[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE INCLUSIVE HOME DESIGN ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 111-163
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-688 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MAXINE WATERS, California MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PETER T. KING, New York
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina RON PAUL, Texas
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BRAD SHERMAN, California WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Carolina
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri Virginia
CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York JEB HENSARLING, Texas
JOE BACA, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
AL GREEN, Texas TOM PRICE, Georgia
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois JOHN CAMPBELL, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ADAM PUTNAM, Florida
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
RON KLEIN, Florida THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KEVIN McCARTHY, California
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana LYNN JENKINS, Kansas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota
JACKIE SPEIER, California LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey
TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
JOHN ADLER, New Jersey
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
JIM HIMES, Connecticut
GARY PETERS, Michigan
DAN MAFFEI, New York
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
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Virginia
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
AL GREEN, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri GARY G. MILLER, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Carolina
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ADAM PUTNAM, Florida
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio LYNN JENKINS, Kansas
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York
JIM HIMES, Connecticut
DAN MAFFEI, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
September 29, 2010........................................... 1
Appendix:
September 29, 2010........................................... 19
WITNESSES
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Barrera, Alberto, Manager, Community Development, Access Living
of Metropolitan Chicago........................................ 7
Buckland, Kelly, Executive Director, National Council on
Independent Living (NCIL)...................................... 8
Schakowsky, Hon. Janice D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois.............................................. 3
Smith, Eleanor A., Director, Concrete Change..................... 5
Smith, Janet L., Associate Professor, and Co-Director of the
Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community
Improvement, University of Illinois at Chicago................. 10
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Schakowsky, Hon. Janice D.................................... 20
Barrera, Alberto............................................. 23
Buckland, Kelly.............................................. 27
Smith, Eleanor A............................................. 35
Smith, Janet L............................................... 40
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Waters, Hon. Maxine:
Written statement of The Access Center for Independent
Living, Inc................................................ 50
Written statement of AARP.................................... 51
Written statement of a coalition of disability advocates from
across the country......................................... 53
Written statement of the Consortiun for Citizens with
Disabilities............................................... 60
Written statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA)..... 62
Written statement of Pima County Development Services........ 65
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore:
Written statement of the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB)............................................ 66
THE INCLUSIVE HOME DESIGN ACT
----------
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
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 4:12 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Waters and Capito.
Also present: Representative Schakowsky.
Chairwoman Waters. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank
the ranking member and the other members of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity for joining me today for this
hearing on the Inclusive Home Design Act, which was introduced
last year, and has consistently been introduced since the 107th
Congress, by my colleague, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of
Illinois.
Congresswoman Schakowsky played a critical role in the
comprehensive health care reform we achieved this Congress, and
has been a consistent advocate and ally of the interests of
women and our Nation's seniors. And I am pleased to hold this
hearing for legislation she has authored.
As the witnesses here today will attest to, we have a
growing population of individuals in this Nation who have a
disability, or who may acquire a disability as they age.
Currently, as one of our witnesses will mention, about 32
percent of all households in the United States include at least
one person with a disability. That's about 35 million
households. And, as the Baby Boomer generation ages, the
population of individuals with disabilities is only expected to
increase.
Additionally, we have an increasingly large number of
wounded veterans searching for accessible housing as our
soldiers return from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So these demographic questions raise important public
policy questions. What can we do to increase the housing
options available to individuals with disabilities? As a
Nation, we have already taken some steps to address
accessibility for people with disabilities. Section 504 of the
1973 Rehabilitation Act requires public housing authorities and
nonprofit developers to comply with certain accessibility
standards, while the Fair Housing Act requires multi-family
properties to meet certain specifications. And the Americans
with Disabilities Act requires accessibility in commercial and
public spaces.
Congresswoman Schakowsky's bill is a forward-looking next
step which considers how we can increase the supply of
accessible single-family homes by requiring new construction to
comply with certain accessibility standards. By increasing this
supply of accessible housing, we can allow more seniors to age
in place, provide greater housing choices for individuals with
disabilities, and allow people with disabilities to more easily
visit friends and family.
I am very interested to learn more about the localities
that have already implemented measures similar to those
included in the Inclusive Home Design Act, and what the impact
of those local laws and regulations have been on individuals
with disabilities, and on the local real estate and home
construction markets.
I would now like to recognize our subcommittee's ranking
member to make an opening statement.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
having the hearing here today. I would like to thank the
witnesses who are going to be testifying, and our colleague,
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, on H.R. 1408, the Inclusive Home
Design Act, which, as we have heard, aims to make federally-
funded single-family homes more accessible to persons with
disabilities.
There is no doubt that we should do everything that we can
to ensure equal access and mobility to persons with
disabilities. And this legislation hopes to address that
laudable goal. However, I do hope that, in the course of this
discussion, that our witnesses here today, and perhaps the
sponsor, would be able to address several of the concerns that
have been raised and brought to my attention.
For example, this legislation sets up new building
specifications for Federal housing programs that may be
different from other building codes financed in the
conventional market. Could this create confusion? And could
this add additional cost to the price of a single-family home?
I think that's a good question to ask.
Also, some of the enforcement and compliance provisions in
the Act are unclear, and may present an additional burden on
State and local governments. For instance, how will
modifications to homes previously deemed compliant be handled?
And how do you envision that States will monitor and finance
compliance oversight and enforcement of newly-built and
existing homes?
Finally, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
regarding the liability provisions included in the bill. Some
folks have raised concerns that they are vague and open-ended
and could expose homeowners to significant legal liabilities
which could add, again, considerable cost to the building of
new homes or renovating existing homes.
But again, I would like to emphasize that the goal of
accessibility for either the aged or folks with disabilities or
anyone who has a challenge in their lifestyle, where they
cannot--where accessibility is an issue when they are looking
for a place to live, is something that I think we should look
for. We have so much technology and knowledge on how to create
and assure accessibility to buildings and rooms and interior
doors and bathrooms and all of these things, that we ought to
use what we know and put it to good use for the future
buildings.
So I thank the Congresswoman, and I thank the chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
I am pleased to welcome our first distinguished panel. Our
first witness will be the Honorable Jan Schakowsky,
Councilwoman [sic] from the Ninth District of the State of
Illinois. Thank you for appearing before the subcommittee
today. And, without objection, your written statement will be
made a part of the record. You will now be recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking
Member Capito. I could tell by your opening statements that you
understand what this issue is, but let me talk a little bit
about the Inclusive Home Design Act of 2009.
I want to thank all of the witnesses who are here today,
with a special shout-out to Alberto Barrera of Access Living in
Chicago, whom I have known and worked with for a long time.
The Inclusive Home Design Act is a forward-looking and
commonsense initiative that would make more new homes
accessible for people with disabilities. In addition to
benefitting individuals with existing disabilities, including
disabled veterans, it will also help to accommodate our
increasingly older population by allowing seniors to age in
place.
The bill's requirements are simple. The Inclusive Home
Design Act would require that, when practical, all newly-built
single-family homes receiving Federal funds would have to meet
four specific accessibility standards: first, the home would
have at least one accessible entrance into the home, zero step;
second, the doorways on the main level of the home must be wide
enough to accommodate a wheelchair; third, electrical and
climate controls--light switches, thermostats--must be placed
at a reachable height from a wheelchair; and finally, the main
floor must have at least one wheelchair-accessible bathroom.
The cost of adopting those standards for a single-family
home is nominal, especially when compared to the cost of
retrofitting later. The average cost added for homes built with
accessibility features is between $100 and $600. Retrofitting a
home, on the other hand, can cost many thousands of dollars.
Homes with these basic features are for everyone. For
individuals who have a long-term disability, it expands the
number of homes they can buy or rent. We have worked closely
with the Paralyzed Veterans of America in developing this
legislation, and they are supportive of the bill for our
wounded warriors.
Many of us will face some short-term disability during our
lifetime. Being able to heal in your home, rather than in a
hospital or rehab bed, is both good for the healing process and
reduces the cost of a hospital stay. It's good for individuals
who have friends or family members with disabilities who come
by for a visit.
Finally, there is the advantage of being able to--I want to
expand on the issue of being able to age in place. In 2000,
there were 30.5 million people between 65 and 84 years old, and
that number will grow to 47 million by 2020. Nearly 3 in 5
seniors over the age of 80 suffer from some kind of physical
impairment. And often, the prohibitive cost of making existing
homes accessible deprives seniors of their independence,
pushing them into nursing homes.
The cost of nursing home care is expensive, and a large
proportion is paid for with public dollars under Medicare and
Medicaid. The national median rate for a year in an assisted
living facility is $38,000, where nursing homes can cost up to
$75,000 a year. We could save a lot of money if individuals
could continue to live in their homes with supportive services.
But incredibly, entire developments are being built and
marketed as senior communities, thousands of homes that people
are going to have to leave as they age, because they don't
include basic accessible features in their homes. Allowing more
people to age at home will save taxpayers and help improve the
quality of life for our seniors.
This issue is--this idea is doable, because it has been
done before. For almost 2 decades, and all over the country
since 1992, more than 40 cities and local communities have
implemented either mandatory or voluntary ordinances for
including basic accessibility features in newly-constructed
single-family homes: Bolingbrook, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia;
Iowa City, Iowa; St. Petersburg, Florida; Pima County, Arizona;
Vermont; Texas; Kansas; and Minnesota. From north to south,
east to west, communities have had great success in building
inclusive homes.
Pima County, Arizona, passed an ordinance in 2002, thanks
to our colleague, Representative Raul Grijalva, and in the last
8 years, more than 21,000 homes have been built. I want to
quote from the Pima County chief building official. The county
ordinance was ``at first resisted by builders, based on the
fact that it would require costly changes to conventional
design and construction practices. But it became evident that
with the appropriate planning, the construction could result in
no additional cost. Indeed, the jurisdiction no longer receives
builder complaints regarding the ordinance, and the ordinance
has been so well incorporated into the building of safety plan
review and inspection processes, that there is no additional
cost to the county to enforce its requirements.''
There really is no magic to some of these rules, just
habit. An accessible home is just as attractive to any buyer or
renter. Door widths or placement of light switches are
arbitrary decisions, often unnoticeable. But the wrong decision
can make your home unlivable.
And so I would hope, as the economy continues to recover
and home building starts to pick up, that the homes that are
built should be ones that anyone can live in, and anyone can
visit.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Representative Schakowsky can be
found on page 20 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Congresswoman
Schakowsky. Someone told me that I misspoke and called you
``Councilwoman.''
Ms. Schakowsky. Oh.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. I would now like to
ask unanimous consent that you be considered a member of the
subcommittee for the duration of the hearing. And would you
like to join us on the dais?
Ms. Schakowsky. I would. I am wondering if I could just
deal with one issue that Representative Capito raised.
Chairwoman Waters. Certainly.
Ms. Schakowsky. And that is the--actually, the two issues.
I hope I have answered some of the cost of the homes. But the
issues of enforcement and liability, I think that the language,
in fact, in the bill can be made clearer, less vague, and I
would really appreciate the opportunity to work with the
committee to address those questions so that we can get
agreement on those.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. We will be happy to do that.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. I would now like to introduce witness
panel two. I am pleased to welcome our distinguished second
panel. Our first witness will be Ms. Eleanor Smith, director,
Concrete Change.
Our second witness will be Mr. Alberto Barrera, manager of
community development, Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago.
Our third witness will be Mr. Kelly Buckland, executive
director, National Council on Independent Living.
Our fourth witness will be Dr. Janet Smith, associate
professor, and co-director of the Nathalie P. Voorhees Center
for Neighborhood and Community Improvement, University of
Illinois at Chicago.
Without objection, your written statements will be made a
part of the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute
summary of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ELEANOR A. SMITH, DIRECTOR, CONCRETE CHANGE
Ms. Eleanor Smith. Good afternoon. I am very glad to have
the opportunity to address you all. My name is Eleanor Smith,
and I am the director of Concrete Change, a nonprofit based in
Atlanta which I helped found in 1987. The mission is working to
make basic access the norm in new houses, whether or not the
first resident has a disability.
As a small child in the 1940's, I had a severe case of
polio, and I faced a forbidding world of no curb cuts, no
access to public buildings, and only a handful of universities
with access. When I became the age where I could go out in the
world on my own, only with great difficulty could I find an
apartment to live in. For instance, I lived in a house for 6
months where the narrow bathroom door forced me to crawl on the
floor each time that I used the bathroom.
As an adult, I saw various laws enacted that greatly
increased access to government buildings. And in 1991, Federal
requirements were added for new residential buildings. However,
detached single-family houses and townhouses remain the housing
type that has no widespread Federal law covering it. And as a
result, the great majority of those houses are built new with
basic barriers such as steps at all entrances and narrow
bathroom doors.
The number of houses that need access is very often greatly
underestimated. Estimators often count only wheelchair users
when, in fact, great numbers of people who use walkers or have
poor balance or stiffness or weakness also cannot negotiate a
step. In fact, research has shown that a very high percentage
of all new houses will at some point during the lifetime of the
house have a resident with a severe long-term mobility
impairment. And it is impossible to predict in which households
a person will develop a disability.
The Inclusive Home Design Act properly prioritizes those
few features that have the most and harshest impact on people's
lives. Steps at all entrances and narrow bathroom doors cause
very intense problems. The people who cannot afford to retrofit
live in danger and isolation. They often cannot exit the house
independently in case of fire, or enter their own bathroom.
Increased falls, as people struggle with steps. Increased
bladder and kidney problems of people who reduce their water
intake chronically year after year, because of difficulty of
fitting through their bathroom door. Decreased health of
caretakers who have to lift their loved one frequently because
of steps and carry bedpans more often because of lack of
bathroom access. And isolation and depression that develops
when you cannot visit most of your friends and neighbors
because of the major barriers in their houses.
The architectural features of the Act have already been
proven inexpensive and not difficult to incorporate in the
great majority of situations. More than 40,000 existing houses
on the open market have been built over the last 20 years in
Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Georgia, Ohio, and other States.
When these ordinances and policies were first proposed,
they were often labeled impractical, including by some building
professionals. But they have proven practical. These houses run
the gamut from very affordable to high-end. They include houses
built on concrete slabs and houses built over basements, on
very hilly terrain as well as level terrain, climates and soils
ranging from Arizona to northern Illinois.
Although these ordinances and policies have been producing
houses from between 4 and 20 years, none has been rescinded.
This seems to me to attest to the practicality of the access
features and the inspection enforcement procedures that have
been used to bring them about.
While the cost of--Representative Schakowsky named the low
cost that these builders, experienced builders, have named,
much lower than costs named by builders who have not yet become
experienced--building basic access in new homes has been
demonstrated to be low, the cost of continuing to build with
barriers is very high. Renovating existing homes to remove
barriers costs exponentially more than creating basic access at
the time of construction. State and local funds for these
renovations continue to run out early on in the fiscal year,
and some of those funds are not available to renters, leaving
renters particularly vulnerable to living in dangerous homes.
Even more costly--again, as Representative Schakowsky
mentioned--is the cost of nursing home care, because the
features that are in the bill are the very ones needed to come
home from the hospital.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eleanor Smith can be found
on page 35 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Alberto Barrera?
Ms. Eleanor Smith. You're welcome.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Mr. Barrera. Hi, good afternoon.
Chairwoman Waters. Good afternoon.
STATEMENT OF ALBERTO BARRERA, MANAGER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
ACCESS LIVING OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO
Mr. Barrera. I would like to thank Congresswoman Jan
Schakowsky and the members of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity for allowing me to testify today on an
issue that is at the heart of all the advocacy work that I do.
My name is Alberto Barrera. For the past 20 years at Access
Living, I have been personally involved in advocating for
housing in publicly-assisted housing. Access Living is the only
center for independent living serving the 600,000 people with
disabilities in metropolitan Chicago. For the last 30 years, we
have dedicated ourselves to the self-determination and
independence of people with all types of disabilities.
Our work affects people with disabilities not only in
Chicago, but throughout the country. We have fought and
continue to fight to increase access to public transportation,
public education, employment, health care, and housing. Above
all, we look to find ways to liberate our people from systemic
segregation and warehousing. Housing is the key to our freedom.
Publicly-assisted housing is the main source of housing for
people with disabilities earning SSI and SS DI incomes. In most
cases, these incomes are at 15 percent or less of the area
median income. Access Living receives an average of 4,000
inquiries for accessible affordable housing annually, and an
average of 60 individuals with disabilities come to our monthly
housing counseling meetings.
The Chicago Housing Authority has reported that in 2009,
they received 84 requests from residents with disabilities
requesting retrofit modifications for ground floor, no-step
entry units. So far this year, the CHA has received 62 such
requests. We at Access Living think that the actual demand for
accessible housing is much higher.
For the past 10 years, Access Living has been administering
an access modification program funded by the CHA. Our
modification program assists people with disabilities in CHA's
home choice voucher program. What started as a pilot program
for $30,000 has now reached $145,000 annually. We assist 60 to
70 very low-income residents with disabilities. Of course, this
doesn't begin to address the total need in our community.
Access Living's retrofit fund covers very basic
modifications: wider entryways; accessible switches and
outlets; ramps; and bathroom modifications such as grab bars.
These are some of the basic access features included in the
Inclusive Home Design Act. There are other modification
programs throughout the country, but we cannot depend on
retrofits for basic access. Most have long waiting lists, and
it's not unusual for people to end up in a nursing home or die
while waiting for modifications.
This legislation, the Inclusive Home Design Act, has been
in development for 20 years or more, and in Congress for 8
years. It came out of a joint effort between grassroots people,
Congresswoman Schakowsky, and advocates such as Ms. Eleanor
Smith, and many other activists who were deeply concerned with
the exclusion of people with disabilities from housing
opportunities.
Many national grassroots organizations support the Home
Inclusive Design Act, including the national grassroots
disability rights organization ADAPT, which has also included
this issue in their housing agenda.
This legislation will begin to end the practice of
``exclusion by design,'' which is a form of disability
oppression. Simply put, requiring that all newly-constructed
publicly-assisted homes contain a no-step entrance and usable
space on the ground floor will finally provide real access to
options for people with disabilities in our struggles to locate
affordable, accessible, and integrated housing.
The Inclusive Home Design Act is the missing link of the
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. Its passage will complete
the circle of civil rights in publicly-assisted housing,
guaranteeing full and equal access for all. The Inclusive Home
Design Act is a step forward to end the culture of social
isolation currently accepted and practiced in our country.
Chairwoman Waters. Would you wrap it up, please?
Mr. Barrera. Sorry. It will provide equal opportunity for
very low-income Americans with disabilities to have equal
access to all publicly-assisted housing.
We believe that the passage of this bill, and the hoped-for
passage of the Choice Community Act, will provide the structure
needed to honor the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the ADA, the spirit that says that every American with a
disability has a right to full access to society.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrera can be found on page
23 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Barrera. Thank you, again.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Our third witness will be Mr. Kelly Buckland.
STATEMENT OF KELLY BUCKLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON INDEPENDENT LIVING (NCIL)
Mr. Buckland. Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Capito, and
distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon and
thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
National Council on Independent Living.
NCIL is the longest-running national cross-disability
grassroots organization run by and for people with
disabilities.
Founded in 1982, NCIL represents thousands of organizations
and individuals, including centers for independent living,
statewide independent living councils, individuals with
disabilities, and other organizations that advocate for the
human and civil rights of people with disabilities throughout
the United States.
Since its establishment, NCIL has carried out its mission
by assisting members--centers for independent living in
building their capacity to promote social change, eliminate
disability-based discrimination, and create opportunities for
people with disabilities to participate in the legislative
process to effect change.
NCIL promotes the national advocacy agenda set by its
membership and provides input and testimony on national
disability policy.
Since 1979, I have been actively involved in advocating for
the rights of people with disabilities. And over the years, I
have worked for the protection advocacy system, a center for
independent living, and a statewide independent living council,
and for other councils that promote the direct service and
systemic changes of the independent living movement.
Recently, I moved to the Washington, D.C., area and I spent
an entire year looking for a house to purchase that was
accessible enough that I could even try to modify it to meet my
needs. I then had to spend thousands of dollars making my house
accessible. This expense would have been considerably less if
the home had already had some basic accessibility features. The
Inclusive Home Design Act will require accessibility features
for people with disabilities in newly-constructed single-family
houses and townhouses that are federally assisted.
Finding accessible housing is a constant, ongoing struggle
for people with disabilities in most communities. Despite the
impact of legislation mandating accessibility in housing such
as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988, the vast majority of housing available
across the country is not accessible. According to the National
Low Income Housing Coalition, since 1995, about 360,000
project-based Section 8 units have been lost to conversion to
market-rate housing. Annually, another 10,000 to 15,000 units
leave. Those housing units are not being replaced at an
equivalent rate.
Compliance with the Fair Housing Act accessibility
requirements is still erratic, after more than 2 decades. In
April, New York Attorney General Cuomo brokered agreements with
six large real estate developers over the lack of accessibility
in their buildings. And in July, HUD charged a Chicago
developer and architect with failure to build accessible units.
Centers for independent living throughout the country
consistently grapple with the lack of accessible and affordable
housing. One of our biggest challenges is not only finding
accessible housing for people living in the community, but
finding it for those who want to transition out of an
institution. In many communities, the biggest obstacle to
people with disabilities living in their communities is the
lack of affordable and accessible housing.
Accessible single-family housing will also allow seniors to
age in place and allow for families to stay in their homes,
should they develop a disability as an adult, or if they have a
child with a disability. The cost to renovate an inaccessible
home is much higher than if the home was built with
accessibility features.
People can also suddenly find themselves needing
accessibility improvements due to a disability. Renovations and
modifications can range from the simple installation of grab
bars to the more extensive addition of ramps, stair glides, the
widening of doorways, and renovations of bathrooms and
kitchens. The cost of these renovations can prohibit many
people with disabilities and seniors from making the necessary
accessible improvements.
NCIL supports the language in the Inclusive Home Design Act
that will create accessible housing which is needed in order
for people to move out of institutions and back into their
communities. Living in the community is essential for people of
all ages and all disabilities to be true members of the
community.
NCIL is dedicated to ending the institutional bias, not
only in health care and housing, but in society's perceptions
of the capabilities of people with disabilities.
For example, Mark Chambers was a computer programmer living
in a house in San Francisco. He was mugged on a stairway and
hit over the head with a rock, resulting in a traumatic brain
injury and paralysis. He was moved into the City in a nursing
home known as Laguna Honda, and spent over 10 years there. He
sued under the Olmstead Decision, asking to be moved into the
community. When he was released, the City had to find a unit
accessible from outside and spent thousands of dollars to
renovate the unit to accommodate Mark's needs. This is an
example of a person who lost everything due to disability,
except the fight to get back to his community.
Chairwoman Waters. Could you wrap it up, please?
Mr. Buckland. Madam Chairwoman, the Inclusive Home Design
Act is about more than creating accessible homes. People with
disabilities who historically have been isolated, at first shut
away to institutions and nursing homes, are now isolated in
their communities. Because the overwhelming majority of single-
family homes and many of the multi-family homes still have
steps, people with mobility disabilities not only cannot live
where they want to live; they also cannot visit their family,
friends, and neighbors.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to answering
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buckland can be found on
page 27 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Dr. Janet Smith.
STATEMENT OF JANET L. SMITH, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, AND CO-
DIRECTOR OF THE NATHALIE P. VOORHEES CENTER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
Ms. Janet Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Good
afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify today.
I am an associate professor in urban planning and policy at
the University of Illinois at Chicago, and I am co-director of
the Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community
Improvement, a 32-year-old research center at UIC that assists
community organizations and government entities in their
efforts to improve the quality of life in the Chicago area and
Illinois, and also in communities around the United States.
Most of our research is done in partnership with community
organizations such as Access Living, and also policy
stakeholders. Since 1997, I have led several large-scale
research projects which are cited in my CV--you can look at
that for my record.
Regarding research on accessible housing needs of people
with disabilities, I was the principal investigator of a
recently completed study for the National Council on Disability
entitled, ``The State of Housing in America in the 21st
Century: A Disability Perspective.'' Before the NCD report, I
completed a study along similar lines on accessible housing and
affordable housing for people with disabilities in Illinois.
Affordable, accessible, and appropriate housing is critical
and integral to making a community more livable for people with
disabilities and, I would argue, for all of us. The Inclusive
Home Design Act is an important step toward this end.
Today, I want to summarize some key findings from the
National Council on Disability Report, which all
representatives should have received last spring. And if you
didn't, I brought copies on a thumb drive for you.
Currently, an estimated 35 million households have one or
more persons with a disability, which is about one-third of the
households in 2007. Nearly 15 million of these households own
their own home. Most are between the ages of 65 and 85 years
old. But such a high level of ownership among this age group is
likely due to the fact that many purchased their homes before
acquiring a disability as they aged.
Many people are likely to face challenges if they want to
remain independent in a home as they age. National data--for
which there is not a lot, but we have some--indicates that
hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities need basic
home modifications to make their homes accessible.
In my testimony, I give you a lot more data. But just to
kind of highlight, we looked at the largest need; it is often
for people needing grab bars or hand rails. In 1995, it was
estimated to be about 788,000. We know that that number is much
higher now.
Similarly, we found that there were a lot--most basic needs
were for things that would make a home visitable: that is,
needing ramps, elevators, or lifts to get into their unit once
in the building, widened doorways, and accessible bathrooms.
Again, the numbers that are available are in the testimony
itself.
Homeowners have the largest unmet need, because of the fact
that homeowners are the largest population when you look at
housing and compared to renters. While overall need is greater
in urban areas, a larger portion of people in rural areas are
likely to be living in single-family homes that are not
accessible. That's because more rural folks are in homeowner
situations and single-family homes, in particular.
I am not going to go into a lot of data that has already
been cited--thank you to Representative Schakowsky--but these
numbers are just going to continue to increase, in terms of the
need, when we look ahead into the future. Particularly with the
aging population--and I would note also with the Baby Boomers
who are coming on into the point of wanting to live in more
accessible and inclusive communities--we think that--based on
the research we did, we think that the Inclusive Home Design
Act of 2009 can meet these needs.
Most accessible housing currently in the private sector
exists because of Federal laws, many--the ones that Chairwoman
Waters mentioned at the start of this committee meeting. That
is the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with
Disabilities Act in limited parts, and the Fair Housing Act.
For the most part, though, single-family homes are not covered
by these laws at all. Yet single-family homes make up a large
part of the U.S. housing stock, which means many homes in the
United States are not visitable for a person with a disability.
As we have heard earlier, there is reference to over 40
jurisdictions across the Nation that have adopted either
mandatory or voluntary policies. Estimates are--and these are
very conservative estimates--that over 30,000 homes have been
constructed as a result of those voluntary and mandatory rules.
However, when we start to look at these examples, only a
small fraction of all the U.S. jurisdictions--and it's uneven,
and it starts to create an uneven housing market for people
with disabilities. The Inclusive Home Design Act could change
this, since it would target housing built with Federal funds.
This includes the largest sources of Federal funding that we're
already building housing with, and particularly affordable
housing, which is an area that people with disabilities are
more likely to be needing assistance with.
So we can look at it through the lens of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block
Grant, through the home investment fund. We can also look at it
through the largest program, through the USDA that helps with
rural housing, the 502 single-family home. Most of that is help
with the construction of new housing, new single-family homes
in rural areas. And if we added to it the low-income housing
tax credit, we could add hundreds of thousands of units very
quickly that would be visitable for people with disabilities
across the whole United States.
It's important to keep in mind that these Federal programs,
however, assist with both new construction and rehabilitation.
And one of the things in the Act is focusing on new
construction, which is very important and very cost-effective.
However, if there were opportunities, I would encourage
looking into the ability to add incentives to encourage
retrofitting housing where it's not cost-prohibitive, to
actually make those homes as visitable as possible. And again,
it would help to distribute and make sure that there is more
accessible and visitable housing sooner.
I think I will stop at this point and just say that if
there were additional things that you were going to consider
that could also help move this forward--because I think one of
the things that we're looking at is Federal funding--the
National Affordable Housing Trust Fund is funding that needs to
be added--oh, I'm sorry--is something that needs to be
supported, and that could also include more housing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Janet Smith can be found on
page 40 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Janet Smith. Sorry about that.
Chairwoman Waters. I would like to thank you all--
Ms. Janet Smith. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. --for your testimony. It was
tremendously informative. And I certainly have a few questions,
and I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes.
I think it was you, Ms. Eleanor Smith, who talked about
retrofitting. And as I began to think about the CDBG program in
our cities, I don't recall seeing many of them--or any of them,
and maybe I just didn't know where to look; I didn't look--
dedicate money for retrofitting for homes for people with
disabilities. Do you know much about that? Yes?
Ms. Eleanor Smith. It's my understanding, from looking at a
lot of the programs that there may be retrofits for people who
specifically have a disability now. But in terms of
retrofitting other houses that would be easy to retrofit, that
would be a wonderful plan. It would be good to distinguish
between what is easily retrofitable, and to do that at the time
of retrofit, and let the other ones go if they don't have a
disabled individual moving in.
So I can't answer that too specifically, except I agree
with your observation. It is distressing that--to watch--when
Georgia runs out of retrofit money in March for the year of
2009, leaving 290-some people on the list, it is discouraging
to go down the street and see approximately 80 new units going
up with the very same barriers that people are struggling to
remove.
So, I do think it's important to have both strategies. But
we will never run out of houses to retrofit, but we do have an
opportunity to move forward and not recreate the very same
barriers in new houses that we're struggling to get out of old
houses.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Let me just ask Mr.
Buckland. What do you say to developers who say, ``We would
like to do it, but it's just too costly. When we're building,
it would drive up the cost so much that it would not be
affordable to the average person with a disability.'' What do
you say?
Mr. Buckland. Madam Chairwoman, my experience, through
doing a lot of public policy work, is that once that stuff gets
built into the code, it's no longer any more costly. Once they
start building to the code and put those accessibility features
in place, it really is no more costly to build a house that is
accessible. It's only costly when you have to go back and
retrofit them.
So really, you need to design the house to be accessible
from the beginning, and it won't add any costs. That would be
my response to the builders who say that.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. And Ms. Janet
Smith, what are the estimates of the unmet need?
Ms. Janet Smith. There are different ways to look at that.
We have different sources of data, and we have pulled from, for
example, the 1995 American housing study that was done. Only
once have they asked this question very specifically of
families, and I would encourage that we look at asking this
again. We're starting to include people with disabilities again
in the American housing survey of this last year.
But based on that, we find that we have, just specifically
looking at people who identified the need in their housing that
would help them with their disability to have grab bars or hand
rails, 788,000. And, like I said, that's a number from 1995. We
know it has to have increased, we just haven't been able--we
don't know how to project how much further. Ramps were over
612,000. An elevator or a lift to access the unit once in the
building was 309,000. Another 300,000 needed widened doorways
in their unit, the doorways and halls in the unit. Another
566,000 needed accessible bathrooms.
These are people who have identified the need for it. And
we say it's a conservative estimate, because there are probably
a lot more people who may not realize what needs they have, and
how to identify them. And again, it's data that's over 15 years
old. So we know that the population has extended. It has
increased immensely since then.
When we look at just estimates, though, for people under
the age of 65, the numbers have ranged between 3.5 million and
10 million who are in need of accessible housing and currently
don't have it.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Ms. Capito?
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I thank the
witnesses. We have just heard some very large figures of folks
who are in need of housing that has been fit for accessibility.
And absolutely, I believe the statistics are probably low for a
lot of different reasons. And I appreciate the fact, too, that
living--I am from a rural area, and understanding that
accessibility or finding a place or the availability to move to
another place is exceedingly difficult, in that we're the low
density areas of rural areas in America.
But--so I guess one of my questions would be if--
Congressman Schakowsky said the cost was--I believe the figure,
you said, was somewhere around $100 to $800 or something like
that.
Ms. Schakowsky. To $600, yes.
Mrs. Capito. To $600. The cost of a house, that's a minimal
expenditure for a home. Why do you think in the new building
that's going forward that this isn't sort of voluntarily
being--if the need is so great, and--why wouldn't builders be
building to some of these specs, anyway, just because--
anticipating a baby boom and aging in place, and all of those
kind of things?
Ms. Eleanor Smith. That is a really good question that I
have puzzled over for approximately 20 years. And I think that
it is a mix of things. I think that I have been told--and so I
believe--that builders like to do what they have done over and
over again. It's the fastest and quickest way to do. And until
they are pushed to do differently, like they have been in Pima
County, where there are now 20,000 houses up, they use the same
methods, just somewhat out of habit.
I think that there are misperceptions of what the house
will look like. And I have included in my written testimony
that I gave you some photos of the houses we have talked about
from those places.
I think that, to be honest, as well, an unspoken reason why
these issues haven't rushed forward from the public quite as
quickly as green and some other issues is that we're not so
eager to think about our bodies deteriorating, or those people
over there not being able to come to our house. It comes home
to roost very quickly in a family.
But I do think that coupled with not seeing the good
examples, and coupled with builders who like to do things the
same ways, is the issue that we need to be encouraged more
strongly to really look at the fact that change happens in
bodies, and everybody grows old, and it doesn't have to be the
end of the world.
Mr. Barrera. May I make a comment?
Mrs. Capito. Yes, Mr. Barrera. I'm going to ask you another
question, so if you want to add some of that, as well, the
other question I wanted to ask you is you mentioned in your
testimony that there are other modification programs in
different areas of the country. And I don't know if you
highlighted one or two that you think do a really good job of
this, whether it's local communities, or a city or a county--
Mr. Barrera. There are other modification programs that
United Cerebral Palsy has, modification funds throughout some
of their State chapters throughout the country. Many State
finance agencies, including our own in Illinois, also have
modification programs. The City of Chicago also has other
modification programs.
Most modification programs come out of CDBG funds
throughout the country, including in rural areas. But I have to
restate that we don't want modification funds to take the place
of basic access or take the place of the Inclusive Home Design
Act. We have to--when modification funds are created, they are
limited to a certain amount of money per modification, ranging
from $500 to up to $10,000, $12,000, depending who is providing
the modification. At Access Living, we have a cap of only
$5,000 per modification.
So it varies on the amount of money you can spend on
modification. Most of them are only one-time deals. And when
disability progresses, you're going to need something else, in
most cases.
Like I mentioned in my testimony, there are extensive
waiting lists in most of them. And people have ended up in
institutions or, like I said, end up dying, waiting for these
modifications. It's my knowledge that in an Illinois
modification program that was administered also by Access
Living, four people died waiting for modifications.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much--
Mr. Barrera. I wanted to add, also on the question of
developers complaining about cost. This has been historical in
the private sector, including when we made attempts--when we
successfully passed the Fair Housing Amendments Act
construction and design standards. We had a lot of battle with
some builders.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Schakowsky?
Ms. Schakowsky. Go ahead and finish your thought about
the--
Mr. Barrera. I just wanted to finish my thought that this,
the Inclusive Home Design Act, will trigger publicly-assisted
houses, and where most developers are not-for-profit
developers, developers that are community developers, they also
get funding from low-income housing tax credits, CDBG, and
other government fundings. And the ones that I have spoken
with, they have endorsed, and they have backed up, the
Inclusive Home Design Act.
Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. It's not just those that are not-for-
profits, though. Is that not true, Ms. Smith, that we have
developers now in Pima County, 21,000 homes? And it seems to
work really well.
And I would also like to get a little bit to the issue of
enforcement of these laws, and talk about how it is or isn't a
problem. Go ahead.
Ms. Eleanor Smith. Just as the Inclusive Home Design Act
would do, the laws that kind of mirror it earlier on permit an
exemption on a very odd lot, on a lot where you can't do it.
Interestingly, across the country, about 95 percent have proven
feasible of lots. Only about 5 percent or less have proven
unfeasible.
What the local governments who do this, who carry out the
law, they have a checklist that they use that's very simple,
because these features are very visible. They're not behind the
wall. So when they're out for the regular inspections, not a
special inspection, they check for these issues. And then, if
there--it's not present, they press on the builder to correct
that error.
And they also check, of course, the plans that come in. And
if they see plans coming in that do not have the features, they
again educate the builder on how he could do this. So--
Ms. Schakowsky. So do places like Pima County review the
plans that are done before the building?
Ms. Eleanor Smith. It is my understanding they do. And I
know in Atlanta, they did. It's two slightly different
situations, because Atlanta is more like the Inclusive Home
Design Act in that it refers only to certain houses, whereas in
Pima County, it's every house built. And the same way with
Bolingbrook, Illinois, every house built.
So I think in those cases, they applied the same methods
they do if wiring is not correct, or if the houses have not
plumbed correctly. They deal with it on a case to case basis.
And then, if a lot is extremely difficult, they do as they
should, remove the requirement for the zero step entrance, and
let it proceed as follows.
Does that answer your question?
Ms. Schakowsky. It does. I wanted to ask--any one of you
can answer--I think there is this perception--I'm glad you
included pictures--that somehow accessibility isn't pretty. And
I am wondering, especially in these places where all homes need
to be built that way, is there any problem in selling them to
people without disabilities? Are there any rejections because
the home isn't attractive enough?
Ms. Eleanor Smith. I don't believe there are. I--where I
live, they are seamlessly--the zero step entrance is seamlessly
done. People don't usually see a 32-inch door and say, ``Oh,
what a strange, wide door.'' They really don't notice it.
Where I live, we voluntarily, in our co-housing community,
created 67 houses with basic access. No one who has moved in
has noticed it, until they start bringing in their furniture.
When they say, ``Oh, good. It was so hard to get it out of my
old house.''
But it's the retrofitted houses that look awkward. And
usually, because of the many houses I have lived in, all the
ramps we have had to stick on an old house, an existing house,
have had to be removed by the new owner because they didn't
look good. But the houses in our community where people have
moved in and out, not only did they not notice them, but
obviously, no one is taking a jackhammer and removing the
stoop, because it just goes straight up to the porch.
Ms. Schakowsky. For future work in passing this bill, are
there builders who will testify to the fact that this is a good
thing to do? Alberto?
Mr. Barrera. Yes. Yes, In the Chicago area, I have spoken
with some builders within the Chicago Rehab Network, which is a
not-for-profit community developer, and they have supported
this, including CRN, Chicago Rehab Network. And these people
have a long history of developing affordable housing.
So I don't think it would be any problem getting some of
the developers, even in the private sector, that we know,
people--
Ms. Schakowsky. I think that's really important--
Mr. Barrera. --including architects--
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Barrera. Including architects.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. The Chair notes
that some members may have additional questions for this panel,
which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection,
the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to
submit written questions to these witnesses, and to place their
responses in the record. This panel is now dismissed.
Before we adjourn, the written statements of the following
organizations will be made a part of the record for this
hearing: the statement of David P. Sloane, senior vice
president, AARP; the statement of Darrell Price, housing policy
coordinator, Access Center for Independent Living in Dayton,
Ohio; the statement from the Pima County chief building
official; the statement from the Paralyzed Veterans of America;
the statement from the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities Housing Task Force; and the statement from a
coalition of disability advocates from across the country.
We also have a statement here from the National Association
of Home Builders.
Before we adjourn, I will, without objection, give myself
30 seconds to just say a special thank you to our panelists who
came here, panelists who happen to have disabilities, and who
have taken their time and their energy to help us with this
very important subject, and to support the very fine work of
Congresswoman Schakowsky. Thank you so very much.
This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
September 29, 2010