[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM:
AN OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND INSURANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 17, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 115-87
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-433 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking
Vice Chairman Member
PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BILL POSEY, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio AL GREEN, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
ANN WAGNER, Missouri ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
ANDY BARR, Kentucky JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania BILL FOSTER, Illinois
LUKE MESSER, Indiana DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
MIA LOVE, Utah DENNY HECK, Washington
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California
TOM EMMER, Minnesota JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada
ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
TED BUDD, North Carolina
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
Shannon McGahn, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Vice EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking
Chairman Member
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
TED BUDD, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
April 17, 2018............................................... 1
Appendix:
April 17, 2018............................................... 29
WITNESSES
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Hammond, Dean, Board Member, Foundation for Affordable Housing in
Kentucky....................................................... 11
Kovich, Lynn, Deputy Secretary, Office of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services, Pennsylvania Department of Human
Services....................................................... 9
Sard, Barbara, Vice President for Housing Policy, Center for
Budget & Policy Priorities..................................... 5
White, Ruth, Executive Director, National Center for Housing &
Child Welfare.................................................. 7
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Hammond, Dean................................................ 30
Kovich, Lynn................................................. 35
Sard, Barbara................................................ 41
White, Ruth.................................................. 60
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Duffy, Hon. Sean:
Statement for the record from the National Low Income Housing
Coalition.................................................. 75
Statement for the record from Lisa Dickson of ACTION Ohio.... 82
Statement for the record from the Council of Large Public
Housing Authorities........................................ 84
Statement for the record from the Columbus Metropolitan
Housing Authority.......................................... 88
Statement for the record from the Corporation for Supportive
Housing.................................................... 89
Statement for the record from the King County Housing
Authority.................................................. 92
Statement for the record from the National Association of
Housing and Redevelopment Officials........................ 96
Statement for the record from the National Housing Trust..... 98
Statement for the record from the National Leased Housing
Association................................................ 100
Beatty, Hon. Joyce:
Letter for the record from Representatives Beatty and Stivers 102
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM:
AN OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW OF
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
----------
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing
and Insurance
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean Duffy
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Duffy, Ross, Pearce, Posey,
Luetkemeyer, Stivers, Hultgren, Rothfus, Zeldin, Trott,
Cleaver, Velazquez, Beatty, Kildee, and Kihuen.
Also present: Representatives Hensarling, Barr, Waters, and
Green.
Chairman Duffy. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance
will come to order. Today's hearing is entitled, ``Housing
Choice Voucher Program: An Oversight and Review of Legislative
Proposals.''
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the subcommittee at any time. Without objection, all
members will have 5 legislative days within which to submit
extraneous materials to the Chair for an inclusive in the
record.
Without objection, members of the full committee, who are
not members of this subcommittee, may participate in today's
hearing for the purpose of making an opening statement and
questioning the witnesses.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement. However, I might take less than that, and
reserve some time for Mr. Barr who has a bill up today.
I want to thank our witnesses, first, for their
participation in today's hearing, as we examine how to help
insure that low-income families and the impoverished are not
left on the streets and out in the cold.
Many of you will recall Speaker Ryan's Better Way agenda, a
series of policy reforms to address America's problems. With
the recent announcement of Speaker Ryan, which as a Wisconsin
guy I was sad to hear, it is bitter sweet for us to now be
laying the groundwork and foundation for the speaker's Better
Way agenda to fight poverty.
In our vision for a confident America, we outlined how we
want to evaluate Federal Government programs that have a proven
success rate of reducing poverty.
I believe that the measures of success of our Federal
Government programs shouldn't be how much money we spend to
alleviate poverty. We should be evaluating and investing in
successful programs that lead people to self-sufficiency and
independence, instead of Government dependence.
So, not how much money we spend, but what are the results
of the money we spend?
Today, we will be looking at three different discussion
drafts that utilize the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)
which is administered locally by public housing agencies as a
tool to increase mobility and lead families or individuals to
better opportunities.
Once a family has been issued a Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV), they are responsible for finding the housing unit of
their choice in which the owner agrees to rent the family a
unit under the program.
The local public housing authority, in turn, would pay the
subsidy received by the family directly to the owner of the
unit. Outside of that payment to the owner, the family is
responsible for paying the difference between the gross rent
and the amount subsidized by the program.
Three discussion drafts that are the subject of this
hearing focus on: mobility, foster youth, and those impacted by
the opioid epidemic.
Let us start on voucher mobility as a way to help those
that are able to work, move to locations in which jobs are
available. It seems fairly evident that if poverty is caused by
a lack of employment, we should figure out ways to move people
to opportunities. Where do opportunities exist? Let us move
them to where the jobs are.
In reviewing testimony for this hearing, I was compelled by
Ms. Sard's reference to a study by Raj Chetty entitled, quote,
``The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children:
New Evidence From Moving to Poverty Experiment,'' end quote.
To quote Ms. Sard's testimony, she says, ``Evidence
underscores that low-income children, whose families move from
very poor neighborhoods to lower-poverty areas have higher
earnings as adults and are less likely to become single parents
and more likely to attend college, than children remaining in
less advantageous neighborhoods.'' End quote. I thought that
was superb in her reference.
Under my discussion draft, we would create a demonstration
project in which the administration of Housing Choice Vouchers
would be designated to encourage movement to lower-poverty
areas with expanded employment opportunities.
A qualifying public housing agency would be required to
submit a regional housing mobility plan that would identify
participants, identify the number of vouchers made available in
connection with the demonstration, and identify organizations
and businesses participating in the plan.
The funding from ability-related services would come from
administrative fees and support from private entities. Three
years after implementation of the demonstration program, the
secretary will submit a report evaluating the effectiveness of
the program.
I very much look forward to a discussion on this draft,
seeking your comments and feedback on a draft legislation.
Next, we have a bill that was introduced by Michael Turner,
H.R. 2069, which is focused on ensuring that foster youth have
available housing opportunities as they age out of the
Government's role as maybe their parent.
Nearly one in five foster youth, initially surveyed at age
17, report that by the age of 19, they had experienced
homelessness. One in five kids in foster care experience
homelessness. That is an astounding number.
I think Mr. Turner has a very thoughtful bill that would
prioritize foster youth when providing the housing assistance.
I am going to take a moment and reserve 1 minute of my
time. I will yield to Chairman Barr after I yield to the
Ranking Member, the Gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing on the oversight and review of legislative proposals.
Welcome to those of you who are giving of your time to present
information to us today.
This hearing gives an opportunity to examine three
legislative housing proposals. Improving our Federal housing
services continues to be a significant priority of mine. We
should all work to ensure that families, veterans, the elderly,
and those suffering from substance abuse have access to Federal
services and housing support.
I welcome this conversation today and look forward to
hearing more from you who come here to present information to
us.
There are three proposals that we are going to consider
today. The first would create a demonstration program within
the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The proposal would allow
the secretary of HUD to create a mobility demonstration program
where up to 10 regions could be selected.
It would allow public housing administrations in these
regions to create consortia that could encourage residents to
use their housing vouchers to move from high-poverty areas to
low-poverty areas.
The draft is similar to one that we discussed, and actually
debated during the Obama Administration, which was based on
evidence from a Harvard professor, that indicates that children
who move to higher opportunity neighborhoods increase their
chances of success.
I am supportive of the proposal, though I would like to
encourage the inclusion of authorized funding from the
administration for the program.
Congressman Barr also has a proposal that would create HCV
demonstration program for people suffering from opioid
addiction. This is a well-intentioned deal, and I am supportive
of increasing resources for those suffering from drug
addiction, whether it is opioids or other substances.
However, I do have concerns that the bill would give not-
for-profit entities or nonprofit entities that may not have
housing experience the responsibility of administering this
program.
Housing authorities typically have the know-how and access
to HUD databases to successfully administer voucher programs.
The program also doesn't authorize new vouchers, but instead
could take existing vouchers from other needy families.
Last, Congressman Turner has a proposal that would create
Housing Choice Voucher preference for foster youth aging out of
foster case. I a very supportive of the goal to assist foster
youth which is why I included a provision to improve the Family
Unification Program when we passed HOTMA last Congress.
This proposal, however, would give foster children a
preference over other vulnerable groups, like the homeless
victims of domestic violence and veterans. There are a
multitude of Federal programs targeting at aiding foster
children and I would prefer to work to improve and fund
existing opportunities.
Thank you very much and I look forward to dialogically
becoming involved with you.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Monetary Policy
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 1
minute.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Chairman Duffy. Thank you to the
Housing and Insurance Subcommittee for calling this hearing
today.
We all know that the opioid epidemic is a major health
crisis that has impacted every community and every
Congressional district. My home State of Kentucky suffers from
the third highest drug overdose mortality rate in the country.
In light of the declaration of a national public health
emergency announced by President Trump last fall, there is a
pressing need for additional transitional housing for opioid
recovery, a proven evidenced-based approach that has helped
thousands of Americans to maintain sobriety after completing
rehab, gained valuable skills in job training, obtain
employment, and eventually transition back to society to lead
independent lives.
Too many individuals find themselves with limited housing
choices after completing in-patient rehabilitation and are
forced into housing situations where they are surrounding by
people using the very same illegal substances that they went to
rehab to stop using. This perpetuates the cycle of addiction
and prevents individuals from rising above substance abuse.
Current Federal programs addressing the opioid epidemic
focus on treatment and prevention. But they do not address the
needs of individuals who complete intensive treatment and
require continued support.
Our legislation, Transitional Housing For Opioid Recovery
Demonstration Program, would allow for a limited number of
Section 8 housing choice vouchers to be used for transitional
housing nonprofits that have evidenced-based models of
recovery, life skills training, and, I would add to my good
friend, Reverend Cleaver, experience in housing.
Today, you will hear from one transitional housing
nonprofit from Kentucky that has had tremendous success in
fighting the opioid epidemic and was listed recently by HUD
secretary, Ben Carson.
I would like to welcome to the committee my constituent,
Dean Hammond, who helps to lead that nonprofit.
Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back time he doesn't
have.
If the subcommittee would offer me a minute of personal
privilege, I would like to recognize Theresa Dumais. She works
for the Ranking Member on--the director of housing policy.
This is her last week with the subcommittee. We want to
thank her for her service to our committee. The great
bipartisan work she has done to make the committee all
possible. Thank you.
Our loss is Freddie Mac's gain, I guess, right?
Theresa, thank you for your service.
I now want to recognize our panel. First, I want to
recognize Barbara Sard, the Vice President for Housing Policy
at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Next, I want to
recognize Ms. Ruth White, the Executive Director of National
Center for Housing and Child Welfare. Next, Ms. Lynn Kovich,
the Deputy Secretary at the Office of Health and Substance
Abuse Services in Pennsylvania's Department of Human Services.
Finally, Mr. Hammond, a Board Member for the Foundation for
Affordable Housing in Kentucky. I don't know if Mr. Barr wants
to make any other introduction or is that fine?
Mr. Barr. That is fine and I look forward to welcoming Dean
Hammond. On behalf of Phil Gray, I see Phil Gray as well, the
President of the foundation for affordable housing in Kentucky
as well. Welcome to you as well.
Chairman Duffy. OK. The witnesses will, in a moment, be
recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of their
written testimony.
Without objection, the witnesses' written testimony will be
made part of the record following their oral remarks. Once the
witnesses have finished presenting their testimony, each member
of the subcommittee will be given 5 minutes within which to ask
the panel questions.
I would just note that on the table, there are three
lights. Green means go. Yellow means you have 1 minute left.
The red light means that your time is up.
The microphones are sensitive so please speak directly into
them.
With that, Ms. Sard, you are recognized now for 5 minutes
for an oral presentation of your written statement.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA SARD
Ms. Sard. Thank you, Chairman Duffy, for inviting me to
testify today and to you and Ranking Member Cleaver for holding
this important hearing.
At the subcommittee's hearing some 18 months ago, I
recommended that Congress take a series of actions to expand
housing choice, improve economic mobility, and make the Housing
Choice Voucher Program more efficient. I am very pleased that
the draft Housing Choice Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act of
2018 would follow through on my number one recommendation.
Today, I will focus on that bill and conclude with a few
recommendations for improvements in the other two bills before
you this afternoon.
As the Chairman just noted, growing evidence underscores
the importance of where low-income families live to a range of
outcomes for adults and children. In particular, how moving
from very poor neighborhoods to low-poverty ones can help
prevent intergenerational poverty.
While housing vouchers are very effective at reducing
homelessness and other hardships, cutting foster care
placements and reducing school moves, housing vouchers as
currently administered, often do not enable families to access
neighborhoods with greater opportunities.
The draft Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act could help the
voucher program reach its full potential in three ways. It
would encourage local housing agencies to form regional
collaboratives that lower barriers to families moving to
higher-opportunity areas and reduce long-term operating costs.
Second, it could make regional operation of the voucher
program more feasible by providing the HUD Secretary authority
to modify certain laws.
Third, it provides a framework for learning what types of
mobility-related services are most cost effective.
My written testimony recommends various ways to strengthen
the bill. I want to highlight three for you today.
First, the bill should prioritize regional collaborations
that serve areas with high concentrations of voucher holders in
poor low-opportunity neighborhoods--the very families and
children likely to most benefit from the demonstration--but
that also include enough moderately priced rental units in
higher-opportunity areas, so that the initiative has a high
chance of success.
Second, the bill should ensure that families moving within
the region can continue to benefit from a well-performing
family self-sufficiency program. As I am sure you all remember,
the House recently passed H.R. 4258, the Family Self-
Sufficiency Act, that was sponsored by Chairman Duffy and
Ranking Member Cleaver.
Unfortunately, this excellent bill won't fix a problem that
is particularly germane here that results from many housing
authorities operating in a region. That problem is that
families that move to another agency's jurisdiction may not be
able to continue to participate in the FSS program and even may
forfeit the savings that they have generated as their earnings
increase while participating in the program.
Parents should not have to choose between a safer
neighborhood with better opportunities for their children and
their own economic advancement. With some tweaks, the bill
could fix that problem.
Finally, it is also vital to authorize sufficient funding
for a robust demonstration. We estimate that $30 million would
support 15 regional mobility programs that offer comprehensive
mobility services to 22,500 families over a 3-year period.
We anticipate that about one-third of the families that are
offered these services will actually move to a low-poverty
high-opportunity area.
Turning to the draft bills submitted by Congressmen Turner
and Barr, both of these bills aim to use housing vouchers to
address serious problems as noted. While housing assistance has
an important role to play in both cases, it is the Center's
view that these bills are not well designed to achieve their
purposes.
Most importantly, Congress should fund additional vouchers
for these purposes. There is already a program, as Mr. Cleaver
noted, the Family Unification Program, that provides vouchers
that help former foster youth as well as prevent and shorten
child placements in foster care.
More of these vouchers would help address the serious
problems the bill was designed to get at. Congress has shown a
willingness, in recent years, to provide such vouchers.
We agree with the provision of Mr. Turner's bill that
requiring housing authorities to allow youth aging out to make
an early application, from the age of 16, is a sensible
requirement.
But we are concerned about the mandatory preference
requirement and other provisions of the bill. We want to flag
the recommendation in our testimony that HUD could be directed
to ensure that housing authorities actually make use of the
nearly 50,000 Family Unification Program vouchers that have
been funded over the years, many of which do not appear to be
currently used.
Vouchers also can help people exiting residential
treatment. As we note in our testimony, building on the HUD-
VASH model would be potentially more effective.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sard can be found on page 41
of the appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Sard.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. White for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RUTH WHITE
Ms. White. Good afternoon, Chairman Duffy and Ranking
Member Cleaver. It is my honor to address this committee on the
topic of housing as a platform for upward mobility,
particularly in light of the significant improvements for youth
included by Mr. Luetkemeyer of Missouri in the Housing
Opportunities Through Modernization Act.
Like the proposal I will focus on today, HOTMA was informed
by the ideas and experiences of people who live in HUD's
assisted housing programs.
Committee members and staff moved swiftly to draft
straight-forward common-sense improvements. I hope that you
will move fostering stable opportunities at a similarly
impressive pace.
My name is Ruth White, and I am the Co-founder and
Executive Director of the National Center for Housing and Child
Welfare, and a Professor of Social Work at the Catholic
University of America.
We are the leading advocacy organization for HUD's Family
Unification Program which provides housing choice vouchers to
families at risk of separation due to inadequate housing.
My co-founder, the late Bob McKay, and I were approached in
1999 by the Child Welfare League of America Youth Advisory
Committee who suggested that youth should be added as an
eligible population for FUP. We brought that idea to Senator
Kit Bond, also of Missouri, there must be something about
Missouri, who moved to add youth that very year.
My professional expertise, as it turns out, is the least
important of what brings me here today. The Fostering Stable
Housing Opportunities Act of 2017 emerged directly from an
event called ``3 Days on the Hill'' which brings youth, ages 14
or older, to D.C. to speak to Members of Congress.
It is organized by three volunteers; Lisa Dixon, a full-
time librarian; Jamal Callahan, a young business professional;
and Doris Edelman, a retired 30-year veteran of child welfare
work.
Lisa is an alumna who graduated from foster care in 1989,
and, at that time, experienced her own set of housing
challenges. Jamal is also an alumni.
These youth take time off of work and school, study the
issues and come to Capitol Hill prepared to express gratitude
when Congress gets it right, offer their gift of their personal
stories and share suggestions from their unique vantage point.
What a unique vantage point it is.
Contributions to the literature by outstanding
ethnographers, like Matthew Desmond, notwithstanding, the only
way to inform public policy, based on experience, is to
personally navigate the inner section between public systems as
if your life depended on it. This is why, despite my 20 years
of experience, I did not identify the obvious synchronization
problems that this bill will fix, nor did anyone else in the
professional class.
Mr. Turner of Ohio and his staff crafted a solution to the
synchronization problems with the system right along with
youth. It is no surprise that Mr. Turner's partner in refining
and introducing this bill is the Honorable Karen Bass of
California. The co-founder and co-chair of the Congressional
Caucus on Foster Youth, who, among so many other
accomplishments, shepherded the Improving Foster Care Services
for Youth Act into law just last month.
I understand that some professionals offer FUP as a simple
solution to the issues these youth raised. FUP is a 20-year-old
evidenced-based elegantly simple program that works. It needs a
predictable stream of funding of $20 million annually.
But, at this time, no authorizing changes are needed.
Instead, foster youth identified a serious synchronization flaw
that must be addressed outside of FUP.
The fate of a foster child aging out who is in need of a
FUP voucher to ease their transition into independence is tied
to whether or not they live in a jurisdiction of a PHA that has
successfully applied for FUP, whether or not the availability
of that voucher is synchronized with their emancipation.
Currently, 197 PHAs administer FUP. This is not for lack of
interest. Public housing authorities are excellent partners.
When considered in the aggregate and viewed against the
backdrop of a finite affordable housing pool, this seems like a
typical resource constraint problem. But from the perspective
of Sydney, Tori, Kimberly, Shuana, Christopher, Perish, and
Savian alone in the world at the intersection of childhood and
adulthood without the support of a family, this mismatch is an
epic policy fail.
These young adults did not come to D.C. to complain about
PHAs, FUP, or anything else. They came to express gratitude and
to offer their expertise about the problems between systems
that only they are qualified to see.
The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act of 2017
offers a two-pronged approach, early applications and priority
preferences.
Additionally, this still incorporates recommendations from
former foster youth that have been repeatedly suggested year
after year, dating back to Trudy Festinger's study of 1983
entitled, ``No One Ever Asked Us,'' to ensure that young people
aging out of foster care can use services as a platform for
self-sufficiency.
I will offer to you that the priority preference is
problematic for other people because Federal preferences were
eliminated in 1998. But the reality is that if every voucher
that Congress gives out to housing authorities is a special-
purpose voucher, then Congress is essentially running a Federal
preference program at this time.
I also want to mention, just briefly, that my work is
focused largely on ensuring that HHS uses its funding to ensure
that young people have a self-sufficiency platform as well. HHS
funding is flexible and elastic and can be used for private
housing, and it can also be used to end youth homelessness.
With that, I also want to mention that this bill is
proptitious because we are not looking at a finite pool. A $4.9
million multi-sector Opportunity Starts at Home campaign is
underway to vastly increase the pool of affordable housing.
This bill is perfectly timed with that.
With that, I thank you. I will hand it over.
[The prepared statement of Ms. White can be found on page
60 of the appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. White.
Ms. Kovich, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LYNN KOVICH
Ms. Kovich. Good afternoon, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member
Cleaver, and all the other members of the committee. It is my
honor to be here this afternoon and testify about the
Transitional Housing Opioid Recovery Demonstration Act of 2018.
As the Chairman said, I am the Deputy Secretary for the
Pennsylvania Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Services within the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.
Governor Wolf has made fighting the opioid crisis one of
his administration's top priorities. In fact, in January of
this year, he declared a disaster declaration around the crisis
to enable the State to increase its response time to offer more
access to treatment, to provide support to families, as well as
to provide data to be able to attack the problem.
It brings together most officials of his cabinet and a
group of us meet every Monday to talk about the State's
strategies to attack the crisis.
I have been involved in either running, developing, or
operating supportive housing for people with mental illness,
people with substance-use disorder, people with developmental
intellectual disabilities for the better part of my career. I
am very devoted and committed to ensuring people have access to
affordable housing, coupled with services that are specifically
tailored to their individual needs.
I have worked with many of the HUD-funded programs. I have
used supportive housing as a platform to implement homestead
settlement agreements. I have also been touched personally by
the opioid crisis, having lost a cousin to an overdose. She was
homeless at the time that she overdosed and passed away.
I am now in my second State having worked in New Jersey and
now in Pennsylvania in trying to attack this crisis on all
fronts.
People though--I say that people with SUD or--and/or opioid
use disorder can and do recover. They need treatment. They need
access to housing. They need access to services.
The housing should not be time limited. The housing needs
to be permanent as if we were working with folks with a mental
illness or an intellectual disability.
I sit here in front of you and admit readily that I don't
think we have done a great job in providing affordable housing
and supportive housing to people with an addiction, regardless
of it being a substance-use disorder, like alcoholism or
addiction to cocaine or an opioid-use disorder.
While the legislation, the draft discussion, is really well
intentioned, I would just like to offer four quick points.
The voucher--the availability of a voucher should not be
based on someone's drug of choice. It should be open and
available to people with any substance-use disorder.
Within New Jersey itself, we had--I am sorry, Pennsylvania.
We had over 176,000 individuals diagnosed with a substance-use
disorder, alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine; 90,000
with an opioid-use disorder.
The numbers really support an overall--to be able to have
this open to people with any substance-use disorder.
Services need to be available. In Pennsylvania, we fund our
services through Medicaid, through State dollars, through local
county dollars, through our Federal block grant dollars.
But--and we have also done a lot of developing housing
through State dollars. In an ideal world, those State dollars
would be developed as a bridge. We have developed a lot of
subsidies. That should be a bridge to a Federal subsidy.
Supportive housing has been known as a three-legged stool,
service funding, capital funding as well as subsidy. HUD having
the two main roles in subsidy and capital. I really encourage
the committee to continue to work on services' funding.
Second, the demo should not impose time limits for folks.
Permanent housing has really been the success of the HUD
Continuum of Care program. When PHAs engage with landlords,
they typically are thinking they are engaging on a permanent
basis. Having it be temporary can disincentivize the program.
There is more than three decades of evidence that permanent
housing is the most effective way to deal with folks who have a
substance-use disorder and/or a mental illness.
The demonstration points to supportive housing as the basis
of the model but it runs counter to it, in terms of it not
being permanent. The housing needs to be low-barriers. Services
need to be individualized and tailored to folks' needs.
The third point is that it is not--public housing authority
should be involved, as the Ranking Member indicated. I having
run an opioid treatment program, addiction providers typically
don't have experience running housing programs.
It is a very logistically, administratively burdensome
program, and they have the specific expertise. Public housing
authority should be involved in the demonstration.
Housing and services should be--should be separate. Your
service provider should not also be your housing provider. That
is one of the tenets of supportive housing. Finally, I would
offer that, as others have already testified, there should be
additional vouchers as part of this program. The Housing Choice
Voucher Program is currently--the demand far-exceeds the supply
of affordable housing and of affordable vouchers.
Three million people are on the waiting list. Nine million
would be on the waiting list if waiting lists were open. Public
housing authorities have to close them because the demand is
too high.
I will end there.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kovich can be found on page
35 of the appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Kovich.
Mr. Hammond, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEAN HAMMOND
Mr. Hammond. Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member Cleaver, and
other interested parties, Phil Gray, the current President of
the Foundation for Affordable Housing, and I thank you and the
committee for this invitation.
I have been working in low-income housing for 33 years,
developing software to manage those authorities. For the last
14 years, as a Board Member, the President, and now consulting
the Board of Directors for the Foundation for Affordable
Housing at St. James Place.
We have 102 units of low-income homeless housing there, and
we have been running that for 23 years. For the last 14, we
have been dealing with veteran housing. Those who have
substance-abuse problems and have come through a rehab program
and into service-intensive transitional housing.
Today, my focus will be on the Section 8 Voucher Set-Aside
Bill for the support of transitional housing for opioid
recovery and the Fostering Stable Housing Bill. Each is
consistent with our service intensive transitional housing
model.
When we introduce opioid factor or other mental conditions,
everything changes. It is not just some skills review kind of
housing. There is a serious change in behavior, psych, and
physiology. Our model seeks those who want to go beyond just
existence and into unsubsidized permanent housing.
The question of the candidate is, can you qualify and do
you want to work to succeed? Because it is all up to the
addict.
Does--this doesn't replace rapid housing. It is a different
category in itself. Whenever we speak of a model, rebuild a
life, before it goes completely bad and we look to easily
measurable items and a checklist of components.
First, we are talking about the opioid problem in Kentucky
which is a massive problem. Sustained recovery from addiction,
absolutely up to the addict. 90 days of rehab treatment direct
must be there. It is a minimum. It is a minimum. Graduate from
that.
Stop here and most will go back to where they were.
Relapse. If they are on heroin, there will be an O.D. That is
how it goes with these folks, and we have been through this
several times.
Structured service intensive transitional housing brings
something else to bear. It increases the odds of success.
Structure. Most of our clients lack structure. That is what
got them where they were. Considered successful, special
schools uniforms, discipline structure, military structure,
jail structure.
Unfortunately, they continue to go back to the structure
they know. In 3 years, 68 percent will be back in prison. In 5
years, 77 percent will be back in prison. 84 percent of inmates
24 or younger, when released, will be arrested within 5 years.
The stable housing. The stable housing has to be in a good
environment. It can't be back where they were. It has to be
closed circuit. Group in one building. Special lease agreement
tied to the program, not the client.
Permanent employment. It has to be mandatory. They have to
have a job. That is how they are going to get through this
thing.
Mandatory training and education. Two different things.
Life skills, of course you hear that. Job skills, complete Dave
Ramsey's Financial Peace University. Trade schools. Equine
therapy. Recovery meetings. All--whatever we have to do to get
them there.
Stable finances. Things like child support, trying to get
that straightened out.
Mandatory savings. This is one of our critical mandatory
components. 30 percent of their adjusted gross income in
savings. This is a great investment for us.
Initially begins in the third quarter of the first year.
Current program. Our veterans have saved over $300,000 in this
program. Average was $2,200 a vet. Some over $10,000 each in
less than 2 years.
When someone completes any course of rehab, training or
even incarceration, and they have no savings to start their new
life, the recovered life, they have no option but to go back
where they were.
Let us return to the Section 8 directorate set aside. This
is an exciting proposal with a few variances from the normal
Section 8 directly combined with other funds to support all of
the components of service intensive transitional housing, we
have a successful model.
For the purposes of this model, we would need a variance
from the Section 8 normal lease to a behavior agreement. A
variance from the 30 percent adjusted gross rent to no rent, at
least for the first 6 months, so the savings can begin to
build.
Perhaps a hybrid project based or a unit based might be a
better substitute for the authorization might work.
To stay in housing, the candidate must be successful.
Considering that, we are hopeful that the secretary will see
fit to allocate the funds for the operation of the entire
program. All of it. For support, as well as housing, as well as
any of the outside support that we need for them.
Let us take a look at this cost. If we enroll them in the
University of Addiction Life Recovery, the total cost is about
$700,000 a year based on 40 units of SRO housing. Housing comes
in about $273,000. The program about $427,000. That was based
on a Section 8 FMR in Lexington now.
Based on 40 units at $17,500 per person per year.
University of Incarceration. 2015 numbers, Federal prison,
$31,900. Halfway house, $26,082. State prison in New York,
$69,355. In the city of New York, $118,000. I studied this
before we could put them in the Waldorf for that kind of money.
We have a spread sheet that you were given to show you the
statistics of our success working with these veterans over the
last 14 years.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hammond can be found on page
30 of the appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Hammond.
I want to thank our four witnesses for their testimony.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
First, Ms. Sard, I want to thank you for your insightful
feedback on my bill. That is the purpose of the discussion
draft is to have well informed people take a look at it, and
provide us smart feedback on how we can improve a legislation.
I think a lot of your recommendations are sound, so I thank you
for that feedback.
But just--I want to quickly go to just the procedural cost
and complexity, when we have an individual that wants to move
from one authority to another authority. Could you elaborate on
that for us?
Ms. Sard. Sure. There are a variety of ways this is done in
practice. There are a relatively small number of agencies that
actually serve a whole region by themselves.
Then, families can easily move with their voucher wherever
they can find a willing landlord. But, in most cases, within a
region, there are at least two agencies administering housing
vouchers and often far more, 10 or more.
Where I lived for many decades, and learned the voucher
program policy in the Boston region, there are over 60 agencies
that administer the housing voucher program.
In those cases, when you have to move from agency A, and
you want to rent a unit in an area served by agency B, you have
to use what are called portability procedures. Under
portability, almost everybody loses, currently.
The original agency loses its voucher. The family moves to
another community. They lose 80 percent of their administrative
fee.
Other than their concern for the well-being of the
particular family, they have no self interest in promoting
those moves.
Chairman Duffy. Because they are concerned about the agency
itself and what they get, right?
Ms. Sard. Right. Right.
In terms of providing--HUD rules require them to give
information to families about the value of moving to lower-
poverty areas and about the portability procedures. But they
have no incentive to go beyond the bare minimum required.
Chairman Duffy. Unless they had a pure heart that says, I
am just looking out for the people in which I serve. But that
is not always the case. Then, we have good people in these
programs but sometimes they are concerned about the money that
flows back into.
Ms. Sard. Right. The receiving agencies also don't have any
great incentive to help a family from another community get a
potentially scarce unit compared to their residents. They only
get 80 percent of their fee on an ongoing basis.
Chairman Duffy. I think that is a good point. But do you
see--does the panel see a problem generational poverty? I think
this goes to--and I am leading to the point of--and I think you
mentioned this, Ms. Sard, in your testimony. But if we can move
families in a place--from a place where there is not a lot of
opportunity to a place where there is more opportunity and a
job, I would think that, one, you can become self-sufficient.
But, also, what impact does that have on your kids and the
next generation if you see a family of opportunity and working
and that compared to a place where there is no opportunity?
Isn't the whole system better off when you can easily move to a
location of more opportunities?
Ms. Sard. I agree entirely. I think the report of the
speaker's task force on poverty in 2016 really nailed it, in
noting that not only does the current administrative geography
of the voucher program undermine anti-poverty goals, but it is
also inefficient.
Figuring out ways that are consistent with State and local
prerogatives, but providing incentives for agencies to figure
out solutions to these problems and collaborate are a really
important priority for Federal policy.
Chairman Duffy. Help get people job training. Help get
people a job. Help move them hopefully off the system.
Let us say I was to make--strongly consider a lot of the
recommendations from Ms. Sard. Does anybody have an objection
to my voucher mobility bill? Any other concerns out there? You
guys all are bipartisan supportive?
Great. Ms. Kovich is not saying no, so I appreciate that.
Thank you. I don't have a lot of time left, but I want to go to
Mr. Turner's bill. I would argue that when you fall into
homelessness, it is harder to get out of homelessness.
If we see kids in foster care--and one in five are falling
into homelessness. This is a significant risk that we want to
get them in the pipeline of the system and make sure they have
a stable bridge into a home, making sure that they are going to
school or getting a job. They can have an offramp into managing
their lives on their own. I think that makes a lot of sense.
I appreciate Mr.--you guys might be surprised that we seem
so bipartisan up here on these bills. This is not the absolute
priority but it has to be one of the three priorities from a
housing authority. They have to include those in foster care.
If we can keep kids in foster from homelessness, in the
end, I think we save more money and make people's lives better.
With that concept, is there any objection? No?
Ms. Sard, go ahead.
Ms. Sard. We are concerned about reversing the 20-year-old
decision that Congress painfully made, that the Federal
Government shouldn't be deciding local admission preferences.
That that should be a local matter.
I think that decision--while I had misgivings about it at
the time 20 years ago--actually has been a very successful
policy change.
Chairman Duffy. But, isn't fair it to say that the
Government is the parent of the child. In the end when they--
Ms. Sard. Yes, but I think--
Chairman Duffy. Hit an age, we are kicking them off a
cliff.
Ms. Sard. But--
Chairman Duffy. And saying, you are going to fly or you are
going to crash. That is my concern when we are the responsible
parties in foster care.
Ms. Sard. I do not doubt, for a moment, that the child
welfare system has failed these youth.
But if you try to solve the problem through changing
admissions preferences, the people who are paying for that
failure are the people with, potentially, equally serious needs
at the top of the agencies waiting lists, who are not getting
served and who have been waiting. Perhaps a family that is
going to lose their child to foster care because they don't
have a stable home.
That is why the real solution here is more resources
targeted on these--
Chairman Duffy. But, again, we are not making them the sole
priority but one of the top three priorities.
Ms. Sard. That is an improvement in the bill.
Chairman Duffy. But I am just--my time is well over. I
think, in the long run, you are going to have these kids in the
system, and we are going to be paying for them.
It will be far more expensive, I think, to easily take them
out instead of throwing them off the ledge, I think it is a
better approach. But maybe that is a conversation we can
continue to have, and I appreciate your honest and straight
feedback that you have given.
Mr. Hammond, I am 2 minutes over but I will make sure I get
a chance to come to you.
But with that, the Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
New York, Ms. Velazquez, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sard, while there is no question that we need to
promote choice of mobility options for individual and families
receiving rental assistance in the draft of the House Choice
Voucher Mobility Demonstration Bill is a step in the right
direction, I still have some outstanding issues regarding the
discussion draft.
Are you concerned that the draft comes with no additional
resources or new vouchers to carry out the demonstration? What
type of impact will this bill have on existing voucher holders
or those on current waiting lists?
Yes.
Ms. Sard. You raise two somewhat different concerns, as I
heard you. The first one is the need for additional dollars to
support the services and, also, additional vouchers.
Now, I have to be forthright with the committee. I would
love to see additional vouchers for this purpose. I was an
author--lead author of a paper with the Urban Institute that
was recently published as part of the U.S. Partnership on
Mobility from Poverty, sponsored by the Gates Foundation, that
recommends 500,000 new vouchers for very much the same purpose.
But given that we have now about a million families with
children who have vouchers, you can do a reasonable
demonstration that can enable us to learn what are the most
cost-effective strategies to help families move to higher-
opportunity communities.
I am not concerned about any adverse consequence for
existing families because the only ones that would participate
in such a demonstration are those that chose to do so.
Ms. Velazquez. OK.
Ms. Sard. That would be choice.
Ms. Velazquez. OK. Do you recommend the Voucher Mobility
Demonstration Act can be improved by focusing on PHAs that
serve areas with a high concentration of voucher holders in
poor, low-opportunity neighborhoods that have an inadequate
number of moderately priced rental units.
Are you concerned about the implementation of a program
like this in New York City, where there is an extremely low-
vacancy rate, 3.4 percent, and an extremely high monthly rental
price for unit? My question for you is, would you think that a
program like this will work in New York?
Ms. Sard. I think it can work in New York. My understanding
is that the city's Department of Housing Preservation and
Development is working on such a program and would look forward
to having some resources to help them.
New York City is obviously a diverse place. There are a lot
of different kinds of neighborhoods in New York. It would also
be important for the city to join with surrounding housing
authorities to widen the potential areas where housing vouchers
could be used.
I think it is vital if we are going to help achieve the
effectiveness and efficiency goals of the demonstration, in
addition to the choice goals. That it not be a single housing
authority that is participating but a set of agencies in a
region.
Ms. Velazquez. My last question. The discussion draft
called for a 3-year-evaluation cycle. Do you think that is
enough? The last--this direct bill is modeled after the Obama
Administration's one that lasted for 5 years or even 10 years.
What input do you think a 3-year-evaluation cycle will have
on the results?
Ms. Sard. I think it is reasonable to do a 3-year
demonstration. But to have a sound report to Congress on the
effectiveness of that evaluation, you have to add in some extra
time. You have to have the full 3 years to implement and that
takes some time after enactment.
Then, you have to have time to analyze your data and write
a report.
Ms. Velazquez. In conclusion, do you think that a 3-year
cycle is enough?
Ms. Sard. No, we recommend that it be 5 years.
Ms. Velazquez. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Duffy. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Chair of the Financial
Institutions Subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Luetkemeyer, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. White, I was interested in your conversation a while
ago in your testimony. In the last Congress, Ranking Member
Cleaver and I introduced the Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act that you referenced. That legislation
provided new options for use of family unification for--of the
Family Unification Program, or FUP vouchers that you talked
about. I think you indicated that it was funded about $20
million, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. Turner's legislation appears to extend the FUP model to
all transition-age foster youth at risk of homelessness. Even
those jurisdictions without an accurate FUP portfolio or where
FUP is used primarily for the family population--subpopulation
it serves.
I guess the first question I want to ask is, do you think
that the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act is
precisely the type of education we should use in supporting
this activity?
Ms. White. I do because it fixes a significant
synchronization problem that, again, I wasn't qualified to--it
was invisible to me. But as you talk to young people who are
coming out of the system, they understand that there is a
situation where they have to live in the right housing
jurisdiction. They have to live at a housing authority that has
the vouchers.
Then, their emancipation has to be timed perfectly with
when one of those vouchers becomes available. Sometimes that
works which is why I am such a major proponent of the Family
Unification Program.
But when it doesn't, it is a tragic public policy fail. To
build the sophisticated answer to that problem, it creates a
situation where a young person could get on the waiting list at
age 16 or older and remain there until they are close to
emancipation which, I want to point out to the committee, isn't
age 18. Age--it should be about age 21 and there is a number of
ways to extend that using the Title IV-A, Ann Chasey Act
funding.
At that point, when they are close to age 21, they would
then be bumped as a priority on the waiting list, and then they
would get the voucher when it becomes available. I think there
is probably a year-long window where they would wait for that
voucher to become available.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. OK, we had an interesting discussion. You
mentioned in your testimony and then we had a discussion going
from the Chairman and Ms. Sard with regards to preferences.
I don't know how you solve the problem and how you list
preferences. How do you prefer somebody who has--what of the
other bills we are talking about that has opioid abuse. You
have veterans. You have disabled.
There is all these--there are a lot of folks that need some
help. The foster children is a group that, obviously, we don't
want to forget about either.
You made, in your testimony, a great point with regards to
this, maybe one way to keep them from being in this program
forever. If you can get them into immediate housing once they
get--or allow them to stay in the housing for a period of time
until they get on their feet.
I guess the question is, would you like to discuss for a
free few moments, your view of the preference program, how you
see it impacting foster youth?
Ms. White. Sure. A couple things. First and foremost, I
want to mention the fact that young people, aging out of foster
care, would not bump veterans off of the list. They are
eligible for a similar program that is actually modeled after
the Family Unification Program.
The Veterans Affairs Port of Housing Program used to be a
transitional housing program. I made the recommendation in 2006
that they should run it like the Family Unification Program.
Where it is--instead of transitional house through the V.A.,
they partner with HUD.
It is modeled after the Family Unification Program. But no
one else is eligible for that except for veterans, so I want to
mention that from the outset.
The other thing is we do have a Federal preference system
now. It is called Special Purpose Voucher. As Congress only
awards new incremental vouchers to public housing authorities
in the form of a Special Purpose Voucher, those housing
authorities have no local control over the population they
serve. We are, essentially, running a default Federal
preference system, at this time.
But the other thing is, and Chairman Duffy referenced it,
and Mr. Turner actually coined a phrase, he said this is
Government-created homelessness. We remove them from their
parents. We become their parents. Then, we actually manage to
do a worse job than their parents we removed them from.
But I want to mention that, currently, the length of stay
in assisted housing in HUD's portfolio is increasing
significantly, because we are bringing in very worthy
populations of people that are elderly and disabled, without
children I might add.
Families are the fastest declining group of people in
assisted housing. That is a problem, too.
But these young people would have the length of stay that
would average about 2.5 years. The voucher would go back into
the pool for the next available household. It actually
creates--
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Do you mind, I don't want to interrupt you
but time is just about up. I have one more quick question with
regard to that very subject here.
What do--what do the youth do if they--or where are they
going to go if they don't get this voucher?
Ms. White. That is very--
Mr. Luetkemeyer. What will happen?
Ms. White. OK. The reality is we are now giving child
welfare and the young people anywhere from 2.5 to 12 to 15
years to plan for their future.
If it became abundantly clear to a public housing authority
and all the other partners involved that the person wasn't
going to be self-sufficient 2.5 years later, they could work
with the permanent supportive housing provider to secure a
unit. But it wouldn't be this frantic last-minute planning.
There is no planning process.
I think if we all work together, as community partners, if
we had a young person. But I want to point out that the young
people that came to Ohio are all working and all in school, yet
they struggle, unlike our own children, because they don't have
parents to support them. They are going to be ready to launch.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. I yield back. I appreciate the Chairman's
indulgence. Thank you.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chairman recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs.
Beatty, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ranking
Member and thank you to our witnesses for their testimony here
today.
As you could see, we could probably spend all day talking
about and debating this because of the need. Sometimes, it is a
little difficult and, certainly, I appreciate my colleague from
Missouri's questions in how do we rank and how do we prioritize
because there is so much in the bill.
But, first, I would like to start off by looking at the
discussion draft of the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities
Act of 2018 which, I believe, is a very well-intended bill. I
think, with some amending, it could make a real difference in
what we are doing here today.
I have focused on housing for most of my career, whether it
was adults or veterans or human--those who are engaged in human
trafficking or foster children. Most recently, looking at the
problem of housing for aged-out foster youth.
This time, Congressman Stivers and I toured the homeless
youth facility in my district in Columbus, Ohio. The
Huckleberry House. As a result of this experience, we wrote a
letter and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce it into the
records.
Chairman Duffy. Yes, without objection.
Mrs. Beatty. I need about 10 more seconds.
As a result of that, I am really pleased to say that when
we submitted it to the Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, we
were requesting $20 million for the Family Unification Program
in Fiscal Year 2018.
I am proud to say that those dollars were just awarded in
the recent omnibus bill that passed Congress and was signed
into law this month.
With these funds, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development will be able to provide a child welfare system with
the resources necessary to prevent family separation, due to
homelessness, and to prevent homelessness among aging-out
foster youth.
Ms. Sard, to you. Can you explain the changes you
recommended in your testimony to the Family Unification
Program, and why you believe this would be a more effective
approach to ending foster youth homelessness than a nationwide
Federal program? Do you think it could lead to more children
entering the foster care system?
Ms. Sard. I think the recommendation the Congresswoman is
discussing is the one we made about making sure that the nearly
50,000 vouchers that Congress has funded over the last 20,
almost 30 years, for the Family Unification Program actually
get used for that purpose.
From the data we found, which we are not sure is correct
but it is what HUD has posted, it would appear that more than
30,000 of these vouchers are actually not being used for the
Family Unification Program.
Even if the reality is half that amount, if we could
require agencies that applied for and receive these vouchers on
the condition that they go to families tied up in the child
welfare system or to foster youth, we would have accomplished
an enormous amount.
If those agencies no longer want to do that, then HUD
should be able to reallocate those vouchers to agencies that
are willing to.
As Ms. White said, there are hundreds of agencies that want
additional resources for this purpose. An important thing about
using the FUP program, rather than regular turnover vouchers,
is you are not just taking away from another potentially
equally needy family. But, also, it is a voucher that is
connected to services provided through agencies that are tasked
with knowing how to deliver them and have funds to do so.
I think that combination of housing plus services is the
key to success here.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. But I would like to yield
to Mr. Green and then I will speak after Mr. Green, if you
don't mind.
Chairman Duffy. Do you want me to recognize Mr. Green
before you yield?
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Chairman Duffy. Oh, yes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you.
Chairman Duffy. The Chair now recognizes the Governor from
Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate
your extending the courtesy to me. I thank the Ranking Member
as well.
I think that there are many places that I could be today,
but I thought that it most appropriate that I be here.
I had the honor of serving as the judge of a small claims
justice court some 26 years, commonly known as the people's
court. I had the opportunity to deal with people and their
everyday problems.
Through those years, I had the opportunity to ask questions
that were very important then and some are important now.
For example, I can recall asking a person, why don't you
just simply move? We had these cases called forcible entry and
detainers, commonly known as evictions. Why won't you just move
to another area? You can pay less in rent and you can probably
find a better job. I thought that was a pretty fair question.
A person gave me what I thought was a pretty fair answer.
My support system is in the area where I live. My cousin who
keeps my baby is in the area where I live. Uncle Charlie who
can give me a ride lives down the street.
For this person and for many others, it is just not as
simple as saying, move to the other side of town, pay less rent
and there are greater opportunities.
I take what you said, a number of you, about resources to
mean that we should probably help people with some degree of
job training. I take it to mean that some people will need to
have some additional support available to them. Support systems
so that their children may be properly taken care of while they
are out getting these great opportunities.
I take it also to mean that education, preparing them for
these jobs, is important. I take additional resources to mean
these things.
Now, if these are not the additional resources of which you
speak, kindly let me know because I want the record to reflect
what additional resources really means to you.
Anyone differ with me on additional resources? If so, it is
OK. I just need to know what they are.
Yes, ma'am, if you please identify yourself by name and
speak.
Ms. Sard. Thank you, Mr. Green.
I think we can't forget the need for additional housing
resources. Everything you listed is very important. But, today,
about three out of every four households eligible for Federal
rental assistance get no help at all, despite rising rents
throughout the country.
Mr. Green. In addition to these things, you would add
additional housing resources?
Ms. Sard. Yes.
Mr. Green. I think you are eminently correct and I am quite
proud that you have mentioned these things.
Anyone else?
Housing resources and these. Anything other resources? Yes,
ma'am? Would you identify yourself for the record, please?
Ms. Kovich. Lynn Kovich.
In addition to that, what we have found is the access to
affordable health care, we tend to silo people, in terms of you
go here for your behavioral health services and here for your
physical health.
Folks need to be--have access to care coordination or case
management so that we are looking at the whole person and not
siloing them, in terms of their services.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
There has been an indication that housing should be
permanent. I think all of you have concurred but I am not
entirely sure. If you are of the opinion that housing should
not be permanent, would you kindly extend a hand.
All right, if you could be terse, I would appreciate it
because I have one more area to visit.
Mr. Hammond. Yes, sir. The only reason I am saying that is
that the program with service-intensive transitional housing is
more of a closed-circuit operation and when you are looking at
12 to 24 months to incorporate that program and to get the
person through it. Especially in these opioid treatment
situations after they have gotten out of rehab. You have to get
them down that track.
But that is the only time. I agree with permanent housing
when possible.
Mr. Green. Now, quickly, that means that the 9 million that
would be on the list--currently 3 million, that is what is
called to our attention. That means that these other persons,
what will we do to help them, if we make these permanent and
there are others who are on the list?
Hold your point on that. Let me go to the next thing.
I have to say this. Thank you for acknowledging substance
abuse as a problem. I don't quarrel with the opioid crisis. But
there are other substances that are being abused. I believe you
have all indicated that you think that this should be open to
people with substance abuse problems, not just opioid problems?
If I am incorrect, would you kindly extend a hand into
there.
OK, let the record reflect that everyone agrees. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for the extra time.
I hope that someone will answer the question about
permanent housing and how it impacts those who are on the
waiting list.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Duffy. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the full
committee, the distinguished gentlelady from California, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members.
Let me apologize for not being able to be here to hear all
of the witnesses. I am sure that I missed part of the
conversation that I needed to hear. But I can only now try and
respond to what I know and understand about these legislative
proposals. Hopefully, I will get the opportunity to talk with
some of our preventers individually.
We are here today to talk about three discussion draft
proposals related to certain HUD and USDA rental assistance
programs.
While it seems all of the draft proposals have potentially
laudable goals, in some respects, the goals are in tension with
each other, it seems to me, in light of the fact that none of
the discussion drafts are authorizing any new funding for their
respective initiatives. Federal housing assistance programs in
every community have very long waiting lists for assistance.
What these bills do, absent any new resources, is just pick
winners and losers in the competition for already scarce
resources, rather than providing the sorely needed additional
funding to help solve the problems.
There is no question that we, as a country, need to promote
choice and mobility options for individuals and families
receiving rental assistance. We need to support youth aging out
of foster care. The substance abuse crisis needs new solutions.
However, these growing problems cannot be solved by
constantly robbing from one population to pay for the needs of
another. Trying to address these serious social challenges,
without spending additional money, just creates more inequities
and problems to solve.
I am very interested to hear from all of the witnesses
today, at some point in time, on whether they agree about the
acute needs for increased resources to meet our Nation's most
pressing housing challenges.
I think that we have embarked upon a point in time where
most of our members on both sides of the aisle understand we
have a housing crisis in the country. It is huge. That we need
to talk about dedicating resources to deal with this housing
crisis.
I have a bill that I introduced for $13.8 billion just for
homelessness. I knew that it was not going to receive a lot of
attention. But I wanted to point out the tremendous need that
there is and how we just have to come to some realities about
what is going on in this country.
We have gentrification going on. We have this conflict
between economic development and the creation of affordable
housing.
Of course, we support economic development. It is happening
in some of the parts of my district. But guess what? With
economic development comes the need for landlords who have
rental housing to get more money because it becomes very
competitive. Because with economic development, the communities
become more desirable.
I have a 90-year-old woman on fixed income that was just
evicted from her unit. It goes on and on and on.
I am really interested that the Congress of the United
States of America make a decision about what we are going to do
about housing in this country. What we are going to do about
public housing. What we are going to do about Section 8. What
we are going to do about homelessness and commit ourselves to
spending the money.
Now, I know that we don't mind deficits. Thanks to my
friends on the opposite side of the aisle that have shown us
that, really, deficits may not matter in the way that they had
always said they would.
We have created deficits recently with the leadership from
the opposite side of the aisle. If we have to do that, in order
to house people, and to provide safe and secure and decent
housing for people in this country for our constituents, I want
us to do that. I want us to say, we have to bite the bullet on
housing, and we have to put up the money and the resources to
do it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Duffy. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, most of the questions I was going to raise have
already been raised by others.
Obviously, during my opening statement, I spoke about the
separation between opioid addiction and other addictions. My
wife has a mental health clinic. She tells me that if you have
a substance abuse, you just have a substance abuse. That
would--I appreciate that going on.
But when the Obama Administration put this mobility housing
proposal out, they also laid out, as the Ranking Member
mentioned, funding, $11 million which is not a lot of money.
My only--one of my concerns with this program has to do
with whether or not we are going to really try to run a
demonstration program or will we--will it languish on the shelf
someplace?
I am--we do a lot of things that don't ever get
implemented.
But let me find out one other program--I have one other
concern that may not have been raised. It is that the whole
issue, as it relates to moving from one area that is in poverty
to another. I think you, Ms. Sard, you quoted that in your
opening statement to us.
Can you just speak to that a little bit more about your
other findings, that are in that report, that will present data
showing that life improves as you move to a more substantial
and stabilized neighborhood?
Ms. Sard. Thank you, Congressman.
The study by Raj Chetty and others, that the Chairman and
you also refer to, is, really, the latest in a series of
studies, that have shown the impact on kids and adults from
moving out of very high-poverty communities, particularly out
of communities that are plagued by violence and moving to safer
communities with a mix of incomes and also, importantly, with
good schools. We cite research that pulls that together.
The geography of the voucher program today means that there
are too many communities where there are a lot of people living
in high-poverty areas. But there are not a lot of rental
housing opportunities in low-poverty areas with good schools
within the boundaries of the jurisdiction.
That means that it becomes vital to have the agencies
within a region, that serve a mix of communities, collaborate
together for the well being of the families that live in that
region.
The rest of us, who are not dependent on the Government for
housing assistance, think of housing as a regional market. We
think about where is a good school for our kids? Where is
transportation? Where is my job? Where are there parks?
Unfortunately, the way the administration of the voucher
program is divided up in most places, which is city by city,
really limits the choices of low-income people.
Mr. Cleaver. Of course, gentrification--if the study were
going to be done today, I would tell them to try to factor in
gentrification.
When I was first elected 14 years ago, my wife and I went
down by the stadium looking for a place to maybe buy a house.
Capitol Hill police happened to be coming by. He was on
horseback. He saw my pin and he said, Congressman, are you
looking for a house down here? I said, sure. He said, look, I
have a gun and I wouldn't move down here.
Now, I am not going to move down there now because I can't
afford it. I don't know many people in Congress who can. What
is happening there is happening all over the country.
I think the Ranking Member hit it earlier. Low-income
housing--we have--we are in a crisis. Where do those people
live who used to live down there and where are they now? Where
are they in Kansas City, Missouri?
My wife grew up on a street, Lake Street. Now--the house
they lived in cost $8,000. Two blocks away today is a house
selling for $660,000. The study provides us, I think, some
great data.
But, my goodness, this gentrification issue has to be dealt
with.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the subcommittee chairman on
monetary policy, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Chairman Duffy and Ranking Member
Cleaver, for holding this important hearing.
Again, a welcome to my constituents, Dean Hammond and Phil
Gray, and for your leadership and showing us the way with a
program that works. That leads to sobriety, that leads to self-
sufficiency and long-term nonsubsidized housing and work for
many of the veterans that go through your program.
I have been very impressed. I know Secretary Carson, when
he came and visited with you in Lexington, was very impressed
with the model that you have shared with us today.
As you all know, Congress has passed several key pieces of
legislation to address the opioid epidemic, including the 21st
Century Cures Act, the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act,
and the recently enacted appropriations bill which includes
several billion dollars in funding for opioid treatment and
prevention.
Despite these important investments, what has been
frustrating for me and my staff is that when--as we look at
some if the programs that are funded, it is really oriented
toward treatment and medication-assisted treatment and law
enforcement resources. But there is not that long-term recovery
piece.
When we are trying to help groups like St. James Place and
the Foundation for Affordable Housing in Kentucky, those
resources for that next phase after treatment, post-rehab, for
long-term sober living, that is not there. There needs to be
that longer term.
I think Secretary Kovich, you made this point in arguing
against time limits. We need longer-term help. I agree with
you. Totally agree with you.
To Mr. Hammond. Do you believe this demonstration program
would fill a gap in Federal resources to address the addiction
crisis?
Mr. Hammond. Yes, sir. As I said, with a couple of
variances on the Section 8 voucher program and coupled with the
full funding to take care of the rest of the sober living part
of learning how to live in society and then going on to
unsubsidized housing.
Mr. Barr. Let me address Secretary Kovich's point about
time limits and also this should cover all SUDs, all substance-
use disorders, not just the opioid crisis.
This is a draft bill for a reason. We want feedback from
people on the front lines like you. Ms. Kovich, my condolences
on your personal connection to this crisis. Unfortunately, I
have met a lot of families whose lives have been upended by
this in my Congressional district.
One of the reasons why we propose the bill as--and focus on
opioids. One is to respond to the President's declaration and
focus on this particularly acute problem.
But the other is actually to address the other point that
you made which is that we don't want to displace the existing
voucher allotment in a more profound way.
It is a resource question. But your point is well taken.
On the time-limit question. While I agree that 90 days is
not enough to get someone to that long-term recovery, would--my
question is, do you believe that pairing the work training, the
job placement, the recovery services with the Section 8 Housing
Choice Voucher Program could help recipients rise above
addiction, lift themselves out of poverty through the blessing
of work? Then, ultimately, graduate from the subsidized housing
piece. Graduate from the dependence on the voucher piece.
That is to Mr. Hammond.
Mr. Hammond. Yes, sir, absolutely. We have shown that and
you can see the statistics on our veteran program with our
graduations.
Just one of them here in 2017. We had 68 percent going into
permanent housing. And 44 percent of those were in unsubsidized
permanent housing. Certainly that has been our goal all along.
Mr. Barr. I think that is the point as well. We don't want
a time limit that is too truncated and unrealistic.
We do believe that you can realistically graduate from the
voucher program, freeing up space for others, in the--in the--
these lines, these waiting lines. By having a voucher that is,
say, limited to 18 months or 2 years.
Mr. Hammond. Yes, sir. In that particular statistic I just
gave you, the average length of stay was 281 days.
Mr. Barr. One other piece of feedback that we heard from
Ms. Sard was that it would be extremely inefficient and error
prone if we did not bring in the public housing agencies.
Mr. Hammond, is it your experience that you have--you need
a public housing authority to actually implement your program?
Mr. Hammond. We need--in Kentucky, they are the ones that
administer the Section 8 program.
Mr. Barr. Right. But do you think nonprofits are incapable
of actually implementing the program?
Mr. Hammond. No, sir. Because what we are having now with
our veterans, the V.A. grant per diem program, we administer
that whole thing and turn in our reports for bed days and are
funded through the Veterans Administration. We are actually
running a bachelor program based on bed days.
Mr. Barr. My time is expired but I will just conclude with
one final point. That is that I believe that an increased
Federal investment in this transitional housing will actually
save taxpayers money.
Because, in the long run, if we help people--assist people
to escape poverty and move them into permanent, non-subsidized
housing where they have a job and they are addiction free,
where we end the cycle of addiction, that is a taxpayer. That
is a taxpayer.
That is not someone who is incarcerated. That is not some
whose life has been destroyed. That is a taxpayer, a productive
person through the blessing of work and sobriety. That person
is a contributor.
Once again, we appreciate you showing the way.
I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member for points and
personal privilege.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You had mentioned Theresa Dumais. I just wanted to give an
expression of appreciation. I have worked with her over the
last few years and she is quite the professional. She is
extremely knowledgeable. Not nerdy. She is extremely
knowledgeable about all matters housing. I wanted to express
appreciation, as you did earlier, for having the opportunity to
work with her.
Ms. Waters. Do you have more time?
Mr. Cleaver. I yield to you.
Ms. Waters. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate
that.
I have to, perhaps talk about this for the first time.
There are some things that I wish I had done, as it relates to
substance abuse.
We had an epidemic of crack cocaine in some communities in
this country. We had babies who were born to parents who were
addicted. We never knew and we don't know what happened to
those children. There was never any research done.
We do know that we have increased numbers in some of our
public schools for children who have learning disabilities and
problems that they put into special education. We don't know
whether or not the crack babies survived in a way that they
will ever be productive citizens.
I guess what I am thinking now, as I listen to what we are
talking about with the opioid epidemic, is we have to make sure
that we go for resources to deal with all of the substance
abuse problems that have created problems in our communities
all over.
I think this can be a bipartisan effort because we all have
these problems in our communities. I would love to be able to
support something that is comprehensive and really puts the
resources into dealing with these epidemics that we are
confronted with.
I yield back to the Ranking Member.
Thank you.
Chairman Duffy. I just, to Theresa, would say, that could
be your plaque, knowledgeable but not nerdy. There you go. If
wanted to be nerdy, too, you could.
But I think the Ranking Member brings up a good point. We
want to look at all substance abuse, and its impacts it has and
not just on housing but impacts it has on our children in our
society as a whole.
So, I think we might be shocked that a committee, with such
diversity of opinion, can be so bipartisan. It is that work
that is going to bring us to real solutions that can truly
affect people's lives.
I want to thank all the members who participated today.
I would just make a note for our panel. We did have a few
Republicans leave. There was a briefing on Syria that was going
on today which was why you saw an exit for that briefing. It
doesn't mean there was not an interest in the topic of the day.
With that, thank you, panel, for your testimony.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
But, again, thank you for your testimony.
And, without objection, this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
April 17, 2018
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]