[Senate Hearing 111-468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-468
MODERNIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE MODERNIZATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS AND
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
__________
OCTOBER 29, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Available at: http: //www.access.gpo.gov /congress /senate/
senate05sh.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-763 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
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
Edward Silverman, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director
Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk
Devin Hartley, Hearing Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Jim Crowell, Editor
______
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Ranking Republican Member
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JOHN TESTER, Montana JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
Michael Passante, Transit Staff Director
Harold J. Connolly, Housing Staff Director
Travis M. Johnson, Republican Staff Director
Beth Cooper, Professional Staff Member
Hillary Swab, Legislative Assistant
Sarah Novascone, Republican Chief Counsel
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2009
Page
Opening statement of Chairman Menendez........................... 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Dodd................................................. 2
Senator Johanns.............................................. 3
Senator Kohl................................................. 5
WITNESSES
Christopher Murphy, Representative from the State of Connecticut. 6
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Ann O'Hara, Housing Advisor, Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities Housing Task Force................................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Michelle Norris, Senior Vice President for Development and
Acquisition of National Church Residences, on behalf of
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging....... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Vitter........................................... 50
Toby Halliday, Vice President for Public Policy, National Housing
Trust.......................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 41
J. Michael Jones, Parent, Brick, New Jersey...................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Sheila Crowley, President and CEO, National Low Income Housing
Coalition...................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Statement for the Record on behalf of: American Association of
People with Disabilities; Concrete Change; Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund; Equal Rights Center; National
Spinal Cord Injury Association; National Fair Housing Alliance;
National Multiple Sclerosis Society; Paralyzed Veterans of
America; and United Spinal Association......................... 52
Prepared Statement of Cassie James Holdsworth on behalf of Adapt
Housing Policy Committee--Edited by Madeleine McMahon.......... 52
(iii)
MODERNIZING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community
Development,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room 538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Robert Menendez (Chairman of the
Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROBERT MENENDEZ
Chairman Menendez. Good morning. The Subcommittee will come
to order.
Today, we are here to further explore the many housing
issues facing the elderly and people with disabilities in the
current financial crisis. The effects of this crisis on the
lives of those who need our assistance the most is a concern to
all of us. Senator Kohl, for one, has introduced the Supportive
Housing for the Elderly Act, that would expand HUD's Section
202 Program to allow seniors to remain safely in their homes,
and I have introduced, and have the pleasure of having Senator
Johanns as a cosponsor with me, the Frank Melville Supportive
Housing Investment Act to revise requirements for supportive
housing to help people with disabilities live independently.
These bills are a start, but we are here today to hear how the
recent financial crisis has affected the availability and
demand for affordable housing, what those on the front line
believe the trends and the need will be in the future, and what
more we can do to help.
We are all aware that local communities faced with the
credit crisis, the mortgage crisis, housing and jobs crisis are
dealing with a precipitous reduction in their tax base, and
consequently are contemplating cuts in services across the
board. Obviously, those cuts have an adverse impact on the
elderly and disabled, who already are struggling to maintain a
decent standard of living. I would hope that our panelists
today will provide some insights on the availability of public
housing, prospects for availability in the foreseeable future,
whether there is a gaping hole in the already badly frayed
safety net when it comes to housing in parts of the country
that have been hard hit during this economic downturn.
We would like to get an idea about how we can preserve
existing housing and any reforms that might be necessary to
increase the rate at which we can build additional 811 units
for those with disabilities. There are many families of seniors
and those with disabilities who are waiting for the answers. I
have heard from many of them in my home State of New Jersey as
I have traveled the State and we believe that there is a real
need to respond to the needs of families, particularly as their
children come into adult years and need a place to sustain
themselves and call home.
This hearing is about them. Let us keep that in mind as we
proceed. It goes to the heart of the notion of community, each
of us working together for the betterment of all of us.
With that, I am happy to recognize the distinguished
Chairman of the full Committee who is very passionate about
this issue and I know wants to, in addition to his opening
statement, welcome his colleague from Connecticut. Senator
Dodd.
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
Chairman Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know I
am stepping a bit out of order here. I was going back and
forth. My apologies to Mike Johanns.
First, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing this. As
all of our colleagues know, Bob Menendez lost his mom a few
days ago, and so we once again want to express our condolences
to you and your family, as well.
I also want to thank Chris Murphy for coming. He gives me
credit occasionally when he does something really well. He
acknowledges that he was an intern in my office.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Dodd. When things go bad, I am not sure----
[Laughter.]
Chairman Dodd. But he is doing a fabulous job as a member
of the House of Representatives and brings a lot of wealth,
obviously doing a tremendous amount of work on this issue,
among other things. And so it is truly an honor to have
Congressman Murphy come before the Committee on the subject
matter. He brings a great deal of knowledge and expertise to
it.
I just have a few opening comments, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
and then will defer. I certainly thank you, as I said a moment
ago, for holding this hearing on affordable housing programs
for the elderly and persons with disabilities. They face,
obviously, these groups face tremendous challenges when it
comes to housing, as we all know.
And again, repeating data I am sure all of us in this room
are aware of, the senior population is growing tremendously.
Between the year 2000 and 2030, the number of persons over 65--
and as I look around this dais, I think all of us hope these
numbers hold here--will grow from 35 million to 71.5 million.
The Bipartisan Commission on Affordable Housing and Health
Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century estimated that
in 2002, an additional 730,000 units of affordable housing will
be needed by the year 2020. In addition to needing new units,
we face the challenge of preserving existing affordable
housing, particularly housing with access to supportive
services and public transportation that, of course, seniors
need to remain and live independent lives.
A recent study found that the Federal subsidies of nearly
two-thirds of the affordable senior apartments were more than a
half-a-mile from public transit in 20 metropolitan areas it
surveyed and are set to expire within 5 years. I would invite
my colleagues, and I think several of you are cosponsors of
this, the bill I have introduced called the Livable Communities
Act, which we have introduced this August. It will help
communities better assess their housing and transportation
needs.
People with disabilities also face great affordable housing
needs. It is estimated that more than 1.3 million households
with disabilities are currently facing the worst case housing
needs, paying more than 50 percent of their income toward rent.
That is a stunning number.
Last week, Diane Randall--and I know Congressman Murphy
knows Diane well, she is a remarkable individual, she heads up
Connecticut's Partnership for Strong Communities--shared some
statistics on the housing needs of persons with disabilities in
our State in testimony before this very Committee. She stated
that in Connecticut, renting a modest one-bedroom apartment
would cost more than 116 percent of the income of a person with
disabilities receiving Supplemental Security Income, SSI. More
than 116 percent--that is an incredible number, an untenable,
obviously, situation.
Given these needs, it is critical for our Federal
assistance programs to be up to the challenges, and so I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your focusing on this. We kind of talk
about these issues. We have big hearings on housing, and we
cover a lot of ground, obviously. But to focus specifically on
this need, I think is tremendously worthwhile, and I would be
remiss if I didn't mention, as well, the tremendous work done
by Herb Kohl in this area and his focus on seniors and the
elderly, and so this is a major concern. We are happy to have
you on the Committee, as well. Working with us is a great
complement on these issues.
Again, I want to thank Chris Murphy. We are going to name
this, if we can--the work we are working on--the Frank Melville
Supportive Housing Investment Act, which he is here to discuss,
and I am totally supportive of that effort. It is a wonderful
tribute. He was a transformational figure in affordable housing
policy in our State and across the country. He was the original
Chair, Mr. Chairman, of the Melville Charitable Trust and a
guiding force behind its mission to fund efforts to identify
and eliminate the root cause of homelessness in the United
States. I thank Chris Murphy for leading the charge on that in
the House and we will pick up the mantle over here, as well,
and hopefully get this done.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator Dodd.
Senator Johanns.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE JOHANNS
Senator Johanns. Senator Menendez, let me just start out
and tell you how much I appreciate your leadership on this. I
also want to express that my thoughts and prayers are with you
during this difficult time.
I want to speak for just a minute or two on S. 1481. I am
very, very proud to be a cosponsor, and I think the lead
Republican on that effort. This very important legislation will
bolster our efforts to move toward community integration for
people with disabilities. I have long believed that we as a
society must shake the stereotypes that stigmatize this very
courageous population.
In my home State of Nebraska, I as Governor led a major
reform effort. We successfully helped many deserving people who
deal with mental illness move from antiquated State
institutions to community-based care. Today, many of them are
living in apartments. They go to work every day. They are proud
to be productive members of society instead of being residents
of a State institution.
But there are things that are missing, and we recognize
that. So what more can we do? We can invest in integrated
housing options.
In Nebraska, we have a Nebraska Housing-Related Assistance
Program. It uses State funds to provide rental assistance for
very low-income persons with serious mental illness. The
assistance provides rental payments, utility payments, makes
security deposits, and other help. As of 2009, I am very proud
to report on behalf of my State that the program is now serving
about 1,000 individuals. It marks another big step toward
enabling this very deserving population to gain independence
and be a part of their communities.
Nebraska's experience demonstrates how a flexible rental
assistance program can be an invaluable tool in promoting
affordable housing. S. 1481 creates a project-based rental
assistance demonstration program that I think builds on the
success of a number of States, one of which is Nebraska. Our
experience back home demonstrates the value of public-private
partnerships in meeting the important needs that are there for
people with disabilities.
For the past decade, interestingly enough, there has been
Federal authority for nonprofit sponsors to use grants and
project-based assistance to partner with for-profit developers
to integrate rental assistance into larger developments.
Unfortunately, the results have been underwhelming, as we know.
Fewer than five projects have been completed since 2000. It
just hasn't worked very well.
This bill, S. 1481, would authorize changes to the 811
Capital Advance Program and a new demonstration program. It
literally builds on the successes of what has happened in the
State laboratories--Nebraska, Louisiana, North Carolina. I
think it will help jump-start this integration effort.
Failure to reform Section 811 would be a genuine failure by
Washington to help its citizens who are most in need.
Currently, the program is building fewer than 1,000 units per
year, nowhere close to the scale of the unmet need in all of
our States and States across the country.
So what I would like to say, just to wrap up, is that I
just think this is the right step at the right time, a step in
the right direction. Congressman, I thank you for your
leadership on the House side. It is my hope that here on the
Senate side, we can pick up the mantle here and move this
forward and celebrate the day that this becomes law.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for
joining me as the lead Republican on the legislation. It is
worthy of a bipartisan effort, and with the Chairman's
assistance, we are going to make this happen.
With that, our distinguished colleague has worked a lot on
the issues on seniors and housing, and for those of us who are
looking at the horizon saying it is good work that you do,
Herb, so that we can be ready when we get there. Thanks so
much. Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Menendez. You
are also in my thoughts and prayers, as well as all of your
colleagues in the Senate.
We appreciate your being here at this hearing this morning.
HUD's Senior Disabled Housing Programs, also known as the
Section 202 and 811 programs, are often coupled together, not
only because they are the only two developmental grant programs
of their kind, but more importantly because they address
traditionally underserved populations, providing accessible,
safe, and affordable housing for both the disabled and the
elderly so they can live independently as well as in dignity.
There are currently over 300,000 seniors living in 6,000
Section 202 units across the country. Unfortunately, this
program is not able to address the growing demand. For every
available unit, there are 10 seniors waiting. Even worse, some
developments are at risk for being replaced by high-priced
condos and apartments. As a result, many of the seniors
participating in the Section 202 program could become homeless
or overwhelm other Federal aid programs.
Earlier this year, Senator Schumer and I introduced S. 118,
a bill to modernize and improve Section 202 housing for seniors
across our country. The Section 202 program provides capital
grants to enable the development of supportive housing
exclusively for the very low-income elderly population.
Additionally, the program provides rental subsidies and grants
to fund supportive services for seniors. Over one-third of the
Section 202 population is considered disabled enough to be at
risk for being put in a nursing home. By reducing the need for
costly nursing home stays, access to supportive services saves
both seniors and the Government money.
Modernizing the elderly housing program will promote the
construction of new senior housing facilities as well as
preserve and improve existing developments. Many of the older
properties are in need of rehabilitation and increased access
to supportive services. This legislation will help expedite the
conversion of houses to assisted living facilities and reduce
other impediments for older properties to obtain the
renovations they desperately need.
We look forward to the testimony of the witnesses here
today, and I ask unanimous consent to insert a letter of
support for our bill from the Elderly Housing Coalition into
the record.
Chairman Menendez. Without objection.
Senator Kohl. Thank you so much.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Our first witness, we are very pleased to welcome our
colleague from the House, Congressman Christopher Murphy. You
may have gotten the best introduction you could get already
from the Chairman. If you survived your time in his office as
an intern, you can do anything.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Dodd. He was a star.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Menendez. Congressman Murphy is currently serving
his second term representing Connecticut's Fifth District. He
serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform. Prior to his service in the
U.S. House of Representatives, he served for 8 years in the
Connecticut General Assembly. He is the House sponsor of
legislation that we have spoken about here that we are
sponsoring in the Senate to modernize the Section 811 program
for housing for people with disabilities.
We welcome you, Congressman, and look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Chairman Menendez,
Chairman Dodd, Senator Kohl, Senator Johanns. It is especially
exciting to be here to testify in front of you, Mr. Chairman,
and in front of Senator Dodd.
Of course, I only learned good habits in your office. There
is no question about that. But I also know that my advocacy for
this issue and my advocacy for the people that are assisted by
these programs is a direct result of the fact that I learned to
care about public service through not only my work for Senator
Dodd, but through the inspiration that he gave many of us to
join this field and to join this calling, and so for that, I am
thankful.
Chairman Menendez, as the main House proponent of the
legislation that reauthorizes Section 811, it is a pleasure to
be here. At the outset, let me thank you for your efforts here
in the Senate. I think that the legislation that we have
introduced both in the House and the Senate to revitalize this
very important program, which provides housing for people with
both physical and mental disabilities, is going to provide
thousands of more housing units, permanent supportive housing
across the Nation, and will ensure that the very low-income
disabled population will have safe and affordable places to
live.
As the experts on the next panel are going to tell you and
as Senator Johanns has also pointed out, HUD's 811 program
isn't currently doing enough to meet this enormous demand of
nonelderly disabled. There are approximately 1.3 million
nonelderly disabled households with what HUD defines as worst-
case needs, meaning that they are very low income, they pay
more than 50 percent of their income in rent, and they live in
substandard housing.
While the need is obviously great, only a trickle of
affordable units come online each year throughout the country,
and as we heard in testimony before the House Financial
Services Committee, even a small supportive housing project can
take sometimes almost 8 years to complete. By all accounts,
this program has become overly bureaucratic and has not adapted
to complement the good and innovative work that hundreds of
organizations across the country that are trying desperately to
provide quality permanent supportive housing to combat the
unrelenting housing crisis faced by millions of low-income
individuals with disabilities.
In Connecticut, we offer a pretty good example of how
improvements to the program can complement the work that is
already being done by State Governments and housing advocacy
organizations, and Senator Dodd referenced this in his opening
remarks. In Connecticut, these partnerships have led to a
commitment to create about 10,000 new units of permanent
supportive housing over the next 10 years. By using the Low-
Income Housing Tax Credit with a State-provided set-aside for
rental assistance, we have been able to secure permanent
supportive housing for disabled, severely low-income
Connecticut residents, and the same financing mechanism has
been used with the same type of successful results in North
Carolina, Louisiana, and several other States, with tremendous
results.
This approach, which is really a new public-private
partnership leveraging existing tax credits for expanded use,
is included on a national scale in both the Chairman's
legislation, S. 1481, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing
Act, and the House legislation, H.R. 1675, which passed the
House in July.
This approach, Mr. Chairman, of public-private partnerships
will derive more units of permanent supportive housing using
the same funding that we have today--more bang for our buck.
Currently, the average capital cost of an 811 project is about
$100,000 per unit plus a monthly rental payment equal to about
$6,000 a year. Under our legislation, the capital investment is
wiped out because the units are being built through existing
credits and programs, and because they are already affordable
units, the rental subsidy will actually be less than the $6,000
a year average.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we
fund this change by using funds currently set aside for the 811
mainstream vouchers. HUD has done a less than adequate job in
ensuring that these vouchers run now through the 811 program
are used to support people with disabilities. They don't
monitor or track them today. And while there is a great need
for mainstream vouchers generally, these funds would be better
used to ensure that 811-eligible individuals have access to
permanent supportive housing.
Beyond this change, Mr. Chairman, the legislation also
allows States and State housing agencies to do much of the
bureaucratic paperwork involved in these applications, which
will greatly expedite the applications process. There are but a
few, I believe, of these refinements. These are just a few of
the refinements that are outlined in these two bills that will
make the 811 program more efficient, less bureaucratic, using
Federal dollars in a way that produces truly permanent
supportive housing units across this country.
To add just a few words to those already offered by Senator
Dodd about Frank Melville, whose name is attached to this
legislation, Frank Melville and his wife, who is still with us,
Allen, live in the Northwest corner of Connecticut. The
Melville Charitable Trust has founded housing advocacy and
homelessness projects and programs across both the Northeast
and this country, and the bill that we are introducing today, I
don't think could be possible without the fact that the
Melvilles have decided to use their family's resources in order
to combat the issue of homelessness.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your generous attention
to this issue and I look forward to working with this Committee
to pass this bill in complement with the House measure.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much, Congressman Murphy.
Thank you for your leadership in the House. I don't know if any
Members have any questions.
Chairman Dodd. I was just going to raise one, if I could,
and Congressman Murphy highlighted this, as well. There was a
project in Windham, Connecticut, Mr. Chairman--the community
actually where I was born, Windham, Connecticut--where they
have been very successful in linking up people with
disabilities and jobs. And again, this is always a hard
question. But the key to that was the transportation issue.
There were other factors, but the transportation was so
critical to linking it together.
I just wonder from your perspective, Chris, on the
importance of affordable housing and integrated in the
community and particularly with stressing the access to public
transportation. I don't know if you have any additional
thoughts on that at all. I don't know if you are familiar with
that Windham project. It was a pilot project.
Mr. Murphy. It is a critical component of supportive
housing, in particular. What makes supportive housing work, as
you know, Chairman Dodd, is that it is not just the house, but
it is the support services that come along with it to make sure
that that individual not only has the medical wrap-around
services that they need, but also have the job skills and the
connection to jobs to keep them a sustainable and productive
member of the community.
And so as I understand it, some of the most successful
supportive housing programs that have been built have these
wrap-around services that include transportation links, which
obviously speaks to the importance of building new supportive
housing units along existing transportation lines, but also
speaks to the need to make sure that you have these wrap-around
services that can include links to job sites.
And right now, the problem is that States are spending so
much money just building the supportive housing sites that they
have very little money left over to try to provide those
supportive services, transportation being a key component of
it. The idea behind this legislation is that by better
leveraging some of the capital costs, we can provide States
with some greater flexibility to build in some of those
supports, including transportation.
Chairman Dodd. It is just a great concept, and I commend
both you, Chairman, and Senator Johanns on this, as well, on
that public-private partnership idea. But the things we are
looking at, today, basically, support disability is income
replacement, in which case if you get income replacement, there
are real restrictions under Medicaid for people to actually
then work. You have real ceilings on how much you can do. And
to the extent that we can break through that and come up with
alternative ideas where people with disabilities or elderly who
want to continue--as most do want to continue working, even
with the disability they have, to be productive--and obviously
it is a great source of relief, obviously, financially, that
people have alternatives. And so these support services, it is
not just a feel good thing, there is really a real cost savings
involved in this, as well.
So I think it is a terrific idea and I commend you, Mr.
Chairman and Senator Johanns and others for championing this.
As Chairman of the Committee, I will make sure we find the time
to get this up on our calendar here. I can't predict what will
happen on the floor, but to move this along. I think it
complements so much the other things we are trying to do.
Despite the battles and disputes over health care and other
issues, these are the pieces that make all of that work at some
point.
Chairman Menendez. Senator Dodd, I appreciate your
question, and in our next panel, one of the things we are going
to explore, it is not just the question of the lack of actual
affordable housing units, but it is also getting the right
supportive services as a mix in there. I know that Chairman
Dodd has a unique opportunity here, not only as the Chairman of
the full Committee, but as a senior member of the Health,
Education, and Labor Committee, to help us meld this together.
And so we have got a great ally in the Chairman.
If there are no other questions, thank you, Congressman
Murphy, again. We look forward to working with you to make this
passage a reality.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you.
Let me, as Congressman Murphy leaves, let me call up the
witnesses to the second panel. Our first witness on the second
panel, and if you will all start moving up, Ann O'Hara is a
cofounder and Associate Director of the Technical Assistance
Collaborative, Inc., a Boston-based nonprofit organization. She
has had over 25 years' experience in the development and
administration of affordable housing programs at the national,
State, and local level.
Our next witness is Michelle Norris. She is a Senior Vice
President for Development and Acquisition of National Church
Residences and will be speaking on behalf of the American
Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. Ms. Norris is
also the Immediate Past President of the National Affordable
Housing Management Association.
Our third witness is Toby Halliday. He is the Vice
President of Public Policy for the National Housing Trust. He
has worked with nonprofit groups in both urban and rural
communities, providing technical and financing assistance on
affordable housing and other community development projects.
Our fourth witness is Michael Jones, a constituent from the
great State of New Jersey, from Brick, New Jersey, and he is
the father of an adult son with a mental disability, and we
appreciate you, Mr. Jones, coming to share some of the
challenges that you and your family have had as representative
of many others.
And our fifth witness is Sheila Crowley, who is the
President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition,
which is dedicated to ending the affordable housing crisis in
America.
We welcome you all and look forward to your testimony. We
would ask you to summarize your testimony for about 5 minutes
or so. Your full statement is going to be included in the
record and then we will have some time for some exchanges.
Ms. O'Hara, would you like to start?
STATEMENT OF ANN O'HARA, HOUSING ADVISOR, CONSORTIUM FOR
CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES HOUSING TASK FORCE
Ms. O'Hara. Thank you so much, Senator Menendez, Senator
Johanns, Senator Kohl. I am so happy to be here today. I am not
only testifying on behalf of the Technical Assistance
Collaborative, but here to testify for the Consortium for
Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force. We would like to
thank you and the Committee for your leadership on housing,
including passing the HEARTH Act and the National Housing Trust
Fund.
In addition to S. 1481, we want to recommend quick action
on S. 118 and S. 1731, Senator Reed's proposal for an immediate
infusion of $1 billion for the Housing Trust Fund.
I am here today to strongly support S. 1481, the Frank
Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act, which will
modernize and reinvigorate HUD's Section 811 program. The CCD
Housing Task Force, which includes many national disability
organizations, believes that this legislation is essential to
improve and revitalize 811, an important HUD program which you
have already heard produces less than 1,000 units of new
housing per year. The program is inefficient, it is outdated,
it is plagued with red tape, and it doesn't reflect the desire
of most people with disabilities to live independently in
integrated housing.
The legislation is important because the need for
supportive housing has never been greater. Hundreds of
thousands of nonelderly people with disabilities today remain
unnecessarily in high-cost nursing homes and State
institutions, or are stuck in substandard board-and-care homes
that are segregated, or remain at home with aging parents who
themselves are in their 70s and 80s. Meanwhile, State
Government is struggling to meet the mandate of the Supreme
Court's Olmstead decision and reduce the reliance on these
expensive facility-based models.
The data on this is overwhelming. There are over 400,000
nonelderly people with disabilities today living in nursing
homes, including 16,000 people under the age of 30. Most of
these people could live in permanent supportive housing.
New Jersey must create 1,065 new units of permanent
supportive housing during the next 5 years for people with
mental illness and has another 2,300 people with developmental
disabilities who are living in State facilities, waiting to
move to the community, and 22,000 adults who are living at home
with aging parents.
A recent Olmstead case in New York covers 4,300 people just
in New York City with mental illness who are living in adult
care homes that the judge deemed to be more restrictive and
institutional than psychiatric hospitals. These examples are
the tip of the iceberg of the problem, and 811 is a really
important solution to this crisis.
As you have heard, the bill will eliminate the bureaucracy
that plagues this program, help nonprofits create more
integrated housing opportunities that people with disabilities
strongly prefer. The demonstration program could create 2,500
to 3,000 more units a year than we are getting now without
increasing the appropriation for 811. It leverages Low-Income
Housing Tax Credits and HOME funds, reduces 811 outlays for
capital, and reduces the time that it takes to get new units
created.
We are really indebted to the States of Nebraska, North
Carolina, and Louisiana for pioneering these cost-effective
models included in the demonstration, which create small set-
asides of 811 units in larger affordable housing properties
that we produce every year without a lot of delay that we see
in 811. Just in those three States, they have developed over
3,500 new integrated supportive housing units in the last
couple of years.
This legislation also resolves a longstanding problem with
the 811 mainstream voucher program. There are 14,000 tenant-
based vouchers in that program. They are paid for with 811
money, but they are administered by housing authorities as
Section 8 vouchers. They are not being tracked adequately. They
are rarely used for supportive housing. This bill resolves all
those problems by moving those vouchers permanently to the
Section 8 program.
Finally, supportive housing is not just the right solution
for people, and I know we all believe that here today, but it
is also the most cost effective solution. For example, a recent
study in Columbus, Ohio, shows a 40 percent savings in public
mental health services for people living in Section 811
housing. Another study in the Journal of Health and Social
Policy found that the average expenditure of a person receiving
Medicaid services in the community was $44,000 less than
institutional care.
Thank you so much for this hearing today and we look
forward to working with all of you to make this legislation a
reality and to honor the memory of Frank Melville.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norris.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE NORRIS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
DEVELOPMENT AND ACQUISITION OF NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES, ON
BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES FOR THE
AGING
Ms. Norris. Good morning, Chairman Menendez, Chairman Kohl,
Senator. I appreciate this opportunity.
My name is Michelle Norris, and I am with National Church
Residences, but I am speaking on behalf of AAHSA, the American
Association for Housing and Services for the Aging, a national
association representing nonprofit providers that have a
continuum of aging service. That includes adult daycare, home
health, community services, senior housing, assisted living
facilities, continuing care retirement communities and nursing
homes. AAHSA also has State associations in each of your
States.
NCR has been involved with AAHSA for 30 years, and our CEO
is currently Chairman of AAHSA.
NCR has the privilege of being a very significant
affordable housing provider for seniors. We have done a
spectrum of programs from the 202 loan program to the 202 PRAC,
to tax credits, to preserving 202s with the tax credits.
We also have a very large health care division in our Ohio
area that allows us a unique perspective on costs and benefits
that allow for all levels of care in housing and health care.
As an example of some of our experience, we do have quite a
few projects in New Jersey. We have 4 202 loan programs. We
have six PRACs. We have an acquisition 202, and we actually fee
manage a project in Brick.
In Wisconsin, we have actually purchased a few projects we
have from both nonprofits and for profits.
I apologize, we have nothing in Nebraska, but we love the
State anyway.
Chairman Menendez. I see you did your homework, though.
Ms. Norris. I commend you all for your efforts on this
bill. This bill is full of technical fixes and policy
initiatives that will bring the 202 program into the 21st
Century. It provides much needed flexibility and innovation to
help the 202 program become more relevant to the aging in place
issues we are facing.
My written testimony describes a lot of these provisions in
detail and why they are so important. So I will not take time
right now to go into those. However, I want to talk a little
bit about the overview of why it is important.
I suspect you have heard the term, the tsunami of aging
that is on its way. In Columbus, Ohio, there was a report
recently, and the headline said: The aging population is going
to cripple our budget. Half of our State budget will go to
Medicaid by 2020.
The article continues to say that Ohio is getting older and
more expensive, and I suspect the same is true for your States.
Never before in our 50-year history of this program has the
202 program been so relevant as it is today. NCR sees all
levels of housing from independent to assisted living, to
higher care. So we are in the unique position to say that
housing like the 202 program, coupled with home-based services,
is cheaper for the Government and provides higher satisfaction
to the residents.
I believe this is a point that has been overlooked in the
health care debate right now. As an example, in Ohio,
affordable housing costs the Government $25 a day. You can add
a dollar a day for a service coordinator. You can $25 for
meals. That still is $50, $55 a day.
If you go to assisted living, it costs $100 a day. If you
go to dementia care, it is $200 a day. If you go to a Medicaid
bed, it is more than that, and Medicare is $450 a day.
So it does not take long to figure out that housing is the
solution. It is the first building block to creating cheaper,
more effective and more compassionate aging in place programs.
That is why this legislation is important. It will make it
easier and more efficient to build and to preserve that very
first building block. It can reduce costs in Medicaid and in
Medicare.
As a really great example, here in Ohio, we were the first
Ohio property to create the Affordable Assisted Living
Conversion Program, and the bill discusses that program and
tries to make it even better. In that program, we were able to
take a HUD 202 building and convert it with a grant so that it
was eligible for an assisted living facility.
Then we worked with our State agency to allow a Medicaid
waiver so that we now have a rental subsidy for the residents
and a service subsidy to provide higher level of care. It is an
amazing opportunity, and this bill will make that not just one
example but multiple people doing it.
The need for affordable supportive senior housing
development and preservation is undeniable and critical. We are
excited that Congress believes these topics warrant future
discussion, and I urge you to move this bill forward, to
increase the efficiency of the program that will help the
residents today and those for the future.
Thank you.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you.
Mr. Halliday.
STATEMENT OF TOBY HALLIDAY, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC POLICY,
NATIONAL HOUSING TRUST
Mr. Halliday. Chairman Menendez, Senator Kohl, Senator
Johanns, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding
this hearing today and for the opportunity to testify in
support of S. 118, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the
Elderly Act of 2009.
My name is Toby Halliday, and I am the Vice President for
Federal Policy for the National Housing Trust. Over the past
decade, the Trust has helped to save and improve more than
22,000 affordable rental apartments in over 40 States.
I also serve as the Chair of the National Preservation
Working Group, which is a coalition of 36 nonprofit
organizations supporting affordable rental housing. The members
of the Preservation Working Group strongly support a balanced
national housing policy that includes decent, affordable rental
housing and support legislation to protect and revitalize
affordable housing for seniors.
As Senator Dodd indicated in his opening statement, the
needs of America's lower income seniors are great, and they are
expected to grow. The population of Americans aged 65 and older
is expected to double between the year 2000 and 2030. Harvard's
Joint Center for Housing Studies recently found that among
seniors who rent 2.5 million, about 53 percent, already pay
more than 30 percent of their income for housing and 1.4
million pay more than 50 percent.
This year, the HUD Section 202 Supportive Housing for the
Elderly Program will celebrate its 50th birthday. Since 1959,
the 202 program has led to the creation of over 400,000
affordable rental apartments for low income seniors around the
Country. This housing serves nearly every community in the
Nation, including nearly 12,000 in New Jersey and 2,400 in
Nebraska, as shown in Attachment A of my testimony.
But many 202 properties are 40 years old or older, in need
of repair and improvements, and are stretched to meet the needs
of their increasingly frail residents. Under the current
Section 202 law, the redevelopment and preservation of existing
properties can be time-consuming and cumbersome. S. 118,
sponsored by Senator Kohl and Senator Schumer, would simplify,
streamline, and modernize procedures to improve and preserve
these properties, encourage broader participation by
developers, lenders, and investors, and create needed
construction jobs.
The Trust strongly endorses the provisions of S. 118 that
would streamline procedures for recapitalization, require
tenant notice and participation, and require that approved
rehabilitation ensure the long-term viability of the property.
We also support the proposal to provide new resources to
protect current and future residents from rent increases needed
to pay for necessary recapitalization.
The bill should clarify that such assistance is to be made
available for all currently unassisted units in the program
when a property is refinanced and rehabilitated. Without such a
provision, properties are at greater risk of conversion and
many units would face unacceptable rent increase for current
residents. In Wisconsin, for example, there are nearly 5,000
unassisted units in older 202 properties that are at risk of
conversion or significant rent increases.
The Trust also supports a provision for existing nonprofit
owners to retain reasonable proceeds from the sale or
refinancing of these properties even when current owners may
lack the desire, especially where current owners may lack the
desire, or capacity to continue long-term stewardship. Although
we share the concern that excessive proceeds to owners can
raise the cost of this housing, we believe a reasonable
incentive is needed to preserve these properties by encouraging
the transfer to new ownership.
The National Housing Trust urges the earliest possible
consideration of this bill, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your leadership in holding this hearing. Thank you.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL JONES, PARENT, BRICK, NEW JERSEY
Mr. Jones. Senator Menendez, I am too sorry about your
loss.
I would like to talk to you as a father of someone with a
psychiatric disability, and I appreciate the invitation to
provide this testimony on behalf of two out of every five
families in the United States who are affected by mental
illness.
Today, I will share some of my son's experiences in
obtaining and living in several different types of supportive
housing.
Michael was first diagnosed when he was 16, with a mental
illness. He was ill a lot longer than that, but one key thing I
learned is that those who contract mental illnesses seem to be
stuck where they are struck, as a saying we use.
The knowledge of when one began to be ill would be helpful
for those trying to provide services or tailor services to
their needs. Another thing I found is that many times those
providing services or providing information or giving
directions, which are not followed by the consumer, do not
really seem to be able to empathize with the person that is
receiving the services, and they label them as noncompliant or
nonresponsive when it may simply be that they have a bad memory
because of their illness.
Michael always wanted to be on his own but had no financial
means or living skills to do that. So, as soon after graduation
from high school as he could, he left to live with a friend,
but that ended up in crisis and him being back into the State
hospital for the second time.
After this hospitalization, he was released to a group home
for chemical abusers as well as being mentally ill. He did
pretty well for a while, but eventually he started trying to
leave that facility. And he finally did, but he left to live
with his girlfriend who was pregnant.
My wife took the couple to apply for Section 8 housing in
May of 2006, and our son was informed after a few months that
he was eligible, but he never heard anything further.
The day treatment program he and his girlfriend attended
referred them to their supportive housing office, and this
office provided them with a listing of several apartment
complexes who had no vacancies at the time.
They were still living with the girlfriend's parent,
mother, when the baby was born in November. However, there was
a fire in their apartment the day before the baby was to come
home, and so they were essentially homeless and went to live
with relatives.
Because the couple, well, the family now was homeless, the
supportive housing office was able to get them into an
apartment in about 2 months. The new family was provided
support to get the lease established, some deposit payments and
transportation to obtain utilities. Their case manager also
picked out furniture for the house and delivered it before they
moved in.
They initially were visited by their case manager several
times a week, but this soon slowed to only periodically.
As you might guess, my son had a very difficult time
adjusting to the routine of daily life and family life, and he
also had no ability to manage his finances. In less than a
year, our son and girlfriend split up. He then briefly came
back home to live with us.
But during this timeframe, the New Jersey Division of
Mental Health Services program called Residential Intensive
Support Teams, RIST, which had developed to primarily provide
intensive supported housing for those leaving the State
hospitals, was expanded in Ocean County to provide housing for
those in the community at risk of being homeless and also
needing more intensive services. Our son was referred and
selected to participate. So he has been pretty lucky.
A major difference between this program and supported
housing is that RIST initially holds the lease and acts as the
representative payee for social security benefits, and it
provides intensive life skill training. This is beneficial
because some clients of the service may need to be hospitalized
periodically or have real problems managing their finances, as
my son does, and spending. This way, the clients do not lose
their homes, and someone is there to help keep their benefits
and affairs straight as possible while they are in the
hospital.
This program does constantly strive to empower consumers to
relocate to less restrictive living arrangements. However, in
the case of my son, his income is SSI and SSDI. That is going
to be a little difficult, I imagine.
He moved into his apartment to live on his own in early
2008, and he started a new day program. RIST provided evening
life skills groups for their clients at the apartment complex
where he particularly lived, and Michael volunteered to help
others to learn from his experience on how to use the public
transportation system.
It did not take him long, however, to make new friends and
start his first loud party. He ran up his electric, cable bills
and telephone bills very quickly, and he had no one to take up
the slack of paying for food and quickly found that food stamps
were not enough. He started selling things he owned, or stole,
to buy food and then drugs.
This past summer, when he was hospitalized again, he got to
the point of deciding that living on his own was not really
appropriate for him yet, and he needed to get into a long-term
drug rehab program and back into the structure of group home.
The hospital case manager found there were no long-term
rehab programs available. So he made the correct decision to go
back to the State hospital for treatment and so that he could
also get into a group home again. He is now back in that
original MICA group home that he was in before.
In his initial attempts, he was not really ready for
supported housing because he never really learned the skills
and habits needed to live independently. His girlfriend, whose
mental illness hit her much later in life, however, has
continued to do very well in supported housing, as do many.
The lesson here is that providers of supported housing must
understand that those with mental illnesses may require much
more than periodic support. Providers may need to provide very
intensive case management to guide and reinforce living skill
development, at least for a year, perhaps longer.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much, Mr. Jones. Thanks
for sharing your story and insights. We appreciate it.
Ms. Crowley.
STATEMENT OF SHEILA CROWLEY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL LOW
INCOME HOUSING COALITION
Ms. Crowley. Chairman Menendez, Senator Kohl, Senator
Johanns, thank you very much for inviting me to testify today.
I am Sheila Crowley. I am the President of the National Low
Income Housing Coalition, and we strongly support both the
Section 202 and 811 programs and the concept of providing
supportive housing for vulnerable people, and we very much
support the 2 bills that are under consideration today.
Each year, the National Low Income Housing Coalition
examines what rental housing costs and what low income people
earn, and then we document the degree to which low income
people really cannot compete in the private rental market. We
do that in every jurisdiction in the Country.
So, for example, Out of Reach 2009 tells that in Hudson
County, New Jersey, where 69 percent of the residents are
renters, in order to be able to afford a modest 2-bedroom
apartment, the household has to earn $42,760 a year.
There is no place in the Country where somebody whose
annual income is the equivalent of the full-time minimum wage
can afford the rent on even a one-bedroom apartment, using the
standard of spending no more than 30 percent of household
income on their homes.
So, if low wage workers have a tough time affording the
most basic home, elderly and disabled people, especially those
who depend on SSI for their income, have it much worse. The
fair market rent in Hudson County, New Jersey, for an
efficiency, for example, is $889 a month. Yet, 30 percent of
monthly SSI income in New Jersey is $212.
In Nebraska, the 30 percent of SSI income is $202 a month.
The FMR, fair market rent, on an efficiency in Omaha is $534 a
month. You can see there is just a significant gap.
At the end of 2008, there were 6.3 million adults receiving
SSI in the United States, 4.3 million were blind or disabled
adults between 18 and 64, 1.2 million were adults 65 years of
age or older, and then there were another 830,000 who were
blind and disabled and were 65 years of age or older.
SSI recipients are among the very poorest people in our
Country, and, in the absence of housing assistance in any form
or some form, they cannot afford to live in any community. So
these are precisely the people who the 202 and 811 programs can
best serve.
There are approximately 300,000 units of 202 housing now,
with just a third having the rent assistance that makes them
affordable to the lowest income people. We have approximately
30,000 units of Section 811 housing, another 14,000 Section 811
vouchers. Many SSI recipients receive other forms of Federal
Housing Assistance through public housing, project-based
Section 8 and vouchers, et cetera. But, nonetheless, demand far
exceeds the supply.
A significant number of low income elderly people have
serious housing cost burdens: There are 26.6 million households
in the United States with 1 or more members who are 65 years of
age or older; 16 percent of senior households are extremely low
income, and 74 percent of these households pay more than 30
percent of their income for their housing; 51 percent or 2.1
million households, which is the key number here, of extremely
low income senior households pay more than half of their income
for their housing.
So when a poor elderly person has to spend more than half
of her income, it means she scrimps on food, on medicine, on
heat and other basic needs. These are the elderly people most
at risk of becoming homeless, and living hand to mouth that way
hastens the day when an elderly person can no longer live on
her own and will require more expensive institutional care.
I want to echo the comments of Michelle Norris, that
affordable housing policy is health care policy, and we have to
think of those two together.
Enactment of S. 1481 and S. 118 are important steps for
Congress to take up as soon as possible.
We also urge the Committee to look at policies for the
preservation of the rest of the affordable housing stock.
We also would urge you to look at the Section 8 Voucher
Reform Act that will modernize the voucher program. With the
promises that come with several, we will see a much more
efficient and effective use of the voucher program.
Finally, we ask the Committee to move quickly on funding
for the National Housing Trust Fund. At least 75 percent of the
National Housing Trust Fund units must be affordable to
extremely low income people. We envision that many of those
units will be available to seniors and people with
disabilities.
I would like to just make a quick note on the National
Housing Trust Fund in recognition of Frank Melville as well.
The Melville Charitable Trust has supported the campaign to
establish the National Housing Trust Fund for many, many years,
and without their support enactment of that bill last year
would not have been possible. It would be a great honor of
Frank Melville if we were to get the program funded and moving
this year.
Congress has done a lot already this year on low income
housing policy, and we would see this as the first year of the
111th Congress to be quite historic if we could build on the
existing accomplishments by getting these two bills passed,
getting SEVRA passed and getting the trust fund under way.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony. You have made the best
use of it. Not only have you focused on the subject of the
hearing, but you have included a few other advocacies as well.
So we appreciate it.
Since there are only three of us, I think we will do some
7-minute rounds, make sure we can get all of our questions in,
and then we will go from there. I will start off on the
questions.
I want to ask the panel, our bill to reform 811 combines
other sources of financing with Section 811 funds to build
homes for people with disabilities. What do you think that will
do in terms of changing or affecting the rate at which we can
build such homes?
Ms. O'Hara.
Ms. O'Hara. With the existing 811 appropriations, Senator,
we could quadruple the number of units produced, just in the
811 program, in the first year that the program is operational.
So we could go from 1,000 units or less--this year, we actually
only funded 930--to as many as 4,000 in the first year. It is a
substantial increase without an increase in any funding.
Chairman Menendez. Just for the purposes of the record,
why?
Ms. O'Hara. It is actually pretty simple, but I do not know
why we did not think of it a long time ago.
Chairman Menendez. I know the answer, but I want you to
give it to me.
Ms. O'Hara. We produce hundreds of thousands of units of
rental housing every year that is affordable to people at 50 or
60 percent of area median income, through the tax credit and
home program. So what the demonstration program does in 811 is
simply start from that point and say, what does it cost to take
a unit that is already produced at 50 percent of median income
and make it affordable to someone on SSI, the average income
there being 18 percent of median?
What has happened, for example, in North Carolina is that
they have found that that cost of reducing that rent in a new
unit, integrated in an affordable housing development, is less
than $300 a unit a month. Now that would not necessarily be the
cost in New York City, for example, where the cost would be
somewhat higher. But I think the point is that the cost of the
unit under the demonstration is much less than the cost of, for
example, issuing a voucher.
Then we are not putting any capital into that unit at all,
under 811, because the capital is already being paid for with
tax credits, home funds. The new National Housing Trust Fund is
a perfect vehicle for this program as well.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you.
What benefits would the Project Rental Assistance Contract
Demonstration Program created by the Section 811 Reform Bill
have for people with disabilities? Anybody have a view on that?
Ms. Crowley? Ms. O'Hara?
Ms. Crowley. Well, I think that one of the intentions is to
offer people with disabilities a wider range of choices of
places to live and to have the opportunity to live in more
integrated settings.
As Mr. Jones described, the needs of people with
disabilities, they are certainly not monolithic. There is a
great range of abilities. There is a great range of different
kinds of services that people require.
If we limit ourselves to certain models and then try to get
all disabled people to fit into our model, we will not succeed.
So this offers alternative models that will be able to fit the
wide range of people who are looking for housing.
Chairman Menendez. Any other observations, Ms. O'Hara.
Ms. O'Hara. I think that we have in 29 States right now
grants called Money Follows the Person, which are designed to
help people move out of restrictive settings such as nursing
homes. One of the major barriers to people doing that, aside
from the affordability, is also that people need accessible
housing. They need housing with special features.
Those units are produced every year in the tax credit
program, but they rarely go to people who actually have
mobility impairments or other special needs because the rents
are too high. So, by taking the PRAC and applying it to those
accessible units, we will see people who really need a unit
with an accessible bathroom, an accessible kitchen, a visitable
entrance. They will have much more access to those units that
we are already producing but that we are not getting to the
right people.
Chairman Menendez. Let me ask you, with reference to the
supportive services--and Mr. Jones's testimony I think was very
elucidating on some of the challenges--how can we better
integrate the social services that are so badly needed into the
existing program so that parents of adult children with some
form of disability or children of elderly parents can breathe a
little easier? What are we looking at?
Maybe there are models out there that are successful, if
anyone wants to share any of those.
Ms. O'Hara. Well, I could start by talking again about the
bill. One of the things that happens now with the 811 program
is that it is a very locally driven process, where a nonprofit
gets the funds to build the housing, and there is very little
connection to State policy in terms of who is going to live in
those units.
What the demonstration program does is connect the people
who have the highest needs based on the States' Medicaid and
mental health policies and requires that in order to get that
funding the State must commit to making sure that those
services are available.
So I think by offering a model like that, we are basically
creating a new mechanism, a better mechanism, to hold a State
mental health system, a State developmental disability system,
accountable for following those people on a permanent basis
rather than just until they think that they are doing well in
housing and then do not need the help anymore.
Chairman Menendez. Mr. Halliday, did you want to? I am
sorry, I thought I saw a your hand.
Anyone else? Yes, Ms. Crowley.
Ms. Crowley. Well, I think that there is a lot of talk
about services in housing programs, and there is a great range
in the depth and the quality of those programs.
My own experience working at the community level is that
the folks with the most serious problems need the most skilled
service workers, the most skilled clinicians to assist them
during that. Often, it is the case they end up with some of the
least skilled people who are working with the very poorest
folks. So part of what will make sure that those programs work
as best as they can is the resources are there to be able to
hire highly trained, experienced people to provide those
services.
You cannot do it on the cheap. So the more we can figure
out how to integrate funding that will support that, the better
those services will be.
Chairman Menendez. Well, I hope the demonstration project,
as you suggest, Ms. O'Hara, drives, incentivizes the State and
also creates accountability from the State as well.
Well, thank you all.
With that, Senator Johanns.
Senator Johanns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you
very much for putting together this very important hearing.
In just listening to the witnesses, there are so many good
things I hope that can come out of this hearing, and I thank
you all for being here.
Let me, if I might, explore a little bit of a different
angle that I would like just some information on. I think, Ms.
Crowley, you might be the best person to start with, but if
there is anyone else that has knowledge in this area, jump
right in.
You talked about how our SSI recipients are some of the
poorest people in our Nation, and I do not disagree with that a
bit. What about the SSI program? Is there something about the
SSI program, maybe is a better way of asking it, that literally
causes people to be forever locked into that position?
For example, if a recipient of SSI were on the program,
could a family member financially help them? Could they help
with rent or whatever? Are there income limits?
I am not an expert here. Walk me through some of the
challenges you face on SSI.
Ms. Crowley. Well, I will do my best. It has been many
years since I actively worked with people on SSI, and some
folks may have a little bit more details, but in general, SSI
is an income program. It is an income maintenance program for
the people who have no other resources whatsoever. So the folks
who are--the elderly people who are on SSI are people who never
had covered employment under Social Security and so either they
never worked or their work was so minimal that they don't get
the entire Social Security benefit or any Social Security
benefit. So that is for the elderly portion.
For the people with disabilities who get SSI, they are
people who have very severe disabilities. It is not easy to get
SSI. My experience is that the SSI application process takes a
long time. Almost everybody I ever worked with, you had to
appeal it more than once in order to get that through. So there
has to be a finding of very serious disability that inhibits
your ability to earn income, i.e., that inhibits your ability
to work.
Because it is a means tested program, there are very--any
income that you get, that income--there is a little bit of a
disregard, I think it is a $65 disregard, but then if you earn
income, your benefits are reduced by the same amount. There
is--and actually, I don't know what the current rules are
around what your parents can do to assist you, but it is not
much. Maybe Michelle can answer that.
Senator Johanns. Michelle, do you----
Ms. Norris. Well, first of all, I just--one of the things I
was kind of struck by is this discussion we keep having about
the 811 and the 202 program. One of the realities is that as we
talk about the aging population is the number of disabled aging
that will also be coming into our future.
Ms. Crowley. That is right.
Ms. Norris. They will also double, as well. They are
projected to double. So we are going to be looking at a lot of
folks who are coming in through the SSI program going into
elderly disabled. So this whole issue really is a blended thing
that we should be looking at in collaboration.
Ability to get help from family members is allowed, but
there are certain rules, and I am not sure we have really gone
through and digested all the technical things on that. You
probably know a lot more than we do on that, so I will defer to
you on some of the technical craziness that I am sure is out
there.
But in the end, there is also the reality that as these
folks become the elder disabled, they may not have necessarily
somebody local. A lot of times, we are finding the parents are
behind, especially in Ohio, and their kids have gone off to
more exciting places like California, Nebraska, perhaps.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Menendez. I would put Nebraska right at the top of
that list, but that is a bias on my part.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Norris. But it is possible to help, but what we find is
it is not that those families necessarily have a lot of
resources of their own to help in augmenting what they need.
Senator Johanns. Mr. Jones, do you have experience here?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, I do. Medicaid is predicated on
getting SSI, at least in New Jersey, and it is a $2,000 limit
on any amount of money you can have at one time unless you are
trying to purchase a car or something like that. Families can
provide goods or services, but not money, because that adds to
the means.
In New Jersey, we have a workability program set up so that
as you work and you pay down your SSI, you are still able to
keep your Medicaid by paying your insurance. Thirty dollars, I
think, is the maximum that you will ever have to pay. I don't
think anybody has had to pay that yet. But you are allowed to
work and make up to about $62,000 a year now and keep Medicaid
for your insurance. That is the big thing. That is a good part
of it.
Senator Johanns. The reason I asked this line of
questioning, Mr. Chairman, I am kind of looking ahead here. I
think this makes so much sense that ultimately, we can get this
done, the purpose of the hearing today. But as I was working on
mental health reform as the Governor, and as I worked with
consumers and they would talk me through what they were going
through with SSI or disability or whatever, I must admit, it
just seemed hopelessly complex. I don't know how anybody could
get through the system. And you are right. They would tell me
all the time, oh, you always get turned down the first go at
it. You have got to be persistent to get SSI.
But I am wondering if there is a point at which where we
dive deep and ask ourselves, is this system serving disabled
citizens the way it should, and I am going to guess that we
will find a dozen other ways of improving this system in some
ways where we don't add to the cost, where maybe there is a son
or daughter who has the ability to help but literally is
limited by the rules, or maybe there is a parent who wants to
help, but again is limited by the rules.
Therefore, instead of this family living in, or this person
living in such terrible poverty, really, because you almost
have to with SSI, is there something that we can do to improve
that situation? Now, that is not going to work for everybody, I
appreciate that, but I think it is worth a look.
I mean, look at how much is going to happen here, and it is
not because we are doubling or tripling the budget. We are just
doing it better. I guess what I would like to think about, Mr.
Chairman, is there a way to look at some of these arcane rules
I think that are out there and is that a next step for us?
Thank you.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you very much. Good point.
Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Crowley, what are the main challenges facing the
Section 202 program as you see its existence today?
Ms. Crowley. I think that the program has been around for
some time and so many of the units are aging and need attention
in terms of rehabilitation and those kinds of things so that
they can be kept in good shape and be able to be used for the
next generation. So a major challenge is the preservation of
the existing units and this bill does a great deal to help with
that.
The bill also will streamline the process so that it may be
easier to develop new units so that we can get more done with
the money that we have.
And the thing that is critical to look at is how to help
people who are living in the housing remain in that housing and
be able to live out their lives in a graceful and dignified
manner and avoid the expense and the indignity of
institutionalization. And so adding the ability to expand
service coordination or incentivizing service coordination,
having service workers who are there, I think is an important
step, although I would repeat that it is absolutely critical
that those be people with the level of skill needed to address
the concerns of the clients that they have.
Senator Kohl. How do you see S. 118 addressing some of
these problems?
Ms. Crowley. I am going to let my buddy next to me, Toby,
answer that question, and only because I know that he can
answer it better than I can because he is the developer, and
that will be a better----
Senator Kohl. Good. Go ahead, Toby.
Mr. Halliday. Thank you. Well, as Sheila mentioned, I think
the biggest challenges here are not just the way the program
works from day to day, but there are many aging buildings.
There are many aging residents of these buildings. Some of them
moved in the day the buildings opened, 20, 30, 40 years ago.
And there are aging owners, as well. Many of these nonprofit
organizations that own these buildings were very committed and
good at what they did when they got into this operation 20, 30,
40 years ago, but the standards of property management have
changed, best practices have changed. And, of course, the
boards of these organizations have changed. The staff has
changed. So not all of them are able to maintain the property
in the condition that they themselves would like to.
So some of the things that we are most excited about in S.
118 are easing the ability to transfer some of these
properties, easing the ability to refinance some of these
properties and make badly needed improvements, not just to
bring them up to date, keep them up to code, but to meet the
changing needs of an elderly population that is itself aging in
place and bring in new rental assistance.
As I mentioned, in Wisconsin alone, there are nearly 5,000
of these units that were built during a previous incarnation of
the 202 program, where there was no rental assistance to the
units when they were originally created: a large number in
Wisconsin, but a huge number around the country of these units
where either the current residents will face significant cost
increases, and many of these residents obviously are not in a
situation where they can absorb that. Or, the cost to make
these is essential to make these improvements will cause the
conversion of these properties to some other use, which would
be equally terrible for not just current residents but future
residents.
So those are some of the things that we see as particularly
helpful in S. 118.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Ms. Norris, just to go on with this line of questions, what
is the current need in Section 202 for supportive services and
how would S. 118 help provide supportive services for seniors?
Ms. Norris. Well, gosh, I so much want to finish the rest
of that question. I am so sorry you asked me this one. Can I
put a plug in for the other one, though?
Senator Kohl. Sure.
Ms. Norris. The preservation, absolutely. There is--in the
bill, I would say every issue that I say is one of these
technical fixes, I have experience with our own organization
buying or preserving or assuming somebody else's building that
has been problematic and these fixes would have helped every
one of those. So I can actually tell you, because we have
preserved over 5,000 units in the last 5 years, that it really
does--it will make a difference. So I do really agree with that
part of the preservation piece of this bill.
The supportive services side, HUD does have a great
program, and I will refer to Jan Monks here, who is one of the
leaders of a group called American Association for Service
Coordinators, AASC, right, which is a service coordinator
program that HUD has put in place and funded for years. It is a
terrific program, a great first building block on housing to
try to bring in services, coordinate services.
This bill will also take and go one step further, which is
with this assisted living conversion program, they are going to
try to allow--it will allow us to not have a licensed building.
In other words, you would be able to bring in--and instead of
having to go through all the capital costs to convert something
to a licensed building and all the extra operating costs to
have 24/7 nurse aid, et cetera, it basically enhances the
service delivery so you can tag in with what the States are
trying to do. The States are already driving a lot of
innovative ideas because they are the ones that are really
getting forced into this because they can't afford the service
programs anymore on Medicaid and Medicare.
So this allows some of those flexibilities that will allow
you to actually take the energy that the States are doing and
make it work in these buildings that they can't get it to work
in right now.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Menendez. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
I just have one or two final questions, and you know, along
the lines of what Senator Kohl was asking, it is obvious that
it is, in a sense, cheaper to preserve housing that we have
than to try to build new, although we want to build new ones.
So the question is, is there something beyond what we do in
both of these bills in the Section 811 and 202 that would
enhance that? Is there anything we have missed here?
I mean, I have heard some of you talk about the National
Trust Fund and others. I understand that. But specifically, is
there anything that we have missed that would enhance the
possibility of preserving further existing housing for either
seniors or disabled along the way that we should be thinking
about, being certainly open? Mr. Halliday.
Mr. Halliday. Well, let me just start by saying that there
are a number of things that this Committee can do and some of
the bills that some of the members of the panel have been
advocating for have been mentioned earlier. But I would say
that the existing project-based Section 8 program, the majority
of people who live in those units are, of course, elderly and
disabled. So strengthening the entire affordable housing
program for low-income residents will help seniors, will help
disabled residents, and we have been working closely with
Senator Schumer, Senator Dodd, other Members, to try to move a
bill that would enhance the ability of nonprofits and other
mission-oriented organizations to preserve the whole range of
assisted--of rental assisted properties, and also working with
Chairman Frank on the House side. So we would urge this
Committee's consideration of that legislation. So that would be
one part of a more comprehensive solution.
Chairman Menendez. Anybody else?
Ms. O'Hara. Senator, this is a problem that we are just
beginning to learn about, so what I know is anecdotal. But back
in the early 1990s, when we started building 811s, we built
quite large facilities in some parts of the country. I had a
call the other day from someone in California who has a
facility that is 20 units, and the State of California is now
implementing policies where they want to see more community
integration and less concentration of people and so there is a
real catch-22 there around whether this 20-unit facility is
actually going to be viable if the State changes its policies
and doesn't want to see 20 people with the same disability
placed in this facility.
So I think we do need to look--we need perhaps to study
some of these older 811 properties that may actually be, I call
them white elephants, because they are very facility-oriented.
They are very facility-based. Given the move to community
integration, we may have a problem on our hands 5 or 10 years
from now in having some properties that are not consistent with
community integration policies.
Chairman Menendez. Let me ask you one other question. With
reference to the approach we take in the 811 reform bill, where
we-keeping the funding with housing for people with serious
disabilities versus diverting it to vouchers that may not be
for people with serious disabilities, is that something that
you view as the right policy?
Ms. O'Hara. We strongly support using vouchers for people
with disabilities. Some housing authorities around the country
are doing an extraordinary job using their Housing Choice
voucher programs to meet the needs of people with pretty
serious disabilities, particularly people with mental
illnesses, and we have to applaud that.
I think where we have a problem is that not all housing
authorities see that as their mission. So the voucher program
is definitely a solution. It is not necessarily a solution for
supportive housing in every community the way 811 might be, but
I think we need to keep--we are not going to solve this problem
by just using 811 resources. We are going to have to tap into
vouchers and we are going to have to look at how housing
authorities are deploying their resources.
I just learned in a meeting yesterday that a housing
authority in Maryland, that I won't name, only 5 percent of
their tenants who are on the voucher program are on SSI, just 5
percent, and we know that the need proportionately is much
greater than that. So I think we need to do a better job of
opening up the voucher program as well as improving the Section
811 program.
Chairman Menendez. Finally, is there anyone with any
suggestions how we can simplify HUD's 450 pages of Section 811
guidance rules and regulations? There has got to be a better
way.
Ms. Crowley. I can't answer that, but I am very confident
that the team at HUD that we have there now, if they can do it,
they will, because it is a really exceptional group of people
who are running the agency these days.
Chairman Menendez. I don't disagree with you. Sometimes,
however, even institutional change, even with a new culture,
takes time. Four-hundred-and-fifty pages is just beyond my
comprehension of how we move and what we need in the days
ahead.
Well, thank you all for your testimony. It has been very
helpful in developing where we want to go from here.
The record will remain open for two additional days for any
Members who have any questions that they may want to ask and
did not have the opportunity to come to the hearing to do so.
If you receive questions, we would ask you to answer them as
expeditiously as possible.
On behalf of all of us, thank you very much for your
testimony.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER MURPHY FROM THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the
Subcommittee, it's my pleasure to be before you today to speak to an
issue of tremendous importance to elderly and disabled Americans.
As the main House proponent of legislation to reauthorize HUD's
Section 811 program, it is a pleasure to be here to add my voice to why
action to modernize the program is so greatly needed. At the outset,
let me thank Chairman Menendez for his efforts here in the Senate. I
believe the legislation that we have both introduced to revitalize this
important program will result in the production of hundreds of
thousands more units of permanent supportive housing across the Nation
and will ensure that America's very low-income disabled population will
have safe and affordable places to live.
As the experts on the next panel will tell you, HUD's 811 program
is not currently doing enough to meet the enormous demand. There are
approximately 1.3 million nonelderly disabled households with what HUD
defines as ``worst case needs''--meaning they are very low income, pay
more than 50 percent of their income in rent and they live in
substandard housing. While the need is obviously great, only a trickle
of affordable units come on line each year and as we heard in testimony
before the House Financial Services Committee, even a small supportive
housing project can take up to 8 years to complete.
By all accounts, the program is overly bureaucratic and has not
been adapted to compliment the good, innovative work of hundreds of
organizations across the country that are trying desperately to provide
quality, permanent supportive housing to combat the unrelenting housing
crisis faced by millions of extremely low-income individuals with
disabilities.
My home State of Connecticut offers a good example of how
improvements to the program will complement the work already being done
by State Governments and housing advocacy organizations. In Connecticut
these partnerships have led to a commitment to create 10,000 units of
permanent supportive housing over the next 10 years. By using the Low
Income Housing Tax Credit with a State provided set-aside for rental
assistance, we have been able to secure permanent supportive housing
for disabled, severely low-income Connecticut residents. This same
financing mechanism has been used in States like North Carolina and
Louisiana to tremendous results.
This approach, a public-private partnership leveraging existing tax
credits for expanded use, is included, on a national scale, in both the
Chairman's legislation, S. 1481, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing
Investment Act, and my legislation, H.R. 1675 which passed the House in
July.
This approach, Mr. Chairman, of public-private partnerships, will
derive more units of permanent supportive housing using the same
funding we use today--more bang for our buck. Currently, the average
capital cost of an 811 project is about $100,000 per unit plus a
monthly rental payment equal to about $6,000 a year. Under our
legislation, the capital investment is wiped out because the units are
being built through existing credits and programs and because they are
already affordable units, the rent subsidy will be less than the $6,000
a year average.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we fund this change by using the funds
currently set aside for 811 Mainstream Vouchers. HUD has done a less
than adequate job in ensuring these vouchers are used to support people
with disabilities--they don't monitor or track them--and while there is
a great need for Mainstream Vouchers generally, these funds would be
better used to ensure that 811 eligible individuals have access to
permanent supportive housing.
Beyond this change, Mr. Chairman, the legislation also allows
States and State housing agencies to do much of the bureaucratic
paperwork involved in these applications, which will greatly expedite
the applications process. These are but a few, I believe, of the
refinements outlined in the two bills that will make the 811 program
more efficient and less bureaucratic using Federal dollars in a way
that produces truly produces permanent supportive housing.
Mr. Chairman, I know you will hear from the next panel, what we
heard across the Capital last year and earlier this year. The Section
811 program is worth preserving but must be reformed if we hope to meet
its overwhelming demand.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for your generous allotment of time and I am
happy to any questions your or the other Members of the Committee may
have.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANN O'HARA
Housing Advisor, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task
Force
October 29, 2009
Introduction
My name is Ann O'Hara and I am the Associate Director of the
Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC), a national nonprofit
organization whose mission is to advance evidenced based and promising
policies and practices in affordable housing and community based
supportive services for people with the most significant and long-term
disabilities. On behalf of TAC and the Consortium for Citizens with
Disabilities (CCD), I am pleased to provide testimony on S. 1481--the
Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2009--which will
enact important new policies and reforms to U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons
with Disabilities program (Section 811).
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) is a coalition
of national disability organizations working together to advocate for
national public policy that ensures the self determination,
independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and
adults with disabilities in all aspects of society. The CCD has
established a Housing Task Force to focus on the housing needs of
people with disabilities, including those with very low incomes--the
group with the highest incidence of ``worst case'' housing needs in the
United States. Among the organizations in the CCD Housing Task Force
are the National Alliance on Mental Illness, The Arc of the United
States, United Cerebral Palsy, Lutheran Services in America, the
American Network of Community Options and Resources (ANCOR), the
National Disability Rights Network, The Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law, United Spinal Association, United Jewish Communities, and
the American Association of People with Disabilities.
TAC and the CCD Housing Task Force would like to thank the
Subcommittee for your leadership on critical affordable housing issues
over the past year, including legislation that protects renters in
foreclosure, the new Homeless Prevention Rapid Re-Housing Program
included in ARRA, and the HEARTH Act. In addition to S. 1481, we urge
the Congress to provide $1 billion in funding for the National Housing
Trust Fund as proposed by Senator Reed in S 1731, and recommend passage
of the Section 8 Reform Act (SEVRA). Both these programs are also
vitally important to people with disabilities with very low incomes.
Section 811 Reforms Essential
The Section 811 program is the only HUD program solely dedicated to
creating permanent, affordable, and accessible housing linked with
voluntary community-based services and supports that people with most
significant and long term disabilities want and need in order to live
as independently as possible in the community. The CCD Housing Task
Force strongly supports S. 1481--legislation that is essential to
revitalize and improve the Section 811 program. This innovative
legislation can expand the creation of new Section 811 units by 300-400
percent per year without any increase in Section 811 appropriations.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that Section 811 has historically
been an important Federal resource to help people with disabilities
achieve the goal of community integration, the program has many
problems and now produces less than 1,000 new units each year. The
program is inefficient, plagued with bureaucratic ``red tape,'' and
rarely leverages financing from other Federal and State affordable
housing programs. Most importantly, the housing produced by Section 811
during recent years often does not reflect the housing needs and
housing preferences of many people with disabilities. This
legislation--which will inaugurate a new era in the Section 811
program--is extremely important for the disability community because
its enactment will signal a renewed Federal commitment to address the
enormous and unrelenting housing crisis faced by millions of extremely
low income people with disabilities. This crisis is documented in the
TAC/CCD Housing Task Force biannual Priced Out study, which compares
HUD Fair Market Rents for modest rental housing to the income of
nonelderly adults with disabilities who rely on Federal Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) for all their basic needs.
Disability Income and Housing Affordability
Priced Out in 2008 \1\ documents that the national average income
of an individual receiving SSI was only $668 per month ($8,016 per
year)--equal to only 18 percent of Median Income for a single person
household. The average monthly one-bedroom HUD Fair Market rent in 2008
was $749--which is 112 percent of the entire monthly income of a single
individual receiving SSI. HUD's studio/efficient unit Fair Market rent
in 2008 was $663--only $5 less than an individual's SSI payment. In
2008, one bedroom Fair Market Rents ranged from a high of 198 percent
of SSI in Hawaii to 70 percent of SSI in North Dakota--the most
affordable State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Priced Out in 2008. Technical Assistance Collaborative Inc.
and Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force. April
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 4.2 million nonelderly adults relied on Federal SSI in 2008.
Unfortunately, recent HUD Worst Case Needs reports to Congress--which
assesses the needs of very low income renters--used a flawed
methodology which undercounted the needs of people with disabilities.
\2\ TAC/CCD responded by doing its own study authored by Katherine
Nelson, a highly respected former HUD researcher who developed HUD's
Worst Case needs reports until 2003. Our study \3\ found that between
1.3 and 1.4 million very low income nonelderly disabled households
without children were paying more than 50 percent of their income
towards housing costs. \4\ These simple statistics begin to illustrate
the housing crisis which confronts people with disabilities in every
State in the Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ HUD Policy Development and Research officials concur that
their methodology understates the housing needs of people with
disabilities.
\3\ The Hidden Housing Crisis: Worst Case Housing Needs of People
With Disabilities.
\4\ The CCD study used data from two sources in its study. The
first source, the Annual Housing Survey (AHS) is the data source which
HUD has used for many years to estimate Worst Case needs. The CCD study
also took advantage of more accurate and detailed data now available
from the American Community Survey. HUD has not yet taken advantage of
the American Community Survey data to produce Worst Case estimates. As
a result, HUD did not accept the CCD study's estimates. However, HUD
did agree that their initial estimates regarding people with
disabilities were flawed. HUD recently released a new--and much higher
estimate--on their Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Permanent Supportive Housing Needs
Unfortunately, this crisis is further illuminated through data on
the number of people with disabilities living in restrictive settings
including public institutions, nursing homes, and segregated Adult Care
facilities as well as adults with disabilities who remain at home with
aging parents. Because these individuals are not considered renters
they are typically not counted in any Federal estimates of Worst Case
housing needs. They do, however, provide the most compelling evidence
of the critical need for a robust and reinvigorated Section 811
program:
In 2007, there were 412,324 nonelderly disabled adults
between the ages of 31-64 residing in Medicaid-funded
institutions. An additional 16,000 were age 30 or under; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Nursing Home Data Compendium complied in 2008 for the Center
for Medicare and Medicaid Services by Thompson/Medstat.
As the outcome of recent Olmstead litigation, the State of
New Jersey is required to 1,065 new units of permanent
supportive housing in the community during the next 5 years for
people with mental illness who are institutionalized or at-risk
of institutionalization. New Jersey also has 2,300 individuals
with developmental disabilities living in State facilities
waiting to move into the community; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Arc of New Jersey and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health
Law.
The State of Illinois has an estimated 12,000 people with
mental illness currently living in expensive nursing home beds
primarily because there is no permanent supportive housing
available in the community; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Study: Supportive Housing Saves Illinois Tax Dollars by Carla
Johnson, Associated Press.
The State of North Carolina has more than 5,000 adults with
disabilities living in restrictive Adult Care Homes rather than
in integrated supportive housing in the community; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Unpublished Study of North Carolina's Adult Care Homes.
In August of 2009, a Federal judge in New York ruled that
4,300 adults with serious mental illness in New York City were
living unnecessarily in expensive and segregated Adult Care
Homes that were even more restrictive and institutional than
psychiatric hospitals; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
The City and County of San Francisco are under a court
order to create 500 new units of permanent supportive housing
to replace the ``beds'' in the Government-owned Laguna Honda
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nursing home;
The State of Alabama currently spends more than $900
million on high cost institutional long-term care (71 percent
of its total long-term care expenditures), which could be
significantly reduced if more permanent supportive housing
units were created.
In 2004, there were 711,000 people with intellectual or
developmental disabilities living with aging parents/caregivers
(one of whom is over 65). \10\ This data included 22,734
individuals in New Jersey and 10,110 people in Louisiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities--2005.
David Braddock, Richard Hemp and Mary C. Rizzolo, et al. Coleman
Institute for Cognitive Disabilities, University of Colorado.
Ten years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark
Olmstead decision affirming the civil rights of persons with the most
serious and long-term disabilities to live in the most integrated
setting possible that meets their needs. Across the United States
today, people with disabilities and their families and advocates, as
well as State human services agencies, and community-based service
providers are struggling--unsuccessfully--to create the permanent
supportive housing envisioned by the Olmstead decision. The sole
purpose of the Section 811 program is to create this kind of housing--
deeply affordable and accessible permanent rental housing linked with
community-based services and supports that people with disabilities
want. It is the only Federal program authorized to achieve this
critically important Federal housing policy objective. That is why
there is such an urgent need to enact S. 1481.
Section 811 Is Cost Effective
Permanent supportive housing created through Section 811 is
extremely cost effective. It has been well documented in numerous
studies that people living in permanent supportive housing cost the
Government less than institutional care or other inappropriate
settings. For example:
A recent study published in the Journal of Health and
Social Policy found that the average total public expenditure
for a person with a significant and long term disability
receiving Medicaid Home and Community Based Services waiver
services (who must meet the eligibility criteria for
institutionalization) was about $44,000 less per year than for
a person receiving institutional services; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ M. Kitchener, et al., ``Institutional and Community-Based
Long-Term Care: A Comparative Estimate of Public Costs'' Journal of
Health and Social Policy, 22, no. 2 (2006): 31-50.
A 2009 cost study of 96 people with serious and persistent
mental illness living in various Section 811-properties in
Columbus Ohio found that the cost of providing mental health
services to individuals living in Section 811 housing was 40
percent less than the cost of services \12\ for those same
individuals during the year just prior to moving in ($13,942
one year prior to Section 811 housing vs. $8,039 during the
first year living in Section 811 housing). These costs--and
cost savings--were virtually identical to savings achieved for
157 homeless individuals with mental illness in Columbus who
received housing through the HUD McKinney-Vento Shelter Plus
Care program; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Mental health services, alcohol and drug services and the
costs of in-patient hospitalization.
\13\ Susan Weaver, Executive Director, Community Housing Network,
Columbus, Ohio.
A cost study of people with severe mobility impairments who
moved from a nursing home to a new Section 811 project in
Allentown, PA, in 2004 found that the cost of Medicaid services
per individual was reduced from $70,000 to only $28,000 per
year. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Center for Outcome Analysis, 2004.
A recent supportive housing study in Illinois published by
the Associated Press found that supportive housing provided
through programs such as Section 811 saved Illinois taxpayers
nearly $2,500 for each resident served. This study included 10
nonelderly adults with mental illness who lived in nursing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
homes as well as people with mental illness who were homeless.
Current Federal, State, and local efforts to achieve the promise of
community integration envisioned in the Americans with Disabilities Act
are stalled because of the critical shortage of affordable and
accessible supportive housing. Important Medicaid reforms to expand
self-directed services, promote rehabilitation and recovery for people
with disabilities, and control facility-based Medicaid long-term care
costs (almost $60 billion for institutional care in 2007) \15\ cannot
succeed unless programs such as Section 811 are revitalized and
reformed to respond to this important Federal and State policy
priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Source: CMS 64 data, Center for Medicaid and State
Operations, Division of Financial Operations, September 26, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of S. 1481
S. 1481 will ``fast-track'' and create a sustainable ``pipeline''
of thousands of new permanent supportive housing units every year
through the following new Section 811 policies:
1. Authorizing a new and innovative Section 811 Project Rental
Assistance Contract (PRAC) Demonstration Program
This policy is designed to include integrated supportive housing
units within rental housing complexes financed with Federal Low Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), HOME, or other capital programs. Successful
models of this approach have been implemented in the States of North
Carolina (more than 2,000 units created) and Louisiana (more than 700
units committed). Through this integrated development model, the
typical property has between 5-10 percent of the units set-aside as
permanent supportive housing. These results can be replicated
nationally through a new Section 811 PRAC Demonstration program which
will provide the essential rental subsidy needed to reduce rents to
SSI-affordability levels for a small percentage (up to 25 percent of
the total) of units in new or rehabilitated affordable rental housing
developments. Several other States have already expressed serious
interest in this innovative and integrated model. This policy will help
ensure that a significant percentage of the hundreds of thousands units
routinely created every year through the LIHTC and HOME programs are
dedicated to providing supportive housing for people most in need of
housing assistance. S. 1481 provides that PRAC Demonstration funding be
linked with Medicaid and other State supportive services policies/
funding streams to ensure the availability of supportive services for
Section 811 tenants.
2. Reforming the existing Section 811 Capital Advance/PRAC program
These reforms will help leverage other capital funding for Section
811 production and reduce barriers to ``mixed-finance'' Section 811
projects created through mission-driven nonprofit developers. These
reforms will also increase the number of units created each year
through the current 811 production program and will help nonprofit
Section 811 sponsors to create integrated housing properties that
include units for people with disabilities as well as units for other
households that need affordable housing. For example, nonprofit
organizations creating new affordable rental housing developments would
be able to use Section 811 Capital and PRAC funding to create a set-
aside of supportive housing units in a property financed with HOME or
National Housing Trust Fund resources.
3. Shifting fiscal responsibility for the Section 811-funded Mainstream
Housing Choice Voucher program to the Section 8 budget
The Mainstream Voucher program converts precious Section 811
appropriation funding into Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher funding
which HUD provides primarily to Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). These
811 funds pay for approximately 14,000 Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers that may--or may not--be assisting people with disabilities.
This ill-conceived approach initiated by HUD in 1997 has been a failed
policy since its inception. Although funded and renewed from 811
appropriations, these Mainstream Housing Choice Vouchers have almost
never been used to create new permanent supportive housing units, are
not targeted to people with the most serious and long-term
disabilities, and--because of poor HUD oversight and monitoring--may be
assisting nondisabled households. These vouchers now cost over $85
million every year--more than one-third of the entire Section 811
appropriation. While the Mainstream Voucher program certainly helped
thousands of very low income people with disabilities obtain decent and
affordable housing, we must emphasize that this program did not
accomplish anything that the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher cannot
do. It is clear that there is only one good solution to fix this
troubled program. S. 1481 will enact policies that will: (1) continue
to permanently set-aside these rental subsidies for people with
disabilities as Congress intended; and (2) authorize that these
vouchers be permanently funded through the Housing Choice Voucher
program.
4. Streamlining Section 811 processing requirements and removing out-
dated regulatory barriers.
The Section 811 statute has remained virtually unchanged for the
past 16 years--and the bureaucracy that surrounds the program reflects
the ``staff intensive'' way that HUD did business many years ago. The
program has an excessive amount of bureaucratic ``red tape'' and
processing requirements which have created multiyear delays in project
development. Currently, Section 811 units cannot be combined with other
affordable rental housing development, a barrier which has suppressed
program innovation and fostered segregated rather than integrated
housing opportunities. It is extremely important that when S. 1481 is
enacted, Congress send a powerful message to HUD that the 450+ pages of
Section 811 guidance, rules, and regulations be completely replaced by
a reasonable set of regulations and policies that promote more
efficient and effective housing development practices.
Conclusion
The CCD is confident that this new legislation will work. At least
8-10 State Housing Agencies have already expressed interest in the PRAC
Demonstration program model. Nonprofits that have worked with the
Section 811 program for years have also expressed their support for the
improvements that S. 1481 includes. In fact, most existing Section 811
program sponsors have declined to apply for new Section 811 projects in
recent years--not because the housing is not needed but because the
program is so difficult to work with. In the last few Section 811
competitions HUD has received less than 150 Section 811 applications
per year--a fraction of the demand 10 years ago.
Time is running out on the Section 811 program while the need to
create new permanent supportive housing units has never been greater.
In FY2008, only 930 new Section 811 units were awarded and without this
legislation, that number of new units could soon fall below that level.
Enacting S. 1481 is also critical because the basic Section 811 model--
which for 30+ years has produced small group homes and single
population independently living facilities--no longer responds to the
housing needs and choices of most people with disabilities who prefer
to live in housing that is truly integrated within local communities.
By enacting S. 1481, Congress can ensure that a reinvigorated
Section 811 program is ready to create as many as 3,000 or more new
permanent supportive housing units every year--without any increase in
current appropriations levels. The removal of many bureaucratic
barriers which cause protracted delays in the Section 811 development
process will also produce these new units more efficiently. Shifting
renewal costs associated with the seriously flawed 811-funded
Mainstream Housing Choice Voucher program--which has drained funding
away from essential permanent supportive housing production since
1997--is also long-overdue.
Finally, enacting S. 1481 is important because it honors a very
humble man--Frank Melville--who was the first Chair of the Melville
Charitable Trust and whose commitment to people with disabilities and
people who are homeless led to the creation of more than 100,000 units
of affordable housing for people with disabilities. It is only fitting
that the next 100,000 units produced should be financed by legislation
that bears his name. TAC and the CCD Housing Task Force look forward to
working with Congress and with Section 811 stakeholders across the
Nation to ensure that this essential and critically needed legislation
is enacted as soon as possible.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHELLE NORRIS
Senior Vice President for Development and Acquisition of National
Church Residences, on behalf of American Association of Homes and
Services for the Aging
October 29, 2009
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, Senator
Kohl, and Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Norris and I am
pleased to be here today, representing the American Association of
Homes and Services for the Aging. The members of the American
Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (www.aahsa.org) serve
as many as 2 million people every day through mission-driven, not-for-
profit organizations dedicated to providing the services people need,
when they need them, in the place they call home. Our 5,700 members
offer the continuum of aging services: adult day services, home health,
community services, senior housing, assisted living residences,
continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes. AAHSA's
commitment is to create the future of aging services through quality
people can trust.
I am also the Senior Vice-President for Development and
Acquisitions of National Church Residences (NCR). National Church
Residences, a Columbus, Ohio-based nonprofit organization, was founded
in 1961 and is one of the largest developers of affordable senior
housing in the United States. NCR is also a founding member of Stewards
of Affordable Housing for the Future (SAHF), an organization comprised
of nine national nonprofit housing providers, seven of which are
members of AAHSA as well, dedicated to the preservation of existing
affordable housing communities. NCR owns and/or manages over 20,000
affordable senior and family housing units in 300 properties in 27
States and Puerto Rico. Our portfolio is diverse in the financing
programs we use and the populations we serve, including supportive
housing for the homeless, assisted living communities, and five health
care facilities in Ohio. NCR continues to be an active developer doing
both new construction and preservation of affordable housing. A
significant majority of NCR's portfolio Section 202s including many
located in States represented by the Members of this Committee and the
Senators who have cosponsored S. 118.
On behalf of AAHSA, NCR, my staff and the residents and families we
serve, I would like to thank you for holding a hearing on this
important issue. I especially would like to thank Senator Kohl and
Senator Schumer for introducing S. 118 on the first day of this
Congress. This legislation is sorely needed if affordable senior
housing is to survive into the future.
Overview of Elderly Housing Crisis
It should come as no surprise that there is an affordable housing
crisis in our country. This problem is particularly acute among the
elderly living on low or moderate incomes. In 2006, AARP released an
update of its Section 202 study and found that, on average, there were
ten seniors waiting for each Section 202 unit that became available.
Generally stated, the major contributing factors to the elderly housing
crisis are the unnecessary loss of federally subsidized housing units,
the lack of significant affordable housing production of new units, an
elderly population boom, a national policy that has favored vouchers
instead of production as the solution to the affordable housing crisis,
escalating rental costs, and a lack of predictability for social
services funding. In addition to these factors, our Nation's seniors
have not been immune to the recession and to the subprime and predatory
lending rehabilitation scams.
Despite the estimates of the Congressionally mandated Commission on
Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st
Century that we will need an additional 730,000 units of assisted
housing in 2020, the Section 202 program has been level funded,
building fewer and fewer units each year. For the past several years
AAHSA has urged Congress to provide enough funding for the Section 202
program to develop at least 10,000 units per year. In the FY09 NOFA,
HUD has announced funding for only 3,130 new units. The NOFA includes
as well the authority to delegate the processing of mixed finance
transactions to State housing finance agencies for the first time. The
delegation, pursuant to the authority provided in last year's Housing
and Economic Recovery Act, along with HUD's welcome efforts to make it
easier to combine HUD's programs with the low income housing tax credit
program, may make it possible to build additional senior housing units
in combination with the 202 units.
For fiscal year 2010, Congress finally is poised to provide an
increase in funding for the Section 202 program and for that we thank
you. However, even with a more generous funding of the 202 new
construction program, the Joint Center on Housing indicates that we
have lost two units of affordable housing for each one that we've
built. These units are being converted to market rate, or demolished to
free the property for other uses. We are still losing ground.
You have asked me to address the positives and negatives of the
Section 202 program and what the Congress can do to build on the
strengths and correct the weaknesses. Simply put, the Section 202
program is the most successful Federal housing production program
enacted by the Congress. It has stood the test time--now 50 years--and
has offered opportunities for not for profits to carry out their
missions to provide affordable supportive housing for the Nation's most
vulnerable seniors.
S. 118 provides an opportunity for the Congress to build on the
program's successes and strengths so that housing providers can develop
financially sound developments and preserve existing properties that
the Federal Government has spent billions of dollars constructing over
a 40-year period. It is unlikely that we will address the affordable
housing crisis through significant funding increases given the severe
constraints that the Federal Government is under. What we can do is to
address the opportunities and obligations that we see before us by
increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the current 202 new
construction program, plus aggressively preserving the existing housing
stock. The AAHSA membership and the NCR leadership team are pleased
with the provisions of S. 118 which streamline and improve the new
development program, encourage the refinancing and preservation of the
202 program and place a renewed emphasis on providing supportive
services in 202 housing so that seniors can age in place. Please allow
me to use the rest of this testimony to highlight some of the very
specific improvements that are created by S. 118 first in new
construction, then in preservation and finally in various other means
including increased service provision.
Title I--New Development
Realistic Development Cost Limits
A 2005 HUD report on construction costs indices for Section 202 and
811 housing included an overall finding that the factors and approach
that HUD uses for establishing development cost limits ``do not
accurately reflect current actual development costs'' for the surveyed
projects or for the typical private funded construction. HUD itself had
commissioned the report because they suspected the inadequacy, and
unreasonableness, of their cost limits. As a result of the study, the
limits have been raised--but they are still not sufficient to meet
costs in most areas. In the case of NCR, I can tell you that the
current development cost limits frequently do not work and are often
irrelevant compared to the market place. Even with the increased
limits, sponsors are still forced to seek additional funding, which
significantly lengthens the total development timeframes. As a last
resort, we have had to seek amendment funding from HUD which causes
penalty points on subsequent grant requests in future NOFA rounds. It's
a catch 22 which ends up denying funding to experienced sponsors who
have been unable to find gap financing. Several of the provisions of S.
118 address this capital funding process and amounts.
Adequate PRAC Allocations
In addition to shortfalls in the capital amounts, the initial
operating budget for a new building is also based on a HUD formula to
create the initial rental subsidy amount. These initial Project Rental
Assistance (PRAC) allocations for new development are chronically under
funded, leaving developers to limit the scope of the project's services
or staffing. Because the new Section 202 PRAC properties are not
eligible for the rent increases in the first year, the operating
deficit can be devastating to the properties. I commend HUD for
recently revising their policy to now permit PRAC increases for
projects before projects open. This has helped alleviate the
operational funding problems in many new projects, but not all. One
significant place where inadequate initial PRAC funding has had the
most detrimental impact is on the ability of projects to fund a service
coordinator. In order to be competitive, providers have not included a
service coordinator in their application for fear that the PRAC amounts
would be too high and noncompetitive. Projects are always trying to
catch up through rent increases in the future but success is case by
case and unpredictable at best. We are pleased that Section 101 of the
bill requires HUD to approve PRAC increases sufficient to cover
reasonable project cost increases including service coordinators and
supportive services costs. It also provides for increases to cover
emergencies such as energy, insurance or tax increases that are out of
the control of the sponsor.
Service Coordination
In addition to providing sufficient PRAC to cover service
coordination, S. 118 will establish nonmonetary incentives for
employing a service coordinator. The 202 program is called the
``Supportive Housing Program for the Elderly'', but the selection
criteria have never included the extent to which the applicant ensures
that there will be a service coordinator for the property. Section 102
of S. 118 will add service coordination as a selection criterion. NCR
believes each property should have a service coordinator so that the
seniors can learn about and link to community based supportive services
which will assist seniors to remain independent for as long as possible
and to age in place.
Proper Use of Owner Deposits
Under the current Section 202 statute, the owner is required to
establish an escrow account for new projects to be held for
unanticipated operating short falls during the first 3 years. HUD has
implemented an unwritten policy to require nonprofit owners to use this
deposit virtually in every instance to cover both operating and
development short falls caused by the originally under funded capital
advance and PRAC amounts. Organizations such as NCR rely on the return
of some or all of those deposits to meet other housing mission needs,
including overhead for staff and preliminary work to develop new
projects and increase our supportive services component in existing
properties. However, the deposits are rarely returned because HUD
considers them part of the project from the start. S. 118 tackles this
problem head on in Section 104.
Flexibility To Work With Local Boards
Many of you may be familiar with Plymouth Congregational Church
here in Washington, DC. This is an active, vibrant church at North
Capitol and Riggs Road in Northeast. Retirement Housing Foundation
(RHF), a national nonprofit based in California, worked closely with
Reverend Hagler and his congregation to get this project built. I urge
you to visit this property and talk to those involved about the
importance of partnership and the role of development experts to help a
community realize its dream of taking on a new mission to serve low-
income seniors live in safe, decent housing with dignity. Because of
the need for active community partnerships such as this to support the
property and residents, AAHSA members are committed to continuing the
involvement of local boards, on an advisory or governing level.
Unfortunately, experience has shown that often local board members
tend to be very active at the beginning of a project and often include
many of the individuals and local politicians that were instrumental in
getting a project approved. The simple fact is that over time it is
difficult to maintain an active local board involved in the major
decisions. Many national nonprofits in AAHSA's membership have to
retain a high degree of control over these small owner boards to make
certain that they remain consistent with the terms laid out in the by-
laws and execute the necessary business of the property. This is not to
say that we no longer want to work with local communities--this is
vital to our success and an integral part of our mission. S. 118 allows
a degree of flexibility for larger organizations that have difficulty
maintaining active board participation in some areas.
Title II--Preservation
Title II of S. 118 will further the preservation of senior housing,
one of the most important Federal housing policies Congress can endorse
and facilitate. Preservation of existing housing can be done at a
fraction of costs of new construction and it helps retain the best HUD
properties in prime locations with access to transportation and
services. We are encouraged that the current Administration is focused
and committed to a national policy of preservation. Secretary Donovan
stated at a June hearing on preservation before the House Financial
Services Committee that ``HUD needs to be a leader and a partner in
preserving critical housing resources. Too often it seems that HUD
policies and practices get in the way of preservation efforts instead
of supporting them. That is going to change.'' S. 118 will equip HUD
with many new tools and clear authority to preserve affordable senior
housing.
It is a fact that many elderly housing facilities have ``aged'' and
need modernization and/or retrofitting and refinancing in order to
accommodate supportive services to aging residents, assure quality of
life, and accessibility. These projects could be preserved for an
additional 30 years with the infusion of private dollars far less than
the cost of new construction. In addition, if these facilities are
allowed to disappear, it is unlikely that many communities will support
large scale affordable housing of the size that currently exists in the
Section 202 portfolio. We estimate that new construction costs in our
202 portfolio are approximately $100,000 per unit, yet NCR's
preservation projects only need $45,000 per unit in renovation. When we
acquire a property and rehab that property, the total cost of
preservation instead of allowing an owner to ``opt out,'' the total
preservation cost can be approximately $70,000 compared to $100,000 per
unit for new construction.
The provisions in Title II of S. 118 are essential to the
successful preservation of existing housing. To many, these changes
appear very detailed and technical. Yet I can assure you that each of
these can be critical to the success (or failure) of real preservation
efforts. The changes will go a long way towards navigating the various
legal and regulatory requirements involved in today's preservation
transactions. However, many of the provisions simply require HUD to do
what it already has the discretion to do, but haven't in the past. That
may change but providing legislative authority guarantees that the
policies will survive any change in Administrations. In the end, even
the best of tools won't produce large scale preservation results.
However, this bill will definitely equip and encourage HUD to take the
active leadership that it must take in order to make preserve the
Nation's irreplaceable senior housing stock.
Use of Unexpended Amounts To Provide Equity
Christian Church Homes of Northern California, another AAHSA
member, has attempted to purchase troubled 202 and 236 properties from
other not-for-profit, single asset owners that were no longer
interested in pursuing affordable housing. HUD denied their requests to
purchase the properties at a price above the outstanding indebtedness,
thus denying the selling not-for-profit any equity, which they planned
to use to further their mission. I can personally confirm that NCR has
had very similar experiences in other areas of the country. Though
there may need to be appropriate limitations on the amount of equity
permitted and on how that equity may be expended, without the ability
to pay some equity, these owners can simply wait out the terms of their
mortgages and these properties may not be preserved. I am aware of many
situations where paying a seller any price above the existing debt may
make the preservation less feasible, but where the payment of some
equity is feasible, it should be permitted. S. 118 addresses the issue
of appropriate equity payments.
Unfortunately, over the last 5-10 years, there have been many
situations where the preservation of properties was made difficult or
impossible by HUD's out-of-date and contradictory regulations,
processing delays and absence of clear policy at both the local offices
and at headquarters. This legislation along with the new leadership we
have seen at HUD will ease this confusion and lack of direction.
The Senior Preservation Rental Contract
Another complication in the efforts to preserve communities is
unique to the oldest cohort of Section 202 properties. These projects,
built between 1969 and 1974 are often the most in need of substantial
rehabilitation in order to be preserved for another 30-40 years.
Unfortunately any attempt to refinance these projects and do the
necessary work means that the existing residents, who are paying rent
amounts that often are far below market, will face rent increases that
they cannot afford after any refinancing and rehabilitation. There is
no rental assistance available to ease the burden and prevent
displacement. Preservation entities are faced with a decision to either
evict those least able to pay or to not do the necessary rehabilitation
to the property. Neither of these options is an acceptable answer for
our Nation!
The creation of a senior preservation rental contract would permit
owners to actively preserve properties while protecting the homes of
existing and future low-income seniors. To give you an idea of the
magnitude of this exposure, there were 292 properties built during this
period comprising 45,000 to 50,000 units. While some have full or
partial Section 8 or Rent Supplement Assistance, most do not. Section
205 of S. 118 would establish a new project based rental assistance
contract for unassisted residents upon refinancing. I would
respectfully request that this provision be made retroactive to address
the very few projects from this generation of 202s that have been
refinanced to date. The impact of not having rental assistance is
devastating as is described in one of our Ohio case studies, Kirby
Manor, attached to this testimony.
Excess Use of Proceeds
Another example of complicated 202 preservation occurred in
California. NCR had three Section 202 properties in California which we
refinanced and rehabilitated. We'd requested permission to use the $2
million in excess proceeds to create a housing trust fund for new
development. HUD denied this request and required NCR to put the funds
into each project's reserves for replacement, which were already fully
funded. This essentially locked the funds into each individual project
instead of allowing the funds to be distributed (within HUD approved
parameters) ``as needed'' across a portfolio of affordable projects.
Others can give more graphic examples of the flawed HUD policy that
requires the passage of legislation to permit not-for-profit sponsors
to use excess proceeds to further their housing and supportive services
mission. S. 118 will correct HUD's policy.
Waiver of Flexible Subsidy Loan Repayment
In April, 2006, NCR acquired a property in Asheville, NC, in order
to preserve the property as affordable. The property had an existing
flexible subsidy loan, which could not be paid off as part of the
refinancing and financial restructuring. NCR requested consideration
that would allow the loan to be assumed into the new ownership. It took
HUD almost 8 months to inform us that they would only allow 75 percent
of ``flex sub'' loan to be assumed and they required 25 percent of the
loan to be paid off. NCR applied for, and was awarded, State HOME
funds--which was then used to pay off the required amount of the
flexible subsidy loan. Essentially, NCR used local HOME funds to pay
down the flex sub loan in lieu of using the HOME funds to do more
rehab. There are countless other examples of HUD's refusal to permit
forgiveness of flexible subsidy loans that make preservation deals
unworkable. S. 118 will correct this HUD policy that inhibits
preservation.
Title III--Assisted Living Conversion Program
Affordable assisted living is an option almost completely
unavailable for low and very low-income seniors. Assisted living costs
range from $1,742 to $5,197 per month in the United States with the
average assisted living resident paying $2,968 per month. \1\ To meet
the needs of the very low income frail elderly, the Section 202 program
includes an Assisted Living Conversion Program (ALCP) to fund the
rehabilitation of existing properties to serve frail seniors that need
assisted living services. NCR has been awarded three ALCP grants in
Ohio over the last couple of years. We are delighted to have received
these grants and have been working with the leadership at the Columbus
HUD office and the Ohio Dept of Aging to create the first affordable
assisted living models in the State. We are dedicated to implementing
each of the projects; however, we also realize that as currently
designed, they are more complicated and expensive than necessary. For
instance, although HUD does not provide funding for direct services or
licensure, by law the current ALCP program is only open to those
buildings able to become licensed under their State's assisted living
statute. This requirement can be extremely expensive to comply with and
has left the program underutilized. It almost guarantees that the only
States where ALCP grants will work are those with Medicaid waiver
programs. As well it locks all the residents into services that are
required as part of the assisted living license. To encourage less
costly and more ``flexible housing plus services'' models, S. 118
amends the definition of eligible assisted living under the Assisted
Living Conversion Program. The amended definition will permit
nonlicensed properties as eligible grantees that provide supportive
services of the resident's choice either directly or through a licensed
or certified third party. I believe that this legislation will increase
the availability of assisted living services to very low-income elderly
so that they can age in place with dignity; and that S. 118 will allow
more facilities to convert to a model that allows higher level of care
with higher resident satisfaction at lower cost to the Government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MetLife, ``Market Survey of Assisted Living Costs 2005.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The need for affordable, supportive, senior housing development and
preservation is undeniable and urgent. I am grateful to have an
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee in support of S. 118.
AAHSA members and my colleagues at NCR have been actively involved in
these issues throughout the country and have testified before this and
other committees on the very problems that I discussed today. We are
excited that Congress believes that these topics warrant a national
policy discussion. Today you will have a chance to take a positive step
in the furtherance of a goal and mission that we all support. I urge
you to support S. 118 in order to increase the efficiency of the
Section 202 program and to help the residents that the program serves
today and those it will serve in the future.
For your consideration, I have attached two case studies which
serve as the poster children for Title II of this legislation. I am
pleased to report that many of the problems from these case studies are
addressed in S. 118. In addition, I am including a listing of all the
preservation projects that NCR has completed or is in the process of
completing since 2002.
A Preservation Case Study: Kirby Manor in Cleveland, Ohio
Kirby Manor, is a pre-1974 Section 202 development with no rental
subsidy. None of the existing seniors were eligible for enhanced
vouchers. The rehab needs were substantial, but the residents could not
afford to pay for the increased rent that additional debt would
trigger. None could bear the burden of higher rents; none wanted to
move; and as a mission-oriented purchaser, NCR did not want to displace
the residents. NCR's experience with the preservation of this project
is illustrative of the typical issues that developers experience. Our
goal at Kirby Manor was to preserve the property and keep residents in
place. Our plan was to refinance the project using tax credits,
reconfigure the existing efficiencies, converting them into one bedroom
units and to construct additional units. Most of the 202 units were
efficiencies of 287 square feet, a portion were studios of 345 square
feet and the remaining were small one-bedrooms of 439 square feet. The
project as it stood was unattractive and unmarketable as compared with
the West Cleveland neighborhood where new, subsidized, more desirable
housing had been built for a younger population. Although the sponsor
and owner of the project had maintained the project in excellent
condition, all of the building's original plumbing, mechanical and HVAC
systems were nearing the end of their life expectancy. Only a
significant recapitalization would provide sufficient resources to
preserve the property.
NCR submitted a waiver request to HUD to request the subordination
of the existing Section 202 loan and received an allocation of 9
percent tax credits which provided approximately $8,400,000 in equity.
In addition, Kirby received a commitment of $1,000,000 in HOME funds
from the City of Cleveland; and, a commitment of $450,000 from the Ohio
Housing Finance Agency as subordinated debt. The new first mortgage was
a HUD 221(d)(4) insured loan of $4.467 million at 6.5 percent interest.
Because enhanced vouchers were not available to these residents, NCR
funded a $1,000,000 reserve from the equity generated in the
refinancing to cover the increased rents for seniors as long as they
remained. Once those residents pass away or leave there will be no
deeply targeted subsidy to allow us to house the lowest income seniors.
The rents will revert to tax credit levels and the poor seniors in that
community will end up on a waiting list for Section 202/8 or Section
202 PRAC communities. If there were a senior preservation rental
assistance program, NCR would be able to house other low-income seniors
in those units.
The project redesign included the reduction of the number of units
from 202 to 147 units and the conversion of units from efficiencies and
one-bedroom units into renovated and newly constructed one- and two-
bedroom units. After countless hours of negotiations, legal opinions
and waivers, this project was completed. If the statutory changes
included in S. 118 were enacted, then projects like Kirby Manor could
be accomplished comparatively quickly and with little aggravation.
Kirby Manor would be the norm instead of one in a hundred, and
preservation of the Section 202 would be enhanced to prevent the loss
of affordable housing just as the senior population is exploding.
A Preservation Case Study: Viewpoint Apartments, Sandusky, Ohio
Viewpoint Apartments is another early generation Section 202
property in Sandusky, Ohio, that NCR tackled. It had been developed and
owned by the Kiwanis. The property had a number of efficiencies that
were no longer marketable and thus experiencing a high vacancy rate.
The project was only 50 percent subsidized and the rest of the units
were unsubsidized and ineligible for enhanced vouchers. NCR applied for
permission to reconfigure the existing units, changing them into one
bedrooms and requested HUD's permission to subordinate the original 202
loan. HUD initially determined that rather than allow the
reconfiguration they'd disallow the change under a strict ``one for
one'' replacement policy in spite of the proven limited demand for
efficiencies in the Ohio market. HUD also denied our request to
subordinate the existing 202 loan or to allow the assumption of the old
loan into the new financing structure. The good news is that after
months of painful HUD processing, NCR was able to eventually close on
the refinancing and provide a $7,000,000 update and facility
transformation to this valuable Sandusky community. However, NCR truly
believes that it should not be this hard and that HUD should serve as a
proactive partner trying to do whatever it takes to preserve these
precious community assets. These are extraordinarily complex
transactions, but we're hopeful that with this legislation and the
leadership at HUD, the next ones will not be as difficult.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOBY HALLIDAY
Vice President for Public Policy, National Housing Trust
October 29, 2009
Subcommittee Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of S. 118, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Act of 2009. My name is Toby Halliday, and I am Vice President for
Federal Policy for the National Housing Trust. Over the past decade,
the Trust has helped save and improve more than 22,000 affordable
rental apartments in over 40 States. The vast majority of these
apartments have HUD subsidized mortgages or project-based rental
assistance contracts.
I also serve as the chair of the National Preservation Working
Group, a coalition of 36 nonprofit organizations supporting affordable
rental housing. The members of the Preservation Working Group strongly
support a balanced housing policy that includes quality rental housing
and support legislation to protect and revitalize affordable rental
housing for seniors.
The needs of America's lower-income seniors are great, and those
needs will grow. The population of Americans age 65 and older is
expected to double between 2000 and 2030. According to the Federal
Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, more than 13 million
older Americans--35 percent--have low incomes (less than 200 percent of
poverty) (Older Americans 2008: Key Indicators of Well-Being, http://
www.agingstats.gov).
Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies recently found that
among seniors who rent, 2.5 million (53 percent) pay more than 30
percent of their incomes for housing, and 1.4 million pay more than 50
percent. ``These households [are] without sufficient resources to pay
for rent and utilities as well as for food, medicine, and other
necessities. Indeed, the basic SSI payment of $623 a month is only
enough to cover a rent of $191 a month--far below the FMR [fair market
rent] for an efficiency apartment, let alone one with a separate
bedroom'' (``America's Rental Housing: The Key to a Balanced National
Policy'' (Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, 2008,
p. 17)).
Due to the recession that now grips our economy and the mortgage
crisis that precipitated it, legislation to preserve and revitalize
affordable rental housing, including housing for seniors and the
disabled, is needed today more than ever. Many 202 properties are 40
years old or older, in need of repair and improvements, and are
stretched to meet the expanding needs of their aging residents. Because
of their age, many of these properties also require significant
alternations to meet current standards and the needs of an increasingly
elderly population. At the same time, many cash-strapped States and
local Governments are reducing assistance to needy families. All of
this leads to a heightened risk of homelessness. Protecting taxpayers'
investments in existing 202 properties is critical to meeting this
challenge.
This year the HUD Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Program celebrates its 50th birthday. Since 1959 the 202 program has
led to the creation of approximately 300,000 affordable rental
apartments for low-income seniors around the country. Many of these
properties could benefit from refinancing opportunities to recapitalize
and better serve the needs of aging seniors for many more years. This
housing serves nearly every community in the Nation. The Trust has
identified approximately 400,000 Section 202/811 Apartments, some
without rental assistance, as shown in Attachment A of my testimony.
But under the current Section 202 law, the development and
preservation of existing communities can be time consuming and
administratively complex. S. 118, sponsored by Senator Kohl and
cosponsored by Senators Brown, Casey, Durbin, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin,
Nelson, Schumer, and Stabenow, would simplify, streamline, and
modernize procedures to improve and preserve these properties,
encourage broader participation by not-for-profit developers, private
lenders, investors, and State and local funding agencies, and result in
the creation of needed construction jobs.
Key provisions of S. 118 would:
Modernize and streamline processing for new Section 202
awards;
Streamline rules and procedures for recapitalization and
funding for supportive services;
Add a requirement that the rehabilitation ensure long term
viability of the property;
Authorize new resources to protect residents from rent
increases needed to pay for necessary recapitalization;
Require tenant notice and participation prior to the
approval of a prepayment;
Expand access to supportive services;
Create a National Senior Housing Clearinghouse to help
prospective residents find affordable senior housing and
determine what services are available.
Some controversy exists over whether to loosen restrictions on the
ability of existing nonprofit owners to retain proceeds from the sale
or refinancing of their property. Current restrictions discourage the
sale of some 202 properties by sponsors, especially some owners of
individual properties, that lack the capacity for best long-term care
of their properties and service to their residents. The Trust believes
that a reasonable incentive is needed to foster the transfer of
properties to owners with the desire and the ability to ensure the
long-term viability of these properties and meet the needs of
residents.
A recent report released by the AARP, Reconnecting America, and the
National Housing Trust highlights the importance of existing affordable
housing near rail and high-frequency bus transit and the need to
preserve 202 housing near public transportation. Findings from the
report include:
Transit-connected affordable housing, including Section 202
housing, provides access to community resources for seniors,
who occupy the majority of these apartments.
Preserving affordable housing near transit is of critical
importance for maintaining independence and preserving livable
communities for older Americans.
Transit-connected affordable is increasingly at risk of
conversion to nonaffordable uses, presenting at threat to
current and potential future occupants.
Federal, State, and local Governments should emphasize the
preservation of affordable housing near transit.
The AARP report states, in part:
Of the more than 250,000 federally subsidized apartments with
rental assistance contracts within one half mile of ``quality
transit'' (and approximately 200,000 within one quarter mile)
in 20 metropolitan regions across the country, more than 70
percent are covered by Federal contracts that will expire over
the next 5 years. This finding raises concern considering the
vital role affordable housing and affordable transportation
options play in achieving livable communities, particularly in
respect to the needs of older Americans (``Preserving
Affordability and Access in Livable Communities: Subsidized
Housing Opportunities Near Transit and the 50+ Population'',
AARP Public Policy Institute, September 2009, p. 7, emphasis
added).
Thank you for holding this hearing on this important legislation.
The National Housing Trust urges the earliest possible consideration of
this bill. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL JONES
Parent, Brick, New Jersey
October 29, 2009
Chairman Menendez and Members of the Subcommittee--As the father of
someone with psychiatric disabilities I appreciate your invitation to
provide testimony to this Subcommittee on the behalf of the many
families in the same situation. Also as a father I can tell you that
about two out of every five families are affected by mental illnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and this Subcommittee for your work to
sustain, improve, and increase the number of units available for low-
income people with disabilities. As the only federally funded housing
program aimed at providing low-income people with disabilities with
affordable rental subsidies the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Section 811 program is very important to the recovery of
many with mental illnesses. This program also provides people the
opportunity to live independently within their own communities by
providing affordable rental options. Today I will share some of my
son's experiences as a mental health services consumer in obtaining and
living in several types of supported housing.
First I would like to provide you with a little history of my
family's journey into mental illness, treatment, and recovery. My 28
year old son, Michael, was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactive
Disorder when he was four. When he started school the child study team
determined that he also had learning disabilities. He was placed into
special education, where he remained throughout elementary, middle, and
high school. When he was a freshman in high school he was diagnosed
with Depression, but he had other behavioral problems as well that
periodically caused trouble in school. He was first hospitalized for
treatment of mental illness when he deliberately cut himself on the
cheek with a box cutter while in shop class. He was subsequently
tentatively diagnosed with Schizoaffective Disorder, then Bipolar.
Reevaluated in his senior year, he was found to have Schizophrenia
shortly before he was first hospitalized in the State hospital. As you
can imagine, high school was not enjoyable for him. He graduated in
2000, although it was not with his classmates. He completed his senior
year at a therapeutic academy for students with psychiatric disorders.
His current diagnosis is again Schizoaffective Disorder with
cooccurring substance abuse. His learning disabilities still limit what
he is able to do if it involves concentration, reading comprehension,
planning, or short term memory. For example, he cannot decipher even
simple medical instructions.
Mr. Chairman, as a father, the first response to a mental illness;
after the shock of discovery, diagnosis, and denial is to learn all
that you can to try and fix your child's problem. I started looking for
that ``silver bullet'' that we all hope to find as a cure any major
illness and found that there were none, but I did discover hope and
support from other families and friends that had gone before us and
that are going through this. As my family became increasingly involved
in learning about what we could do, who we needed to know, and where we
needed to go to help our son I discovered that there were many support
systems besides the mental health systems that could be needed. In
order to learn more about these and to help others I sought, and was
selected, to be on the Ocean County Mental Health Board and the New
Jersey State Planning Council as a family member. These two
organizations have helped me learn about new programs and details of
existing programs that could help my son and many other families.
When I found out that the National Alliance on Mental Illness
(NAMI) was founded by families supporting other families, educating
each other and advocating for improved treatment and services I decided
that I had found my support. NAMI is the Nation's largest nonprofit
organization representing and advocating on behalf of persons living
with chronic mental health challenges. Through over 1,100 chapters and
affiliates in all 50 States and over 200,000 members, NAMI supports
education, outreach, and advocacy on behalf of persons with
schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, severe anxiety
disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and other chronic
mental illnesses that affect children and adults.
However, we didn't discover NAMI until 2002. I became very active
in our local affiliate in 2003 and I am currently the President of
NAMI-Ocean County. I was also elected to the NAMI New Jersey Board of
Trustees and, because I'm a veteran, asked to be on the NAMI National
Veterans Council where I support Veterans and their family with mental
illnesses. I also became a teacher in the Family-to-Family Education
Program where I learn from and facilitate support groups for families
in crisis in their journeys to recovery.
While I will talk about my son's experiences I have found that they
are similar to many other families' situations. One key thing I have
learned is that those who contract mental illnesses seem to be stuck
developmentally at the level of maturity where they are when they get
sick. The saying is, ``They are stuck where they are struck.'' The
knowledge of when one gets ill should be helpful to those trying to
tailor services to their needs. My son's mental maturity is such that
he still reacts and thinks like a very young person much of the time.
Another thing I have found is that many times those providing services,
providing information, or giving directions, which are then not
followed by the consumer, do not seem to be able to empathize and brand
the consumer as noncompliant or nonresponsive when it is simply the
inability to remember.
Michael always wanted to be on his own, but had no financial means
or living skills to do so. After graduation from high school he tried
living with friends but ended up in crisis and in the State hospital
again. By then we had learned that if he had no place to go upon being
released he would likely be placed into a group home. He needed
structure, but he also needed to be away from his family in order to
develop skills for independence. We told his treatment team the day he
arrived in the hospital that he could not come home after release.
During this hospitalization he first admitted to taking substances
other than prescribed medicine and started rehabilitation at another
facility. He was quickly sent back when he became psychotic due to the
treatment methods. After his hospitalization he was released to a group
home for mentally ill chemical abusers (MICA). He did well for a while,
but eventually started to try to find a way to leave. He finally did
after almost 3 years. But he left to live with his girlfriend and her
mother. His girlfriend was pregnant.
My wife took the couple to apply for Section 8 housing in May of
2006. Our son was informed after a few months that he was eligible, but
he never heard anything further.
The day-treatment program he and his girlfriend both attended
referred them to their supported housing office. This office provided
them with a listing of several apartment complexes where they could
look. None had vacancies. They were still living with the girlfriend's
mother when the baby was born, however there was a fire in the
apartment the day before the baby was to come home, thus they all went
to live with relatives. Because they were now homeless, the housing
office was able to get them into an apartment in about 2 months. The
new family was provided support to get the lease established and
transportation to obtain utilities and deposit payments. The case
manager also picked out and had furniture delivered before they moved
in. They initially were visited by their case manager several times a
week, but this soon slowed to only sporadic visits.
My son discovered that their cable had pay-per-view movies and
unwittingly ran up their bill to well over $400 the first month. In
addition to having to adjust to living pretty much on his own, and to
being a father he also had a very difficult time with the routine of
daily life and had zero ability to manage finances.
In less than a year our son and his girlfriend split up. He then
briefly came back home to live with us. Shortly thereafter visitation
and child support arrangements were made and he started having
supervised visits with his daughter in our home. However, the first
time he went to pick her up he was handed a note stating that his
former girlfriend was leaving the county with his daughter when the
lease was up. After the second visit by his daughter he suddenly packed
up some things and left to live with friends.
During this timeframe a New Jersey Division of Mental Health
Services program called Residential Intensive Support Teams (RIST),
originally established for providing intensive supported housing for
those leaving the State hospitals, was expanded in Ocean County to
provide housing for those at risk of becoming homeless and who also
needed more intensive services. Our son was referred and selected to
participate.
A major difference between this program and supported housing is
that RIST initially holds the lease and acts as the Representative
Payee for social security benefits. This is beneficial because clients
may need to be hospitalized periodically and/or have real problems
managing finances and spending. This way the clients do not lose their
homes and someone is there to help keep their benefits and affairs as
straight as possible.
The stated goals of RIST are to support and encourage the
development of life skills required to sustain successful living in the
community and to provide housing in a community setting environment
which allow opportunities to learn the skills necessary for more
independent living. Within this setting they provide each consumer with
the maximum possible autonomy, independence, and self-determination.
This program does constantly strive to empower consumers to relocate to
less restrictive living arrangements.
My son moved into the apartment to live on his own, a very nice
second floor apartment that RIST had help him furnish, in early 2008;
he started living skills training and a new day program. RIST provided
evening ``life skills'' groups for the RIST supported clients in the
apartment complex. Michael volunteered to help others to learn from his
experience on how to use the bus system. He also had plans to become a
peer support counselor, but never carried through.
However it didn't take him long to make friends and to throw his
first loud party. He ran up his electric, cable and telephone bills
very quickly. His case manager tried to help by having his phone
limited to the local exchange only and canceled his cable. At this
point, he had no one to take up the slack in paying for food and
quickly found that his food stamps didn't buy enough each month. He
would eat lunch at his day program and would sometimes cook easy-to-
prepare meals, but would go for days with one meal a day at program. He
started using money he obtained from selling things he either owned or
stole to buy food and drugs.
He got to the point of deciding, with his case manager, that living
on his own was really not appropriate for him yet and that he needed go
into the hospital to get into a long-term drug rehab program then back
into a group home. The hospital case manager found that there were no
long-term rehab programs available. He then made the correct decision
to go to the State hospital again for treatment and so that he could
get into a group home.
At his initial attempts, Michael was not ready for supported
housing. He had never developed the skills and habits needed to build
on to start to live independently. His girlfriend, whose mental illness
hit her much later in life, has continued to do very well in supported
housing. While he was very fortunate to be afforded the opportunities
and to have caring case workers he wasn't ready. I am very proud to say
that he came to the realization, and knowing enough to talk it over
with his case managers, he decided that he should to return to the MICA
group home so he could learn and pursue skills he needs to live
independently. The lesson here is that the providers of supported
housing must understand that those with mental illnesses may require
much more than periodic support. They may need very intensive case
management to guide and reinforce living skill development for as long
as a year, perhaps longer.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal testimony. I hope you are
able to take our views into consideration as you conduct the important
work of this Subcommittee. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify. I would be honored to answer any questions that you might
have.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHEILA CROWLEY
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Low Income Housing
Coalition
October 29, 2009
Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Vitter, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
``Modernizing Affordable Housing for Seniors and People with
Disabilities.''
I am Sheila Crowley, President of the National Low Income Housing
Coalition; our members include nonprofit housing providers, homeless
service providers, fair housing organizations, State and local housing
coalitions, public housing agencies, private developers and property
owners, housing researchers, local and State Government agencies,
faith-based organizations, residents of public and assisted housing and
their organizations, and concerned citizens. The National Low Income
Housing Coalition does not represent any sector of the housing
industry. Rather, NLIHC works only on behalf of and with low income
people who need safe, decent, and affordable housing, especially those
with the most serious housing problems. NLIHC is entirely funded with
private donations.
The National Low Income Housing Coalition strongly supports the
Section 202 and Section 811 programs, and the two bills under
consideration today: S. 118 and S. 1481. We urge swift action on both
bills.
Housing Needs
One of NLIHC's most important functions is to analyze national
datasets to better understand the housing circumstances of low income
people in the United States and make the findings available to the
public and policymakers. In our most well known research report, Out of
Reach, we examine what rental housing costs and what low income people
earn, and document the degree to which low income people cannot compete
in the private rental market in every jurisdiction in the country.
For example, Out of Reach 2009 tells us that in Hudson County, NJ,
where 69 percent of the households are renters, to be able to afford to
rent a modest two bedroom home, a household must earn $42,760 a year.
In East Baton Rouge Parish, LA, with 38 percent of households renting,
household income must be at least $31,520 a year to afford a two
bedroom home at the fair market rent. Although it may seem that
Louisiana is more affordable than New Jersey, the mean hourly wage of
renters in Hudson County is $26.80, while the mean hourly wage for
renters in East Baton Rouge is just $11.76. There is nowhere in the
entire country where a full time worker earning the prevailing minimum
wage can afford the rent on a one-bedroom rental home using the
standard of spending no more than 30 percent of household income on
housing. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wardrip, K., Pelletiere, D., and Crowley, S. (2009, April).
Out of Reach 2009. Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing
Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low wage workers may have a tough time affording the most basic
home, but elderly and disabled people who depend on SSI for income have
it much worse. The fair market rent in Hudson County, NJ, for an
efficiency unit is $989 a month. Thirty percent of monthly SSI income
in New Jersey is $212. An SSI recipient in Louisiana can afford $202 a
month for housing; yet the fair market rent for an efficiency in East
Baton Rouge Parish is $627 a month. \2\ While some SSI recipients have
additional income, it is an income program of last resort and benefit
levels go down as income goes up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Social Security Administration, there were
6,366,000 adults receiving SSI as of the end of 2008: 4,333,000 were
blind or disabled adults between ages 18 and 64, 1,203,000 were adults
65 of years or older, and 830,000 were blind or disabled and 65 years
of age or older. \3\ SSI recipients are among the very poorest people
in our country, and in the absence of housing assistance in some form,
cannot afford to live in any community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Social Security Administration, 2009 Annual Report of the SSI
Program, http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ssir/SSI09/toc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are precisely the people who the 202 and 811 programs can
best serve. There are approximately 300,000 units of Section 202
housing, but just one third have rent assistance attached to them, \4\
and thus are affordable for SSI recipients and other very poor elders.
The approximately 30,000 units of Section 811 housing do have rent
assistance attached and another 14,000 vouchers are part of the Section
811 program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ HUD, Office of Inspector General. (2008, October). HUD
Management and Performance Challenges. http://www.hud.gov/offices/cfo/
reports/section4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many adult SSI recipients receive other forms of Federal housing
assistance. In 2005, 277,000 units of public and Section 8 project-
based housing were reserved for people 62 years of age and older. \5\
Nearly two-thirds of HUD's 1.1 million public housing units house
senior citizens or people with disabilities. Three quarters of the 1.3
million units of Section 8 project-based housing are headed by an
elderly or disabled person. A third of the voucher program's 2 million
households are senior citizens or people with disabilities.
Nonetheless, demand far exceeds supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Perl, L. (2008, September). Section 202 and Other HUD Rental
Housing Programs for Low Income Elderly Residents. Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service. http://aging.senate.gov/crs/
aging17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we examine data on housing cost burdens by age and income, we
learn that a significant number of low income elderly people have
serious housing problems. There are 26,600,000 households with one or
more members 65 years of age or older, who make up 23 percent of all
households in the U.S. Sixteen percent of senior households are
extremely low income, with incomes of 30 percent of area median or
less. Almost three quarters (74 percent) of extremely low income senior
households pay more than 30 percent of their income for their homes; 51
percent (2,100,000 households) spend more than half of their income.
\6\ When a poor elderly person has to spend more than half of her
income on her home, it means she goes without, scrimping on food,
medicine, heat, and other basic needs. These are the elderly people who
are most at risk of homelessness. Living hand to mouth hastens the day
when an elderly person can no longer live on her own and require
expensive institutional care. Providing housing assistance extends the
time that an elderly person can live on her own, and is more cost
effective than nursing homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ NLIHC tabulations of 2007 American Community Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The housing needs of elderly people today are readily apparent. The
elderly population is only going to grow for the next two decades as
the baby boomers reach 65. There will be more elderly people and they
will make up a percentage of the population. With the demise of defined
benefits pension programs and the loss of retirement savings in the
current recession, elderly people in the future will likely have less
income that elderly people today. We need to invest in housing choices
for this population now.
How S. 118, the ``Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of
2009'' Will Help
S. 118 will help more Section 202 units come on line more quickly,
by ensuring that total development cost limitations supported by HUD
would now be ``reasonable,'' reducing some of the time-consuming
elements of the development process. The provision that Section 202
sponsors could establish a preference for homeless seniors improves
access to affordable housing for elderly people who are most in need.
The bill will also preserve existing Section 202 properties through
refinancing of their Section 8 loans and investment of savings into
rehabilitation, supportive services, reconfiguration of obsolete unit
types, and other needs. Owners will have sufficient resources to
repair, rehabilitate and modernize their units. Moreover, when a
refinancing does occur, the property's affordability period is extended
for 20 years past the original mortgage maturity date, assuring that
these units remain affordable and available to very low income seniors
for another generation.
The bill prohibits the HUD Secretary from accepting any refinancing
or prepayment plan by a Section 202 sponsor if tenants have not been
notified of the owner's request for approval of prepayment. Tenants
should be given the opportunity to comment on the prepayment and any
anticipated rehabilitation, and the owner should be required to take
such comments into consideration. These provisions will be central to
the successful preservation of existing homes, and will be further
improved by including timelines for such participation.
The bill includes several improvements that will support Section
202 residents aging in place. Section 202 properties will be more
likely to have service coordinators. For new Section 202 properties,
HUD would encourage the inclusion of service coordinators in each
property by adding the extent to which the Section 202 sponsor ensures
there will be a service coordinator for the property as a new funding
selection criterion. The bill will also allow Section 202 sponsors to
build the cost of service coordinators into their Project Rental
Assistance Contracts, stabilizing funding for these key staff members.
The presence of service coordinators increases the time that frail
and vulnerable older people can remain in their homes and prevents
premature transition into more costly settings, such as nursing homes.
A recent HUD study of service coordinators reports: ``The average
length of occupancy was 6 months longer among residents of properties
with HUD-funded service coordination compared with residents of similar
development without service coordinators. By forestalling or preventing
unnecessary institutionalization, service coordinator programs help to
promote independent living, improve residents' quality of life, and
ultimately save taxpayers' dollars.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research. (2008,
December). Multifamily Property Managers' Satisfaction With Service
Coordination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill amends HUD's Assisted Living Conversion Program (ALCP) so
that more residents would have access to assisted living services. Very
low income people, like Section 202 residents, cannot afford the cost
of assisted living facilities. HUD's ALCP program provides grants to
certain developments to convert some of their units to licensed
assisted living units. Under the current program, each grantee's ALCP
specific designated units must be licensed by the State's licensure
board as meeting its assisted living standards, a cumbersome process.
The bill allows ALCP grantees to provide assisted living services
within a given property, thus greatly expand the numbers of residents
that could participate in such services and the types of services
provided within the property. Under the provisions of S. 118, residents
can chose to participate in these services as they wish and as their
needs change over time. This provision will give residents more choices
of services like medication management, home-based health care, and
personal care.
The bill also includes a National Senior Housing Clearinghouse. The
Clearinghouse will be a national repository to collect, process,
assemble, and disseminate information regarding the availability of
multifamily developments for elderly tenants. HUD is also directed to
establish a toll-free number to provide the public with information on
the availability of affordable senior housing. The Clearinghouse would
greatly assist potential residents and their families in their search
for affordable housing.
How S. 1481, the ``Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of
2009'' Will Help
S. 1481 will authorize the new Project Rental Assistance
Competitive Demonstration, which will facilitate mixed income housing
by providing project based rental assistance alone, without capital
grants. Developers will combine rental assistance with other capital
sources, including the new National Housing Trust Fund. This
demonstration will increase the number of 811 units available to
residents in mixed income, multifamily developments. Poor people with
disabilities will have much greater choice in the kind of housing in
which they can live.
The bill will modify the Capital Advance Program by requiring that
units for people with disabilities are limited to 25 percent of total
units in a property, increasing opportunities for residents to live in
integrated settings. Tenant protections will also be increased as
owners would be required to develop written tenant selection procedures
and eligibility cannot be narrowed to a specific type of disability.
By transferring mainstream tenant based vouchers to the Section 8
program, HUD will be required to reissue all vouchers resulting in a
higher number of vouchers available to eligible residents.
What Else Needs To Be Done
Enactment of S. 1481 and S. 118 are important steps for Congress to
take as soon as possible. We also urge preservation of other HUD
assisted housing, which are home to many people with disabilities and
senior citizens. We urge the Committee to support and enact policies
that will help preserve and improve both the severely distressed and
nonseverely distressed public housing, as well as the project-based
affordable housing stock.
We sincerely hope the Committee will soon take up Section 8 Voucher
Reform legislation. Significant work has been undertaken by a wide
range of stakeholders to also ``modernize'' the voucher program. With
the reforms SEVRA promises, existing voucher resources will be used
more effectively and efficiently to serve more people who languish on
waiting lists for years.
Finally, we ask the Committee to move quickly on funding for the
National Housing Trust Fund. Senator Jack Reed has proposed to direct
$1 billion from the sale of warrants on TARP funds to the initial
capitalization of the NHTF. We thank Senator Menendez and others who
have cosponsored S. 1731.
With $1 billion, we estimate that 10,000 rental units will be
produced or preserved. At least 75 percent of NHTF units must be
affordable to extremely low income people and all must be affordable
for very low income people (incomes at 50 percent of area median or
less). We expect many NHTF units will become home to extremely low
income elderly people and people with disabilities.
Congress has made important strides this year in low income housing
policy. Enactment of the Hearth Act and the Protecting Tenants in
Foreclosure Act will have far reaching benefits for many needy
Americans. The funds provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act to prevent homelessness, to jumpstart the Low Income Housing Tax
Credit, and to make capital investments in public and assisted housing
are being put to good use.
The first year of the 111th Congress will be historic for low
income housing policy if these accomplishments are accompanied by S.
1481, S. 118, SEVRA, and funding for the National Housing Trust Fund.
Thank you for your consideration of my testimony.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR VITTER
FROM MICHELLE NORRIS
Q.1. Ms. Norris, S. 118, the Section 202 Supportive Housing for
the Elderly Reform Legislation is designed to reform the HUD
Section 202 program to enhance housing for the Nation's
elderly. Are there any additional hurdles to building housing
for the elderly that could be included in the legislation but
haven't been for whatever reason?
A.1. As a frequent applicant for new section 202 capital
advances during the NOFA process, I believe that the
legislation covers all the existing legislative hurdles that
are impediments to building housing for the elderly. Although
there may be impediments in the development process, such as
NIMBYism, land costs, conflicting deadlines for various sources
of funding, they can not be solved by changes in the
legislative authorization. Increased costs, such as those that
may be required to meet high land costs or NIMBY related
setbacks or changed egress, are addressed by requiring that
each capital advance be provided reasonable development costs.
I also would suggest that administrative changes at HUD in
their NOFA process and in coordination with other financing
sources would remove hurdles. Finally, even if all the hurdles
are removed, the only way to enhance housing opportunities for
the Nation's low income elderly is to significantly increase
the appropriation for the 202 program. Funding the development
of 3,500-4,000 units a year across the country is simply
insufficient to meet the growing demand.
Q.2. Are you aware of any cost estimates for this bill, S. 118?
If so, what are they?
A.2. S. 118 has not been scored by CBO to my knowledge.
However, H.R. 2930, a similar bill introduced and passed by the
House in the last Congress was scored. Based on the House score
there is direct spending of $94 million over a 5-year period.
The majority of the costs, $88 million, was attributed to the
Section 202 loan sale demonstration program called for in
Section 205 of S. 118. During the 110th Congress, the House
stripped the demonstration from the bill to eliminate the
direct spending and passed the bill under suspension. The
direct spending is the result of the loss of interest to the
Federal Government when the loans are sold. However, my
understanding is that HUD already has the authority to engage
in such loan sales and therefore the provision may not be
necessary if HUD were inclined to demonstrate the efficacy of
loan sales and shifting of asset management to State agencies.
Q.3. What are the real world barriers to the new construction
process for building housing for very low-income seniors? Are
there any difficulties in gaining the necessary permits because
of environmental reviews or other administrative decisions, or
are the delays strictly related to underwriting practices?
A.3. Building housing for low income seniors sometimes suffers
from the same kinds of community opposition to development of
any affordable housing; however senior housing is typically
more acceptable. When community opposition arises, it makes
getting the necessary approvals for development difficult and
time consuming. However, the Section 202 program is unique in
that each sponsor typically has local participation and support
from the start.
Delays can also occur because the 202 program typically
requires a number of funding sources to make the deals work and
that takes time.
In the past we (NCR) have had difficulty getting a variety
of programmatic waivers granted by HUD headquarters for both
new development and preservation deals. In preservation
transactions or refinancing, we have had to ask for waivers to
subordinate the original loan, to convert efficiencies to one
bedrooms and a host of similar issues; therefore apropos your
question, I would suggest that the administrative decisions and
processes at HUD represent greater barriers to getting housing
built or rehabilitated than the local regulatory barriers such
as environmental reviews or zoning or other requirements
typically thought of as barriers. Too often the delays occur
because of frequent bureaucratic ``gotcha'' moments if not
every little item was addressed or because there is no sense of
partnership between HUD and the sponsors. Once an application
is submitted, there is no give and take, just regulator vs.
regulated.
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD ON BEHALF OF: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES; CONCRETE CHANGE; DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND
DEFENSE FUND; EQUAL RIGHTS CENTER; NATIONAL SPINAL CORD INJURY
ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE; NATIONAL MULTIPLE
SCLEROSIS SOCIETY; PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND UNITED SPINAL
ASSOCIATION
These organizations, representing millions of Americans with
disabilities, and their families, friends, and allies, appreciate the
focus of this hearing on the need for more affordable housing. Many low
income Americans with disabilities will benefit from the changes
proposed to the Section 811 program in S. 1481. However, we would
direct the Committee's attention to another related housing challenge
that confronts thousands, if not millions, of people with disabilities
every year. That challenge is finding housing that is not only
affordable, but accessible.
Under current law, when Federal financial assistance is used to
create new single family houses or town houses, only 5 percent are
required to meet accessibility standards that allow individuals with
physical disabilities to visit or live in these houses. The remaining
95 percent of Government-assisted new homes can be built with
unnecessary architectural barriers. As a result, residents who acquire
disabilities are forced to live in unsafe conditions, unable to use
their bathrooms or exit their homes independently. They may face high
renovation costs or long waiting lists for public funds to finance
modifications. They may become socially isolated because architectural
barriers prevent them from taking part in the gatherings that take
place in the homes of their friends and extended family. Ultimately,
they may be forced from their homes and into institutions because of
this lack of basic accessibility in their housing.
In a study published last year by the American Planning
Association, researchers determined that, using different measures of
disability, there was a 25 to 60 percent chance that a house built in
2000 would at sometime during its useful life contain a resident with a
severe, long-term mobility impairment. \1\ This Nation is not building
homes to meet the needs of its people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Aging and Disability: Implications for the Housing Industry
and Housing Policy in the United States'', Journal of the American
Planning Association, Summer 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is legislation that will address these dilemmas in a cost-
effective and practical way. H.R. 1408, the Inclusive Home Design Act
(IHDA), sponsored by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, would require a
basic level of architectural access in all federally assisted newly
constructed housing. While leaving in place the existing requirement
for extensive access in 5 percent, IHDA provides for fewer but
important accessible features in the remaining 95 percent. This would
ensure that all housing built with taxpayer monies enables a person
with a physical disability to enter a home and use the bathroom on the
main level. We estimate the cost of compliance to be less than $100 per
home for homes built on concrete slabs and less than $600 per home for
homes with a basement or crawl space.
We urge the Senate to take up similar legislation, and to act
quickly to address this important issue.
Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on efforts to
stabilize the housing market. Many millions more in spending is being
considered to strengthen and enhance housing opportunities for people
of modest means. We ask Congress to ensure that all Americans can have
access to all federally assisted housing.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CASSIE JAMES HOLDSWORTH ON BEHALF OF ADAPT
HOUSING POLICY COMMITTEE--EDITED BY MADELEINE McMAHON
I am submitting this testimony on behalf of ADAPT and it's Housing
Policy Committee. ADAPT is a nationwide grassroots organization of
people with disabilities fighting to end the institutional bias that
currently traps hundreds of thousands of elderly and people with
disabilities in unwanted nursing home placements. ADAPT has been at the
frontlines, advocating for accessible, affordable, integrated housing
for ourselves and people trying to get out of institutions.
We are people with disabilities. We are involved in transitioning
people out of institutions. Many of us are advocates; others provide
Medicaid waiver services as well as attendant services. In all of these
efforts, it has been clear that the lack of accessible, affordable,
integrated housing is a critical barrier that prevents our people from
living the lives they want.
ADAPT has been advocating for decades for integration of 811
funding. Too much of 811's limited funding continues to go to group
homes and other congregate settings. People are forced into these types
of settings, with little control over their lives, simply because this
is the type of housing that our funding is building. Given their
preference, most people with disabilities would rather live in an
integrated apartment, which is accessible and affordable, with
neighbors that may or may not have a disability. We applaud efforts to
refocus 811 to more integrated housing and away from congregate
facilities.
811 is in need of the reform S. 1481 suggests. People with
disabilities do not want, and should not be forced, to live in
segregated settings. The age of ``crip ghettos'' needs to end. 811 must
be improved to allow people with any type of disability to live
alongside their nondisabled peers.
One area of concern we do have with S. 1481 is that Tenant
Selection (D) Limitation of Occupancy (on p. 4) could be manipulated by
providers. In 2009 disabled people face the biggest housing crisis
ever. Years ago we were kicked out of 202 housing. No other population
would withstand the propaganda and back room deals that led to the
demise of the only stock of housing we had. Although allowing some 811
funds to be used for vouchers helped, it was never enough to make up
the loss of the 202 units which are now elderly only. ADAPT feels that
giving the providers and landlords leeway to give a preference based on
service need they themselves identify creates a slippery slope. We are
viewed by some providers as a commodity and this kind of criteria,
after all, is the vehicle that allows this to happen. When a consumer
with a physical or cognitive disability (exercising self-determination
or a desire to live as independently as possible for that individual)
refuses a service the provider wants them to use and then their
application for housing is turned down, that person could end up in a
shelter or nursing home simply because they refused to play ``cash cow
for the day.''
We are the largest minority. We are people of every race, religion,
gender, orientation, and age. If this systematic discrimination were
brought to a swift end, people with disabilities would interact with
nondisabled people in every setting. Let's face it, understanding is
the only thing that can stop the discrimination and hate crimes that
affect our community. And you thought you were just doing a housing
bill.
I applaud that you at least make the provider get permission to
have such a preference. I suggest another preference that would be
humane and less likely abused: that is that 10 percent of the units
have a preference for people with disabilities who are in nursing homes
or shelters regardless of a need for supportive services and that
leaves at least 15 percent of the units for people who may or may not
need the voluntary supports and services.
RE: page 3 (1.) Use Restrictions (A) Term--It is good that capital
advance is provided under subsection (d) (1) shall create housing
targeted to low income people with disabilities and operate for no less
than 40 years. This low income group of disabled people have found it
very difficult to access affordable, accessible, integrated housing,
due to the lack of construction or the gap in subsidy. It was like
looking for a needle in a haystack and this will help to address those
issues.
(3) limitation on the use of funds. This goes a long way in helping
eliminate this crisis and in time we may even have housing stock that
meets the needs of People with Disabilities. I value the common sense
approach of combining 811 with Existing Tax Credit buildings and
allowing Home Funds, local, State, and Federal dollars and allowing
Section 8 subsidy to fill the gap thus increasing the development
outcomes to finally tackle this horrific shortage of available,
affordable, accessible and integrated housing. This housing crisis may
finally come to an end.
We are pleased that S. 1481 sets out to require a minimum
percentage of 811 funding be spent in integrated settings. We are
pleased that Multifamily Projects limits to 25 percent the total number
of units in a project funded with 811 funds. ADAPT strongly encourages
that the percentage of 811 funding to be used in a project be no less
than 25 percent.
(4) Multifamily project--(A) Limitation (d)(1) Presently I do not
see 25 percent of the aggregate as a problem especially since you can
now develop up to 5,000 units in a year vs. less than 900 units in
years past. S. 1481 creates real integration for us and gets rid of the
``crip ghetto'' formula that has led to our isolation in the community.
(B) Exception subsection (A)--ADAPT also supports S. 1481's
elimination of the Secretary of HUD's ability to waive the maximum
number of occupants of group homes and ``independent living
facilities.'' We must add that this use of the term ``independent
living facilities'' is an insult to an over 30-year-old movement by and
for people with disabilities, a movement that promotes integration and
rights for people with disabilities, not institutional living--as it is
used here. Although we never support the building of such segregated
facilities as group homes and other segregated, congregate living
facilities, while the practice continues, it must be held in check and
moved toward progressively smaller segregated facilities, and
eventually into 100 percent integrated units. ADAPT strongly urges that
the number of occupants in group homes should not exceed 4 individuals.
MFP--Money Follows the Person
ADAPT is particularly concerned because of the need for timely
action. Presently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
is funding the Money Follows the Person (MFP) Demonstration program in
over 30 States. MFP allows people to get the services they need to live
in the community and move out of institutions. For MFP to be
successful, all these thousands of individuals need housing. They don't
want to move from a big institution to a smaller one; they want to move
to their own home or apartment. These people do not want to live in
group homes, board and care homes, or have services forced on them.
They deserve to make their own decisions. They deserve to have real
choices in their lives, as you do in yours. And, according to the
Americans With Disabilities Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's Olmstead
decision, they have a right to live in the most integrated setting.
Section 811 and the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of
2009 need to meet the needs of the elderly and disabled community. The
integrated 811 model would help make the MFP demonstration project a
success.
We implore the Subcommittee to understand that the other witnesses
called to testify DO NOT speak for people with disabilities. Though
they may have good intentions, they are not people with disabilities
and they do not fully comprehend our needs and desires. Think about it,
would your landlord be able to fully represent you? Nothing About Us
Without Us! Please remember ADAPT when you hold your next hearing. We
have our own voice.
Many disabled people want to live in the neighborhoods of their
family and friends. Part of the reason there is so much
misunderstanding about disability and people with disabilities is that
so many of us are forced into segregated environments from childhood.
Nondisabled children and adults are denied the opportunity to know
people with disabilities. Without this opportunity, we all suffer.
Every American has the right to live in the heart of their
community. If we end institutionalization, but do not stop segregation,
my people will still be cash cows for providers who continue to speak
for us but fail to tell you what we really want. Please give us real
choices that will help us out of this housing crisis. People young and
old are dreaming of a chance to live in the community with accessible,
affordable, integrated housing. They want a chance to develop
relationships with people of every age and walk of life.
Hundreds of elderly and people with disabilites wanted to be at
your hearing, but with only 2 days notice, it was not possible. Even if
we had a week's notice our community needs time to get attendants to
travel and figure out how to budget for travel. We do not have high
paid lobbyists in Washington, DC. We have only our own voices, but
these are loud voices!
ADAPT and the hundreds of thousands of people trapped in nursing
facilities will not give up this fight. On Behalf of ADAPT, help us
free our people and stop the segregation. You have the power to make a
difference and help people access their dream to live in the community
in accessible, affordable, integrated housing.
Page 5 (2) Tenant Protections (A) Lease: (B) Termination of Tenancy
(i) and (ii)--Tenant Protections for the most part these protections
seem like they were written with good intentions to avoid any
discriminatory action on the part of the provider or landlord. ADAPT
recommends a 30 day notice to be written by the tenant if they want to
get out of the lease. Disabled people are just like everyone else. They
may find this living situation does not suit them, they may want a
support system in another area, or maybe they are going to purchase a
house or get married; regardless, they should have the right to get out
of a lease.
( C) Voluntary Participation in Services--Recommendation
``Participation in service is not required.'' This is stronger and less
likely to be abused. Refer to page 2 of this testimony. (6)
Applicability of Home Program Cost Limitations--
(A) In General
(B) Waivers--
(i) (ii)
(I)
(II)
(III) (g) (1) (k) (h) (1)
ADAPT understands a cap per unit for the sake of business planning
and that shall not effect our 504 rights as alluded to on page (5)
under (B) waivers (I), (II), (III).
Repeal of Authority To Waiver Size Limitation--ADAPT thinks this is
a great start. Providers will no longer use the Secretary's waiver to
fill beds, and continue the status quo. It begins to chip away at the
systematic segregation. Still ADAPT envisions a day when we go even
further.
Recommendation 1: that group homes are limited to (4) residents. We
believe that it creates a more respectful environment, helps to prevent
physical or mental abuse to residents, and would be easier to monitor
504 and ADA compliance along with any service requirements or CMS
regulations, (when waiver services are on-site). Most of all, it allows
self-determination and hopefully tenant rights to establish rules and
discuss problems that could emerge whenever unrelated people live
together.
Recommendation 2: Independent Living Facility is a term for Nursing
Home or other institutional ownership. People do not live in
Independent Living Centers which are run and controlled by people with
disabilities! What we are talking about here are ICF's or Nursing Homes
or State facilities, institutions that may have (24) residents living
there are not IL's.
Sec. 4. Project Rental Assistance Competitive Demonstration
Program.
(1) Authority--allowing project rental assistance for 60 months
under demonstration project and the ability to renew goes along way in
making these projects costs effective and filling the $300.00 or more
gap in new and existing Tax Credit Buildings. Allowing the Section 8
subsidy to 811 and combining other funds is also very pro-active. This
formula is exactly what we asked Secretary Alfonso Jackson to encourage
several years ago. We also wanted to hold a conference to let
developers know we could combine funding for housing, but this
legislation has taken us even further than we imagined by bringing the
cost to a point where we could develop 5,000 per year and eventually
tackle the shortage of housing for people with disabilities.
(2) (B) 25 percent of the aggregate again assists in creating real
integration for people with a disability, although we requested 50
percent last year ADAPT had not envisioned the changes that will allow
5,000 additional units in a year: 2,500 (2009); 5,000 (2010); 5,000
(2011); and 5,000 (2012)!
(C) Prohibition of Capital Advances. If the 811 has subsidy
assistance provided under the demonstration project they most likely
will not need a capital advance. Smaller nonprofit developers may need
capital advances to build the housing we don't want to discourage such
developers as they are often the real innovators. This Demonstration
project along with combining funding is brilliant what ever took us so
long in getting here! 2012 will bring a total of 17,500 units to people
who have been waiting years and if we give a preference to people with
disabilities in institutions at 10 percent imagine the impact for
people forgotten and hidden behind walls. ADAPT's only concern is that
this program continue beyond 2012 and ensures that we as a community
will never again have to face a housing shortage like the one we have
now.
(D)Eligible Population--This legislation does the right thing by
targeting people with disabilities who have the lowest incomes. These
are the people with disabilities who have been forced into institutions
simply because they could not access housing! It is only right that
they be the population that benefits from the 811 combined funding and
the demonstration program.
Page 8 (3) (A)--Again this goes further than 811 ever has to
promote integration for people with long term disabilities and
recognizes our right to housing and community based services. ADAPT was
the first group to demand a partnership between CMS and HUD. Again and
again we have requested that housing providers work with Community
Based Agencies, especially ones run and controlled by People with
Disabilities or agencies that transition people out of Institutions and
provide services so we don't go into institutions. Modernization of 811
creates resources that will lead us to real community housing options.
However, we recommend that we house people regardless of diagnosis. All
people with disabilities face discrimination in housing and perceive a
shortage of housing. People with disabilities are expected to accept
any housing that comes their way and be grateful. People with
Disabilities are often unfairly evicted. So whether it is mental
health, developmental disability, physical disability, or sensory
disability, we are all impacted. Most people with disabilities need
some supports but often they would rather get them from someone outside
of their housing or be sure that that service is really voluntary and
not forced on them. Some have families and others may live alone or
with a friend but all are crying out for an easier road to affordable,
accessible, integrated housing.
Cross Disability is the way to go. Allowing providers to give
preferences by service needs could still be dangerous or
discriminatory. If services are truly voluntary, that preference is not
needed. Again, we suggest a preference be given to disabled people
living in institutions or other restricted environments such as
shelters regardless of service needs. Voluntary services could be very
creative. I value Senator Dodd's testimony and thought: ``That guy gets
it!'' He suggested that transportation be a supportive service.
Although we have the right to public transportation, as we face
problems related to our health or aging with a disability, a service
like that might help us remain active in the community or even stay
employed. Of course, we should always build housing near public
transportation, but some rural areas have no accessible transportation
and maybe an accessible van could be that voluntary service, the same
as homemaker service or assistance with meal preparation. As long as
these services are voluntary and not intrusive. I would like to thank
Beth Cooper for her patience and advocacy in helping us be able to
submit our testimony. Efforts like this hearing and passing proactive
legislation like Modernizing 811 are the very tools to free our people.
As long as you develop policy with us that is about us, you will find
no one will fight harder for these changes. For the sake of emphasis I
want to say: ``Nothing About Us Without Us.'' When policy is developed
for people but not with people it often does not work. Thank you for
working with us.