[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE McKINNEY-VENTO
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT, PART I
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 4, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 110-68
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-906 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MAXINE WATERS, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
JULIA CARSON, Indiana RON PAUL, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Carolina
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
JOE BACA, California SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Virginia
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina TOM FEENEY, Florida
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia JEB HENSARLING, Texas
AL GREEN, Texas SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire TOM PRICE, Georgia
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
RON KLEIN, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
TIM MAHONEY, Florida JOHN CAMPBELL, California
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio ADAM PUTNAM, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida KEVIN McCARTHY, California
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JULIA CARSON, Indiana Virginia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri PETER T. KING, New York
AL GREEN, Texas CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri GARY G. MILLER, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, Virginia
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN CAMPBELL, California
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts KEVIN McCARTHY, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
October 4, 2007.............................................. 1
Appendix:
October 4, 2007.............................................. 45
WITNESSES
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a United States Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 3
Anderson, Barbara, Executive Director, Haven House Services...... 21
DeSantis, Deborah, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Corporation for Supportive Housing............................. 19
Foscarinis, Maria, Executive Director, National Law Center on
Homelessness & Poverty......................................... 15
McKinney, Hon. John, State Senator, State of Connecticut......... 17
Reed, Hon. Jack, a United States Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 1
Rosen, Jeremy, Executive Director, National Policy and Advocacy
Council on Homelessness........................................ 40
Vasquez, Jessica, Executive Director, New York State Coalition
Against Domestic Violence...................................... 37
Walker, Pittre, Homeless Liaison, Caddo Parish School Board...... 23
Weintraub, Amy, Executive Director, Covenant House of West
Virginia....................................................... 35
Young, Linda M., Executive Director, Welcome House of Northern
Kentucky....................................................... 38
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Carson, Hon. Julia........................................... 46
Anderson, Barbara............................................ 48
DeSantis, Deborah............................................ 60
Foscarinis, Maria............................................ 68
McKinney, Hon. John.......................................... 74
Rosen, Jeremy................................................ 79
Vasquez, Jessica............................................. 95
Walker, Pittre............................................... 129
Weintraub, Amy............................................... 141
Young, Linda M............................................... 150
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
McKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS
ASSISTANCE ACT, PART I
----------
Thursday, October 4, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Waters, Cleaver, Green;
Capito, Biggert, Shays, Neugebauer, Davis, and McCarthy.
Ex officio: Chairman Frank.
Chairwoman Waters. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. And I
would like to deviate a little bit from our normal schedule and
protocol. We have United States Senators Reed and Allard here
this morning, and I would like to afford them the opportunity
to make their statements, and then we will proceed. I will
start with Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK REED, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. It is
a pleasure to be here. And thank you for your invitation, and
also thank you, Ranking Member Capito, for your hospitality
this morning.
I am delighted to be with my colleague and friend, Wayne
Allard. We were reminiscing a bit. We entered the House of
Representatives together in 1991, and the Senate in 1997, so,
this is the Wayne and Jack show.
[Laughter]
Senator Reed. We have been working for a number of years on
the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act, and we have been superbly aided by our staff members, Kara
Stein and Tewana Wilkerson.
This is important legislation. And, throughout this
process, we have sought significant input, meeting with all
interested parties, inviting written comments on all of our
drafts, and holding hearings for several Congresses in a row on
the reauthorization of this very important legislation.
We are very pleased with the latest version of our
legislation, S. 1518, the Community Partnership to End
Homelessness Act. It was approved unanimously by the Senate
Banking Committee on September 19th, and it is our hope to have
this bill passed by the entire Senate, and sent over to you
very shortly. We welcome the opportunity you have given us this
morning to talk about some of the highlights of this bipartisan
legislation.
Though the last significant reauthorization of the
McKinney-Vento Act occurred in 1994, a number of important
changes have been made over the last several years, most
significantly in 1995. In 1995, Congress consolidated the
funding from several accounts, and HUD began encouraging
communities to submit a single application for funding. The
purpose of this single application was not only to streamline
the application process, but also to encourage providers to
coordinate an overall strategy for preventing and ending
homelessness in their community.
This process became known as the continuum of care, and our
bill has been designed to enact into statute this award-winning
program. Our reauthorization legislation, in large part, has
been designed to provide this continuum of care program on a
broader basis throughout the country.
We eliminate three separate programs and consolidate them
into a single community homeless assistance program.
Communities can now make a single application for funding from
this program, and use the funding for a broad array of
activities to reduce homelessness.
We are particularly proud of the new focus on rural
homelessness in S. 1518. Our bill would allow rural communities
to apply for funding through a separate competition at HUD.
Under the legislation, a rural community can also use funds
more flexibly for such activities as homelessness prevention
and housing stabilization, in addition to transitional housing,
permanent housing, and support services.
The application process for these funds is more
streamlined, and consistent with the capacities of rural
homelessness programs. In addition, a minimum of 5 percent of
the overall funding for homeless programs would go to the rural
competition, which will ensure that this program is truly used
to better address rural homelessness.
Another major change in S. 1518 is that 20 percent of the
overall funding for HUD homeless programs would be distributed
by formula to cities, counties, and States as emergency
solution grants. Currently, only 11 percent of homelessness
assistance funds go out to emergency shelter grant programs and
most communities use those funds exclusively for temporary
emergency shelters.
S. 1518 basically doubles the amount of money that would go
out to communities via block grant, and would allow at least 40
percent of these funds to be used for prevention activities, in
addition to emergency shelter. These new emergency solutions
grants will allow communities to help people who are at
greatest risk of becoming homeless.
I think this is a major improvement in how we deal with
people who are living on the edge of homelessness. Instead of
forcing everyone who is unstably housed to be defined as
homeless--a definition which most individuals and families
don't want to meet--cities, counties, and States would be able
to use up to $440 million to help people in bad housing
situations from becoming homeless in the first place, through
help with rental payments, security deposits, and utility
payments.
I would also like to mention a few things we have done in
particular, to tackle the terrible problem of family
homelessness.
First is the expansion we have made to the definition of
homelessness, which recognizes that families with multiple
moves are in just as much need of the emergency stabilization
that the homeless system provides as a family living in a car
or a campground.
Second, we have included families with a disabled member in
the definition of chronically homeless.
Third, we have included a family housing and service
demonstration project that will allow us to study what housing
and service models work best for families.
As a result of all these changes, 100 percent of the
funding of the bill is now available to families. This should
make a tremendous difference in how our Federal homeless
programs help prevent and reduce family homelessness. It has
been 20 years since the enactment of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act, and we have learned a lot about the
problem of homelessness since then.
Senator Allard and I believe the Community Partnership to
End Homelessness Act puts some of these best practices and
proposals into action, and will help communities break the
cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. We look forward
to working together with you on reauthorizing the housing
titles of the McKinney-Vento Homelessness Assistance Act, to
better focus them on preventing and ending long-term
homelessness.
And a final point. I did not have the privilege of serving
with Stewart McKinney, but both Wayne and I served with Bruce
Vento, and he was an extraordinary gentleman. And this is a
fitting tribute to his efforts, and if we improve it, I think
he would be very pleased and proud. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Allard?
Senator Allard. Chairwoman Waters. Well, first of all, I
wanted to express my sincere appreciation, Chairwoman Waters,
and also Ranking Member Capito. I ask permission to put my full
statement into the record. It goes longer than 5 minutes. And
in respect to your time limits, I will not read my full
statement, I will just give you parts of it, if I may.
Chairwoman Waters. Without objection, such is the order.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE ALLARD, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. I would also like to acknowledge the hard
work that my colleague and his staff have put forward on this
particular piece of legislation, something that we have been
working on for several years.
As a result of that, I think we have come up with a good
bipartisan effort, and it takes us back to when we had the
first homeless assistance act, which was in 1987, and then that
was modified, which is now known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Programs, which I do remember serving on the
Agriculture Committee at the time, and working with Bruce
Vento, who did a considerable amount of work on homelessness.
This 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.
And, until enactment of this law, the problems confronted
by the homeless were mainly addressed at the State and local
level. Currently, the Federal Government devotes significant
resources to the homeless, yet despite the enormous Federal
resources directed toward homelessness, the problem persists.
In my view, we need to bring more accountability to
homeless assistance, increasing funding for those successful
programs and initiatives, and then replacing those that are
ineffective.
So, there seems to be a consensus that the McKinney-Vento
Act 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. I appreciate that you are holding
this hearing to explore this issue.
There also seems to be increasing consensus that the second
step should be consolidation of the existing programs. I
originally introduced consolidation legislation in 2000, and
then Senator Reed offered a proposal in 2002. HUD also
advocated for a consolidation of programs for several years
now.
While we differed in some of the details, including the
funding distribution mechanism for a new program, these
legislative proposals offered consensus on the important
starting points of reauthorization and consolidation. We worked
together to find the best elements of both bills, and after
extensive discussions and outreach, Senator Reed and I
introduced Senate Bill 1518, known as the Community Partnership
to End Homelessness Act.
Our bill will consolidate the existing programs at HUD, and
to the new community homeless assistance program. And why is
this consolidation so important? I think our colleague and
former HUD Secretary, Senator Mel Martinez, described it very
well during the Banking Committee's mark-up of the bill. He
described how the HUD Secretary had his grantees confused by
the various programs, not sure how to apply, and for which
programs they were even eligible. It was under his leadership
that HUD began to advocate consolidation of the programs.
Quite simply, consolidation will reduce administrative
burdens and maximize flexibility. Rather than dealing with
conflicting eligibility requirements, conflicting eligibility
uses, multiple applications, and different match requirements,
applicants will have to deal with only one flexible program.
This streamlined approach will combine the efficiencies of a
block grant with the accountability of a competitive system.
I am especially supportive of approaches such as those in
the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act, that focus
on results, rather than processes. Communities that demonstrate
results in preventing and ending homelessness will be rewarded.
I think this is an important aspect.
We also believe that the bill makes an appropriate
distinction between rural areas and large, metropolitan areas.
While both areas experience homelessness, the problem manifests
itself in very different ways, and the solutions are different.
I believe that we all share the goal of wanting to prevent
and end homelessness in America. There are many different
people with many different and laudable ideas of how to
accomplish this goal. The Community Partnership to End
Homelessness Act strikes the balance between these many
viewpoints.
The balance is demonstrated by the unanimous support the
bill received in the Senate Banking Committee. Republicans and
Democrats, urban areas like New York, and rural areas like
Wyoming, everyone came together to say that we believe the
Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act would help
prevent homelessness in the United States.
Senator Reed and I, along with our other colleagues, look
forward to working with you to enact legislation to accomplish
this goal, and thank you for allowing us to be here today to
testify before the subcommittee.
Chairwoman Waters. Once again, I would like to thank
Senator Reed and Senator Allard, for making time to speak with
us today. The extraordinarily thoughtful and consultative
process you undertook in crafting the Community Partnership to
End Homeless shines through clearly, and I aspire to the
standard as the subcommittee focuses on reauthorizing the
McKinney-Vento Act.
We are lucky to have S. 1518, as well as H.R. 840, the
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing
Act, which we will hear more about shortly, to work from, as we
move forward.
At this time, I know you need to return to your pressing
work with the Banking Committee, and I ask our second panel of
witnesses to come forward. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shays. Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Waters. Yes?
Mr. Shays. Madam Chairwoman, could I just make a quick
comment, very quick?
Chairwoman Waters. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. Shays. I just want to thank both of you for working on
a bipartisan basis. This is what this committee is doing. And
it is just nice, in this kind of excited world, that on such an
important issue, we see this bipartisan help. I thank you both.
Senator Allard. Well, it has been a pleasure to work with
Senator Reed. We worked together in Armed Services, we are
together on Banking and everything, so it is a real pleasure.
I was thinking, Chairwoman Waters, you must have come into
the House about the same time we did, didn't you?
Chairwoman Waters. I did. I did.
Senator Allard. That is right, you were in our class, I
think.
Chairwoman Waters. That is right.
Senator Allard. So, it is kind of a reunion here.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. This has been a good reunion on a good
issue that we can do something about. Thank you very much.
I would like to ask our second panel to take their seats at
the table. I will now proceed with our opening statements, and
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Allow me to begin by repeating something I have said a
number of times since assuming my position as Chair, namely
that I intend to make preventing and ending homelessness a
priority focus of the Housing Subcommittee. There is simply no
more stinging indictment of recent Federal housing policy than
its failure to prevent and end literal homelessness.
I am proud to note that the first serious attention
Congress paid to modern homelessness consisted of hearings
convened 25 years ago by my distinguished predecessor, as Chair
of the then-Housing and Community Development Subcommittee, the
late Henry Gonzalez.
From those hearings evolved the McKinney Act itself,
thanks, of course, to the dedication of Chairman Gonzalez's
full committee colleagues, Stewart McKinney of Connecticut,
whose son we look forward to hearing from today, and Bruce
Vento of Minnesota.
Since enactment in 1987, the McKinney-Vento Act programs
have helped thousands of homeless men, women, and children
return to stable housing and lives, in which they can reach
their full potential. I hope that we can move forward on
reauthorizing this critical legislation in the same bipartisan
spirit that animated Representatives McKinney and Vento.
But the sad fact is that the McKinney-Vento Act programs
should not be so desperately needed 2 decades after they were
established. Earlier this year, I joined many of the
organizations represented on the witness panels here today at
last week's hearing, at an event marking the 20th anniversary
date itself, where appropriately, bittersweet chocolate bars
were distributed, reflecting the ambivalence we felt.
I dare say that Representatives McKinney and Vento
themselves would be disappointed to learn that these programs
remain the linchpin of the Federal response to homelessness.
Notably, the legislative history of this bill in the
Congressional Record makes clear that nobody involved at the
time believed that the McKinney-Vento Act alone would end
homelessness, despite its ambitious creation of 15 separate
programs, and an authorization of over $400 million in funding.
Indeed, the original House bill was entitled, ``The Urgent
Relief for the Homeless Act.'' Simply put, the McKinney-Vento
programs were always meant as a first step, a first step toward
a social safety net in which no person is forced to live on the
streets or in shelters because of poverty, whether or not that
poverty is coupled with additional challenges like mental
illness, drug addiction, or HIV/ AIDS.
What also struck me was how much the people present at the
birth of these programs we consider today knew or suspected,
even in the midst of a new crisis, about the real long-term
solutions to homelessness, of necessity, perhaps, given the
rapid and overwhelming growth in homelessness at the time. The
majority of early McKinney-Vento Act authorizations and
appropriations funded emergency food and shelter assistance.
Yet, from the outset, the McKinney-Vento Act invested in a
wide range of interventions, including permanent support of
housing, transitional housing, education, mental health, and
substance addiction services, job training, and other
interventions.
Building on this basic infrastructure, academic research
coupled with the hard-earned knowledge of practitioners and
government, have moved us to a place where we now know much
more about who the homeless are, and what it takes to end
homelessness for them, more than we knew then in 1987.
As we will hear from the witnesses here today, there is
vastly improved understanding of how to meet the needs of the
various homeless households, from the mentally ill or drug-
addicted individuals who have lived on the streets for years,
to families with histories of domestic violence or childhood
sexual abuse, to veterans of the current and prior wars. We
will build on that knowledge and our work to reauthorize the
McKinney-Vento Act.
I want to be clear that this does not mean that I expect
the witnesses today or next week to agree entirely on precisely
what we should do, in terms of reauthorization. I mention this
because it sometimes bothers me that policymakers impose
expectations on advocates for the poor to deliver unanimous
support on a silver platter when no such thing is demanded from
the more powerful, well-heeled constituencies.
Just as this committee routinely learns from debates
between individual investment banks or hedge funds, and even
battles among different sectors of the financial services
industry, so too do we benefit from the perspectives of the
informed and passionate stakeholders in the effort to end
homelessness. Our job as legislators is to draw the best from
all that we hear and we quite often end up leaving nobody
entirely happy.
I will conclude, however, with a sobering reflection that
the bottom line of the homelessness is the bottom line, which
is that we haven't made demonstrable progress in reducing the
number of households experiencing homelessness nationwide in
the past 2 decades.
Indeed, despite lots of heartwarming individual success
stories, we may very well have lost ground. Homeless people are
notoriously difficult to count, for obvious reasons. So it is
hard to get consensus on what estimates can reliably be
compared to others.
But let me put it this way. There is absolutely no evidence
that the over 800,000 or so people whom we know, pretty
reliably, to be homeless on any given night--over 10 percent of
them in Los Angeles, alone--are a lower number than the day the
McKinney-Vento Act was passed. And fully 34,000 individuals in
Los Angeles County alone, and perhaps 4 times that nationwide,
are considered chronically homeless, meaning they experience
long and repeated episodes of homelessness.
Let me just conclude my remarks by thanking our witnesses
for being here today, and thanking the members of this
committee for already indicating that this, too, is a high
priority with them, and their willingness to work in a
bipartisan manner to get something done.
With that, I would like to recognize Ranking Member Capito
for as much time as she would need. This is her first opening
statement as the new representative for the subcommittee--thank
you very much--on the minority side.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. And this,
indeed, is my first hearing as the ranking member. I am trying
to fill Judy Biggert's shoes over here. They are large shoes
over here. And thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for scheduling
this hearing today on the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento
Act.
I also want to take this opportunity today to welcome one
of the witnesses here who is on our third panel, Amy Weintraub.
She is the executive director of the Covenant House, in
Charleston, West Virginia, my home and my district. Amy is a
good friend, and a tireless advocate for the homeless in not
only Charleston, West Virginia, but also the surrounding
metropolitan area.
She has been very active in the Charleston community, and
in our State of West Virginia over the last decade, within the
homelessness advocacy community, but also on many other issues
including health care education and domestic violence. I would
like to thank her, and all of the witnesses, for taking time
from your schedules to share your experiences on the front
lines of helping to end homelessness.
While the overall number of homeless families and
individuals is extremely difficult to predict, as the
chairwoman mentioned in her remarks, it is estimated that at
least 700,000 people are homeless, and as many as 2 million to
3.5 million people experience homelessness at least once during
an average year.
Unfortunately, this number continues to grow. In recent
years, cities like my hometown City of Charleston, West
Virginia, have seen an increase in their homeless shelter
occupants. While this number continues to grow, we are always
seeking the solution to make that a smaller number.
Two comprehensive homeless bills have been introduced in
the 100th Congress. We are going to be hearing about H.R. 840,
the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to
Housing Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Julia Carson,
and also my colleague from Kentucky, Congressman Geoff Davis.
Thank you, Congressman Davis.
Also, we are going to be talking about, as the two senators
testified, Senate Bill 1518. The Senate bill was passed
unanimously on September 19, 2007.
In addition to these bills, the Administration has recently
transmitted a legislative proposal to Congress that is similar
to the bills introduced by Senators Reed and Allard.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend our
colleague, Congresswoman Carson, who is not here today, for the
work she has done on this issue. I am sorry she cannot be here,
and I hope that she will be feeling better soon, and back
working with us on this important issue.
My hope is that this hearing today, and the recent action
by the Senate, will represent an important step forward in
determining how best to go about fixing today's serious
homeless problem. There are many areas of agreement among these
various legislative proposals.
For instance--and we have already heard; I am anxious to
hear the testimony from the other witnesses--general consensus
among the legislative proposals that consolidation of the three
competitive grant programs into one program--gee, that just
happens to make good sense, doesn't it--would be beneficial.
This consolidation would alleviate the need for HUD to review
each proposal individually, and could cut the time that it
takes HUD to make a decision by as much as 3 months.
Consolidation would also increase local control and
flexibility. I represent a rural area. We need the flexibility
to put forth programs that adequately serve our constituents.
Reauthorization reform of the McKinney-Vento homeless
program is an important goal. I know that we can certainly
better address the pressing needs of the homeless across this
country, and we can do it in a bipartisan manner. I believe
that the first step to making progress and moving forward is to
focus more on the areas of agreement and less on the areas of
disagreement.
I know that both Congresswoman Biggert and Chairwoman
Waters are committed to working on comprehensive legislation to
reform and reauthorize this program, and I want to pledge my
willingness, as the new ranking member of the Housing
Subcommittee, to work together with them.
Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for holding this important
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Ranking Member
Capito.
The lead sponsor of H.R. 840, subcommittee member Carson,
is unable to join us today, due to health considerations, and
we certainly wish her a speedy recovery. In the meantime, our
chairman, Chairman Frank, is here, and I understand he would
like to deliver a statement on her behalf.
The Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. I recognize the chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Yes, I do have a statement that I
will read on behalf of our colleague, Ms. Carson, who has
worked so hard on this:
Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito, for
holding this important hearing. I know we share a deep interest
in eradicating homelessness. I regret not being present today,
but I am thankful homelessness assistance programs are
receiving the attention they so desperately deserve.
``Today's hearing affirms that working to end homelessness
is a mission taken very seriously by this Congress. July marked
the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, but the tragedy of homelessness
persists. Over 3 million individuals experience homelessness
every year, and over 1 million of those are children. This is
unacceptable.
``It is in this spirit that I introduce the Homeless
Emergency and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2007. The bill
would reauthorize McKinney-Vento, programs would provide
critical transitional housing supportive services, emergency
shelters, and permanent housing.
``The changes reflect the lessons we have learned since the
last reauthorization in 1994. It addresses the concerns of
diverse communities with distinct needs but one goal, ending
homelessness. This would restore local-level decisionmaking on
homeless priorities, increase the authorization of the program,
and modify HUD's definition of homelessness, which is outdated
and exclusive. H.R. 840 ensures more children of families
receive homeless assistance, by aligning this definition with
the one used by the Departments of Education, Justice, and
Health and Human Services.
``Local providers know which housing priorities best
address their unique needs. But currently, severely inadequate
funding levels, restrictive definitions, and inflexible
requirements prevent them from implementing housing solutions
that best suit these needs. Many of the witnesses today are
local service providers and advocates who face these obstacles
and H.R. 840 would diminish those hurdles.
``My home State of Indiana includes urban, suburban, and
rural communities, each struggling with different homeless
dilemmas. In my district, in the City of Indianapolis, more
than 15,000 individuals experience homelessness each year. In
this urban setting, it may be best to target housing and
services towards the homeless who live in the streets for long
periods of time.
``In Jeffersonville, Indiana, however, there was a
dramatically different picture. Barb Anderson, a witness today,
serves as the executive director of Haven House Services in
this rural community, where affordable housing is sparse, and
the homeless less visible, often living in doubled-up
situations with relatives, and over-crowded, substandard
housing.
``Under H.R. 840, both Indianapolis and the balance of
Indiana continuum of care boards would be able to set different
and more effective priorities. They would be able to address
all homeless individuals, not just those who meet a narrow,
federally-mandated definition.
``We would like to thank Congressman Geoff Davis for his
hard work on H.R. 840 and all the cosponsors of the bill. I am
grateful that so many of my colleagues have invested efforts to
address homelessness. Congress has been disgracefully slow in
recognizing and responding to the national crisis of
homelessness, and we are thrilled that we have the opportunity
to shed light on this issue today.''
The Chairman.That is the statement of Congresswoman Carson.
Madam Chairwoman, I would just add, myself, that I don't think
it is entirely coincidental that the last time it was
authorized was 1994, and we are taking it up again today.
Something happened during the interim period that has changed,
and that is why we were able to get back to this.
But I would also note that a very important part of this--
and our colleague, Ms. Carson mentioned it--is permanent
housing. There is no solution to the homelessness problem, not
even a serious effort to diminish it, without programs to
increase the construction of affordable housing for low-income
people. That is why part of the approach here will be the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund bill, Madam Chairwoman, which you
brought out of your subcommittee and out of our committee, and
which will be on the Floor next week.
So, I do say yes, we need the services. This is underlying
some of the problems, and we have different agencies involved.
We are going to, I hope, move forward on this under your
leadership, Madam Chairwoman, but part of the solution to this,
or part of the effort to alleviate, as I said, will be an
increase in the supply of housing.
The central problem of homelessness is they don't have
homes, those people. And they all used to, by the way. None of
them were born on Mars, and came here, and never had a place to
live. So we need to restore people to homes. And we can't do
that, unless we increase the stock of affordable housing. So
that is our approach.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your interest.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
will now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert,
for 3 minutes, for an opening statement.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. And
thank you and the ranking member for holding this very
important hearing on the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento.
I would like to just comment on the remark from our
chairman. I think that, starting with Congressman Lazzio, there
were repeated efforts to bring this issue up which met with
resistance not so much from the Congress but from the advocacy
groups which were not in agreement. So, hopefully, this can be
worked out this year, and we will find a result. But it is not
for lack of trying that there hasn't been a reauthorization
since 1994.
And I would also like to echo the remarks of my colleague
from West Virginia, Ranking Member Capito. And, again, I would
like to congratulate her on her new position. As far as shoes
are concerned, I wear a size six, so I think I have small shoes
to fill. I think you will do very well.
And second, I would like to note that McKinney-Vento is not
a new issue to me. Back when I was in the State legislature, I
worked with a wonderful colleague, Mary Lou Cowlishaw, on her
bill to educate homeless children in Illinois. And during my
first year in Congress, I introduced H.R. 623, the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Education Act of 2001. This bill was to allow
homeless children to be immediately enrolled in school, so that
they would have at least one stable environment and that was
education.
This bill was included, the language was included, in the
definition of homeless children which was eventually
incorporated into a small bill which is up for reauthorization
in Congress this year, and that's the No Child Left Behind
bill.
But this leads me to my request. I think that--I hope that
the witnesses will focus today, in particular, on the
definitions that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development uses for the homeless and chronically homeless. Do
they make children a priority? I know the definitions do not
harmonize with those used by the Department of Education, and I
fear the HUD definition may allow children to fall through the
cracks, and wander like nomads to hotels, to campgrounds, to
cars, and to friends' homes, leaving them homeless and in a
very unstable living environment.
So, focusing on the housing needs of homeless children is
my number one priority, and I am grateful to my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle who share this sentiment. In
particular, I would like to thank Congresswoman Julia Carson,
and I'm sorry she can't be here today. I would also like to
thank Congressman Geoff Davis for his hard work on helping
homeless children.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I
will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for
what you have done through the years to help those who are less
fortunate. Before I came to Congress, I had an opportunity to
know of your great reputation, in terms of helping the
powerless. You have truly been hope for the hopeless, help to
the helpless, and power for the powerless. So I thank you for
what you have done through the years.
I want to thank the ranking member, as well, Ranking Member
Capito. I have had the opportunity to--by way of hearsay, which
is good, because reputation evidence is hearsay--get some
evidence as to where you stand on these issues. And my belief
is that you have a good reputation, and I look forward to
working with you. I always thank the chairman of the full
committee, especially for what he is doing now to help us
arrive at a housing trust fund.
Madam Chairwoman, it saddens me greatly when I look at the
scope of this problem, the length and breadth of it, because we
live in a country where we have houses for our cars--houses for
our cars. They're called garages. And yet, we have 3.5 million
people, approximately 39 percent of whom are children, whom,
each year, are likely to experience some homelessness.
It really hurts my soul to know that I live in a country
where we can spend $229 million per day--not per year, not per
week, not per month, but per day--on a war, and on any given
night, we have 700,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children who
are without homes. It really saddens me to understand the
length, width, and breadth of this problem.
And so, I would like to let people know that, in my
hometown of Houston, Texas, in Harris County, the problem is
one that I am hopeful we will have an opportunity to impact
with this legislation. The numbers are so shocking that I think
they ought to be stated for the record.
In Houston, Harris County, among the homeless we have: 28
percent veterans; 66 percent have no income; 59 percent lost
housing as a result of a lost job; 57 percent have a history of
substance abuse; 55 percent have a history of mental health
problems; and 11 percent have experienced domestic violence.
And if I may, I would like to emphasize the domestic
violence aspect of this. We must provide transitional housing
for every victim of domestic violence, most of whom are women,
who find themselves on the street because they cannot coexist
in the same space with a spouse or a significant other.
Twenty-four percent have been incarcerated. So this is a
most timely hearing, because we are going to do what we can to
help those who are living, literally, in the streets of life.
The well-off, the well-heeled, and the well-to-do seem to fare
well; it's the least, the last, and the lost that we must give
special attention to with reference to housing. So, I thank
you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to these hearings, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I recognize the
gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, for 2 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I want to
thank you for convening this hearing, and for your reaching out
to both sides of the aisle on this very important issue.
My predecessor was Stewart McKinney. He put his country
first. He put his State first. He put his district first, first
before everything, even his own life. He was asked one time why
he served on the Banking Committee. He said, ``I don't serve on
the Banking Committee, I serve on the Housing Committee.'' It
was his passion, it was his love, and he is the reason we are
here today.
His son, John McKinney, will be our first witness, and I
just want to say that his dad would be so very proud of him.
He, like his father, is the minority leader of the Senate. His
dad, 40 years ago--or 38 years ago--was the minority leader of
the State house. I can just say about this witness that he is
extraordinarily intelligent, and very capable. I consider him a
close friend, and a close advisor, and I am just very grateful
that he would spend the time here today, and that he would be
invited to be here.
Let me just quickly say about the issue, I am most
interested about this bill about getting homeless people to be
able to have their own place to live. I stay at shelters and
spend the night. I don't tell the press when I'm there, but
I've gotten to know so many homeless people, and there is very
little difference between them and any other American, except
they have had some rough things in their lives.
I would just conclude by saying to you that I also welcome
Deborah DeSantis. She has just hired away one of the most
capable and talented staff members on the Hill, and he is just
a truly good person and a good friend of mine. He is a member
of my staff for another week, and I congratulate you for
getting the best and the brightest in Jordan Press. Thank you,
Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. You are certainly welcome. Thank you.
And I will now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, who has
been identified as someone who has not only worked for and on
behalf of homeless children, but has been dedicated to this
issue for quite some time, Representative Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. We have come a
long way this year, so I would like to start out with a few
acknowledgments. First, thank you for holding these hearings on
homelessness, and the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento. This
issue is in need of discussion in a public forum, and I truly
appreciate your commitment to this effort.
Unfortunately, Julia Carson is not with us today. I know
she wishes she could be here, and I would ask all of you to
keep her in your prayers, as she is recovering. I know she is
excited to get back to D.C. and keep working on this issue. She
has been a tremendous force behind the HEARTH Act.
Moreover, I would like to recognize Hillary Swab and
Kathleen Taylor, her two professional staffers, who have worked
on this bill over the past year, and really deserve a lot of
credit, as well, along with the outstanding efforts of Lauren
O'Brien, my staff professional for housing issues.
Lastly, I would like to recognize Linda Young, from Welcome
House of Northern Kentucky. I am thrilled that she was able to
make it to D.C. today to testify about her hands-on experience
with this issue. My wife, Pat, and I have worked with families
in crisis for the last 25 years. I have known Linda in this
capacity since before I was elected to Congress. She has
inspired me with her tireless dedication and innovative
strategies to make most of the resources available to improve
the quality of life for, literally, thousands of my
constituents every year.
As a fiscal conservative, I fully support the Federal
investment and homeless assistance grant programs. A roof over
one's head goes a long way, but it is truly the more holistic
approach of support services, combined with housing, that have
the biggest impact on changing a person's path in life.
These programs lend a helping hand to people who want to
build a future and pursue a dream. This type of Federal
assistance has a lasting impact, not only on the recipient, but
on our communities, as a whole.
I am sure everyone here is familiar with the HEARTH Act,
and I know many of the witnesses will discuss it in their
testimony, so I won't go into the details. However, I want to
point out briefly the two parts of HEARTH that I think are the
most critical: the alignment of the definition of homelessness
with the definition used by the Department of Education; and
the increase in local flexibility.
This is about acknowledging that homelessness looks
different in different parts of the country. Homelessness has
many faces that, for the most part, are invisible to the public
at large, though it is all around us. These people need and
deserve our help. So why don't we let the people who best know
the local situation make the majority of the decisions about
how that money would be spent?
I hope we can all agree after this series of hearings that
this method is in the best interest of our constituents, and
will be the most effective at decreasing all types of
homelessness. With that, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I
yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Cleaver, would
you like to have a few moments?
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. To share with us your thoughts on this,
Mr. Cleaver? Thank you.
Mr. Cleaver. In the interest of time, I will hold my
comments until the time for questioning.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. With that, we are
going to introduce our witnesses on our second panel. Even
though Mr. Shays almost introduced his very special witness
here today, I am going to recognize him to introduce Senator
John McKinney of Connecticut.
Mr. Shays. Well, I have really said what I need to say
about this exceptional young man, and so I will just say, John,
it's really an honor to have you here, a real privilege. I just
think that one time I had an opportunity to walk with your dad
to a hearing. He always showed up before the hearings started.
And it was just fun to be here, and just look out and see you
there. Welcome.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The other witnesses
on this distinguished panel today are: Ms. Maria Foscarinis,
executive director, National Law Center on Homelessness and
Poverty; Ms. Deborah DeSantis, president and executive officer,
Corporation for Supportive Housing; Ms. Barbara Anderson,
executive director, Haven House Services; and Ms. Pittre
Walker, homeless liaison, Caddo Parish School Board.
I thank you all for being here today. Without objection,
your written statement will be made part of the record. You
will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your
testimony. With that, we will start with Ms. Foscarinis.
STATEMENT OF MARIA FOSCARINIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LAW
CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS & POVERTY
Ms. Foscarinis. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
inviting me to testify here today. I am the executive director
of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. We are a
nonprofit legal advocacy group working to end homelessness.
I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
very important hearing, and I want to also thank the ranking
member, Congresswoman Capito, for holding this hearing. It's a
very important hearing on a very urgent topic at a very
critical time. It is the 20th anniversary of the enactment of
the McKinney-Vento Act, and this is a bittersweet anniversary,
as a number of people have mentioned. And if anyone would like
a bittersweet chocolate bar, we still have some left in our
offices, and we will be happy to make them available.
I want to start with just a little bit of history, because
I am a veteran of the original campaign to enact McKinney-Vento
20 years ago, and I never thought I would still be here,
working on this issue today.
Homelessness is a crisis that has not always been with us.
It began to explode in the early 1980's, in a very dramatic
fashion, affecting not only the single men in inner cities that
it had affected previously, but also affecting many families,
many children, in suburban areas and rural communities, as
well. So, this is a crisis that not only does not have to be in
a country with our resources, it also has not always been with
us. We need to remember that, because I think we need to keep
focused on ending and preventing homelessness.
The McKinney-Vento Act had its origins in a comprehensive
piece of legislation that was introduced in Congress in 1986.
That legislation had three parts: an emergency part, to address
the immediate needs of homeless people; a prevention part; and
a long-term solutions part.
The McKinney-Vento Act, through an extraordinary campaign,
became law and was signed into law in 1987. It was part one. It
was the emergency part only of the original legislation that
had been introduced. Part two and part three, prevention and
long-term solutions, have yet to be enacted.
This was an extraordinary campaign. It involved sleep-outs,
including Members of Congress, most significantly including
Congressman McKinney, who really was an extraordinarily
committed person, and an inspirational person, as was
Congressman Vento.
At the time that McKinney-Vento was passed, Congress
explicitly stated--and there are many statements in the
Congressional Record by many Members, bipartisan statements,
about this being a first step only, and it was a first step to
respond to the immediate crisis. It was never intended to be
the final step. It was to be followed by longer term solutions.
In fact, the McKinney-Vento Act has been the major response to
homelessness since that time. And the remaining steps have yet
to be enacted.
That is not to say that there haven't been changes. There
have been a lot of changes since 1987, and there have been
improvements to the Act. There have been expansions of the Act,
very significant expansions. There have been some movements
towards longer-term solutions, but not at the scale, and not in
the way that is needed, or was initially envisioned.
There has not been a reauthorization since 1992. Instead,
changes have been made to the Act through the appropriations
process, as well as through the regulatory process, primarily
through HUD. And I am talking now about the HUD McKinney
programs. I think it is very critical that the legislation be
reauthorized, and I think it is also very critical it be
improved.
This is really an opportunity to change the legislation to
reflect current realities, current knowledge, and current best
practices, and to make a really important step towards keeping
that 20-year-old promise of putting in place permanent
solutions to end and prevent homelessness, to go beyond those
emergency steps.
I think there are a number of pieces of legislation now
that are very significant. My organization has endorsed the
HEARTH Act. I think the Senate piece has--a lot of people have
worked very hard on that, and it has some very important
provisions, as well. I am just going to summarize the key
points that are important to us.
I think aligning the definition of homelessness, to make it
consistent with the Department of Education definition, is very
important. And that is something that the HEARTH Act does.
I realize--we recognize--that the current programs are
very--are terribly oversubscribed, and there is an argument
that expanding, or changing the definition, would add to that.
I think, for this reason, it is very important to also increase
the resources. And the HEARTH legislation does increase, as
does the Senate counterpart, increase the authorized levels
very significantly. Still not sufficient, but a very
significant step forward. And that, I think, is also a critical
part of the legislation.
Another critical piece, which is in the Senate bill but is
not currently in the HEARTH legislation, concerns renewals.
There are Section 8 vouchers associated with the HUD McKinney
programs to--
Mr. Cleaver. [presiding] I am going to ask you to wrap it
up. We allotted 5 minutes.
Ms. Foscarinis. Okay.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you so much.
Ms. Foscarinis. May I just--
Mr. Cleaver. Yes, yes, please.
Ms. Foscarinis. Okay. The renewal--to have the renewal
provision through the Section 8 program, as in the Senate
legislation, I think, is critical. The continuum of care
process, where all stakeholders come together is also very
critical. It is very important to keep that in there.
Lastly, discouraging cities from criminalizing
homelessness, which is in the HEARTH Act through an incentive
process is very important to protecting people's rights and
putting in place cost-effective solutions to homelessness.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Foscarinis can be found on
page 68 of the appendix.]
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you very much. Mr. Shays, would you like
to, again, introduce Senator McKinney?
Mr. Shays. You know, this has never occurred in the history
of this place, John, that someone has been introduced three
times. So I will spare you any further introduction or
embarrassment.
He, actually, is a very humble guy, so this must drive him
crazy. John, welcome.
Mr. Cleaver. Senator, thank you for being here with us.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN McKINNEY, STATE SENATOR, STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. McKinney. Thank you, sir. And I want to thank
Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and the members of
the subcommittee for holding these hearings, and for giving me
an opportunity to testify in support of a bill and a cause that
is near and dear to my heart.
I also want to pay special mention to my good friend and my
Congressman, Chris Shays, and thank him for his leadership on
this issue.
I am here today simply because I believe, as my father
believed, that every American has the right to a home. I am
here today to ask you to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act, and expand our Federal Government's
role in the fight to end homelessness in America.
In 1986, my father helped craft, and Congress ultimately
passed, legislation we know now as the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act. It was the first major coordinated Federal
response to homelessness in our Nation's history. While it was
an important first step, it was just that, a first step. We
were supposed to do more. We have not followed through on the
promise to do more to combat homelessness. Reauthorization of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act by this Congress
will get us back on the right track, and help fulfill the
promises made 2 decades ago.
Over those past 2 decades, the face of homelessness has
changed. It is no longer only single men or the mentally ill
who are sleeping on our streets or inhabiting emergency
shelters. Today, it is all too common to see mothers and their
children, entire families, arrive at an emergency shelter in
need of a place to sleep.
Another dramatic change has occurred over the last 20
years. We no longer need to manage homelessness; we can end it.
In Connecticut, we are working on doing just that, ending
homelessness. And the problem is real in our small State. A
point of time survey that was done this past winter, which was
the first coordinated statewide survey done in the State, found
an estimated 3,300 people who were homeless on one night of
January 30th. Of those, almost 400 were families.
In my own hometown of Fairfield, Connecticut, an affluent
suburb of 60,000 people where the average home price is
$750,000, we see our own problems with homelessness. Operation
Hope, which is a local nonprofit agency providing innovative
solutions to homelessness, reports that the people calling in
need of shelter and housing has been rising steadily. In the
last 6 months alone, over 500 people have called in need of
immediate shelter, and almost 100 others have called in need of
support services, and are at risk of homelessness. This is on
top of the dozens and dozens of people they serve in their
support services every day.
In Connecticut, we have been leading in supportive housing.
To date, there are 3,000 units of permanent supportive housing
that have been created or are in the pipeline, and McKinney
funding has been a critically important part to this
development. State and local funds have been used to leverage
Federal dollars, including McKinney funding, to pay for
supportive housing.
McKinney funding allocated by HUD is not enough, however.
While in the late 1990's, these funds sparked new development
of supportive housing, today the funds only cover the expenses
of keeping current housing open. Communities aren't getting a
boost in funding to ensure the continued operation of current
housing stock, and to inspire new locally-determined
developments.
While renewal grants are important, we need new funding to
jumpstart the next phase of supportive housing development. In
my hometown of Fairfield--let me give you an example--Operation
Hope used McKinney funding from HUD to open up six units of
supportive housing for families and six units for single adults
between 1999 and 2001. These homes still receive HUD funding
for operating and supportive service costs, but the HUD funding
is no longer available for future developments. Operation Hope
has been able to develop the next 12 units, but they have had
to do so without HUD funding.
The model developed by Operation Hope--non-urban, scattered
site development--works well for communities and people who are
homeless. Integrating supportive housing directly into thriving
neighborhoods is the best way to help families who were once
homeless in a way that will enrich the communities around them.
This model is especially good for children, who benefit from
seeing their parents maintain their households and get up and
go to work like everyone else in the neighborhood.
But we need new capital funding to spur development. While
the State of Connecticut has tried to pick up the slack, our
current efforts are over-subscribed. There are many more
developments proposed than there is money to cover them. Our
goal in Connecticut is to end homelessness by the year 2014
through the creation of 10,000 units of supportive housing. We
have done 3,000, and we have 7,000 units to go. We need help.
We need Federal dollars, combined with State and local funds,
to make this a reality.
This is an important and fiscally smart investment of
Federal funds. It is an investment in a proven model, a better
investment than the current emergency shelter system,
consisting only of emergency rooms, jails, and shelters.
Imagine if we could take those 100 people who are on the
service wait list on Operation Hope, or the 500 people who are
in need of emergency shelter, and provide them with financial
assistance and support services to prevent them from ever being
evicted, to prevent them from being homeless. Think of the
consequences of that emergency aid. Children would get to stay
in their homes, their schools, their neighborhoods. Their
parents would be less stressed, more steady, and thinking and
planning for the future.
Local agencies like Operation Hope can help these families,
but the financial assistance piece is critical. If we don't
have financial support, there is no ending the crisis of
homelessness. With authorization of the McKinney Act, we will
continue to change and improve the lives of millions of people
in this country.
In closing, let me touch upon two specific issues in the
legislation before you. First, regarding the permanent housing
set-aside, Congress has long directed HUD to dedicate at least
30 percent of funds appropriated for permanent supportive
housing. It would be a mistake to remove this set-aside.
Legislation reauthorizing McKinney-Vento should codify the 30
percent set-aside, because supportive housing has been highly
successful in providing assistance to homeless individuals.
Local organizations throughout the State of Connecticut
have made incredible use of these funds. Maintaining the set-
aside will help meet the critical needs of people, including
those disabled by chronic health conditions or long-term
substance abuse problems. It will also help families with the
greatest challenges to stability, who are often not receiving
any help from other Federal programs.
Second, I want to address the definition of homeless, which
some have proposed broadening to include individuals and
families who are living in doubled-up situations and motels.
While it is certainly admirable to want to address all
people who are in need, I am concerned that this could lead to
a thinning of resources. Changing the definition could divert
resources from those with disabilities who are least likely to
seek help or fend for themselves, if many more people are
competing for the resources provided by the homeless assistance
grant programs. I do not think any of us want to see the most
troubled and sick homeless get pushed to the back of the line.
Again, it is a great honor for me to be here. My father
campaigned vigorously 20 years ago to end homelessness. I think
it is time for us and our Nation to help bring this issue back
to the forefront of political discourse and into American
consciousness. He would be delighted to know that, while 20
years ago we were struggling for funds to help manage
homelessness, today we know we can end homelessness. And I want
to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator McKinney can be found on
page 74 of the appendix.]
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate very much
your willingness to give of your time to be with us today.
Next, the CEO and president of the Corporation for
Supportive Housing, Ms. Deborah DeSantis.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH DeSANTIS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Ms. DeSantis. Thank you. My name is Deborah DeSantis, and I
am president and CEO of the Corporation for Supportive Housing.
CSH is a national nonprofit helping communities create
permanent, affordable housing linked to services that prevent
and end homelessness. We have worked for more than 15 years to
help community-based nonprofits and local and State governments
develop and operate permanent supportive housing.
I would like to thank Subommittee Chairwoman Maxine Waters
for committing her leadership to the important issue of ending
homelessness. I would like to also acknowledge Representative
Carson and other members of this subcommittee who took an early
interest by introducing H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act.
CSH is also pleased that the Senate Banking Committee has
passed a comprehensive bipartisan bill, S. 1518, to reauthorize
the McKinney-Vento programs. And let me also say it is an honor
to speak on behalf of McKinney reauthorization, along with
Connecticut State senator John McKinney, whose father is
rightly recognized for his leadership and passion in responding
to our Nation's crisis of homelessness.
Twenty years after the passage of the McKinney Act, the
need for McKinney-Vento resources remains great. Over 200,000
individuals with disabilities experience homelessness on a
repeated or chronic basis. By our conservative estimates, the
cost to taxpayers of maintaining homelessness, particularly
chronic homelessness, totals between $5 billion and $8 billion
a year.
Despite its tragic and costly consequences, the persistence
of homelessness has allowed us to explore causes of
homelessness and test solutions. This research supports the
recommendations I am making today.
First, I urge the reauthorization legislation to include a
30 percent set aside for permanent housing, for homeless
households with one or more disabled persons. For those
homeless individuals and families who confront chronic health
conditions and suffer, or are at risk of suffering long-term or
repeated bouts of homelessness, permanent supportive housing is
the only intervention proven to end costly cycling between
systems.
Studies indicate that providing permanent housing with
services to those with disabilities allows more than 80 percent
of residents to remain stably housed after 1 year, decreases
tenants' emergency room visits by more than 50 percent, and
increases tenants' income by 50 percent, resulting in cost
savings of about $16,000 per housing unit per year.
Based on the success of permanent supportive housing,
congressional appropriators, on a bipartisan basis, have
imposed a 30 percent set-aside for permanent housing for the
past 9 fiscal years. In 1998, the year before the 30 percent
set-aside, only 13 percent of McKinney money was dedicated to
permanent housing.
While significant McKinney-Vento resources have been
invested in new permanent supportive housing since Fiscal Year
2000, the overall funding available for other interventions has
not plummeted. In fact, it has increased by $50 million.
Further, people experiencing chronic homelessness are more
likely than other McKinney-Vento-eligible populations to be
excluded from other safety net programs. Indeed, the average
national rent for an efficiency 1-room bedroom apartment of
$715 is more than the monthly income a disabled person receives
on SSI. In such circumstances, it is appropriate for Federal
policy to provide this population with some priority.
Second, CSH recommends expanding the definition of chronic
homelessness to include families where a head of household
suffers from a disability, and has been homeless repeatedly or
continuously. About 12,000 to 15,000 households of families
with children are homeless for 2 or more years. These families
experience chronic or long-term homelessness, but are not
recognized as such under current definition.
Third, CSH supports a prudent expansion of the definition
of homelessness. Legislation should recognize the reality that
many homeless people do not live on the streets, but in
hospitals, treatment facilities, or jail. These previously
homeless individuals should be considered homeless, too.
Additionally, individuals or families at risk who have
moved three or more times in the past year, living off of
temporary motel vouchers or with a relative or friend on a
short-term, unstable basis should be considered homeless.
However, we have great reservations about expanding the
definition of homelessness, as suggested in H.R. 840. While we
agree housing affordability is at the root of homelessness, we
believe other programs are better equipped to address our
country's housing affordability crisis. The Financial Services
Committee recently completed work on legislation to strengthen
and expand the Section 8 housing voucher program and to
establish a national housing trust fund.
Also, S. 1518 creates a new grant program to keep families
and individuals from becoming homeless.
Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to offer my
testimony. I applaud you for the ambitious undertaking at this
hearing and for responding to the homelessness and housing
needs of America today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. DeSantis can be found on
page 60 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Anderson?
STATEMENT OF BARBARA ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HAVEN HOUSE
SERVICES
Ms. Anderson. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters. I want to
share with the subcommittee a book Kathleen has, that I think
she is going to be passing out shortly. It's a book of
photographs of people in my community who have experienced
homelessness. I share it to remind you that the public policy
you make affects the lives of ordinary Americans.
As we get into the weeds of writing law, we don't need to
forget that it is our neighbors, family members, and indeed,
ourselves who are the true subjects of this hearing. Each of us
may experience homelessness at any given time. As a young
student in a community that is very small and rural, I had to
live in a car and in garages to be able to graduate from
college.
When I began my career as a social worker in 1979, the only
person I can recall being homeless in my community was the man
they called Herbie, and he was affectionately known as ``The
Town Drunk.'' Four years later, Congress and the President
enacted massive budget cuts that decimated Federal social
programs. I watched those incidences of homelessness from a
very practical level, not from a policy level.
The consequences for countless of Americans and countless
neighbors was that over those 2 decades, night after night of
sleeping in shelters with dozens of strangers occurred. People
slept in the woods, hidden from sight, on the couches of
grudging relatives, and in roadside motels that lacked
kitchens. I have even pulled people out of chicken coops and
barnyards.
Last night at our shelter, we provided 78 people with a
temporary place to sleep. Our facility is suitable for 60
people. Of those 78, 23 were children. They do not meet the
Federal guideline for chronic homeless. Twenty-seven have full-
time employment. They are working poor people. They do not meet
the definition for chronic homeless. Thirteen work in day
labor, because suitable work on a nomadic lifestyle is hard to
find. Fifteen have disabilities.
We serve all comers, disabled and working poor, single
adult, and families with children. We are the only shelter
serving 14 counties, so we have urban and rural--and many, many
rural.
As a board member of the National Coalition for the
Homeless, with colleagues from across the country, I can tell
you there are serious flaws just within McKinney-Vento itself.
In 20 years, the evolution of the program has not kept up with
the pace of the population outburst.
Take, for example, the definition. It is antiquated.
Congress has modernized the definitions used by other Federal
programs to include a more complete set of living arrangements,
yet HUD has stubbornly clung to this definition, because an
undercount better serves the definition.
We can't ignore the numerous people in this country who
have 19 and 20--I have visited families who have 19 and 20
people living in a 2-bedroom home, with only 1 person on the
lease. Those families are homeless, and they have no options
but to be cluttered and on top of each other with all the
social ills that go with that, including domestic violence and
abject poverty, and sometimes burglary, and whatever else
happens for them to make it. And it is a crime that we allow
that to happen. We call on Congress to amend the HUD definition
of homelessness following the HEARTH Act language.
Then there is the Administration's chronic homeless
initiative, the set-asides and the permanent housing bonuses.
The national directives have resulted sometimes in a
concentration of resources on permanent supportive housing to
the cost of those of us who are trying to build in small
communities with very few resources to build any kind of
housing.
The HEARTH Act restores flexibility to communities to
select a set of eligible activities that best responds to their
individual and greatest needs, rather than dictates from
Washington. The National Coalition for the Homeless supports
the HEARTH Act. It addresses the above concerns and many other
grievances.
We call for Congress to authorize and appropriate at least
$3 billion annually for HUD and McKinney-Vento programs, and we
don't need to stop there. Congress should authorize and
appropriate funds for a homeless prevention initiative outside
of the McKinney-Vento program, because every penny that is in
HUD and McKinney-Vento is needed there.
We also urge Congress to authorize and appropriate funds
for a rural homeless assistance program through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, where field sites are located in
communities throughout this country, and where the true rural
needs of rural America can be met with people who understand
rural homelessness.
Homelessness is our national shame and our global
embarrassment. It is also a personal and family tragedy to over
3 million Americans every year, including the people in the
book that Kathleen has passed out. These are people depicted in
photography from my small piece of America, Jeffersonville,
Indiana. In their honor, we must recognize housing as a basic
human right, and ensure all Americans' access to it.
We must adopt universal health insurance. We must demand a
labor agreement in which all people earn or receive an income
sufficient to obtain affordable housing. We must assure the
civil rights of all persons, housed and homeless, to
participate freely in the life of their community. And it is
time for us, with Congress in the lead, to bring America home.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson can be found on
page 48 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Walker?
Ms. Walker. Good morning.
Chairwoman Waters. Good morning
STATEMENT OF PITTRE WALKER, HOMELESS LIAISON, CADDO PARISH
SCHOOL BOARD
Ms. Walker. Chairwoman Waters, and members of the
committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to speak to you about something that is
very dear to my heart.
For the past 9 years, I have served as the homeless liaison
for Caddo Parish School Board in Shreveport, Louisiana. I am
also a board member of the National Association for the
Education of Homeless Children and Youth, and the Louisiana
Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth.
I will focus my comments today on the youngest victims of
homelessness, our Nation's children and youth. Homeless
children suffer physically and emotionally. Infants and
toddlers who are homeless are at risk of developmental delays.
Homeless children and youth are diagnosed with learning
disabilities at a much higher rate than other children. They
struggle academically, and fall behind in school.
Unfortunately, children and youth have not been a focus of
the Federal homeless policies, except in the area of education.
We are extremely grateful for the leadership of Congresswoman
Judy Biggert, who has worked on the education provisions of
McKinney-Vento and has increased the stability and success of
homeless children and youth in school. Educators have learned
that without the involvement and cooperation of the community
service providers, educational efforts are much less likely to
succeed.
A child without housing faces greater barriers to academic
success than just the barriers that exist within the classroom.
One of these barriers is the current HUD definition of
homelessness. Many people have no choice but to stay
temporarily with other people, or in motels, often in
overcrowded and unsafe circumstances. In many places across the
country, there are no shelters, or shelters may be full, or
have restrictive requirements, forcing people to stay in other
homeless situations.
On the other hand, the education definition of homelessness
includes families doubled up, tripled up, or living in motel
situations. This allows me to serve children and youth who lack
housing enroll in school, and obtain educational-related
services. Last year, Caddo Parish identified and enrolled 2,031
homeless children and youth in grades K through 12. Of those,
1,232 were doubled up, and 72 lived in motels. Thus, 64 percent
of homeless children and youth in my parish are not eligible
for HUD homeless assistance services.
Since 1999, Caddo has received a HUD assistance grant to
provide case management services for Caddo and six rural areas
in our community for homeless families. But I can only help a
fraction of those who truly need assistance, because of the HUD
definition. For these reasons, I strongly support the
definition of homelessness contained in the H.R. 840, the
HEARTH Act. In my community, this definition of homelessness
will allow service providers to meet the needs of all families
that are experiencing homelessness.
Unfortunately, the definition of homelessness in the Senate
bill, S. 1518, is not adequate to meet the needs of the
families we serve on a daily basis. For families who are
doubled up or in motels that are not paid by government,
multiple moves must occur before assistance can be provided.
Just last Friday, I received a call from a mother of three
who was at the food stamp office. This mother was in crisis,
crying over the phone, and needed somewhere to stay. She had
been to several different places, and could not find any help.
Shelters were full. So, at that point, I decided to use my own
credit card, and put that family up in a hotel, so that those
children could have a place to stay. And to this day, they are
still on my credit card in a hotel.
It is my desire that every child have a home. So,
therefore, I said we must work diligently to assure that all
families that are experiencing homelessness have a home and
services provided to them, to assist them in meeting those
needs.
I am not a government official. Would that person be able
to meet the HUD definition, with me putting my credit card up,
and receive HUD services? I say no. But, in order for that
family to have some stability and some place to say, that was
something we had to do. And, as liaisons throughout the Nation,
we do what we have to do, in order for families to be able to
feel safe and secure in their living situation.
I say to you they are usually emotionally a wreck. These
children had not slept in days. They were sleeping on a floor
with roaches and rats, and I went to the house where they were,
and they were actually put out from that place, when they were
at the food stamp office. I say to you, we must--we cannot look
at ending homelessness without looking at our families. We must
address the needs of our families.
It is hard for children to be stable in school. It is hard
for them to academically succeed without a place to stay.
I have other concerns about the Senate bill and current
policies that are described in my written testimony. But I say
to you today, as long as the needs of children and youth are
not recognized, we will never end homelessness. I believe the
HEARTH Act provides a stronger approach to reauthorization.
I thank you again for this opportunity to present to you
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Walker can be found on page
129 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I would like to
thank all of our panelists who have come here today to help us
formulate public policy on homelessness.
Now, unfortunately, as we do this working committee, voting
is going on, on the Floor. If you heard those bells ring, it
means that it is time for us to get up to the Floor and take
some votes. There are 6 votes, 45 minutes at the most. We are
going to have to leave, go up and do that. We will be back, and
we will start our questions. So you will have an opportunity to
stretch your legs, get some refreshments, and meet us back here
in about 40 minutes. Thank you.
[Recess]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much for your patience.
The committee will come to order. Our members will be returning
shortly.
I will recognize myself for 5 minutes and begin the
questions. I think I will start with Ms. Walker. One thing that
jumped into my mind when you told the heartbreaking story of
the family that you are personally going to such great lengths
to help is, where is the TANF system in all of this?
Now, let me be clear that I was not a supporter of the so-
called welfare reform of 1996, but TANF funding is at least 10
times McKinney funding in any given year. It is funding for
which chronically homeless individuals are typically eligible.
I wonder whether this family, and others who are doubled up or
precariously housed, are receiving any TANF funds, or whether
your State is targeting TANF dollars toward housing.
If not, can you tell me what the obstacles are? I just
wonder why the TANF funds were not available for that family.
Could you help me to understand, or all you know is that they
have your credit card?
Ms. Walker. Yes, ma'am. Since I received the phone call
from the food stamp office--which actually assists families in
receiving food stamps, and the TANF office is also there--I am
just assuming, I really don't know, that TANF funds were not
available for this family, and that they called me for
assistance for housing.
So, therefore, that is why we decided to go ahead and put
them up in a hotel.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay. Ms. Foscarinis, I appreciate your
long-standing involvement in the issues of homelessness,
including your work on the original McKinney Act.
My question is this: Wasn't that Act itself a targeting or
prioritization of Federal resources, namely a recognition that
while America in 1987 had many poor people, it was necessary to
place some special importance on persons experiencing
homelessness?
I pose this question because I am struggling to understand
why, then, is it not appropriate for the Federal Government to
place some priority in the allocation of McKinney-Vento
resources on the chronically homeless, those who have been
homeless the longest and most often, and frequently are the
most ill?
Ms. Foscarinis. That is a good question, Congresswoman
Waters. I don't think that it is inappropriate to place
priority on the chronically homeless. I think it is very
important to recognize that there is an extreme need among all
homeless people, and that what we really need to do is put in
the resources to address the needs of all homeless people.
When the original McKinney-Vento Act was passed, part of
the missing pieces, the pieces that were not passed, had to do
with improving access to mainstream services. In response to
your earlier question, ``Where are those mainstream services,''
often homeless people are kept out of those services, because
they don't have documents, they don't have an address, or they
don't have IDs. So they are, literally, not able to get access
to those services. Those services are also oversubscribed, and
increasing those resources.
So, I think we need to do those things. I think that is,
ultimately, the solution to homelessness. I think targeting
resources to the chronically homeless, in some communities, may
work. But I don't think that we should be assuming that it is
going to work across the board. I think that should be a
decision--the resources are very limited. The community process
is very important. It is very important that it be inclusive,
as it has been currently, and that the local communities
determine their priorities.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I will now
recognize the ranking member, Mrs. Capito.
Mrs. Capito. I thank the chairwoman. I want to thank you
all for your patience, and I am glad that we are back and
addressing this very critical issue.
Each of you have addressed the issue of the redefinition of
homelessness in a different way. Some have expressed some
reservations. And I think this is really going to be at the
crux of what piece of legislation we come forward with, whether
we match the Senate or go with the HEARTH bill, or create
something in between.
For those who have expressed some reservations, could you
get a little bit more specific on what your reservation is in
expanding the definition? Is it lack of resources? Is it
inability to specifically define or categorize someone as
homeless, if the definition is expanded? I believe Ms.
DeSantis, and maybe the Senator had addressed that, as well.
Ms. DeSantis. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to address
that question. And permit me for a minute to personalize the
response a bit.
As a young child, my mother was very young. My father left
us at the age of three. And at that time, my mother was working
two or three jobs, and couldn't support the two of us. We moved
into my grandmother's house for close to 14 years. So, never
once did I consider myself or my mother ``homeless.'' But,
under the expanded definition of homelessness, we would,
indeed, be considered homeless.
So, to respond to your question, yes, it is two-fold. It is
a matter of limited resources, and spreading those resources
too thin. But I also--I worry about stigmatizing thousands more
individuals and families, and calling them homeless, when,
indeed, I think there are other Federal programs that could
address the economic disadvantage that many individuals and
families are experiencing, such as the Section 8 program, such
as the housing trust fund program.
Mr. McKinney. Thank you. And, if I could just add, I think
my concern is one of resources, and that is that we are--I want
to make sure that those who are at greatest risk of
homelessness, those with the most need, are getting the
resources they need.
I would say, though, that--and listening to Ms. Walker's
testimony, which is extremely powerful--that all of us here,
and all of you, should not let the different definitions in S.
1518 and H.R. 840 prevent us from passing this important Act.
We should all sit together to work on it.
If it is the expanded definition in H.R. 840, then I would
like to see some type of flexibility, perhaps at the community
level, to make that prioritization, so the dollars could go to
those at greatest risk. But, yes, I think we are all nervous
that we are not going to have the resources available. And if
you are adding, say, 10 more people to the definition of
homeless, there are going to be more people for the same number
of resources.
But those people need help, as well. So I think, at the end
of the day, it is a matter of resources.
Mrs. Capito. Madam Chairwoman, do I have time for one more
question?
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mrs. Capito. I was going to address it to Ms. Anderson. I
know you wanted to speak to this issue as well, so you can
incorporate that.
I am wondering, in your Haven House Services, where you are
the executive director, one of the things in the new bill is
the consolidation of HUD programs, and the consolidation of
applications, which, to me, makes extremely good sense. In your
actual day-to-day or year-to-year applications, how many of
those HUD programs do you access?
How many different applications do you have to, in your--
and what other Federal programs do you access with Haven House?
Ms. Anderson. We are a Hope Project recipient, Social
Security Administration. We have had HUD funding. It is not a
primary--in a small community like mine, 62 percent of our
funds come from donations, soft money, because we don't have
the ability to access or compete with Federal areas. We don't
have the population base. And we are in Louisville's SMSA, even
though we are not necessarily--we don't receive any of their
Federal funding, because we are in a different HUD region.
So, we are underserved, dramatically. And while I respect
the fact that--and I do want to address the definition issue,
quickly--we are--I have been doing this for 27 years, and I
have yet to meet a homeless person who has trouble defining who
they are. It has only been my government and the people I work
with who have difficulty with that issue. And the very first
question I had when I was a young social worker was, ``How do
we define homelessness?'' And still, 27 years later, we are
talking about definition.
The thing that amazes me is that I would not be homeless
tomorrow under any circumstances because, just like Ms.
DeSantis, my family would be there for me. It is not broken.
For the people I serve, what I find is that the family units
have been broken for whatever reason. Maybe they are in public
housing, and they cannot double or triple up, or they will lose
the housing themselves. Maybe it is because they had to leave
the State they were in, because they lost a job.
There are many, many different reasons why they are doubled
and tripled up. On a local level, we know those reasons, and we
know who can stay with family. I can't begin to tell you how
many times in the course of a week I stopped somebody from
entering the shelter, because I go back and talk to their
family, and mediate a problem. But there are still numerous
people out there who just can't be mediated with.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Green, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let us start with
domestic violence, the second most frequently stated cause of
homelessness for families. Is there anyone who contends that
victims of domestic violence who have to leave what really is
their home, that they are not homeless? If so, I would like to
hear the rationale.
[No response]
Mr. Green. Anyone?
[No response]
Mr. Green. We all agree. Now, in terms of the legislation
that we have before us, are we doing enough in the area of
domestic violence for those persons who have to leave a home,
but they need some transitional help? Yes?
Ms. Foscarinis. I think that a very significant step was
taken when the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized with
new provisions to protect the housing rights of domestic
violence women, and to prevent them from losing their housing
because of the actions of their abusers. That covers public
housing and other subsidized housing.
But there is more that needs to be done. There needs to be
funding, specifically to provide places for either transitional
housing, shelter, or permanent housing for women--and it is
almost always women who are fleeing domestic violence
situations, and at risk of becoming homeless--so that they have
an alternative, so that they are not staying with their abuser
because of fear of becoming homeless, because they don't have a
home to go to.
That is really the missing element, providing the funding
so that there are those alternatives, and making sure there is
enough affordable housing so that people are not staying in
domestic violence situations because they do not have a place
to go.
Mr. Green. Would someone else like to comment? Yes?
Ms. Anderson. On any given day in our shelter, 90 percent
of the women will have been sexually or physically abused. And
I am not a domestic violence shelter. But those women
oftentimes will come into our shelter, they will stay a few
days, and they will go back to the perpetrator before they will
stay homeless. And it is a lack of resources.
It is also a lack of meat to the laws, and enforcement of
those laws. No woman should have to leave her home with her
children because she has been beaten. And I really wish and
pray and hope that some day we understand that they need to be
protected in a real way, and the police officers are actually
given the enforcement rights they need to make the perpetrator
leave, and not return. That would be the answer.
In the meantime, she is right, Ms. Foscarinis, we do not
have resources to put people in places where they are safe.
They cannot just go to any motel, because the door gets
battered down, and they get themselves beaten to death, or they
get hurt again, or they have to be forced to go into some kind
of substandard situation.
So, we really do need to look at how we can make safe
houses, and enforce the laws that allow women to stay in their
homes with their families.
Mr. Green. Let us move to another area. Voter registration,
as a service. Ms. Anderson, are you permitted, as you perceive
the current status of the law, to register homeless people who
are in your facility?
Ms. Anderson. I have registered homeless people in my
facility for 22 years. And I always will. So, I am permitted,
and I refuse for anyone not to allow me to be permitted. We
register people on a regular basis, because it is their
Constitutional right to vote.
Mr. Green. Is there anyone who has experienced some
complication, in terms of registering people? Please.
Ms. Foscarinis. I would like to speak to that. I am not
operating a shelter, but this is an issue that we are quite
familiar with, because there are very significant barriers to
allowing homeless people to vote. And voting, of course, is a
Constitutional right. Courts have held that, even for people
who don't have a permanent residence, a permanent home because
they are homeless, they still should be allowed to exercise
this fundamental right.
However, in practice, what is happening now--and some of
this is unintended consequences of 9/11 measures, security
measures--people, in order to vote, they are being--they need
to show a photo ID. And homeless people face very high barriers
in getting this kind of identification, because they don't have
the documentation, they don't have a home, they don't have a
utility bill, they don't have the typical identification you
need to establish identity.
And so, this has become a very big barrier to getting
access to public benefits, to getting access to all kinds of
things that people need to escape homelessness, and also to
voting.
Now what we are seeing is that there is a trend to--you
know, the ``Real ID ACT'' has complicated the ID issue for
homeless people. And now we are seeing a trend in Federal
legislation to attach a requirement--including in the housing
legislation--attach a requirement that States must comply with
a Real ID Act.
So, it is making the problem even worse. I don't believe
that this was intended, and yet the reality is it is keeping
people--homeless people--out.
Mr. Green. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield
back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you--
Chairwoman Waters. For 5 minutes.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I also thank
the witnesses. I am going to apologize to the second panel. I
am supposed to also be in the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee in a hearing on Iraq, and I want to get to some of
that.
But let me start by saying I would like someone to tell
me--I want to first make this quick comment, and say that when
I go to a homeless shelter, what I love is that the ones I
see--or most of the ones I see--are not warehouses. There are
energetic staff there who are trying to work with folks so that
they don't have to keep coming back, so that they have a place
ultimately to go to, and they have supportive services to help
lift them.
And so, for me, a key feature of this bill is the 30
percent set-aside. Is there agreement that the 30 percent set-
aside is good, and that it is enough or too little--I'm not
looking for long dialogue if there is agreement.
Let me start with you, Mr. McKinney, Senator, are you
comfortable with the 30 percent, or should it be more, or
should it be less?
Mr. McKinney. Well, we would love more. In Connecticut,
what we have seen, and what we have seen in my hometown, is
that permanent supportive housing works. And about 80 percent
of the people who go into permanent supportive housing are in
that housing a year later. That provides tremendous stability--
Mr. Shays. You said 80 percent?
Mr. McKinney. About 80 percent.
Mr. Shays. Wow.
Mr. McKinney. It is tremendous stability for families and
their children. But, you know, I think we need to understand
that there are not going to be--there are limited dollars. So I
think the 30 percent set-aside would work.
Mr. Shays. Okay. Other comments from others? Yes?
Ms. Foscarinis. Yes, I would like to comment. I--we have
not supported the set-aside, and the reason is not--is simply
that we feel that there are many needs that are not being met
now, and that it should be a matter to be determined at the
local level by--through the community planning process, where
to target the resources.
And it is not because we do not agree. Of course, permanent
supportive housing is a good thing, and there are many needs
there, as well. But there has been a very big focus on chronic
homelessness. And there are families, there are children who
also have very big needs, and they have needs that can be met
in other ways.
So, we need to increase resources--that is very
fundamental--to solving the underlying issue. But--
Mr. Shays. Thank you. Let me get to the next one. Thank
you, ma'am.
Ms. DeSantis. We do support the 30 percent set-aside. And
we believe that we are at a point now where we have learned a
lot about homelessness, and the efficacy of what works.
I think, now, we see a whole body of research that came out
of the recent HUD symposium that points to supportive housing
as a way of addressing long-term homelessness. So, we very much
support the set-aside.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Anderson?
Ms. Anderson. The National Coalition for the Homeless does
not support the set-aside, primarily because the Stewart B.
McKinney-Vento Act is an emergency act, and the set-aside takes
emergency dollars that are needed when 811 could be funded,
when Section 8 could be funded at higher levels. There are
maneuvers and mechanisms that could increase supportive
housing, and we totally support the--giving those funding
dollars to them. But to take away shelter dollars when shelter
doors are closing all over this country, we think, is
detrimental.
So, we would support increasing 811 and many other programs
for supportive housing.
Mr. Shays. Ms. Walker? Thank you for your answer, Ms.
Anderson.
Ms. Anderson. Thank you.
Ms. Walker. We do not support set-asides. We do believe
that the money needs to be flexible enough to serve those who
are most needy. And so, the funds should be available on the
local level, to decide what is the most need in that community.
Mr. Shays. Okay, let me--I am going to forget all my other
questions, because I didn't expect to get the answer I got,
which is interesting, and it is--this is a good panel, to have
both sides.
Without talking about the shelter, I was in one shelter in
my district where there was tremendous energy and dialogue and
interaction and counseling. And I didn't feel like I was in a
warehouse. There was another one where it was just totally a
warehouse. And I didn't feel any hope, any dreams. I just saw a
warehouse of people. And, frankly, their attitude was down.
So, I make the assumption that part of that energy from the
first one was because we are doing this kind of a set-aside
approach. Tell me why I might be misinformed.
Ms. Anderson. From just a practical standpoint, we have a
very poor shelter. But the people are very energetic, they are
full of hope, and they understand that the staff is working 180
percent for them. And they don't know anything about set-
asides. They just know that I might be able to get them into
public housing, and that because I don't have any resources, I
am going to have to be creative, and I am going to get that
way.
They understand that the local manufacturers call us to get
them jobs. So they believe in us. I have been to human
warehouses, too, and I despise them. I hope in my country, in
my land, that there will be a time when we don't have to have
them.
Mr. Shays. Right.
Ms. Anderson. But, in the meantime, there are many
providers out there who, with very little, are doing as much as
they can do, like the shelter you visited.
And people, you're right, when they have that hope and that
sense of tomorrow, they will go out--we have people who sell
the Sunday Courier in the rain and the snow to make $10 an
hour. And they do it every Sunday, and they're homeless, and
they have not missed for 5 years. So it is--they have hope.
Mr. Shays. But are they still--they have been homeless for
5 years?
Ms. Anderson. No, sir. They come back and they do that with
us on Sunday, as housed people.
Mr. Shays. Oh, I see.
Ms. Anderson. They stay a part of the program.
Mr. Shays. I understand.
Ms. Anderson. They come back to volunteer, and to give
back.
Mr. Shays. I understand.
Ms. Anderson. Because they believe that is important.
Mr. Shays. But I am happy you clarified that. Let me just
end, Madam Chairwoman, by thanking you. And I would love to
give a fourth introduction of Senator McKinney.
[Laughter]
Mr. Shays. But I will say this. God bless your dad.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shays. God bless your dad.
[Applause]
Chairwoman Waters. Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Walker, I
was once, in one of my former lives, a school board president
for high schools, and I appreciate what you do as a homeless
liaison. I think that really helps so much, to help the kids,
particularly with the education. So, thank you.
What I was wondering was if you could provide us with the
Senate bill definition and HUD definition of ``homeless.'' We
have been talking around it, but--
Ms. Walker. Thank you, Congresswoman. Under the Senate
bill, the definition is: ``People in motels paid for by
government programs; people who are doubled up, but only if
they have moved 3 times in 1 year, or 2 times in the past 21
days, or they have been notified by the owner or renter of
their lodging that they can no longer stay for a short period
of time, and they do not have any other resources to contribute
to the rent; and people who are in motels, but only if they
have moved 3 times in 1 year, or 2 times in the past 21 days,
and they can pay for the room only for a short period of
time.''
Under the current HUD definition, it states that: ``Persons
living in a place not fit for habitation, in cars, campgrounds,
abandoned buildings, on the streets, emergency shelter,
transitional living facility, supportive housing facility; or
persons that have received an eviction notice from the unit
that they are staying in.''
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Do you think that these definitions
serve the needs of the homeless children, or is there a
definition that would help to include the homeless children?
Ms. Walker. In my opinion, neither one of the definitions
really serve homeless children. And the reason I say that is
because if a child has to move three or four times before they
can be identified as homeless, that does not give stability to
that child. That child loses school books, that child loses
clothing, and the child doesn't know, from day to day, whether
or not--``Do I go to Momma's house, or am I going to Cousin's
house? Am I going to be living in the car today?'' It just does
not give any stability for the child.
Under the current HUD definition, it doesn't include
anything about living with anyone else, or having a 21-day
notice, or an eviction notice from the family member. So, both
definitions really do not address how this would affect a child
of moving, and not having stability in their living situation.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. So, if you were to have another
definition, the things that you said they don't include are the
ones that should be included?
Ms. Walker. The current definition on the education for
McKinney-Vento is one of the best definitions that I have seen
that really addresses the needs of children.
When you think about a doubled-up situation, or a tripled-
up situation, we are not just talking about persons wanting to
live with another family member, and including them in this
definition. We are talking about families who have no other
choice but to live with someone else, because there is no other
places available, or they cannot afford to put themselves in a
hotel.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay, thank you. About the Administration's
chronic homelessness initiative, do you think that this has
resulted in less attention or services for children, or is it
doing what it should be doing?
Ms. Walker. It is not addressing the children's issues at
all in the current chronic homeless position.
Unless unaccompanied youth--and we're not talking about
children within a family situation--in an unaccompanied youth
situation, this child has to be homeless for a year before--or
three times within one year--before they can be considered
chronically homeless, and have a disability.
So, really and truly, it doesn't address the families and
children.
Mrs. Biggert. I think we have used that definition, not
necessarily with the disabilities, but ``unaccompanied'' as--
usually as a runaway?
Ms. Walker. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert. Or someone who is--
Ms. Walker. Run away, or someone who has been put out of
their home, because the family has decided that they can no
longer live there.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay, okay. So, we can just take that out of
the mix.
Ms. Walker. Yes.
Mrs. Biggert. Okay. Is there anything else you would like
to add?
Ms. Walker. I just strongly believe that, if we look at our
future, which is our children, and really look at this
definition to align with the education definition, then our
children will be served best. If we look at the McKinney-Vento
definition, and align it with the HEARTH definition, which is
excellent, and great, and I feel like this really would serve
the children.
We are not trying to over-identify, we are just trying to
identify that which is already in existence.
Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. We have no other
members present to have questions. And the Chair would note
that some members may have additional questions for this panel,
which they may wish to submit in writing. So, without
objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days, for
members to submit written questions to all of the witnesses,
and to place their responses in the record.
I would like to thank you so very much for your patience,
for the work that you have done, and for the care that you have
given to this issue. I thank you for coming to Washington to
share your knowledge and experience with us. The panel is now
dismissed, and I would like to bring on a third panel. Thank
you very much.
I am very pleased to welcome our distinguished third panel.
And I, too, thank you for your patience. Coming to Washington
to testify is not an easy thing. And sitting for long hours is
certainly not something that we would like to see happen, but
it does happen this way sometimes, so we are very appreciative
of you.
I would like to ask Ms. Capito to introduce Ms. Weintraub.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am very pleased
to have Amy Weintraub. I mentioned her in my opening
statements, and I do mirror the chairwoman's statements, and
thank you for your patience. But this is extremely interesting,
and a very important topic.
Amy is the executive director of Covenant House, which is a
homeless shelter serving men, women, and children. And a new
veterans' homeless connection, which I want to talk about. But
she has a long history of being a real advocate for those who
need help in our community. She has a lot of energy, a lot of
intellect that she brings, and she has also been just recently
appointed by the Governor to be on the West Virginia
Interagency Council to End Homelessness. So, welcome, Amy. I am
pleased that you are here.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The next witness we
have is Ms. Linda Young, who is the executive director of
Welcome House of Northern Kentucky. Mr. Davis wanted to
introduce you, but he could not get back in time to do so.
And so we welcome you here today, along with Ms. Jessica
Vasquez, executive director of the New York State Coalition
Against Domestic Violence, and Mr. Jeremy Rosen, executive
director, National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute
summary of your testimony, and we will start with Ms.
Weintraub.
Ms. Weintraub. On behalf of Covenant House of West
Virginia--
Chairwoman Waters. Ms. Weintraub, if you will hold your
testimony for just one moment, I am not going to deny Mr. Davis
the opportunity to introduce Ms. Young, as he was scheduled to
do. Thank you for rushing back.
Mr. Davis. You can tell, by my disheveled look, that I was
on a--
Chairwoman Waters. I can tell.
Mr. Davis. I appreciate your graciousness, Madam
Chairwoman. And, actually, introducing Linda Young, the
director of Welcome House, is a great privilege for many
reasons. She has invested a lifetime in helping many, many
folks in our community, and giving them a real future, and is
actually kind of famous in our district.
The group I was with before running back over here was 150
students and teachers from Beechwood School. And they all--all
the teachers cheered when they heard your name, that I was
going to be coming back here. So they sent their regards and
thanks for your contribution to the community.
Thank you for being here, and for the years of work that we
have invested together. I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. And thank you for
your patience, Ms. Weintraub.
Ms. Weintraub. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF AMY WEINTRAUB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COVENANT HOUSE
OF WEST VIRGINIA
Ms. Weintraub. On behalf of Covenant House of West
Virginia, and the Kanawha Valley Collective, which is the
Charleston Area Continuum of Care, I thank you all for the
opportunity to bring the voices of West Virginia to this
dialogue about homelessness.
I especially thank Congresswoman Capito for inviting me,
and for her recognition that we, back home, are very concerned
with how McKinney-Vento will be reauthorized. West Virginia's
motto--you may know it--is Montani Semper Liberi,
``Mountaineers are Always Free.'' Our communities have a long
history of resisting control from above, and subscribe to the
theory that we know best how to serve our needs.
For West Virginians, passage of this beautiful piece of
legislation called the HEARTH Act will mean preserving
community flexibility in both rural and more urban settings.
The HEARTH Act adopts a simple approach to meeting the needs of
rural communities. By aligning HUD's definition of homelessness
with the definition used by other Federal agencies, it ensures
that people who are without homes in rural areas are counted as
homeless.
Let us think for a moment about West Virginia. Our
mountains and our rugged topography mean that we don't have a
lot of cities and towns. Roadways wind along creek and river
beds. We call it community. You may see it as houses here and
there along the road.
Now, let's think of Dareema. She is a single mom who has
just been evicted from a trailer park in West Virginia. She and
her kids are staying with friends in their house down the road,
but the husband isn't pleased with the situation, and it is
very precarious. It is easy to see that the issues of Dareema
in rural West Virginia are far different than those faced by a
similar woman being evicted from a housing project in the
Bronx, or even in Charleston. Rural America has fewer options.
Dareema's county, like many in our State, has no shelter.
It doesn't have an affordable housing program, due to the
current HUD set-asides and incentives that favor urban areas.
This forces rural West Virginians to leave their home
communities and to come to big cities like Charleston for help.
With passage of this bill, and removal of HUD set-asides
and incentives favoring urban areas, our localities will be
able to have the flexibility that we need to implement a range
of housing options.
As you have heard from others, the HEARTH Act more closely
aligns the HUD definition of homelessness with other Federal
agencies, and West Virginia applauds this. Children sleeping in
a roadside motel in rural West Virginia with their moms are in
as much need of comprehensive support services related to
housing, as if they were staying in Sojourners Night Shelter in
downtown Charleston. Yet, HUD-funded services are not available
to them. They do not meet the HUD definition of what it means
to be homeless.
I understand that Congresswoman Waters is a social worker,
or comes from a social work background. And I am sure you can
understand the frustration of our staff, at not being able to
refer some families to other community providers, because those
providers are not allowed to provide services.
For example, an unemployed man who has been staying at a
flea bag motel for several weeks, and who needs resume help and
job help and interview assistance is not able to go to
Charleston's YWCA Job Readiness Center, because it is only for
the ``homeless,'' as defined by HUD.
Or, a woman who moves from an emergency shelter into--in
with her new boyfriend, who is very sketchy, and she has
ongoing emotional and mental health needs, but she has to be
dropped from our intensive support services case management
system, because that is only for the homeless, as defined by
HUD.
Or, a mother who is living with AIDS, and her child, who
are currently living in an emergency shelter cannot move into
our permanent Section 811 housing that Covenant House has,
because it is only for the ``homeless,'' as defined by HUD.
I would like to say that the idea that our system is
somehow going to become overwhelmed by all of these people
suddenly being defined as homeless is just unfounded. School
districts have been using this broader definition for 10 years.
And, unlike HUD homeless assistance, the education statute is
an entitlement with greater costs, such as transportation. Yet
there has been no, ``The sky is falling,'' response from the
Department of Education.
The fact is, recognizing and acknowledging the predicament
and needs of all homeless people similarly across agencies
actually, in my view, has the potential to streamline delivery
services, and make the Federal machine more efficient.
Covenant House, and our partnering West Virginia agencies
and organizations, are fully committed to the idea that the
needs of the hardest to serve and the most in need will be met.
We assure you that they will always be our top collective
priority. However, we want to provide services for all who are
homeless, whether they are living in a shelter, or on the
streets, or otherwise.
As for the Senate bill, S. 1518, I am happy to address that
in my Q&A. I have run out of time. I just want to again say
that West Virginia is in strong support of the HEARTH Act. And
thank you for your interest in hearing from our State, as we
fight poverty and homelessness.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Weintraub can be found on
page 141 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Vasquez?
STATEMENT OF JESSICA VASQUEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW YORK
STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Ms. Vasquez. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and
distinguished members of the committee, my name is Jessica
Vasquez. I am the executive director of the New York State
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and a board member of the
National Network to End Domestic Violence. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the committee about reauthorization of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act.
The inter-related nature of domestic violence and
homelessness is undeniable. This is not because homeless women
are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. But,
rather, because experiencing domestic violence often forces
women and children into homelessness. Given this connection,
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act has provided
significant funding for domestic violence shelters,
transitional housing programs, and services.
Unfortunately, HUD's practice in recent years has caused a
range of problems for victims of domestic violence and programs
that serve them. H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act, solves these
problems by returning control to the local communities in
addressing the needs of homeless families. By expanding the
definition of homelessness and eliminating bonus points and
set-asides, the HEARTH Act ensures the diverse needs of all
communities can be met.
The difficulty in addressing homelessness within New York
provides a window into the complexities faced by local
jurisdictions. Our State combines extremely urban and extremely
rural areas. Stays on domestic violence programs are limited by
the State to a maximum of 90 days with one 45-day extension.
But with insufficient transitional and permanent housing
options, only 20 percent of the victims leaving domestic
violence shelters enter permanent housing.
In New York City, staying in a domestic violence shelter
doesn't count as time spent homeless, by HUD definition. So, to
receive any services, victims must actually requalify as
homeless. To prevent victims from having to sleep in the
street, many programs pay out-of-pocket to serve them,
receiving no reimbursement from HUD.
The HEARTH Act would help end homelessness in New York,
first by expanding the definition of homelessness. The Nassau
County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which serves a
largely suburban population just outside New York City, reports
that victims of domestic violence and their children sleeping
on floors and doubled up in untenable situations are not
considered homeless, and are often trapped in dangerous
situations.
They estimate that they could easily serve an additional 30
families each year if the definition of homelessness was
expanded. This would not require additional funding, and the
expanded definition would not overwhelm their system. They
could serve these families, if only they were allowed to do so.
The second key way in which the HEARTH Act would end
homelessness is by removing bonus point set-asides and carve-
outs. Rather than pitting needy populations against each other,
the HEARTH Act recognizes that there are many hard-to-serve
populations, including homeless immigrants, prisoners re-
entering the community, and teens who have turned to drugs and
violence to survive.
Every community has different groups who are very difficult
to serve. And prioritizing one over the other at the Federal
level does nothing to help each State address its unique
homeless population. Instead, the HEARTH Act rewards
``continua'' of care that engage in an inclusive process,
conduct a thorough needs analysis, and propose funding projects
that truly respond to those identified needs. It returns the
decision-making power to local service providers who are on the
ground, in communities, and are best equipped to analyze the
needs of homeless individuals and develop effective responses.
Rural Allegheny County has one of the highest poverty rates
in New York State, and old substandard housing stock. Because
of bonus points and set-asides that don't reflect their
reality, the Accord Corporation lost their SHP and ESG funding,
and had to close both their transitional and emergency shelter
program. They currently only have five beds available in their
county for only survivors of domestic violence. Accord was the
only homeless shelter in the county, and many homeless families
and victims of domestic violence are now with very limited
resources.
These bonus points and set-asides haven't helped urban
areas, either. Two years after beginning a plan to end chronic
homelessness in accordance with HUD priorities, New York City
reported the highest number of homeless families in the City's
history.
While the Senate's Community Partnership to End
Homelessness Act takes laudable steps in the right direction,
it unfortunately stops short of what is needed. It proposes
expanding the definition of homelessness to include some
doubled-up individuals, but only if they have moved multiple
times. Requiring multiple moves may place a victim fleeing
violence in greater danger.
While we appreciate the effort to respond to the needs of
families in rural areas, the best way to help all homeless
persons in all parts of the country is to stop carving up
McKinney-Vento funding, and let the States use it more flexibly
and efficiently. For these reasons, we believe that the HEARTH
Act is the most effective solution to ending homelessness for
New Yorkers.
Thank you again for your consideration of the needs of
victims of domestic violence. We look forward to working with
you and your staff in the upcoming months.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vasquez can be found on page
95 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Young, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LINDA M. YOUNG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WELCOME HOUSE
OF NORTHERN KENTUCKY
Ms. Young. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today in
support of the HEARTH Act on behalf of people who experience
homelessness and in the continuum of care in the northern
Kentucky area. I am Linda Young, executive director of Welcome
House of Northern Kentucky.
The agency has been serving the homeless and at-risk
population for 25 years, providing a continuum of services,
ranging from outreach to people on the streets, a food pantry,
emergency shelter, payee and other financial services, case
management and employment services, and service-enriched
housing for families whose goal is self-sufficiency.
We served 9,700 people in 2006: 99 percent had incomes
under $10,000; approximately 35 percent had a significant
mental illness or mental health issue; 40 percent had a
chemical dependency issue; approximately 45 percent were
homeless because of domestic violence; and most were poorly
educated.
The fastest growing segment of the homeless population we
serve is families--40 percent. We are in an urban setting that
is part of the greater Cincinnati Metropolitan Area.
The economic realities of a minimum wage job that doesn't
lift a family out of poverty, rising housing and utility costs,
a drop in the manufacturing sector, and a rise in the service
sector, with lower-paying jobs for unskilled and semi-skilled
workers, have huge costs. The demand for shelter has increased.
However, the people residing in shelters are just the tip of
the iceberg. The condition of homelessness is, for the most
part, hidden.
There is a significant number of families living doubled up
with family and friends because their earnings do not cover
basic household expenses. Moving frequently makes it difficult
to keep a job, and children miss enough schooling to prevent
them from getting an education, the very thing that gives them
a chance to find a way out of poverty, and at risk of being
homeless. These families do not meet the current definition of
homelessness, and therefore, are not eligible for our services
until they go into a shelter, or are on the street.
More recently, priorities have shifted to the chronic
homelessness initiative, and in the future, less emphasis and
funding for the renewal of supportive services grants for the
homeless. Prioritizing funds to this specific population is
limited, and diverts funds away from homeless families. The
continuum of care has been built on an integrated approach of
housing and services, inclusive of people who are chronically
homeless.
In our region, we work together to provide a comprehensive,
holistic approach to meet a range of needs of homeless people
in our community. Housing developers using HUD funds, public
housing, and private landlords have learned to rely on the
support services to stabilize individuals and families who are
homeless. Case management is often a condition for which
housing is accessed by people with poor rental histories and/or
have disabilities and challenges to maintain stability. A
reduction in these services will have a devastating impact.
A basic understanding of the continuum of care process is
that homelessness is not caused merely by a lack of shelter,
but involves a variety of underlying unmet needs. Housing alone
will not address the issue of homelessness.
From the perspective of the director of a relatively small
agency that provides services for the homeless, I can tell you
that one of my biggest concerns is the number of children we
are serving. In 2006, 39 percent of the people served at
Welcome House were children, over half under 5 years of age.
If we are truly interested in ending homelessness, it will
take a concerted effort on many focused fronts, not
concentrating on one group at the expense of others.
I have been an active participant in the continuum care
system in the northern Kentucky area for over 12 years. The
continuum of care has included faith-based organizations,
businesses, government, service providers, landlords,
professionals, advocates, and people who have been homeless.
Over time, we have built a comprehensive approach to planning,
organizing, evaluating, and advocating. Because we must make
the most of resources in our community, we have learned to be
innovative, and work together more effectively and efficiently
throughout this process.
The homeless assistance grants have provided critical
resources for emergency shelter, transitional and permanent
housing, supportive housing, and supportive services. Ours, as
well as continua of care across the country, are functioning as
HUD intended, a continuum of care system designed to address
the critical problem of homelessness through a coordinated
community-based process of identifying needs, and building a
system to address those needs. The approach is predicated on
the understanding that homelessness involves a variety of
underlying unmet physical, economic, and social needs.
Each continuum of care community is unique. Urban,
suburban, and rural communities in various geographic locations
have much different needs, available resources, and approaches.
I support that planning boards, as recommended in the HEARTH
ACT, be established in each locality to design, execute, and
evaluate programs, policies, and practices to prevent and end
homelessness.
Chairwoman Waters. I am going to have to ask you to wrap up
your testimony. We are going to have to go back to the Floor
and vote, and I want to make sure that we get Mr. Rosen's
testimony in, and we give the members each one question,
because we will not tie your time up, and have you wait another
40 or 50 minutes until we get back. So will you wrap up now?
Ms. Young. Yes. I just wanted to thank Congressman Davis,
and all the committee, for allowing me to speak, and thank you
all for your interest in creating solutions to end
homelessness.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Young can be found on page
150 of the appendix.]
Mr. Davis. Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Waters. Yes?
Mr. Davis. I was wondering if we could ask unanimous
consent to submit the balance of Ms. Young's remarks for the
record.
Chairwoman Waters. Absolutely. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes, Mr. Rosen?
STATEMENT OF JEREMY ROSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL POLICY
AND ADVOCACY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Rosen. Congresswoman Waters, thank you for your
invitation to testify today and for your strong leadership on
affordable housing issues. Ranking Member Capito, thank you as
well, for your commitment to housing homelessness issues, as
you assume your new post.
I would also like to thank two other members of the
subcommittee: Representatives Julia Carson and Geoff Davis, for
their leadership in introducing H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act of
2007. Let me also commend Representative Judy Biggert for her
commitment to ensuring that every homeless child and youth can
attend school. Thank you, as well, to all the subcommittee
members who have co-sponsored the HEARTH bill.
I am Jeremy Rosen, executive director of the National
Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness. I have spent the
past 9 years providing assistance to homeless persons, first
through direct legal assistance, and now by promoting
comprehensive public policies to help end homelessness.
We will not end homelessness in the United States without a
major commitment to the development and preservation of
affordable housing that goes far beyond the current investment
made by Federal, State, and local governments.
As an extremely small percentage of the current Federal
housing budget, HUD's homeless assistance grant programs were
never designed to end homelessness in this country, and they
are incapable of doing so. Nevertheless, it is our collective
responsibility, in reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act, to design an effective and efficient program
that provides a full range of housing and services to as many
homeless children, youth, families, and single adults as
possible.
Enacting the HEARTH Act is a critical first step in meeting
our moral obligation to these Americans. HEARTH will
consolidate and simplify HUD's homeless assistance grant
programs, align HUD's definition of homelessness with the
definition used by the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice,
and HHS, eliminate administratively-created set-asides and
incentives that hamper local efforts to prevent and end
homelessness, better support rural communities, and provide new
opportunities to fund homelessness prevention.
Many different viewpoints will be expressed in the
testimony at this hearing. Witnesses will say that HUD's
current policies are working well across the country. We
believe that they are not.
We are now 6 years through a 10-year Federal initiative to
end chronic homelessness. We have successfully housed, through
the initiative, many people in permanent supportive housing.
Unfortunately, the number of chronically homeless individuals
in this country is no lower today than it was 6 years ago. This
calls into question whether or not, within the remaining 4
years, we will be successful in truly ending chronic
homelessness.
The reason, quite simply, for this is that, instead of
providing new and significant resources to house a difficult-
to-house population, HUD and the Administration chose to divert
resources, resources that were going to provide housing and
resources for other homeless populations, including many
children, youth, and families.
My organization, and many of the other witnesses who have
testified today, do not object to serving those folks who are
living on the street, and providing them with housing. We do,
however, remain concerned that prioritizing a particular
population is diverting resources away from groups who need
that funding just as much.
Many of the other witnesses will also say today that the
Senate's approach to reauthorization would be more effective
than HEARTH. The Senate approach will be described as a careful
balance, crafted to ensure that limited funding is used to
serve the most vulnerable homeless persons. We disagree.
Finally, witnesses will say that we cannot afford HEARTH,
it will make too many people eligible for Federal homeless
assistance. This is not the case. To determine eligibility for
Federal programs, we must first adequately define the eligible
population--in this case, the number of people in this country
who do not have a home of their own. Resources are insufficient
to serve all eligible people. We must strive to increase the
available funds. And in the interim, we must rely on people in
local communities to make tough decisions about how to most
effectively use the limited Federal funding that they receive.
In short, how we define homelessness must not be influenced
by the funding currently available for homeless assistance
programs. Important social programs cannot be solved by merely
defining them out of existence, as HUD has sought to do, by
declaring that the Federal Government is committed only to
ending chronic homelessness. This is an unacceptably modest
goal.
I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosen can be found on page
79 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very, very much. I am going to
forgo my questions, because we have to get to the Floor.
Mr. Davis was not here to ask any questions of the last
panel, so I will yield time to him, and there will only be time
for one question, and then we have to rush to the Floor. So I
recognize Mr. Davis for 1 minute.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This question is
for Linda Young.
If HEARTH was signed into law 6 months from now--and I
think I am probably being optimistic, in the current political
climate--I guess my question would be, what impact would it
have on the types of homelessness that you see on a regular
basis? And maybe you could tell a little bit about, in
particular, how it would affect children in the short and long
term.
Ms. Young. Well, specifically, it will give us the
flexibility to do what needs to be done for each particular
family. And, also, not only the flexibility, but will help
bring into the fold people who we now have to wait until they
go into a shelter or are out on the streets before we can help
them.
It will allow us, as a community, to be flexible in meeting
the needs of each particular--whether we are rural or urban,
and be able to express specific needs, and actually gather
resources in our own community to do that.
Mr. Davis. Would you just say, in closing, that the reason
that you need this is that, in reality, the type of
homelessness that you deal with doesn't fit the public
stereotype?
Ms. Young. That would be correct.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we
have to go back to the Floor and vote. We thank you so very
much for coming, and giving us your testimony here today.
And I note that some of the members may have additional
questions for the panel, so, without objection, the hearing
record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit
written questions to the witnesses, and to place their
responses in the record. This panel is now dismissed, and I
thank you again so very much.
[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
October 4, 2007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9906.108