    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                               LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
                           OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS
                         CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017

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

                                    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

                                   __________

                                  JUNE 6, 2018

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

                               Serial No. 115-97

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                       ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    31-473 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:
        June 6, 2018.................................................     1
    Appendix:
        June 6, 2018.................................................    27

                                   WITNESSES
                            Wednesday, June 6, 2018

    Berg, Steve, Vice President for Programs and Policy, National
      Alliance to End Homelessness...................................     6
    Duffield, Barbara, Executive Director, SchoolHouse Connection....     4
    Lilley, Kat, Deputy Executive Director, Family Promise of
      Colorado Springs...............................................     8
    Rounsville, Millie, Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Wisconsin
      Community Services Agency......................................     9

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared statements:
        Berg, Steve..................................................    28
        Duffield, Barbara............................................    32
        Lilley, Kat..................................................    57
        Rounsville, Millie...........................................    66

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    Rothfus, Hon. Keith:
        Written statement from HEARTH................................    72

                               LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
                           OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS
                         CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, June 6, 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 10:05 a.m., in
    room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean P. Duffy
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Duffy, Posey, Luetkemeyer,
    Stivers, Hultgren, Rothfus, Trott, Hensarling, and Cleaver.
        Also present: Representatives Green and Moore.
        Chairman Duffy. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance
    will come to order.
        Today's hearing is entitled, ``Legislative Review of H.R.
    1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017,'' though it
    is 2018.
        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
    inclusion 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 our witnesses.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for 3 minutes for an
    opening statement.
        First, I want to thank our witnesses for participating in
    today's hearing on homelessness.
        A few weeks ago, members of this committee convened for an
    overall review of homelessness in America. I thought it was a
    great hearing. Witnesses discussed how homelessness looks
    different in urban areas versus rural areas. We heard how the
    Point-in-Time, or PIT, is utilized by HUD (U.S. Department of
    Housing and Urban Development) to provide a snapshot of
    homelessness levels from one year to the next.
        We are here today to dive a little deeper into the
    definition of homelessness. More specifically, we will look to
    uncover how HUD's definition is creating barriers in impacting
    our Federal Government's ability to keep our families out of
    poverty.
        As I read our witnesses' statements today, it became
    apparent on two different issues. First, the PIT numbers that
    HUD uses to give us a picture of homelessness year over year
    seems to be a misrepresentation of the entire or complete
    picture. Why doesn't it paint a whole picture? I think that is
    going to be the question that all of you are going to throw our
    way in your testimony today and by way of the questions we are
    going to ask you.
        I expect to hear that you are going to talk about certain
    homeless populations that go uncounted because they live in
    tents in the woods or they couch-surf or simply don't want to
    admit their family is homeless for fear of losing their
    children. The last thing we want to have is people that hide
    from the reality of their living situation because of the
    potential the Federal or State Government might take away their
    kids.
        All of these reasons are familiar because of the same
    reasons you don't choose--or we don't see homelessness in our
    rural communities, and it is a problem. And I think taking a
    deeper dive on this issue to make sure we can expose and shed
    light on it is critical and key.
        The most jarring fact in today's testimony is HUD's
    definition of homelessness doesn't match the definition used by
    other Federal agencies. We have seen this in several Government
    programs. We tend to amend the law by passing various bills
    over the years, and the Federal Government ends up with
    different definitions for the same subject matter, which
    obviously creates complication and confusion. We need to make
    sure that the definition of homelessness is uniform throughout
    all of our Federal programs.
        As a father of eight--one that is 18 and one that is 2 and
    everywhere in between--I was touched by the testimony of one of
    our witnesses who discussed how she had gone through to support
    her six children while trying to navigate the definition of
    homelessness. It is a testimony and a statement of strength.
        I believe her story, along with the testimony of others,
    will shine a light on why we need to address HUD's definition
    of homelessness to make sure we are doing all we can to improve
    the plight of our impoverished families.
        And I do want to thank you all for being here today. I am
    looking forward to this hearing.
        And I want to now recognize the gentleman from Missouri,
    the Ranking Member, for 3 minutes. And if he wants more, I will
    give him more.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank those of you who have come to provide us with some
    information that we will need in trying to deal with this
    issue.
        The hearing today is a legislative hearing focused on H.R.
    1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017. This bill
    would expand the definition of homelessness to include more
    children who lack stable homes. Currently, homelessness under
    HUD is defined under the parameters of the HEARTH Act, which
    defines a homeless person as someone who lacks a fixed
    nighttime residence. The definition is targeted to help those
    in greatest need.
        H.R. 1511 would also make several restrictions on HUD,
    including limiting HUD's ability to set national housing
    priorities or incentivize Continuum of Care (COC) programs to
    use housing models that rely on evidence-based practices.
        The Housing and Insurance Subcommittee recently held a
    quite necessary and appropriate hearing on the state of
    homelessness in the country. And though the overall
    homelessness rate has, in fact, been decreasing--and that is
    always good news, yet homelessness remains an issue of critical
    concern, one that should remain a priority for our committee.
        According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, on
    a single night, an estimated 184,661 people in families, or
    57,971 family households, were identified as homeless, and
    almost 17,000 people and families were living on the street in
    a car or in another place not meant for human habitation. It is
    estimated that there are 550,000 homeless people in the United
    States.
        But here is the rub, as it relates to this legislation. Due
    to Federal funding limitations, hundreds of homeless
    individuals and families are unable to access resources, and
    waiting lists for services are already far too long. Only a
    fraction of children who would fall under HUD's current
    definition of homeless are able to be served by HUD.
        Expanding the definition of homelessness, though well-
    intentioned--and I support the effort, but this expansion could
    add millions of people to already strained waiting lists.
    Without providing additional funding, this proposal could make
    it even more difficult for children already on waiting lists to
    receive help from housing.
        Housing our Nation's children should be at the forefront of
    our national priorities. This shouldn't be a fleeting
    conversation but one both sides of the aisle should commit to.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, the
    author of 1511, the subject of today's hearing, Mr. Stivers,
    for 2 minutes.
        Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
    you holding this hearing on our bipartisan bill, H.R. 1511, the
    Homeless Children and Youth Act.
        First, I want to thank each of the witnesses for joining us
    today. While we may not all agree on everything, I certainly
    admire your dedication to combating homelessness, all of you.
        This hearing, I think, will highlight the discrepancies
    between the definition of homelessness used by different
    Federal agencies and different programs.
        Most Americans would consider Housing and Urban Development
    to be the flagship agency in the effort to prevent
    homelessness. Consequently, they might be surprised to learn
    that it uses the most restrictive definition of homelessness,
    one that denies vulnerable children who are couch-surfing or
    living off the generosity of family and friends or children who
    are living day to day out of motels--those folks are denied the
    definition of homelessness because of how their homelessness is
    being served. Let me be clear: These children are homeless, and
    they deserve our help.
        But data from Head Start and the National Center for
    Homelessness Education indicate that the problem is getting
    worse, with 1.3 million children experiencing homelessness from
    2015 to 2016, a 3.5-percent increase. But if you search for
    these kinds of kids in HUD's homelessness statistics, you won't
    find them, because they are not included in the definition.
        I understand the point of the Ranking Member about
    resources. But if we can't get the number right, we can't know
    what the resources need to be. I am fully supportive of getting
    more resources, but we have to get the count right.
        I think my bill would bring visibility to these children,
    give our communities more flexibility so they could choose how
    to address this growing problem, and give policymakers the
    information they need to get the resources that we need to
    combat homelessness.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time. I appreciate you
    holding this hearing. And I look forward to the information
    coming out.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back, and I appreciate
    his work on this important issue.
        I now want to welcome our panel of witnesses.
        First, we have Ms. Barbara Duffield, Executive Director of
    SchoolHouse Connection; second witness, Mr. Steve Berg, Vice
    President of Programs and Policy at the National Alliance to
    End Homelessness, who has been a great partner on this issue.
        Thank you.
        Our third witness is Kat Lilley, Deputy Executive Director
    of Family Promise of Colorado Springs.
        Welcome.
        And, finally, our fourth witness is Ms. Millie Rounsville,
    CEO of the Northwest Wisconsin Community Services Agency, based
    out of the great city and the great State of Superior,
    Wisconsin.
        Welcome.
        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 statements 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 have 5 minutes
    within which to ask the panel questions.
        I would just note that on your table you have three lights.
    Green obviously means go, yellow means you have a minute left,
    and red means your time is up. We will try to be cognizant of
    our time. You also, please, try to be cognizant of the 5-minute
    limit as well.
        Your microphones are sensitive. Make sure they are on and
    you are speaking directly into them.
        With that, Ms. Duffield, you are recognized for 5 minutes
    for an oral presentation of your written testimony.

                      STATEMENT OF BARBARA DUFFIELD

        Ms. Duffield. Good morning, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member
    Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to provide this testimony today.
        I worked at the Intersection of Homelessness and Education
    for nearly 25 years, and I have witnessed many improvements
    over that time. But HUD's definition of homelessness and its
    national priorities have created real barriers to helping
    homeless children and youth. As a result, we are perpetuating
    homelessness. We are guaranteeing that homelessness will
    continue indefinitely. The Homeless Children and Youth Act will
    help ensure that today's homeless children and youth do not
    become tomorrow's homeless adults.
        Let me put this debate in context. I worked with a student
    who stayed in a house with 11 adults and 4 children because her
    mother was mentally ill and kicked her out. All the adults in
    the house used cocaine. Many of them worked in the strip club.
    The student provided childcare in exchange for a roof over her
    head. But she said this was better than other situations she
    had been in because ``a lot of guys wanted to get something out
    of you.'' She was in high school.
        As this committee knows, Federal agencies do use different
    definitions of homelessness. And with few exceptions, in
    practice, the HUD definition only includes people living in
    shelters or outdoors. Under HUD's definition, the student I
    described is not homeless.
        In contrast, the definition used by the Department of
    Education and other Federal agencies includes children and
    youth who are staying in motels or are staying temporarily with
    others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar
    reason.
        This definition reflects reality. Schools are present in
    every community, even those without shelters, even those where
    shelters are full. So, contrary to the picture painted by HUD,
    school numbers have increased by 34 percent since the end of
    the recession, now totaling 1.3 million homeless students. Head
    Start homeless numbers have nearly doubled.
        And new research shows that child homelessness often leads
    to youth homelessness and then to adult homelessness, where
    children of homeless adults may start this life again. HUD's
    definition contributes to this damaging cycle by preventing
    some of the most vulnerable homeless children and youth from
    accessing services. Also, it keeps them invisible, which limits
    both public and private action.
        Make no mistake, the children and youth who meet
    Education's definition are every bit as vulnerable as those who
    meet HUD's definition. And my written testimony documents the
    same poor academic, health, and mental health outcomes of all
    homeless students regardless of where they sleep.
        It also shows how frequently families and youth move
    between Education homeless and HUD homeless. In fact, when I
    described this debate to a remarkable young woman who stayed in
    all sorts of homeless situations, her response to me was, ``The
    open sky never made me bleed.''
        Yet homeless children and youth who don't meet HUD's
    definition are barred from even being assessed. The Homeless
    Children and Youth Act would allow children and youth whose
    homelessness has been verified by one of eight Federal programs
    to be assessed for services rather than basing their
    eligibility very simplistically on where they happen to find a
    place to sleep.
        Just last week, we tried to assist a young couple with a
    toddler who are expecting their second child. They are staying
    in a toxic household with other people. They will be kicked out
    in a month. They have nowhere to go. But Coordinated Entry in
    their community said they weren't in a place from which they
    could get evicted, so they are not eligible for prevention
    assistance. And they don't meet HUD's definition of
    homelessness, so they aren't eligible for homeless assistance.
    But under the Homeless Children and Youth Act, an early Head
    Start program could verify the family's homelessness and they
    could be assessed. So the trajectory of four lives, including
    their unborn child, could change for the better.
        But beyond definitions, HUD has deprived communities of the
    flexibility that they need by creating strong national
    incentives for housing models in certain populations. They
    don't meet all communities' needs. The high school student I
    worked with, she couldn't benefit from Rapid Re-Housing. She is
    too young to sign a lease. Rapid Re-Housing is failing many
    families who become homeless again, but they don't show up in
    HUD's metrics. Meanwhile, program models that have been
    successful in helping families leave homelessness and sustain
    their housing have been defunded.
        The Homeless Children and Youth Act would remedy this one-
    size-fits-all approach with scoring that is primarily based on
    the extent to which projects meet priorities in a local plan
    and are cost-effective to the local plan. In this way, it
    allows communities to respond flexibly to new challenges and
    opportunities.
        Please know that the Homeless Children and Youth Act has
    broad support from organizations that work directly with
    homeless children and youth. And we ask you to enact it so that
    homelessness will cease to rob millions of children, youth, and
    adults of their full human potential.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Duffield can be found on
    page 32 of the Appendix.]
        Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Duffield.
        Mr. Berg, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF STEVE BERG

        Mr. Berg. All right. Thank you, Chairman Duffy and members
    of this subcommittee and the committee.
        I want to start by saying we at the National Alliance to
    End Homelessness and I personally have worked with this
    committee for many, many years on this very difficult issue,
    and I thank you all for your devotion to dealing with it and to
    finding things that are really going to work.
        I would especially like to address Congressman Stivers. We
    literally 15 years ago identified Columbus, Ohio, as one of the
    places that leads the country in a new approach to homelessness
    that could actually start getting results, really based on
    going beyond just funding a bunch of individual programs and
    empowering a community-wide system that would look at data,
    look at what really works, make decisions about how to allocate
    scarce resources and get results. And Columbus has continued to
    do that.
        We work very closely with people at a community shelter
    board who oversee this process in Columbus. They, I know,
    regard you as an ally in this work. And even though we disagree
    on this particular bill, we can work through that, but we also
    regard you as an ally in this. And I thank you for your work on
    this.
        This is a crucial time on the issue of homelessness, as all
    of you may be aware. But as the HEARTH Act has become fully
    implemented and has--and the good practices both that are
    incentivized by the HEARTH Act and that are incentivized by,
    say, the homeless programs in the veterans world, communities
    are finding that they are getting better and better results.
    The kind of results that Columbus was getting 15 years ago are
    now more common in communities, in terms of people who are on
    the streets quickly being housed.
        At the same time, because of where we are in the short-term
    business cycles and longer-term issues of housing, the problem
    of affordable housing in the country is getting far, far worse,
    so that one effect of that is that people are pouring into the
    homelessness system. So, even as communities of care to do
    better, they are dealing with more and more people in their
    community who are falling into that system. This is a time we
    need to be doing our very best work. And we need support from
    everybody in Congress to do that.
        This particular bill, the concerns we at the Alliance have
    about this bill are mainly around eligibility rules for the
    Continuum of Care. The Continuum of Care is the primary
    homeless program at HUD. It accounts for 4 percent of HUD
    spending, so it is a small program. It has, however, a very
    important role to play. As it was overhauled by the HEARTH Act
    in a bipartisan manner, it has become what is driving
    communities--through the competitive grant process, driving
    communities to get better results and to focus on the people
    who have the most severe and immediate problems.
        Much of what the HEARTH Act did was to make changes in who
    is eligible for the program, the definition of homelessness,
    but particularly as it relates to who is eligible. People who
    are in housing, who are sleeping in an apartment or a house,
    but who are in immediate danger because the house they are
    sleeping in is a drug den, because they are victims of domestic
    violence, because they are dealing with all kinds of truly
    dangerous situations, those are all eligible for the Continuum
    of Care right now. You don't need to change anything to make
    them eligible. You need to change the funding levels in order
    to have enough money to actually address the whole problem, but
    the eligibility rules don't need to change.
        The problem with this bill's large expansion of the
    definition is that it will, at best, overwhelm systems that
    communities have for determining how to allocate the scarce
    resources of the homeless programs, and, at worst, it will mean
    that the worst-off people, the people in the gravest immediate
    danger, will have a harder time getting help because they will
    be out-competed for the resources by people who have a little
    more stable situation, living with relatives or friends or
    family.
        The work that HUD has done on this has been very responsive
    to what Congress has told HUD to do. And the report language
    from this committee, from the Appropriations Committee over
    many years has been very clear that HUD needs to find out what
    kind of interventions are doing the best work, are getting the
    best results, and then make sure communities are using the
    money for those. This bill moves in exactly the opposite
    direction, and that is the other concern besides the
    eligibility rules.
        So I am happy to answer questions about this. I can come
    and see you in your office if you have other questions. But
    thank you again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Berg can be found on page 28
    of the Appendix.]
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lilley for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF KAT LILLEY

        Ms. Lilley. I would like to thank the committee for
    allowing me to come here and speak today. It truly is an honor
    to be able to be here.
        In my written testimony, I highlighted my personal story
    with you all. I didn't do that lightly. It is hard to relive
    the time that I experienced homelessness with my six children.
    I did it because I think you really needed to understand the
    vulnerability that exists prior to meeting the definition of
    HUD homelessness.
        I highlighted for you what my family and I went through
    months leading up to homelessness, weeks leading up to
    homelessness, and the day that I finally hit the threshold for
    the HUD definition of homelessness.
        What I can tell you is that, had any of the other avenues
    that I pursued for my family for housing prior to entering
    shelter come through, I would not be sitting here today. I
    would not be working in the homeless industry. I would not be
    successful.
        And I can tell you that because, while Mr. Berg is well-
    informed on policy, he is not on the ground level. He is not
    seeing what these families are living in. I reached out to
    situations that I knew were dangerous for my family, looking
    for four walls to keep us out of a shelter. I reached out to a
    biological family member who had a registered sex offender
    living in their home, begging for a floor to sleep on. Had they
    told me yes, I would have been there in a heartbeat, because I
    believed and I know that there are families in all of our
    communities that believe dealing with the dangers we know is
    safer than dealing with the dangers that are unknown in the
    shelter system.
        In my work now, providing care to families and children who
    are experiencing homelessness, I am out in the community. I am
    an active member of our COC, and because I have six children, I
    am active in a number of school systems. I see the
    vulnerability in our community. I know that we have families
    who are living in situations that are dire.
        Just 3 weeks ago, I was in a motel room with a family of
    five who had been living there for 4 months. I sat down on the
    bed, and it was wet. It is what the motel had for them. There
    were lice, there were cockroaches, there were bugs. The 3-year-
    old showed me her little bed on the floor. She had what she
    called a nest. There were blankets, there was a pillow, and
    there were bugs. It was a horrendous situation.
        While we were sitting there and we were talking, there was
    a banging on the door. It was a neighbor in the motel room. He
    was upset that last night the baby had been crying and was
    going to go talk to management to see if they could be put out
    of the motel although they had paid for this week.
        These are not situations children should be living in.
    These are not safe situations.
        And contrary to what Mr. Berg tells you, this family is not
    eligible for COC services. If we do a VI-SPDAT, or a
    Vulnerability Index, on this family, they are going to be told,
    ``You have one recourse. We may offer you one service. We can
    rapidly re-house you or assist you with prevention.'' This
    family is not suitable. Their vulnerability does not meet a
    successful outcome for us to put them in a place that they
    can't afford and say, ``We are going to provide you with
    limited assistance, limited services, and we are not going to
    address the vulnerability that brought you here.'' We are
    setting them up to fail.
        This is happening nationally. Family Promises across the
    Nation in 43 States can give you hundreds and hundreds and
    hundreds of stories where this is true.
        The biggest pushback to the bill is that it is going to
    overwhelm the system or that it is a funding issue. This isn't
    a funding issue. This is an issue that, while we are saying
    Continuum of Cares are prioritizing the most dire situations,
    they are excluding some of the most vulnerable and dire
    situations.
        We are not asking to bump chronic homeless people down on
    the list. We are not asking to bump people without shelter down
    on the list. We are asking you to include individuals who are
    truly being victimized because of their situations on the list.
    We are asking you to prioritize them the same way you
    prioritize the people who don't have shelter at this time.
        Honestly, my vulnerability was lower when I was in shelter
    than it would have been had I been doubled up or in a motel.
    And we are just asking that you consider that issue and move
    forward with this.
        Our PIT counts are inaccurate. Because they are inaccurate
    and because we are continuing to leave families invisible, we
    don't know the trends that are going on in family and youth
    homelessness. We can't say that family homelessness is going
    down just by sticking our head in the sand and not counting
    individuals that are truly vulnerable and homeless.
        I thank you for this time, and I am open to questions at
    the end of this. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Lilley can be found on page
    57 of the Appendix.]
        Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Lilley.
        Ms. Rounsville, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF MILLIE ROUNSVILLE

        Ms. Rounsville. Thank you, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Cleaver, for
    the opportunity to come here and speak. This is a conversation
    we have on a local level, so I am happy to be able to be here
    in front of a larger audience and to see that a lot of the
    things that I am seeing locally are also agreeing with Ms.
    Lilley's community.
        I am the Director of Northwest Community Services Agency.
    We are what is called a community action program. We have been
    providing services to low- and moderate-income throughout our
    five-county service area for the last--over 50 years now. Being
    as we are community action, we do prioritize vulnerable
    populations, low-income populations, and, unfortunately, for
    our service area, homelessness is a large part of that world.
        On the local level, as homeless service providers, we work
    well together. We work with our school districts, we work with
    our local units of Government, our Head Start agency, our
    faith-based partners. And we truly pull together a toolkit to
    try to accommodate those needs.
        From a geologic perspective, my service area covers 8,000
    square miles. In that 8,000 square miles, we only have 90,000
    people. We probably have more trees than we do population. Our
    agency has served as the lead in terms of the HUD world, the
    ESG (Emergency Solutions Grants) world, those sort of things.
    And it predominantly has to do with capacity and the
    requirements that come with receipt of those Federal funds.
        We in the city of Superior are fortunate that we have three
    shelter facilities. We have a homeless men's shelter that is
    operated by our organization. We have a family shelter that is
    operated by one of our faith-based partners. And then we have a
    domestic violence shelter. In Ashland, which is 70 miles away,
    we also have a domestic violence shelter.
        But that is it. Throughout the rest of our service area, we
    are relying on hotel vouchers to try to prevent individuals
    from sleeping in their cars, sleeping in the campsites. It is
    cold. It is 40 below. Anybody that we can get sheltered on our
    Point-in-Time counts, we bring our faith-based partners, they
    issue hotels.
        The reason I bring this up is related to some of the Point-
    in-Time data that has been discussed--is a lot of our
    homelessness numbers and the homeless needs going up and down
    are based on those PIT numbers, and they are also based on the
    HMIS data. And for our service area, to try to go out and cover
    that 8,000-square-mile area between 11 at night and 6 in the
    morning, finding people that are living in campsites, we have
    two reservations that we need to cover, those numbers aren't
    truly accurate in terms of what our community looks like on a
    given night.
        In terms of the homeless information database, which is a
    requirement with HUD, our organization, along with our family
    shelter, are the only two organizations that are entering data
    into that system. So if we were looking at, from a community
    level, what the homeless needs are in northwest Wisconsin and
    the number is going up and down, it is not reflective of 50
    percent of our shelters because they are domestic violence, it
    is not reflective of our faith-based partners that are
    providing services, and as we have discussed earlier, it
    doesn't include the number of homeless identified through our
    school districts and our Head Start agencies.
        One of the things that this bill would allow would be local
    flexibility. In our service area, our needs are similar in
    terms of the families, people that are being placed in foster
    care, the families that are doubled up because there is no
    shelter availability.
        The Continuum of Care process, while it is important and it
    does fund a variety of services in our country, I believe,
    looks very different in our part of the country than it may in
    some other parts of the country.
        I provide a lot of written testimony, so I am trying to
    focus my oral on things that may be a better use of your time.
        But in the State of Wisconsin, we have 72 counties. HUD
    recognizes four Continuum of Cares. So our bigger cities--
    Racine; Dane, which is Madison; and Milwaukee--HUD designates
    those as their own Continuum of Care. Our northern five
    counties is what is called the Balance of State Continuum of
    Care. So, on the ground level, there are 21 local groups:
    Myself representing my 5 counties; Duana Bremer that was here a
    few weeks ago representing her service area. But we compromise
    what is the Balance of State Continuum of Care.
        So, as this process started many years ago--I have been
    involved in this process for 21 years--the Continuum of Care
    was designed to meet homeless needs. There was a pro rata need
    that was established by counties. We started a lot of
    supportive services-only programs, transitional housing
    programs, things that are identified locally as a need.
        As this evolution in time has changed, the only new
    programs that communities are able to apply for is permanent
    supportive housing. And, in our case, we don't have enough
    chronically homeless meeting that definition in our rural
    areas. And what has been happening in reality is we have had
    larger cities that are having more services available for
    chronic homeless, which is great--that is their need; people
    are being housed--but what we are doing is we are continually
    taking away services from our rural communities, and we have
    less services available to meet the needs of the families that
    we are working with.
        So I do see I am over time. I will pause there. I will be
    available for questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rounsville can be found on
    page 66 of the Appendix.]
        Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Rounsville.
        And I want to thank the panel for their testimony.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
        Just a brief note. I am sorry, I--we defend the
    bureaucracy, we defend the status quo and argue for more money.
    I don't think that answer actually works. You can argue for
    more money. I get that. But also say, is the system actually
    working? Are we actually effective with the dollars that we
    use? Because with $21 trillion in debt, it is fair to come back
    and say, ``I need more, because I am using the dollars that you
    have given me really well right now,'' but if we can't look at
    how we are actually using today's dollars, how do we come back
    and ask for more?
        And I think that is the point of this conversation. How are
    we using our current dollars? Let's use them well. And if there
    is more that is needed, let's fight for more money to help
    those who have fallen into homelessness.
        Ms. Rounsville, as you might know, I was the D.A. in
    Ashland County, which covers your area, and have dealt with the
    women's shelter, and it is a great facility.
        But you made a comment about how money might flow into the
    Dane County area, Madison, and maybe a little less up north in
    the rural part. And is that because you have been so effective
    in addressing homelessness and they haven't been effective in
    Dane County, or is something else happening in how money is
    distributed?
        Ms. Rounsville. I would be happy to cover that.
        It is actually multifold. So, in our rural areas, we don't
    have United Way dollars. We don't have entitlement communities.
    We are piecemealing packages together.
        One of our largest funding sources for the shelter side,
    such as New Day that you referenced, is the ESG money through
    the State. Based on one of their formula allocations, the
    dollars are divided up throughout the State of Wisconsin based
    on things such as your homeless counts.
        As I referenced earlier, when people aren't using HMIS, the
    numbers go down. As the numbers go down, I am issuing less
    hotel vouchers. I am the one entering into HMIS. Thus, next
    year we have a lower allocation, we have less resources.
        On the Continuum of Care side, it is that 69 counties that
    are submitting an application. So it is all 69 counties looking
    at in terms of competing nationally to bring resources into our
    State following HUD's priorities, getting the extra points on
    the application to keep serving homeless throughout that 69-
    county area.
        The needs of us in northern Wisconsin, while they are
    important, we don't have a high population of chronic homeless.
    One of HUD's priority areas is serving chronic homeless. And
    there are pockets throughout the State that do have a need to
    serve chronic homeless. So those resources are coming into our
    State and enhancing services in those areas, but we are no
    longer able to apply for transitional housing, which works
    well. And then we lost a transitional housing program this last
    round, so we are only going to have one COC-funded project left
    in our service area.
        But that is what is happening, is, as they are prioritizing
    specific populations, the more urban areas that have that
    population are able to access those dollars, as opposed to we
    don't have an opportunity to apply for a transitional housing
    program, which would better meet our needs.
        Our Rapid Re-Housing that we fund with the ESG and the
    State dollars, we have people that come up on our priority
    list, but if you are in a town like Ashland and you have
    something on your background or you have been evicted by one of
    the property owners, nobody is going to give you a lease. It
    wouldn't matter if you had dollars available.
        Chairman Duffy. Just quickly, the Point-in-Time counts, are
    those accurate? Do you--
        Ms. Rounsville. No.
        Chairman Duffy. --think they get--they don't. And does that
    affect your funding?
        Ms. Rounsville. Well, HUD says you have to cover your
    geographic footprint. Does anybody here think they could cover
    8,000 square miles in 7 hours? I mean--and especially in the
    wintertime. We have two-lane roads. We have no cell phone
    service. We have national forests. It is not an easy--
        Chairman Duffy. It is impossible.
        Ms. Rounsville. --feat to get try to get that.
        Chairman Duffy. Yes. It is impossible. And, right, you
    don't get an accurate count. And then, obviously, the dollars
    don't necessary flow.
        To the panel, is there a correlation between child
    homelessness and adult homelessness? Does that correlation
    actually exist? The panel agrees with that?
        Doesn't it make sense, then, especially when you have kids
    or young adults, the youth, that we try to address that problem
    early on and say, let's help these kids get into housing so
    they are not pulling resources in their adulthood from others,
    they are actually self-sufficient, let's start them off on the
    right path?
        Ms. Lilley, does that make sense to you?
        Ms. Lilley. It absolutely makes sense to me.
        I understand that we want to serve the most vulnerable, and
    I feel like, as a Nation, we are overlooking that the most
    vulnerable are the individuals that are experiencing
    homelessness that we can't see. They are not the people
    sleeping on the street. It is the youth that are being
    traumatized by the experiences--
        Chairman Duffy. I am sorry. The story that you tell about
    the kids in the hotel room, or your own story, who is more
    vulnerable than kids going through this process from their teen
    years into adulthood? Who is more vulnerable than that?
        I have a--and my time is up. As I have asked you all to be
    respectful of the red dot, I am too. So, with that, I am going
    to recognize Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes. We will do a second
    round. Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes, the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is an important issue. And I want to reiterate
    something that Mr. Berg said earlier, and that is that I would
    prefer to believe--and I think I am actually correct--that
    there probably is not any person in here who is anti-help
    homeless individuals.
        I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for taking the lead
    in this. It is always a very emotional issue with me. My wife
    and I had a homeless kid show up on our doorstep. And it had
    something to do with the NBA, one of the players. I won't go
    into it here. But he moved into our home, and because he went
    to school with our twin boys, all three of them went off to
    college together on basketball scholarships.
        And then I think it was May 11, Flight 592, ValuJet went
    down in the Everglades, and Jerrold was on that flight. I saw
    what he went through as a homeless kid, 15 years old--and I
    mean homeless. I don't mean--he wasn't staying with his
    grandmother or chose not to stay with his uncle. I mean with
    nothing, his clothing on his back.
        And so this is something that is very, very meaningful to
    me. And I want to express, in no small way, my appreciation for
    the Chairman for putting this on the docket and for Mr. Stivers
    and the people on the Democratic side who are working with him.
    I think it is the gentlewoman from Ohio who is also part of
    this bill.
        And so, for me, this is a worrisome issue. It is not easy
    to resolve, and we are going to have to struggle with it. It is
    not a question of whether or not these erratically housed
    families and youth deserve housing assistance. That is just not
    the issue. The issue, for me, is whether or not they should
    skip the line, ahead of other families and youth with other
    problems.
        I don't know if we will ever have enough money to resolve
    this issue. But we will never handle homelessness until we
    envision a Nation without homelessness and try to go there.
        So this legislation is not perfect, but I think the whole
    effort in Congress--and this is what I think all of us forget--
    is that we are hopefully moving toward perfection. Nothing is
    perfect. We are moving in that direction. So I appreciate it.
        So if someone could address the issue I raised about
    whether or not putting people ahead in the line is something
    that we can figure out how to get around. I would love to have
    everybody in here supporting the same piece of legislation.
        Mr. Berg. Well, if I could start, I think it is extremely
    important to have clear goals and clear ideas about what kind
    of things the Continuum of Care is funding that get the best
    results and then really focus on getting the people who can
    benefit from that into those programs.
        At the same time, the Continuum of Care, as I said at the
    start, it is 4 percent of HUD's budget--4. There are a lot of
    other things that go into communities' responses to this issue,
    including other HUD funding, funding from other Federal
    agencies, lots of philanthropic funding. So there is a range of
    things that different people need, and it is possible to set up
    a system that provides people with what they need while still
    understanding that this one program, this one 4 percent, needs
    to be reserved for people who are in immediate danger.
        Because I think the rules of the Continuum of Care really
    are that people in immediate danger are covered. If the only
    place you have to live is with your kids with a registered sex
    offender, you are eligible right now. You are. You can't get
    help because--
        Ms. Lilley. You are eligible for one program, not the
    program that necessarily meets your vulnerability. That is
    ineffective and fiscally irresponsible.
        Mr. Berg. That is not about--that is not--this bill
    wouldn't help that.
        Ms. Lilley. But it would.
        Mr. Berg. This bill changes eligibility. It doesn't change
    what kinds of programs are available and what the community is
    doing.
        Ms. Lilley. The Ranking Member raised a very interesting
    question about whether or not this bill should be passed based
    on people skipping the line. And the bill isn't about people
    skipping the line or moving ahead in the line. The bill is
    addressing letting people join the line based on their
    vulnerability on the same scale as people who are outside.
        Currently, they can't even get in line. This isn't about
    jumping a line. It is about being able to stand in the same
    line for the appropriate resources based on their
    vulnerability, the same scale of vulnerability that people
    outside are being measured on.
        Mr. Cleaver. Now, I think the--well, let me reiterate. I
    support and, in fact, voted that we create the line in the
    first place. So, I don't want--I think we need to be careful as
    we are discussing something that almost everybody in here
    supports.
        Ms. Rounsville. Mr. Chairman, can I address the line
    quickly? Am I allowed to do that?
        I just want to talk about the line. Because we talk about
    vulnerable, and we are talking about the doubled-up
    individuals, and then we are talking about families in shelter.
    And I believe there is an impression that the families in
    shelter are already in the line.
        The threshold to meet for permanent support of housing that
    is chronically homelessness, you have to have an adult with a
    disability to meet that definition.
        So our shelters and families that are staying in the
    domestic violence shelter, while they may be at the bottom of
    the list, they are still not eligible, because to be
    chronically homeless, the adult has to have a disability.
        So it isn't just a matter of the couch-surfers not being
    able to get to the line. It is the families that are sitting in
    the line that we can't help because they are not meeting
    chronically homeless.
        Mr. Cleaver. I thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Posey, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    for calling this hearing. Homelessness is not something that is
    on the radar every day, but it is a massive, massive problem,
    and I don't think anyone's districts are completely immune from
    it.
        Ms. Lilley, I think your written testimony and your verbal
    testimony may be some of the most compelling that I have heard
    so far. Thank you very much for that.
        I love Family Promise. My wife and I became aware of it,
    and we work through our church. And I know it is effective; I
    know what you are saying is the truth. It is another example of
    how much more productive, efficient, and effective privately
    operated functions can be than Government, monolithic, one-
    size-fits-all, you-are-in-or-you-are-out structures that
    clearly have not seemed to have worked very well, or there
    wouldn't be a need for so many of the other organizations, such
    as yours.
        A question that demands an answer after reading all of your
    testimony, a couple times actually: How did you break the
    cycle? How did you free yourself and your family?
        Ms. Lilley. I was supported by Family Promise. And so I am
    actually the Deputy Director of the organization that served my
    family 4-1/2 years ago. So it was the support that allowed me
    through that process.
        And they extended a lot of grace to me. Emergency shelters
    generally will time a family out after 90 days and ask them to
    exit and then reapply if there is availability. I stayed in
    shelter straight for more than 6 months.
        I did receive assistance through Rapid Re-Housing on the
    back end of shelter to be able to house my family. And that
    supported me on my trajectory forward.
        Once I exited the shelter and was stably housed, I wanted
    to give back. And so I started volunteering with Family
    Promise. A year after exiting shelter, I became a staff member
    and have just climbed up the ranks ever since, and homelessness
    has become my life since.
        I think it is important to recognize in my personal story
    that I received some assistance that was HUD-funded that helped
    me overcome my situation. It was after 6-plus months in
    shelter. It was after an extreme amount of time of struggling.
    My special boy, during my homeless situation, had two more
    long-term hospitalizations because the process was stressful
    for him, as it was for me.
        But that HUD funding that helped me get back on my feet, I
    was able to utilize it before that 6-month mark. However, when
    you are looking at Rapid Re-Housing, I had to qualify for a
    landlord that was willing to take those funds and my family. As
    you can imagine, a lot of landlords look at an application and
    say, ``Currently homeless, six kids, lower income than it used
    to be a year ago,'' and they go, ``I think I will pass,''
    especially when you are in communities with low vacancy.
        And so it took a long time for me to find a landlord
    willing to work with me, which is why that may not have been
    the most effective across-the-board intervention that we are
    offering to families.
        Mr. Posey. How would you specifically suggest we redefine
    homeless eligibility at HUD?
        Ms. Lilley. Specifically, I think that we need to broaden
    the definition to align with other Federal systems. We need to
    include the families that are doubled up. We need to include
    the families that are living in a motel.
        They are not stably housed. Most of these parents are out
    trying to figure out how they are going to pay for the motel
    room tomorrow. They are not sure how they are going to stay
    with a friend another week longer. They are sitting in bedrooms
    on floors with their children, telling them that they can't
    cry, telling them that they can't access the refrigerator
    because it is not their food.
        It is not a housing situation; it is a floor, it is a cot,
    it is a blanket. And it is not acceptable. We have to expand
    it. We have to truly work to serve the most vulnerable and
    acknowledge that just because a family has four walls around
    them, that doesn't mean that they are not vulnerable.
        There are a lot of assumptions that go into the Alliance
    saying that we're not--this expands it and we are no longer
    going to be serving the most vulnerable that they haven't done
    the research to back up. These families are vulnerable, they
    are being victimized, and they deserve a spot in the line for
    resources based on their vulnerability.
        Mr. Posey. If you could make one change besides the
    definition, what would that be?
        Ms. Lilley. I would allow communities to be able to use the
    resources that best fit their community dynamic and the current
    housing dynamic of that community. So if transitional housing
    is effective in a community and proven effective in a
    community, that HUD not prioritize it being defunded.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you.
        I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the author of 1511, the gentleman
    from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And before I go to questions--I do want to ask a bunch of
    questions, but I want to acknowledge what Mr. Berg said
    initially, is while we may disagree on this individual issue, I
    want to thank you for your passion and what you are doing to
    combat homelessness, because we are all on the same side on
    that even if we disagree about a particular issue.
        And I want to acknowledge the folks back in Columbus, Ohio:
    Michelle Heritage, who I am sure you work with, Mr. Berg, who
    has been a friend of mine for 20 years, so I have known and
    worked with at Saint Vincent's and worked with her on combating
    homelessness at the Community Shelter Board. They are doing
    incredible work. They have been one of the most innovative
    organizations in the country; they continue to be. And while
    they may disagree with me on this issue, I consider them
    friends and know that we have the same goals in mind.
        So I want to continue on what Ms. Lilley was just talking
    about. And because the Ranking Member and because Mr. Berg have
    brought it up, I just want to be really clear what this bill
    does and doesn't do.
        This bill is about taking invisibly homeless people that
    are seen as invisible today--by the law, they are invisible.
    That is tragic. It is unacceptable. It produces very bad
    results for those people and allows them to be taken advantage
    of--and brings them into the light and allows them to be
    counted. That is what this bill does.
        It does not prioritize them, does not put them in line in
    front of anybody else. The communities can decide who they want
    to serve based on who has the most emergent need and who is in
    the most danger. But it brings those invisible people into the
    light. That is what we should be about.
        And then I am--I want to pledge to all of you, I will be
    fighting for resources.
        But I do want to start a few questions by asking Ms.
    Duffield, so tell me, does this bill require anybody to move to
    the front of the line?
        Ms. Duffield. No, it does not. It simply means you are
    eligible to be assessed on the same vulnerability indicators as
    anybody else. You are not to the front of the line. You are in
    the line. You are actually being seen by the same standards.
        And, again, my testimony provides data showing that these
    children are every bit as in dire straits as anybody else.
        Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
        And that is where I want to move to Ms. Lilley, on that,
    because you have been so eloquent already on this issue. Talk
    about how these invisibly homeless people can be and are taken
    advantage of today in the name of getting them housed by
    friends, family, strangers, and other folks, either financially
    or in other ways taken advantage of, and how that makes them
    vulnerable and how they are--help us understand why they are
    vulnerable people.
        Ms. Lilley. Absolutely.
        As we all know, people who are feeling desperation make
    choices out of that desperation, and they are not always
    choices that align with the end goal or that are safe choices
    to make.
        We see families who are able to pay for a motel this week
    and next week come up $30 short, so they are outside and they
    are asking people to come up with that money. And then someone
    will walk up to them and say, ``You know what? I have 30 bucks.
    Let me join you in your room.'' So now a stranger has joined
    these children in a room because a family needed $30 to pay for
    next week. And that is introducing the children to new, unknown
    dangers.
        Also, when we are talking about community systems,
    community systems are important when we are looking at the
    human need for community. And when we are talking about family
    homelessness and children homelessness, it is very isolating.
    When you have families who are in shelter, there is a community
    there. Parents in a shelter look out for each other. They
    support each other. They cheer each other on.
        Families who are experiencing homelessness in a motel or a
    situation where they are staying with others, it is not
    generally family. It is not generally grandma and grandpa. It
    is not generally aunt or uncle. A lot of times, it is strangers
    that happen to offer a place to stay. A lot of times, it is
    people that were in the past with a family who now have a place
    to stay.
        I currently--it breaks my heart to say, I have a mom and a
    dad with a 3-week-old baby that on Monday decided to move in
    with someone they met 3 hours prior, because that was a better
    choice for them than going to the shelter with their vulnerable
    baby. That is not safe.
        Mr. Stivers. Wow.
        Ms. Lilley. They are not considered homeless anymore. And
    they are in dire need for that baby, who is at a key
    developmental stage and will be for the next 3 years, for an
    intervention to be offered.
        So we are forcing families--we are telling families, ``You
    are not homeless enough to help.'' And then we are faulting
    them for being in situations that aren't safe and keeping them
    in the shadows, when we are trying to draw them out so that we
    can help, so that we can assist. We want them to see the
    friendly face that says, ``You are not alone. It can be OK.''
        Mr. Stivers. And I know I am basically out of time, but if
    I could just have each of the panel members, one at a time, say
    whether they believe these children should be counted or hidden
    in homelessness.
        Ms. Duffield. They should be seen and served.
        Mr. Berg. I think the more data we have about all these
    problems, the better. So, certainly, if we can get information
    about who is living in what situations, that would be
    excellent.
        Ms. Lilley. Counted and served.
        Ms. Rounsville. Counted and served.
        Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Rothfus, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
    for calling today's hearing.
        And I would like to commend Representative Stivers for his
    hard work on this important issue.
        The Homeless Children and Youth Act addresses a number of
    problems with our current approach to homelessness, but I want
    to start by focusing on one in particular. As HUD has
    prioritized one-size-fits-all mandates, like Housing First, and
    connected those priorities to funding, it has pushed
    communities to move away from programs and strategies that
    actually work.
        As a result, local organizations have lost out on necessary
    funding or have been forced to change their model. Ultimately,
    this hurts the very people we are trying to help: The poor, the
    vulnerable, and those in need of a helping hand.
        One of the organizations that has been harmed is the HEARTH
    organization in my district. HEARTH is a transitional housing
    provider focusing on women fleeing domestic violence. Due to
    the one-size-fits-all approach pushed by HUD, HEARTH has faced
    pressure to completely change its model or risk losing funding.
    This is unfair to the western Pennsylvania families that need
    HEARTH in their community.
        And I want to enter their statement on the Homeless
    Children and Youth Act into the record.
        Mr. Chairman, if I could offer a statement from HEARTH into
    the record on the Homeless Children and Youth Act.
        Chairman Duffy. Without objection.
        Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Lilley, you have both personal and
    professional experience with your homelessness relief programs.
    Could you comment on what happened in your community when HUD
    prioritized Rapid Re-Housing and permanent supportive housing?
        Ms. Lilley. Absolutely. I actually sit on the Ranking and
    Prioritization Committee on my Continuum of Care, so I know
    exactly the decisions that were made to try and meet the
    competitiveness of the COC.
        In my community, we have only a couple transitional housing
    programs. One of them specifically serves families with
    children. We have My Transitional Housing Program, which is
    exclusively privately funded; I don't ask for HUD money for it.
        And then we have a transitional housing program that--it is
    a borderline. Under HUD's definition, it is considered
    transitional housing. However, it truly hits an emergency need
    for unaccompanied women in our community, in that it only
    serves women, and it is a short-term transitional housing
    program. It maxes at 6 months instead of the 2 years for the
    most markers.
        When HUD pushed the prioritization, saying that we really
    needed to focus on Rapid Re-Housing and that we really needed
    to focus on permanent supportive housing, as you can imagine,
    these are things that we would love to expand in our community,
    but they take infrastructure. And infrastructure takes time to
    develop, especially when you are talking about permanent
    supportive housing, which requires units, a lot of units, to
    meet that need.
        Our Continuum of Care looked at how we were meeting that
    need and decided that, to stay competitive as a continuum,
    although our family transitional housing program, which was
    large, was high-performing, had highly successful outcomes and
    lower recidivism rates, we had to remove funding from that
    program and reallocate it to a different program. It was
    actually a new program, so we weren't sure how that was going
    to play out, but it matched the HUD priority. As a result, this
    transitional housing program had to struggle the next year to
    backfill the funding that was removed from them.
        In my community, the women's transitional housing program
    in this last go-around, they did not receive COC money because
    of the HUD priority. And, in addition, because the city has
    decided to align with the HUD priorities for ESG and CDBG
    (Community Development Block Grant) money as well, they did not
    receive their ESG or CDBG money either. That shelter closed
    last week.
        Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Rounsville, I understand the transitional
    housing project in your area lost Federal support as a result
    of HUD's push to deprioritize transitional housing.
        Does transitional housing have a good track record in your
    area?
        Ms. Rounsville. Transitional housing in our world was
    ideal. We held the lease. We could take high-barrier families.
    Landlords had worked with our agency for 50 years, so we didn't
    have a problem with getting that housing provided.
        The Rapid Re-Housing is also a good model, but it is not a
    one-size-fits-all. Having the Rapid Re-Housing, especially
    under the stimulus--we had about $900,000 for 2 years, as
    opposed to now we get, like, $60,000 for 2 years. But having
    those two services available in the community really
    complemented each other.
        We had our high-barrier families where you are the single
    mom that is 21 with five kids. Transitional housing gave us
    more time. It had intensive case management. They could seek
    mental services or if they had kids with disabilities,
    addiction counseling, those sort of things.
        Versus the Rapid Re-Housing model--ideally, it works best
    for first-time homeless, low-barrier. Rapid Re-Housing would be
    an ideal program for the issue that we face with our foster
    care system. Our families that have their children removed,
    placed in foster care, we have our human services that have a
    group of those. If those people could just find housing, they
    could get their kids back. That is not a program--they are not
    eligible for our services.
        But if we could take a program like Rapid Re-Housing and
    target it, or transitional housing, to that population, we
    could bring our families back together, we could support our
    families, as opposed to increasing the number of children
    remaining in foster care that as teenagers are either running,
    staying with other people, or they are aging out of foster care
    and then we are hitting on the other end as chronic homeless
    later on.
        Mr. Rothfus. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Trott, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Trott. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking
    Member for organizing this hearing today and also thank the
    panel for your time today but also and perhaps more importantly
    for all the good work you no doubt do every day back in your
    communities.
        Mr. Berg, so all of the other panelists have disagreed with
    your assertion that someone who is in a situation, a drug den
    or an abusive situation or maybe a potentially trafficking
    situation is eligible for the COC program. Do you stand by your
    position in that regard?
        Mr. Berg. Yes, absolutely. I would recommend the committee
    get HUD in here and let them explain all the rules that they
    have in place.
        Let me just be clear, though, we are talking about
    eligibility because this bill addresses eligibility. The
    program is not funded well enough--
        Mr. Trott. Let's talk about that in a minute.
        Mr. Berg. --to help everyone who is eligible. So that is a
    separate problem. And that is why a lot of people who need help
    aren't getting it.
        Mr. Trott. So the other panelists are just wrong with
    respect to their definition of eligibility. Is that what you
    are saying?
        Mr. Berg. I think that to the extent that they have said
    what you said, that is not correct.
        Mr. Trott. You said that HUD needs to ascertain what
    programs are working and this bill undermines that. How does it
    do that?
        Mr. Berg. Well, several provisions in the bill would
    prohibit HUD from setting various kinds of priorities, even
    though Congress has been quite clear over 20 years that they
    want HUD to set priorities based on what works best.
        Mr. Trott. OK. So that is the basis for that conclusion.
        Mr. Berg. That and also the concern that, by massively
    expanding who is eligible for the program, there would be an
    overwhelming effect that would prevent--
        Mr. Trott. Would you be supporting the bill if there was
    more funding?
        Mr. Berg. That is hard to say.
        Mr. Trott. I am trying to determine whether really your
    opposition is based on lack of resources or some other, more
    fundamental concern.
        Mr. Berg. The fundamental concern is that this program has
    a very specific purpose, which is to quickly get people who are
    in immediate danger because of their housing situation out of
    that.
        There are a lot of other people, millions of people, who
    are being hurt by the fact that they don't have decent housing.
    I think there are other approaches to that that would work
    better to fix that problem.
        Mr. Trott. I appreciate that.
        Do you agree with Ms. Rounsville's concern that the
    program, as currently configured, favors urban areas over rural
    areas?
        Mr. Berg. I am concerned about that. I can't say definitely
    yes or no, but it is definitely a concern of ours.
        Mr. Trott. So this is to the entire panel.
        Ms. Lilley, you have already responded quite eloquently,
    and your comments I found to be very powerful and persuasive.
    So you can certainly add in another suggestion besides
    community flexibility, but this is for the entire panel.
        The COC program, what one or two changes would you make,
    other than the debate we are having regarding the eligibility
    definition?
        Ms. Duffield. I think the Homeless Children and Youth Act
    does what needs to be done, which is to go back to the original
    purpose of the COC, which is to really have the communities
    figure out what they need, as opposed to having HUD tell them
    what they need.
        So if those projects were scored based on a local plan and
    local plans that will identify whether they were for a local
    plan, then we would see a flexible, effective system. But right
    now it is a very heavy-handed system. There is no competition.
    The only competition is how well you can meet HUD's priorities.
        Ms. Rounsville. I would agree with that. I think, in terms
    of the Continuum of Care process, if there was an opportunity
    to bring back programs like transitional housing that we knew
    worked within our communities, or if there was a way that our
    local communities could look at what our needs are--as I have
    talked about, in a 69-county area, trying to do a coordinated
    entry system that is identical through a 69-county area using a
    screening tool that maybe your local groups don't agree with
    but another community wants, there are so many pieces that are
    required now in this geographic area, and when it becomes a 69-
    county area, it is very difficult to get everybody across that
    spectrum to follow one-size-fits-all.
        If there was flexibility that local communities or local
    regions could each have their own process and prioritize what
    our needs are, that would make sense. And maybe in another
    community, chronic homeless is their focus, and they need to
    continue serving that population. But that doesn't preclude
    another group within the Continuum of Care from serving
    children in foster care, homeless and runaway youth, or other
    populations that may be what our highest need is.
        Mr. Trott. Great. Thank you.
        I will yield back.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Green, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, as well, to
    the Ranking Members and the witnesses.
        I would like to visit with you about empirical evidence.
    What I would like to know first is, are we spending too much
    money on homelessness? If we are and you believe we are, would
    you kindly extend a hand into the air?
        Please allow the record to reflect that none of the
    witnesses have extended a hand into the air.
        Mr. Berg. Could I just extend one finger in the air?
    Because we are spending a lot of money on homelessness, not to
    solve it, but to deal with it and manage it. Jails are spending
    money on homelessness. Mental health systems are spending money
    on homelessness. We are spending a lot of money on not solving
    the problem.
        Mr. Green. Are we spending too much is the question.
        Mr. Berg. We are spending too much money not solving the
    problem. We are not spending nearly enough to solve the
    problem.
        Mr. Green. Because we are not helping enough people, does
    that mean that we are wasting money? If you think so, would you
    kindly extend a hand into the air?
        Let me continue then.
        If you think we are wasting money, give me one empirical
    piece of evidence of how we are wasting it.
        I think, Ms. Lilley, you had some evidence?
        Ms. Lilley. Well, I do.
        So Mr. Berg continues to say that the families that we are
    trying to expand this definition to serve are already able to
    be served under the Continuum of Care. And what I keep
    reiterating is that they are not able to be served adequately
    based on their vulnerability score, which is fiscally
    irresponsible.
        Because we are saying that if you want assistance and you
    need assistance, we can offer you one form of assistance,
    regardless of whether or not your family has a chance of that
    form of assistance--
        Mr. Green. A quick follow up, if I may, Ms. Lilley.
        Ms. Lilley. Yes.
        Mr. Green. Are you indicating that because we are helping
    some and we are not helping others that that is a waste of
    money?
        Ms. Lilley. I am indicating that because we cannot--
        Mr. Green. I didn't quite get the answer to my question.
    Are you indicating that because we are helping others who need
    help that we are wasting money?
        Ms. Lilley. No.
        Mr. Green. OK.
        Now, here is where I think we are. I think we are victims
    of a lilliputian conviction that the poor can do more with less
    and that the rich need more to do more.
        It really is painful to see you at odds with each other
    because we have decided that there is a finite amount of money
    that is available. It is very painful to see this happening,
    especially given that we are the richest country in the world,
    especially given that we continually tout the expanding economy
    and we talk about how great Wall Street is doing and how people
    are faring so well. To see you have to combat each other over
    some--did you say 4 percent, Mr. Berg?--4 percent of HUD's
    budget, 4 percent, when, the truth be told, we need to expand
    the budget.
        Now, I know that there are those who would say that if you
    pass this bill we will expand the budget because we will
    appropriate the funds at the appropriate time. Well, there are
    ways to ascertain what will be needed for that appropriate time
    before we pass the bill.
        I believe that we ought to help every person that you have
    called to our attention, Ms. Lilley. I really do. I think yours
    is a noble cause. It is not a quixotic effort. It is noble.
        And, Mr. Berg, I believe you want to make sure that all the
    people who have been getting help continue to get help. But
    with this lilliputian theology--and it is almost a theology;
    not really--but this belief that the poor can do more with
    less, keep the finite amount of money, but expand the number of
    people who need it, and then have the debate that I see here
    today, which is very painful, very painful.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes one of the coauthors and sponsors
    of this legislation, the gentlelady from the great State of
    Wisconsin, Ms. Moore, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I do want to thank the witnesses and apologize for my
    late arrival, but I am very, very interested in this topic.
        And I just want to associate myself with some of the
    comments that the gentleman from Texas just made, because it is
    painful to recognize that there is a dearth of funding to
    address this bill.
        I guess I have a comment before I ask any questions. I have
    found myself 67 years old, and, I am a person who has always
    had a sea of income--I have had an island of income in a sea of
    need. And so friends and family and strangers and others--I
    have taken in many homeless people. And the minute you take
    them in and they get a place on your couch for a night, they
    are no longer considered homeless, even though you are unable
    to extend that beyond a few days. And so that was, of course,
    my interest in this bill.
        I also understand the plight of runaway youth. And children
    in my community--we have one in four kids who go to bed hungry
    every night, so those folks who would qualify under the Child
    Nutrition Act.
        But I am empathetic with the notion that we are scrambling
    over crumbs that are falling from the master's table. And this
    bill has been very well-intentioned over the years, but it has
    never come with the commitment to actually fund these programs.
        I am wondering, Mr. Berg--and forgive me if you are going
    to be repeating yourself because I was absent, but do you have
    some sense of how we can prime the pump to really meet the
    needs of all homeless people?
        And I do believe that you sincerely want to see us address
    homelessness. You mentioned we are spending money but we are
    not addressing it. Can you just share with me what you think
    would be worthy of our consideration?
        Mr. Berg. Sure. Absolutely.
        And thank you, Ms. Moore. I know you were a great proponent
    of the HEARTH Act a few years ago--
        Ms. Moore. Yes.
        Mr. Berg. --that changed the eligibility rules, expanded
    the eligibility rules.
        But really what we are looking at in terms of a broader
    housing campaign, we are working with a lot of different
    organizations, including people from the education field, the
    healthcare field, to address the problem that we all recognize,
    that people don't have housing that they can afford. Whether
    they end up homeless as a result or whether they end up on your
    couch, they still need help.
        We need more investment in rent subsidies. We need more
    building of houses that are affordable to people with those
    rent subsidies. And we need short-term help too. I mean, this
    is something that a lot of communities are understanding. They
    are looking--
        Ms. Moore. So I guess what you are saying is that this is a
    well-intentioned bill, but there are some things we need to do
    preliminarily. Is that what you are suggesting?
        Mr. Berg. Yes. I mean, thinking you can really solve these
    problems by changing the eligibility rules in this little
    homeless program, that is not--
        Ms. Moore. I mean, for example, I was stunned to learn just
    recently--we haven't raised the minimum wage in a dozen years.
    And I don't care how hard you work, there is no housing
    anywhere in the United States of America, urban, rural, ex-
    urban, a person cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment anywhere
    in America off a minimum wage job. So they are at risk of
    homelessness.
        So when you expand eligibility, if I am hearing you
    correctly, you may be bringing in a universe of people who earn
    the minimum wage. Is that--
        Mr. Berg. Right.
        Ms. Moore. --a takeaway?
        Mr. Berg. Right.
        Ms. Moore. OK.
        Any of the rest of you have anything to offer in my 8
    seconds?
        Ms. Duffield. I would like to comment.
        We are aligning definitions. This isn't adding millions of
    people. We are actually talking about creating efficiencies.
        Ms. Moore. OK.
        Ms. Duffield. The HEARTH Act changes didn't work, or we
    wouldn't be here. Those categories that were added are not
    meeting the needs of the most vulnerable. We are actually
    creating a system that is so complicated that we spend millions
    of dollars on technical assistance to figure it out. We have
    flowcharts, like this, for the definition of chronic
    homelessness.
        So what is the better use of time? Documenting all of this,
    figuring out the three layers, figuring out all the regulations
    HUD added on to those categories, or talking to a school social
    worker who knows the child, talking to a Runaway and Homeless
    Youth Act program who knows the child? What is a better use of
    time? Taking advantage of existing systems that have identified
    these kids already and helping them collaborate better and
    leverage services, or running around documenting their status
    and all the many hoops that HUD has put before these children?
        Ms. Moore. I can see that my time has expired. I just want
    to thank the Chairman for his generosity, and I yield back.
        Chairman Duffy. The gentlelady yields back.
        Here, here, Ms. Duffield. Thank you very much.
        I want to thank our panel. This has been wonderfully
    informational. I actually appreciate the debate that you all
    had. That is actually helpful to us. It is inspiring that we
    can go back and forth and hear a rigorous conversation. So
    thank you.
        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.
        Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  June 6, 2018

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]