can
    contribute directly to homelessness. Here are some examples. When
    funding for Section 8 and other affordable housing programs is reduced,
    and affordability requirements on other housing units are allowed to
    expire, individuals and families will not find alternative affordable
    housing in their communities, and many will become homeless. When
    eligible low-income persons are incorrectly denied Temporary Assistance
    for Needy Families (TANF) ``welfare'' or Supplemental Security Income
    (SSI) disability benefits, they lose their ability to afford housing,
    and many will become homeless. When people are discharged from mental
    health or substance abuse treatment facilities, jails, prisons, or
    foster care, and no provisions are made to ensure that they receive
    appropriate housing and healthcare, many of them will become homeless.
    And when people cannot access mental health or substance abuse
    treatment, they lose jobs and other social supports. Many of these
    people will become homeless.
        Unfortunately, none of these statements are hypothetical. Over the
    past 20 years, we have repeatedly seen funding cuts for affordable
    housing programs, incorrect denials of eligibility for public
    assistance, lack of discharge planning, and inability to access
    community based services--and these failures of ``mainstream'' programs
    have directly resulted in homelessness.
        Ensuring access to public benefits and treatment, and ensuring
    adequate discharge planning, is costly and complicated--there is no
    question about it. However, the moral and economic cost of not doing so
    is far greater. Intervening to end homelessness is considerably more
    expensive than ensuring that we prevent it, and preventing homelessness
    must be our primary social objective--so no individual or family spends
    time on the street or in emergency shelter.
    Family Homelessness has Significantly Increased
        When the McKinney-Vento Act was first passed, homelessness was
    viewed mainly as an urban issue--a problem of people, mainly single
    individuals, living on the streets. And as all of us who live here in
    Washington, DC know, we do not have to go more than a block or two away
    from the Dirksen building to see that street homelessness continues to
    exist. There is no question that we must do a better job of ending
    homelessness for people who live outdoors.
        But what we have seen over the last 20 years is that there is
    another face of homelessness--both in cities around the country, and in
    suburban and rural areas. Much of this population consists of homeless
    families with young children. We now know that each year, over one
    million children are homeless. Homeless children lag behind their
    housed peers in almost every significant indicator of child well-being,
    including early childhood development, educational performance, health,
    and well being. As a result, many of these children are likely to grow
    up to be the next generation of low income, poorly housed, and homeless
    adults. We must reform HUD's homeless programs to take better care of
    our Nation's homeless families, while continuing to seek an end to
    street homelessness.
        Many of these families enter emergency shelters, and eventually
    receive transitional housing or other assistance. However, too many
    homeless families remain on the margins. In rural areas and many
    suburbs, emergency shelters may not exist or may be full. In urban
    areas where shelters do exist, parents often do not want to subject
    their children to overcrowded congregate living facilities. These
    families are doubled up with friends or family, or living in short term
    inexpensive hotels or motels. Nobody would choose to live in these
    hotels or motels--whole families must coexist in one room, with no
    cooking facilities, no access to public transportation, and no place
    for children to play. Families move back and forth between these
    settings, making it almost impossible to keep children in school. Make
    no mistake about it--these living situations are involuntary, and these
    families are homeless. HUD's homeless programs must assist them.
    Both Permanent and Transitional Housing can be Effective Tools to End
    Homelessness
        In 1987, many people believed that homelessness could be ended by
    providing emergency shelter that would allow people to ``get back on
    their feet.'' Today, Volunteers of America understands that this
    generalization does not apply to most homeless populations.
        There is no question that 10 to 15 percent of homeless persons have
    severe disabilities, due to physical, mental, and substance use
    impairments. Both single adults and families with children can be found
    among this population. Many members of this group have spent
    significant time living on the streets or in emergency shelters, and
    under today's terminology are identified as ``long-term'' or
    ``chronically'' homeless. The ``chronic'' homeless population needs
    permanent supportive housing--a combination of housing and intensive
    services where individuals and families are not time limited, and can
    remain for as long as they need to.
        Volunteers of America is a major provider of permanent supportive
    housing. And in response to the Federal initiative to end ``chronic''
    homelessness, we are working to produce more--in partnership with
    groups like the Corporation for Supportive Housing. This initiative
    must continue. However, permanent supportive housing addresses the
    needs of no more than 15 percent of the homeless population. Volunteers
    of America is equally committed to intervening on behalf of the other
    85 percent of homeless Americans, and our reauthorization
    recommendations will detail ways in which HUD's homeless programs can
    be realigned to best serve this large and ever growing group.
        Although some members of every homeless sub-population will need
    permanent supportive housing with intensive services, a large group
    will not. Many single homeless adults and homeless families with
    children fall into this category. Still others are runaway youth, or
    youth aging out of foster care. It is easy to say that all these
    individuals and families need is access to ``affordable housing''--
    although such housing does not exist in most communities. And indeed,
    in some cases, this is accurate.
        Volunteers of America is a leading provider of quality affordable
    housing, and we have made affordable housing development and
    preservation our top organizational priority. We urge the Banking
    Committee to help us make good on this commitment, by supporting the
    creation of an ``Affordable Housing Fund'' through the GSE reform
    bill--S. 200. By helping Volunteers of America and other nonprofits
    provide new units of affordable housing, passing this legislation would
    result in a decrease in homelessness.
        But many of these homeless individuals and families can benefit
    from a shorter-term intervention that comes with supportive services.
    That intervention, in most cases, is transitional housing. Transitional
    housing is limited to 2 years, and focuses on providing individuals and
    families with the support they need to become self-sufficient.
    Unfortunately, in recent years, the Administration and many advocacy
    organizations have been critical of transitional housing, asserting
    that it amounts to managing homelessness--not ending it. This assertion
    could not be more incorrect.
        Transitional housing, in fact, is an extremely successful and cost-
    effective way to provide individuals and families with the helping hand
    they need to obtain stable permanent housing through the private market
    or through mainstream HUD subsidized housing programs. Given the
    limited funds available to homeless assistance programs, reducing the
    role of transitional housing in ending homelessness is unwise.
        It is important to understand that transitional housing has
    significantly evolved since 1987. Years ago, transitional housing meant
    congregate living without as many supportive services as are provided
    today. Individuals or families with different needs were put into the
    same programs. As a result, many people ended a 2-year housing
    placement having no more ability to secure permanent housing than they
    did upon program entry.
        Now, however, ``best practice'' transitional housing looks
    different. If housing is provided at a single site, it is usually in
    the form of individual apartments, with their own living and cooking
    facilities. And transitional housing providers have specialized
    services interventions for different populations--families fleeing
    domestic violence, families with a parent who is returning from
    incarceration or from mental health or substance use treatment,
    homeless veterans needing job training, or youth who have either run
    away from unstable family situations or aged out of foster care.
        In many cases, transitional housing is provided in scattered site
    apartments where tenants remain permanently housed without McKinney-
    Vento funded subsidies after 2 years--a model called ``transition in
    place.'' This model is successful at ending homelessness, and when
    rental subsidies move to a new individual or family at least every 2
    years (often much more frequently), it is cost effective for HUD by
    allowing limited funding to benefit more people. A consolidated
    homeless program must incentivize this efficient housing intervention.
    Volunteers of America Policy Proposals for S. 1801--The Community
    Partnership To End Homelessness Act of 2005
        I wish to thank Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and other
    Members of the Subcommittee for the hard work they have put into the
    drafting of S. 1801--the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act
    of 2005. Volunteers of America believes that S. 1801 provides a strong
    framework for the reauthorization discussion that we have engaged in
    over the past several years, and continue to engage in today. The
    following policy proposals are indicative of our strong support for
    particular provisions of S. 1801, while also offering recommendations
    for significant improvements to the bill.
    Support Cost Effective Homelessness Prevention Initiatives
        Volunteers of America strongly supports the provisions of S. 1801
    relating to homelessness prevention. The first of two provisions would
    continue to allow up to 5 percent of Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
    (distributed to States and localities) to be used for homelessness
    prevention by providing short-term rental assistance to avoid
    evictions. The second provision would allow 5 percent of CHAP funds to
    be spent on a broader array of prevention activities--including
    eviction prevention, relocation assistance for people being discharged
    from public institutions, assistance in reunifying homeless youth with
    their families, and aid to help reconnect homeless children in the
    child welfare system with their parents and guardians.
        Homelessness prevention is both better for people and financially
    less costly than allowing individuals and families to live on the
    streets or in emergency shelter--we are pleased to see that this
    understanding has been adopted in the drafting of S. 1801.
    Prevent Discharges into Homelessness
        HUD funded permanent housing has long served applicants coming from
    the streets, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and treatment
    programs or other institutions. However, in the 2005 NOFA HUD announced
    that future permanent housing renewal projects would only be able to
    accept residents coming from transitional housing if they originally
    came from emergency shelter or from the streets. This prevents
    permanent supportive housing projects from housing individuals who may
    have become homeless after being discharged from jails, prisons,
    alcohol or drug treatment programs, or other public institutions. In
    order to receive permanent housing assistance, people leaving these
    settings would first have to suffer the indignity of becoming homeless,
    by living on the streets or in an emergency shelter--even if a
    permanent housing bed was immediately available.
        Volunteers of America believes that this policy change is unwise--
    particularly since HUD has recently released an exploratory study on
    homeless prevention which found that one of the most effective
    strategies was ``supportive services coupled with permanent housing,
    particularly when coupled with effective discharge from institutions.''
    We know that reentry housing prevents homelessness--HUD should
    encourage it, not disfavor it.
        In addition, this HUD policy weakens community control over who can
    be assisted through local homeless programs. Since local service
    providers and advocates best understand who is homeless and in need of
    assistance in their cities and towns, a policy that ties their hands
    contributes to inefficient use of scarce homeless program resources.
    Provide Service Providers with the Flexibility Needed to Assist All
            Homeless
    Populations
        In keeping with our strong support for keeping homeless individuals
    and families from ever having to live on the streets or enter emergency
    homeless shelters, Volunteers of America has long believed that
    McKinney-Vento's definition of who is homeless should be expanded to
    include people who are living in doubled up situations, or in hotels or
    motels, solely due to the lack of adequate alternative housing. We
    support this change by virtue of what our local office staff from
    around the country tell us. They report that their Continuums of Care
    would like to provide assistance to individuals and families living in
    these precarious situations--before they are forced onto the streets or
    into a shelter. However, under the current definition of homelessness,
    they must wait. S. 1801, as currently drafted, does not address this
    issue.
        It is important to realize that living doubled up or in a hotel or
    motel is not a safe or stable situation, where an individual or family
    might choose to remain for lengthy periods of time. Instead, doubled up
    families often bounce between the homes of various friends and
    relatives--never staying in one place for more than a month or two--
    before they wear out their welcome and are forced to move on. This
    highly mobile and unstable lifestyle is particularly difficult for
    children--it leads directly to poor educational achievement and
    behavioral problems. Expansion of the definition of homelessness would
    allow communities who have large numbers of these highly mobile
    families to provide them with the assistance necessary to enter stable
    housing.
    Include Homeless Families in the Definition of ``Chronic'' Homelessness
        HUD's current definition of ``chronic'' homelessness permits only
    single individuals to be considered under that category. This
    definition, however, does not appear in McKinney-Vento--it was created
    by the Administration. Volunteers of America strongly urges Congress to
    codify an amended definition. Such an amendment would expand the
    definition of ``chronic'' homelessness to include families where either
    the head of household or a child in the household is disabled.
        As currently worded, S. 1801 would only include families with
    disabled heads of household. Volunteers of America supports this
    language, as does almost every homeless advocacy or service
    organization. When an adult meets the criteria for being
    ``chronically'' homeless, why should that person not be able to receive
    permanent housing assistance, simply because they are living with one
    or more minor children. If anything, the presence of a child in the
    household creates an additional reason to provide that family with
    permanent housing.
        Volunteers of America would also go slightly farther, to include
    families where the disabled individual is a child. Like other families
    who have been homeless repeatedly or for one lengthy stretch, these
    families need long-term housing and supports. We should give
    communities the flexibility to provide them with permanent housing, if
    the need for such housing can be demonstrated.
    Incentivize Successful Permanent and Transitional Housing
        Volunteers of America believes that HUD homeless programs should
    incentivize a range of housing interventions that are successful at
    ending homelessness. Currently, HUD has administratively chosen to
    provide significant incentives for the development of permanent housing
    through McKinney-Vento. The permanent housing ``bonus'' essentially
    diverts all new funding for the homeless programs into a bonus for
    communities who develop permanent housing for ``chronic'' homeless
    individuals.
        We support S. 1801's continued incentives for permanent housing,
    which maintain the current bonus, while adding a bonus for permanent
    housing to assist non disabled homeless families. However, Volunteers
    of America would add an additional activity that is eligible for bonus
    money--cost effective transitional housing targeted to particularly
    vulnerable populations. These populations could include families
    leaving domestic violence situations, parents reuniting with children
    leaving foster care, or families with extremely young children. In
    addition--Volunteers of America believes that receipt of bonus money in
    a community, for a particular type of housing, must be conditioned on
    the community's ability to demonstrate, through their required gaps and
    needs analysis, that there is a need for such housing.
        These changes will balance the current bonus structure, where
    permanent supportive housing for single ``chronic'' homeless
    individuals is the only eligible activity. Because every community can
    use additional homeless program funding, this structure pressures
    communities that do not have a significant ``chronic'' homeless
    population to ``write to the grant'' and devise projects to serve that
    population, simply to get bonus money. It would be a far more effective
    use of Federal funds to provide bonus money that meets demonstrated
    local needs.
    Ensure Continued Access to Supportive Services
        It is well established that ending homelessness requires a
    combination of housing and supportive services. This is why in 1987
    McKinney-Vento authorized HUD to fund services, and why HUD has
    consistently done so. In recent years, HUD has undertaken significant
    efforts to fund more housing, and fewer services. Provisions contained
    in S. 1801 would go too far in continuing this trend.
        S. 1801 would allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
    make a determination, 3 years after enactment, that certain Federal
    mainstream services programs (such as the Substance Abuse and/or Mental
    Health Block Grants) were receiving additional funds. If that
    determination occurred, the HUD Secretary would have discretion to stop
    funding supportive services not directly tied to maintaining housing--
    potentially to include mental health and substance abuse services.
    Volunteers of America does not believe that this is a wise policy.
        As I referenced earlier, mainstream programs do not serve homeless
    persons well. So additional funding for these programs does not mean
    that additional funds will go to homeless persons. Therefore, it is
    inappropriate to condition homeless program funding for services on how
    mainstream programs are funded.
        Volunteers of America would prefer to see HUD and HHS work together
    to determine an efficient way for HHS to fund additional supportive
    services for homeless programs. This solution would require additional
    resources, but would best achieve the goal of having HUD--the Federal
    Government's housing agency--fund more housing. We regret that HUD and
    HHS have yet to reach agreement on this matter, and hope that the U.S.
    Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) will be able to facilitate
    an accord.
    Require Coordinated Federal, State, and Local Planning to End All
            Homelessness
        Over the past 4 years, the USICH has strongly encouraged State and
    local governments to create plans to end ``chronic'' homelessness in 10
    years. And in the just released HUD NOFA, Continuums of Care must
    coordinate their plans with these State and local plans if they want to
    receive the maximum number of points for strategic planning.
        Volunteers of America supports the idea of planning to end
    homelessness. We believe, however, that this planning must start with
    the creation of a Federal strategic plan to end homelessness--not just
    ``chronic'' homelessness but all homelessness. We are pleased that the
    development of such a plan, by the USICH is required under S. 1801.
        Similarly, we believe that it is a mistake for the USICH to insist
    that State and local plans focus only on ``chronic'' homelessness. If
    all levels of government are going to engage in planning around the
    issue of homelessness, then the resulting plans should focus on ending
    homelessness altogether--with specific strategies for ``chronic''
    homelessness, family homelessness, and youth homelessness, or
    homelessness among any other subpopulation found in that State or
    locality.
        This would allow State and local plans to be in alignment with the
    gaps and needs analysis that each Continuum of Care is required to
    prepare every year, and would alter the current inequitable system--
    under which communities with little to no ``chronic'' homelessness are
    still forced to plan for ending it, even as they receive little credit
    for demonstrating a need to assist other homeless populations and
    putting together a comprehensive strategy to meet that need. Volunteers
    of America strongly supports the provision in S. 1801 that would
    instruct the USICH to encourage these broader State and local plans to
    end all homelessness.
        We would also note that plans to end homelessness are only as good
    as the resources available to implement them. So while we are pleased
    that many local plans are succeeding in encouraging State, local, and
    private investment, we believe that the Federal Government must set an
    example by providing adequate funding for McKinney-Vento programs and
    ``mainstream'' housing and supportive services programs.
    Consolidate HUD's Homeless Assistance Programs
        I will not devote significant time to this recommendation, as it
    appears to have nearly unanimous support--both in Congress and among
    service providers and other homelessness advocates. But, in brief, HUD
    now operates three competitive homeless assistance programs--Shelter
    Plus Care (SPC), which provides permanent housing for individuals with
    disabilities and families where the head of household has a
    disability--Supportive Housing Program (SHP), which provides both
    transitional and permanent housing, as well as supportive services--and
    Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, which provides funds to nonprofits.
    Nonprofits then combine these resources with Low Income Housing Tax
    Credit (LIHTC) or some other source of housing production dollars, and
    rehabilitate buildings to be used as Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
    housing.
        Since both SPC and SHP have five sub-programs, program
    consolidation would take a total of 11 programs and turn them into one
    program--the Community Homeless Assistance Program (CHAP). This single
    program would have a lengthy list of eligible activities, allowing
    funds to be used for all current activities, and several new ones--
    including permanent housing for homeless families without a disabled
    head of household. Volunteers of America strongly supports this
    initiative, as proposed in S. 1801.
    Include Administrative Provisions to Help Service Providers
        I want to conclude by offering our strong support for several
    administrative changes to McKinney-Vento. S. 1801 as currently drafted
    requires a 25 percent cash match for almost all housing and supportive
    services programs funded through McKinney. As service providers, we
    would prefer that there be no match requirement. However, we understand
    the importance of having a match, in order to most efficiently leverage
    funds. But in order to make the match requirement less onerous, we
    recommend that a service provider be allowed to satisfy it either with
    cash or in-kind resources. In-kind contributions such as mental health,
    substance abuse, or other supportive services are of equal value to
    cash, and are often significantly easier to obtain.
        We also recommend that, as S. 1801 mandates, HUD be required to
    create a formal appeals process for communities who believe that the
    scoring of their NOFA applications was incorrect. Mistakes do happen,
    and there should be a formal process in place to correct them. The
    current system does not specify any appeal procedure, which means that
    appeals are made on an ad hoc basis, and there are no specified
    standards for evaluating them.
        Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to
    answering your questions.
                                   ----------
                       PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LOVE
      President/CEO, Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County,
                                      Inc.
                                 March 30, 2006
        Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting the Coalition for the
    Homeless of Houston/Harris County to testify in support of the
    reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
        The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, known as
    the Coalition, is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to
    educate and advocate for the needs of persons who are homeless through
    support and the coordination of services. Founded in 1982, at the
    request of then-City of Houston Mayor Katherine Whitmire and then
    Harris County Judge Jon Lindsey, the Coalition was formed to support
    those entities that provide direct support to people that are homeless
    through advocacy, education, collaboration, and community partnerships.
        The Coalition currently serves as the lead coordinator for the
    local Continuum of Care system. We serve in this role through the
    support and partnership with the City of Houston and Harris County.
    This ``Collaborative'' was developed in 1992. The foundation of this
    process is based on two principle concepts, implementation and
    evaluation. Under the guidance and coordinating efforts of the
    Collaborative Continuum of Care approach, Houston/Harris County's
    strategy became a model that HUD used to encourage other jurisdictions
    to develop. Last year, our local Continuum of Care provided funding for
    27 agencies representing 62 programs/projects that span the spectrum of
    outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing and, of course,
    permanent housing.
        In Houston/Harris County, prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
    there were 12,000-14,000 men, women, and children without a place to
    call home on any given night. Last year, approximately 34,000
    individuals accessed homeless services in our community. All of these
    services represent McKinney funded agencies that function as the
    existing system to exit homelessness in Houston/Harris County. Since
    1992, McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Funding has been the major
    source of funding for the majority of homeless service agencies in
    Houston/Harris County. This funding has provided housing, employment,
    and other essential services to tens of thousands of individuals who
    have experienced homelessness in our community.
        McKinney-Vento for years has served as the impetus for
    collaboration and community solutions to ending homelessness. McKinney-
    Vento has enabled many communities to leverage millions of dollars in
    private funding and investment while also providing housing
    opportunities to thousands of low-income Americans who otherwise may
    not be able to afford housing of any sorts. On the other hand, the
    current bill being considered, would enhance the Acts' ability to serve
    more people who are at risk of being homeless, realize that any
    reduction in HUD service dollars will not take place until adequate
    alternative funding is provided and expand who qualifies as chronically
    homeless.
        The Coalition supports this bill in its entirety, especially the
    following three items:
        Provision of Funding for Preventing Homelessness: By allowing
    communities to use up to 5 percent of their grant funding to prevent
    homelessness, a huge barrier to ending homelessness is significantly
    reduced. This provision truly provides a means of ``closing the front
    door'' to homelessness. A continuum is incomplete without prevention as
    a part of the Collaborative process to create a seamless system of
    service.
        Involvement of More Federal Agencies: One agency should not be
    expected to do it all or bear the burden of ending homelessness in our
    country. This measure ensures that multiple Federal agencies are
    involved in the provision of housing, healthcare, human services,
    employment, and other services as necessary and appropriate. Adjusting
    the role of the Interagency Council on Homelessness provides a
    nationally coordinated effort to complement local and State efforts. It
    also makes the issue of homelessness a national priority and serves as
    encouragement to local communities that this issue will remain
    important nationally.
        Broader Definition of Chronically Homeless: The current definition
    of chronically homeless is restrictive and disallows much needed
    services to individuals and families who also demand much from the
    current homeless assistance system. This new definition is more
    inclusive than the current definition because it includes families who
    have an adult head of household with a disabling condition, and people
    who are homeless other than only those that are sleeping in an
    emergency homeless shelter or in a place not meant for human
    habitation. This definition provides a more accurate picture of the
    individuals and families that are served by these community agencies
    every day.
        Again, the Coalition supports this legislation; however we are
    concerned about the 25 percent match requirement and its possible
    effect on smaller non profits and their ability to apply for these
    funds. We are not opposed to this provision, but we are uneasy about
    the possible consequences and wonder aloud, what type of barrier does
    this requirement create for smaller agencies that perform at a high
    level with a smaller budget?
        Once again, I thank you for your invitation and this opportunity to
    speak on behalf of the Coalition. The Coalition supports your efforts
    to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the
    critical resources it will provide to communities in their efforts to
    end homelessness.
                                   ----------
              PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS PATRICK CULHANE, Ph.D.
               Professor of Social Welfare Policy and Psychology,
                           University of Pennsylvania
                                 March 30, 2006
        Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished Members of
    the Committee, the Committee is to be commended for the proposed bill
    reauthorizing of the McKinney-Vento Act. As you are aware, tremendous
    strides have been made in recent years, through both the appropriations
    process and HUD's competition in orienting the McKinney-Vento programs
    toward meeting the goal of reducing homelessness through the creation
    of permanent housing opportunities. Many thoughtful changes have been
    made to these programs which have collectively moved communities away
    from mere expansions in providing services to people in a state of
    homelessness, and toward a goal of reducing the number of people who
    experience homelessness. The bill under consideration is a significant
    milestone in meeting the nation's obligations to the poorest and
    neediest among us.
        I am particularly supportive of the bill's codifying into law the
    emphasis of using the McKinney-Vento programs to advance efforts to end
    chronic homelessness among single adults with disabilities. Research on
    the dynamics of homelessness among single adults has consistently shown
    that people experiencing chronic homelessness are costly users of
    emergency shelter, and costly users of acute care systems in health,
    public safety, and corrections. While adults who become chronically
    homeless may represent only 15 percent of adult shelter users over
    time, research indicates that they occupy more than half of the
    emergency shelter beds for adults in our cities, and account for a
    substantial majority of the people who live--and in some cases die--on
    our streets and in other public spaces.
        Research has further shown that investments in supportive housing
    targeted to this population in many cases can be fully offset by the
    reduced use of shelters, hospitals, emergency rooms, and jails. In the
    face of such evidence, it is difficult to justify a policy that spends
    so many resources essentially maintaining people in a state of
    homelessness, when those same resources can be leveraged for a solution
    to their plight. The bill's provision for setting aside 30 percent of
    the McKinney-Vento resources for permanent housing programs for people
    who are chronically homeless makes moral and economic sense in light of
    these data, and the Committee is to be commended for requiring that
    communities continue to target significant Federal resources for this
    purpose.
        I have just a couple of concerns with the nature of the targeting
    suggested in the bill. The bill should include a requirement that
    adults who are chronically homeless also have to have a disability in
    order to qualify for the set-aside resources. Previous Federal efforts
    in this area, including priorities established through the
    appropriations process and HUD's competition, have included a
    disability eligibility criterion for homeless adults. This targeting is
    based on the fact that the evidence of cost-effectiveness is strongest
    for people with disabilities, and because research suggests that nearly
    all adults who experience chronic homelessness also have a disability.
    Without this further criterion, the bill could unintentionally
    encourage lengthy shelter stays alone as a means of accessing this
    limited housing benefit.
        My second concern centers on the inclusion of ``chronically''
    homeless families in the eligible population for permanent supportive
    housing funded through this legislation. I am not aware of a research
    literature on family homelessness that supports the designation of
    ``chronicity'' among homeless families. Indeed, there are families who
    are homeless for long periods of time, and that is an issue deserving
    of redress. But it is not at all clear that long-term homelessness
    among families is best understood through a theoretical framework that
    was primarily intended to characterize a population of single adults
    who are so disabled and disenfranchised that--were it not for emergency
    shelter or supportive housing programs--they would live and even die on
    the streets. Without a doubt there are families among the homeless who
    have special needs, and who have disabled members, but segmenting this
    population from the larger population of homeless and near-homeless
    families, as is done in the proposed bill, could have unintended and
    long-term negative consequences, for both homeless families and the
    chronic homeless adult population.
        Research on family homelessness has not found that homeless
    families in general are significantly different from other poor
    families. This is not surprising, given that we now know that
    homelessness among families is fairly common--10 percent of poor
    children will experience homelessness each year, with a rate that is
    certainly much higher (perhaps twice as high) among families from
    disadvantage minorities, such as African-Americans. The extent of
    family homelessness, and its disruptive impact on children and their
    educations--irrespective of whether they are from a family with a
    disabled family member--cries out for a broader and more substantive
    policy solution than can be found within the very limited resource
    represented by the 30 percent set-aside of McKinney-Vento spending.
        Research has found that homeless families nearly universally
    respond positively to the receipt of rental assistance. Despite the
    many challenges a given family may face, nearly all homeless families
    end their homelessness, and do not recur into homelessness with the
    support of rental assistance. Current research in which I am engaged
    indicates that long-stay families reside in shelters for an average of
    9 months, at a cost of approximately $22,000 per family in
    Philadelphia. The same resource that provides 9 months in a shelter
    could provide those same families with the equivalent of 3 years of
    Federal housing assistance through the Section 8 program. Even the
    majority of families who's average stay in shelters is less than 2
    months consume nearly $4,000 in emergency shelter resources, resources
    that could be much better spent providing families with an expedited
    exit out of homelessness and into housing.
        In many small and even quite substantial program and policy
    experiments around the country, communities are exploring the value of
    such ``Housing First'' programs as an alternative to shelter among
    homeless families (as well as singles). These programs embody the
    principle that no family should be chronically homeless, and, indeed,
    no family should be homeless for more than a brief period of time (that
    is 30 days). To the extent that this Committee can do so, it should
    seek to encourage communities to explore how they can use these current
    resources, as well as their TANF programs and other Federal and local
    resources, to relocate families presenting as homeless as soon as
    possible, either through emergency relocation grants, or transitional
    rental assistance.
        The subsegment of families who need additional support services to
    maintain their housing, could and should receive those support services
    from mainstream child welfare and behavioral health systems. To the
    extent that permanent supportive housing is identified as necessary to
    prevent recurrent or long-term homelessness among some families,
    communities should be encouraged to convert their existing transitional
    housing programs--most of which are currently not targeted to families
    with special needs--to this purpose. In their current untargeted form,
    transitional housing programs have not provided a demonstrated benefit
    associated with their lengthy stays and high costs. In many
    communities, those units represent a significant resource that could be
    put to this purpose. And for those families in need of more sustained
    rental assistance without services, it is imperative that our Federal
    housing programs expand to meet that need.
        The 30 percent set aside is not going to be sufficient for
    accomplishing any of these goals. Moreover, without any strict limits
    on the use of this set aside for families, we may well undermine the
    primary consensus principle that this legislation seeks to codify--the
    reduction of chronic homelessness among single adults through the
    targeting of permanent supportive housing resources.
        The proposed bill also makes some significant progress in codifying
    into law some mechanisms for accountability that had been lacking in
    previous legislation for homeless programs. The provisions for
    supporting Homeless Services Management Information Systems, or HMIS,
    promises to give local communities, as well as States and the Federal
    Government, increased information to make informed policy decisions.
    Sound data collection can yield important information for governments
    and other planning bodies as they attempt to steer their systems toward
    reducing homelessness, either through housing placement or prevention.
        As the bill acknowledges, in addition to ending chronic
    homelessness, preventing future homelessness is going to be a critical
    objective to achieving the goal of reduced homelessness. Research
    suggests that as many as half of the single adults entering public
    shelters have recently exited other public systems of care. The HMIS
    data can be used to hold these mainstream systems accountable for the
    number of people they are sending to homelessness, and who in turn get
    sent back to these institutions. As long as we operate without data,
    this revolving door is invisible to these institutions, who choose to
    recognize the problem only when it appears inside their corridors. This
    is true whether it is acute hospitalization, detoxification, or
    correctional systems. HMIS can and should hold a mirror to these
    systems so that they can measure and reduce the traffic through these
    revolving doors. Doing so will require that local and State governments
    use their data effectively. The McKinney-Vento legislation could
    encourage States and localities to engage in systematic data analysis
    to identify how institutional discharges are contributing to
    homelessness, and, in turn, resulting in further reinstitutionalization
    and homelessness.
        In further support of such collaborations, I encourage the bill's
    support of the 10-year plans to end homelessness that have become
    commonplace around the country. Many of these plans are the result of
    new and potentially powerful collaborations among local and State
    governments, as well as service providers and less traditional
    stakeholders in these communities. These partnerships are essential to
    advancing a local agenda, and for leveraging the multiagency and
    multisectoral resources that will be necessary to develop and support
    housing, as well as programs for prevention and diversion from shelter.
    These partnerships are a reflection of the collaboration that has also
    been embodied in the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which
    has brought together many Federal partners for this purpose and brought
    new resources from other Federal programs to this population. Indeed,
    it is to the credit of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
    that the current national conversation has changed, and has now focused
    a variety of agencies at all levels of government on the objective of
    reducing and ultimately ending homelessness in our country.
        If the bill could learn from our previous experience with the
    Continuum of Care, it would be to assure that local governments have a
    majority position in the local planning boards called for in the
    legislation. Local governments control most of the policy levers that
    are required to develop and support housing, and to deliver social
    services and prevention. Only government has the legal authority and
    the public accountability that is necessary to achieve public aims.
    Therefore, local governments should be assured through their
    representation on local planning boards that their efforts can work in
    a common direction with the intended use of Federal and State
    resources.
        Much progress has been made on behalf of people who are homeless or
    threatened with homelessness. However, the problem remains a stubborn
    fixture in our communities. Federal resources can and should help in
    redirecting homelessness policies away from maintaining or even
    enhancing a makeshift private welfare system. Instead, our goal should
    be to strengthen the capacity of our social welfare system to protect
    people from homelessness in the first instance, and to prevent
    unnecessarily long shelter stays in the second. Chronic street
    homelessness should be addressed directly with housing programs that
    provide a solution to homelessness. This bill, properly modified, can
    make substantial progress in committing our Nation to these goals, and
    in pushing us even further in expanding access to housing and services
    that will truly prevent homelessness and away from the
    institutionalization of this unacceptable and unnecessary social ill.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
            RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
                          FROM ROY A. BERNARDI

         In your testimony, you stated that, while our bill (S.
    1801) and the proposed HUD bill are similar, the bills differ
    in some respects. Please specify provisions in the HUD bill and
    provisions in S. 1801 that support your assertion that the HUD
    bill provides the following:

    Q.1.a. A greater focus on chronic homelessness;

    A.1.a. The Administration's bill would continue to define
    chronic homelessness to include disabled individuals who are
    often literally living on the streets. The Administration's
    bill, unlike S. 1801, would not expand the definition of
    chronic homelessness by including disabled families with
    children, most of whom are housed in shelters. Given limited
    resources, HUD wants to help ensure those who literally have no
    roof over their heads can access housing.

    Q.1.b. Greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed to
    solve homelessness;

    A.1.b. The Administration's bill permits funding of supportive
    services and does not include the 3-year phase out provisions
    that are outlined in S. 1801. Under the Administration's bill,
    communities are afforded the opportunity to fund the supportive
    services that are needed in their specific communities. This
    concept allows for local decisionmaking and greater flexibility
    by communities.

    Q.1.c. Greater flexibility in using program funds to prevent
    homelessness (particularly in light of the bonus funding under
    the Samaritan Initiative); and

    A.1.c. S. 1801 and the Administration's bill both address
    prevention; however, the Administration's bill provides more
    flexibility because it would allow up to 10 percent of program
    funds to be spent on prevention activities and S. 1801 allows
    up to 5 percent.

    Q.1.d. Better targets its permanent housing resources for the
    disabled.

    A.1.d. The Administration's bill would continue to target
    housing resources to disabled individuals and families. S. 1801
    would allow these scarce resources to also and for the first
    time be accessed by nondisabled families.

    Q.2. The Administration's bill and S. 1801 would consolidate
    several competitive grant programs in order to maximize the
    impact of Federal dollars by eliminating duplication, reducing
    administrative burdens and the accompanying costs, and
    maximizing flexibility. As each program is targeted to a
    specific need, how do we best ensure that none of the target
    populations' needs is overwhelmed by the others?

    A.2. The Administration's bill and S. 1801 allow communities to
    assess their various local needs and then decide which projects
    to fund. This will help ensure that each community will be able
    to address their respective needs.

            RESPONSE TO A WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR REED
                         FROM PHILIP F. MANGANO

    Q.1. Among the community of homelessness assistance providers,
    some have raised concerns about the provision that allows HUD
    to phase out certain services, like healthcare, over a 3-year
    period, with responsibility for these services going to other
    agencies. Others argue that the transfer of responsibility for
    these services to other agencies is necessary to make the best
    use of resources available to combat homelessness. What steps
    will be necessary, both at the Federal and the local level, to
    facilitate this transition?

    A.1. The Administration's proposal (H.R. 5041) to consolidate
    its HUD homeless assistance programs and to codify the
    Continuum of Care concept would not phase out supportive
    services. The Administration's proposal would continue to
    provide communities with maximum local flexibility to confront
    the local housing and service needs of homeless persons. The
    referenced phase-out provision is contained in S. 1801.

            RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY
                         FROM DENNIS P. CULHANE

    Q.1. Among the community of homelessness assistance providers,
    some have raised concerns. What steps will be necessary, both
    at the Federal and the local level, to facilitate this
    transition? Would S. 1801 strengthen or weaken the ability of
    community to provide supportive services to the homeless?

    A.1. At the Federal level, the Heath Care for the Homeless
    (HCFH) program should be directed to provide health services in
    place of those that will be defunded under the HUD program.
    Ideally, HCFH will be provided with the additional funds to do
    so. Alternatively, local providers should access local health
    departments and/or Medicaid and/or Medicaid HMO's to provide
    clinical services in place of the defunded services.
        S. 1801 will require communities to find alternative
    sources of funding for some supportive services, but it will
    also continue many of the supportive services that HUD has
    determined are not likely to be provided by other public
    agencies (that is case management). This strategy makes sense
    from the perspective of maximizing the utility of HUD's
    resources. If communities do not identify alternative sources
    of funding for the defunded services, this will results in
    fewer services at those sites.

    Q.2. As you know, some controversy has surrounded the
    definition of homelessness. What is your impression of the
    definition of homelessness included in our bill?

    A.2. My opinion is that the definition of homelessness in S.
    1801 is sufficient. Efforts to broaden the definition beyond
    literal homelessness could have unintended negative
    consequences. First, people who are not literally homeless and
    who are ill-housed--a group that is far larger than the literal
    homeless--could consume many of the resources intended for the
    literal homeless, to their detriment. Second, from a targeting
    and accountability perspective, our ability to measure
    homelessness and the impact of targeted programs on reducing
    homelessness would be greatly compromised, as the broader
    population of poorly housed persons, including those doubled
    up, is very difficult to measure. Finally, I would note that
    there is some variability in Federal definitions that seems to
    fit the specific intent of those various Federal programs, and
    that variability makes sense.

    Q.3. In balancing the needs of the chronically homeless
    population and the needs of those who are temporarily homeless,
    how could we best address the goals of ending chronic
    homelessness, while addressing the needs of the temporarily
    homeless?

    A.3. The temporary homeless should continue to have access to
    emergency assistance, in the form of emergency shelters.
    However, the temporarily homeless would also benefit from a
    broader array of emergency assistance than shelter alone. I
    would encourage the Committee to consider ways in which it can
    support emergency relocation grants and other rehousing
    strategies that would expedite persons' exits from
    homelessness.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]