[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EVALUATING HOW HUD'S
MOVING-TO-WORK PROGRAM
BENEFITS PUBLIC AND
ASSISTED HOUSING RESIDENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND INSURANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 113-35
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-770 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman
GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking
Chairman Member
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
Emeritus NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
JOHN CAMPBELL, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
KEVIN McCARTHY, California AL GREEN, Texas
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
BILL POSEY, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Pennsylvania ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan JOHN C. CARNEY, Jr., Delaware
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
ROBERT HURT, Virginia BILL FOSTER, Illinois
MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio PATRICK MURPHY, Florida
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DENNY HECK, Washington
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ANDY BARR, Kentucky
TOM COTTON, Arkansas
KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania
Shannon McGahn, Staff Director
James H. Clinger, Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, Chairman
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Vice MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts,
Chairman Ranking Member
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey BRAD SHERMAN, California
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
ROBERT HURT, Virginia KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
June 26, 2013................................................ 1
Appendix:
June 26, 2013................................................ 31
WITNESSES
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Nackerman, Daniel J., President and CEO, San Bernardino County
Housing Authority.............................................. 8
Reed, Gene, Executive Director, Abilene Housing Authority........ 9
Russ, Gregory P., Executive Director, Cambridge Housing Authority 14
Scire, Mathew J., Director, Financial Markets and Community
Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office.............. 11
Woods, Larry C., CEO/Executive Director, Winston-Salem Housing
Authority...................................................... 12
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Neugebauer, Hon. Randy....................................... 32
Nackerman, Daniel J.......................................... 35
Reed, Gene................................................... 45
Russ, Gregory P.............................................. 53
Scire, Mathew J.............................................. 64
Woods, Larry C............................................... 80
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine:
Written statement of Douglas Guthrie, President and CEO, Los
Angeles Housing Authority.................................. 88
Written statement of John B. Rhea, Chairman, New York City
Housing Authority.......................................... 91
Written statement of the New York State Public Housing
Authority Directors Association............................ 93
Written statement of the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors................................................ 95
EVALUATING HOW HUD'S
MOVING-TO-WORK PROGRAM
BENEFITS PUBLIC AND
ASSISTED HOUSING RESIDENTS
----------
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing
and Insurance,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine
Luetkemeyer [vice chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Royce,
Miller, Capito, Garrett, Westmoreland, Duffy, Stivers; Capuano,
Clay, Himes, Sinema, and Beatty.
Ex officio present: Representative Hensarling.
Also present: Representative Green.
Mr. Luetkemeyer [presiding]. This hearing will come to
order.
As previously agreed to, each side is going to have 10
minutes to present opening statements.
And we also would like to recognize any Members who are not
on the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee if they are in
attendance. I ask for unanimous consent that any members of the
Financial Services Committee present today who are not members
of the Housing Subcommittee be permitted to participate in the
hearing.
With that, the Chair will begin his opening statement, and
I yield myself 2 minutes.
Thank you to our panel for appearing today. This hearing
will allow the subcommittee the opportunity to hear from folks
on the front lines of housing assistance, those who participate
in the Moving to Work Program, and those who don't but see the
potential of the program.
Millions of Americans are in need of housing assistance.
However, according to a May 7th Wall Street Journal article,
the average New York City resident in public housing stays
there for more than 20 years. That article goes on to quote the
executive director of the housing authority in Milwaukee who
says that in some cases you practically get through a
generation before you get a shot at a unit.
The average wait for a housing voucher in the Tacoma
Housing Authority is nearly 8 years. The director of that
housing authority told the Wall Street Journal that the
organization ``gives very valuable housing vouchers to a group
of very fortunate families but then is left with thousands of
people in desperate need of housing but getting no
assistance.''
Families shouldn't be penalized because the Federal
Government refuses to grant flexibility to their local public
housing authority. HUD's Moving to Work Program is an important
tool that allows flexibility in administering housing programs
on a local, individualized basis.
The Obama Administration has recognized the successes of
the program and has publicly called for a substantial
expansion. HUD has indicated that the program has seen a
reduction in costs and yet an increase in the number of
families served. Nevertheless, there are many more that are
still waiting for assistance.
It is my hope that with the help of today's testimony,
Congress can begin to recognize the need and desire for
expansion of this program. We should allow more families in
need to access public housing programs, but we must do so in a
manner that allows for flexibility and efficiency. An expanded
Moving to Work Program may be just the solution.
Again, I thank the members of the panel.
And just one housekeeping note that I probably forgot to
mention is that I am the vice chairman of the subcommittee, and
Chairman Neugebauer will not be here today. He has a family
situation he is addressing at home. And I appreciate your
indulgence.
With that, I yield to Ranking Member Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to publicly express my support and condolences
to Representative Neugebauer for his family situation.
First of all, I would like to welcome the panel. I look
forward to the testimony.
This is an important issue and one that I actually hope and
think presents itself for a great opportunity for compromise.
This particular legislation was on the verge of being marked up
just 2 years ago, and it got pulled at the last minute for some
unknown reasons; we are not sure why. But it seemed at the time
that almost everybody who was involved in this was, if not on
the same page, at least in the same chapter of the book, and we
were moving forward on it. I hope that this year we will be
able to go forward. I think many of us see a value in expanding
this program and making sure that it works.
I particularly would like to find ways to make it more
reportable. All the stories we hear are pretty good. The one
that I am particularly familiar with in Cambridge is a very
good program. But, at the same time, I know it is a national
program. There will be some that are better, some that are
worse, and some things we can learn from. And I don't think we
have done a very good job yet of really seeing how this can be
expanded in a real way. I want it to be, but I want to make
sure that it is done thoughtfully and properly as opposed to
just done haphazardly because it has a good title.
I look forward to this hearing, and I look forward to
actually, hopefully, drafting a bill later on this year.
I yield back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Capuano.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to Chairman Hensarling, the
chairman of the full Financial Services Committee.
Chairman Hensarling?
Chairman Hensarling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The topic of today's hearing is how HUD's Moving to Work
Program benefits public and assisted housing residents.
When Congress passed the Program in 1996, it was to give
public housing authorities the flexibility to innovate and
design local strategies to meet local needs, as well as
encourage greater housing choice and self-sufficiency for low-
income families. And while the Program has shown great success
in places like Atlanta and Chicago, after 17 years, Moving to
Work shamefully remains only a demonstration program at HUD,
with a meager 35 participating PHAs out of 3,100 nationwide. So
I hope we can use this hearing to learn more about how to
increase the number and successes of MTW participants.
But we need to do more than simply talk about the benefit
of the program. Fundamentally, we need to rethink public
housing. Let's not lose sight of the most important fact: Our
system of public housing is failing, and by refusing to reform
and innovate, we elected officials are failing the very people
who are in most need of our assistance.
Many share the blame. Too many have turned a blind eye to
the very real human tragedy of generational cycles of poverty
that we see in so many communities. Too many others share the
blame for thinking that simply spending more and more money on
failed programs is an acceptable form of compassion.
Particularly, it is not when it interferes with the
downtrodden's unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness,
which cannot be separated from earned success.
Consider this: The Fiscal Year 2012 gross discretionary
budget authority for HUD was $43.26 billion, and yet advocates
for a greater role in housing are just as dissatisfied with the
results we get for those dollars as are critics of HUD. How can
it be that year after year we can spend so much money to
achieve so little and fail so many?
The fault, I would argue, is not with good intentions but
rather our inability to recognize that more of the same will
not change the fundamental equation. We need new ideas, bold
new ways of approaching the problems of poverty and housing
affordability, new strategies that are premised on choice and
self-sufficiency.
For too long, we have defined success in housing by how
many vouchers we give out. In the 21st Century, we need to
define success by how many people we help graduate from Federal
assistance to lives of dignity, self-sufficiency, and
happiness. Every day that we fail to hold ourselves to that
high standard is another day that we have failed the very
people we claim we want to help.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I yield
back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would be remiss if I didn't offer you the opportunity
to make an introduction of a very special guest with you today.
Chairman Hensarling. On a point of personal privilege, this
is my 11-year-old daughter, Claire, from Dallas. This is
``daughter goes to work with daddy day.''
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Very good. Claire, welcome to the hearing.
With that, Mr. Royce is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Royce. I would like to thank all our witnesses for
being here today. In particular, I would like to welcome Dan
Nackerman, who is the executive director for the Housing
Authority of San Bernardino County, which serves part of Mr.
Miller's district and part of my district.
And in San Bernardino we have a success story, not just for
the housing authority and its leadership but, more importantly,
for the residents that it serves. The Moving to Work Program
has provided local flexibility, it has promoted creative
housing solutions, and it has moved the local residents there
to self-sufficiency.
And so, one of the things we look at is, with the large
deficits, it is important to note that Moving to Work allows
agencies to lower their costs while at the same time serving
far more people. So, during this hearing today, I hope we
tackle some of the obstacles to making this a permanent program
and answer any questions about how best to expand it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
With that, we will go to Mr. Miller of California for 2
minutes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the ranking member for mentioning my bill
that we had before us in the previous term. We got it out of
subcommittee, but we could not get it to final passage. But
this is an issue that is very important to me. I helped San
Bernardino come into Moving to Work in 2008, and they are an
amazingly great success story.
And it is good to see Mr. Woods with us today. I remember
having all the national associations, and I asked the question,
who would like to become a Move to Work, and every member of
the audience raised their hands. And I recall Mr. Woods saying
something that was very germane to this hearing. He said,
``Trust me, and hold me accountable.''
The problem we have in government is we go before the
voters every 2 years and we say, ``Trust us, elect us.'' And
then when those same people who are doing a good job come back
to us and say, ``Give me a chance, trust me,'' we don't trust
the same people we reach out to very often for trust. And these
are the people who provide help to the people at the local
level. They know the people. They understand the needs of the
local people. This one-size-fits-all approach we have had for
years just does not work.
My housing agency in San Bernardino County has helped more
people get through the system. We have brought more people in
who need help, and we have done it with far less funds. And in
the last bill I introduced, we put in very stringent oversight
that made sure that you were held accountable. You had to work
within a framework that was reasonable. And everybody has done
it.
The problem is that 1 percent of all our housing agencies
in this country whom we trust to be Move to Work; that is 39
PHAs out of 3,000. And the problem I have, when you have all
these PHAs coming to Washington saying, you give us less money,
we are willing to make it work with less money, but give us
flexibility to look the people in the eye that we know need
help and help them the way we know that will help them and get
them through the system to self-sufficiency to bring those who
have been on the waiting list for 8 or 10 years into the system
to help them.
It is time for Congress to trust the people who trust us.
But yet, at the same time, we are going to hold you
accountable. But I am looking forward to having this become law
and letting you do your job.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mrs. Capito from West Virginia for 2 minutes.
Mrs. Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today to
discuss this very important topic.
On May 6, 2013, the Wall Street Journal published an
article, quoting, ``Public housing agencies push to impose time
limits and work requirements for aid recipients.'' This piece
highlighted the value of Moving to Work as a successful
alternative to the traditional structure of public assistance
under the 1937 Housing Act.
Today, there are rules and restrictions in place for many
public housing authorities that simply do not allow tailored
solutions to circumstances that are unique in every community.
I live in rural West Virginia. Solutions in rural West Virginia
are not going to be the same as Massachusetts or Connecticut or
Texas. I am not sure anything is the same as Texas, is it?
But anyway, local agencies are restricted in how they
design and utilize their funds, and thus cannot benefit from
the most effective and cost-effective approaches to assist
individuals and families. In Moving to Work, they are able to
blend their funding sources, experiment with policies like work
requirements and time limits, leverage existing resources, and
develop partnerships. It sounds like a winning formula. The
Moving to Work Program offers flexibility and discretion to
develop and implement strategies to best serve needs in your
jurisdiction.
According to the Journal article, an average person in New
York City stays in public housing for almost 21 years.
Meanwhile, as has been stated before, waiting lists for
families seeking assistance are growing longer and longer.
These waiting lists are a serious problem, and I anticipate we
will hear in the testimony today from our witnesses who are
experiencing this.
As the subcommittee has heard before, the alternative
methods of providing housing assistance offer insight into a
more efficient housing assistance configuration. I look forward
to the unique experiences I am sure our witnesses are eager to
share.
And I thank the chairman for his time. Thank you.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
With that, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Westmoreland, is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I personally want to thank Mr. Nackerman, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Woods, and Mr. Russ for what you do, because we have gone and
met with our public housing authorities and talked to them and
seen the sincerity that they have for what they do. And so I
want to thank you for working in your cities and your
communities.
It is my fundamental belief that we have local solutions to
local problems, and that is one of the reasons I am such a big
supporter of expanding the Moving to Work Program.
Unfortunately, some of those housing authorities who want
to pursue the innovation to help solve some generational
poverty are handcuffed by outdated HUD rules and regulations. I
want to encourage and motivate people to better themselves, to
become self-sufficient so they no longer rely on the government
for the roof over their heads or possibly the food in their
stomachs. And that is why I have visited so many of these
housing authorities and gone through them and talked to the
individuals who live there and I have seen their desire to move
and to grow in society.
Moving to Work gives local communities the flexibility that
they need to address these concerns. In turn, those who once
relied on the government reach the American dream and live life
to its fullest potential.
Moving these Americans through this innovative Moving to
Work Program subsequently will allow more public housing
authorities to serve the needs of others. Public housing
authorities are clamoring, at least in my district, for the
access to move to this Moving to Work Program because they know
more Americans can be helped through this Program than under
the traditional HUD programs.
Without an overhaul, this Congress could be condemning
Americans to a cycle of poverty from which they cannot escape.
Mr. Chairman, let us not leave these Americans behind. Let us
empower local communities and give all Americans the tools that
they need to be self-sufficient. Moving to Work must be
expanded to allow high-performing public housing authorities to
give a hand to Americans to reach their potential. I urge this
committee to move quickly on a bill to accomplish this goal.
And I yield back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the
ranking member for allowing me to be a part of this hearing.
I also thank the witnesses for appearing. I have had an
opportunity to peruse all of your statements, and I want you to
know that I think very much of each statement, but I want to
single out Mr. Reed, if I may, because he said a couple of
things in his statement that I would like to call to your
attention.
Perhaps you will say them, as well, Mr. Reed. Some things
bear repeating, so if you say them, as well, I think it will
bode well for us.
One statement you make that I find favor with is the notion
that we can recertify persons on a basis other than doing it
annually. And you have indicated that every 2 years or possibly
every 3 years for elderly and disabled families with fixed
incomes may be of benefit and that this helps us with our
operating costs, in terms of helping us to reduce the cost.
Now, what I really want to focus on is this next part of
your statement over on page 7. And I would like to just read
from page 7, if I may. You indicate one specific perceived
notion that many Americans have about assisted housing programs
is that low-income families are getting rich off of their tax
dollars, and you go on to say that this could not be further
from the truth.
If you follow the money in our programs, you will see that
these Federal funds benefit the local economy much more than
they benefit the participants on the program. I think this is
good for us to let the public know, that their dollars benefit
more than the actual participants in the program.
You go on to indicate that the reinvestment happens in the
following ways. You indicate that bank accounts are set up,
which is a good thing, to have persons engaging in commerce, to
take up the notion that they should have bank accounts and
that, in so doing, the bank benefits. You indicate that
landlords who receive payments pay property taxes. You indicate
that area contractors secure contracts. You go on to talk about
how vendors secure contracts to maintain the housing authority
IT system, the vehicle fleets. You mentioned that the PHAs are
able to create jobs in the community.
And I want to just say this: While we are helping persons
who are indeed in need of help with these programs, the
community benefits as well. And we should never forget that
these dollars turn over in the community and that jobs are
created in these communities. We should see the persons who are
benefiting from the programs not as a liability but also as an
asset to the community. They are also human beings who need a
hand up. Many of you have addressed the notion of these
programs being a hand-up as opposed to a handout.
So I thank you for the testimony. I have had a chance to
peruse it, and I look forward to hearing more details about
what you plan to do.
I yield back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
I will now introduce today's panel: Mr. Daniel Nackerman,
President and CEO, San Bernardino County Housing Authority; Mr.
Gene Reed, Executive Director, Abilene Housing Authority; Mr.
Matthew Scire, Director, Financial Markets and Community
Investment, U.S. Government Accountability Office; and Mr.
Larry Woods, CEO/Executive Director, Housing Authority of the
City of Winston-Salem.
And Mr. Capuano will introduce our last guest today.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to introduce Mr. Gregory Russ, who is the
Executive Director of the Cambridge Housing Authority, in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
And I want to introduce him with a warning, especially to
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Be warned, you
might find some things you agree with him on. And I know it
won't be good to tell people at home you agree with anybody in
Cambridge on anything, so find a way to couch those terms so
you can protect yourself at home.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you for the warning there, Ranking
Member Capuano. We will take that to heart.
Each of you will be recognized for 5 minutes to give an
oral presentation of your testimony. And without objection,
each of your written statements will be made a part of the
record.
Just a quick primer on the lights. If you have been
watching: green means go; yellow means you have a minute to
start wrapping up; and red means time is up. We have the same
set of lights up here. Members are allowed 5 minutes to ask you
questions, and we will try and keep it within that framework.
Mr. Nackerman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. NACKERMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Mr. Nackerman. Thank you, Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer,
Ranking Member Capuano, and honorable members of the
subcommittee.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. It took me 2 days to memorize
the last name of the chairperson, so thank you for throwing me
off to start the day.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. You did very well.
Mr. Nackerman. Okay.
It is an honor for me to appear here today to discuss how
we can move forward in expanding the great work beaconed by the
existing MTW demonstration sites.
In San Bernardino, California, we know firsthand how MTW
can eliminate waste, serve more families, improve customer
service for our residents, and more effectively invest taxpayer
dollars to serve lower-income families and seniors who are in
great need throughout this country.
As president and CEO of the Housing Authority of the County
of San Bernardino, I have assisted local residents for 23 years
at 5 different California housing authorities, including
executive director and deputy director at the Marin County
Housing Authority, Contra Costa Housing Authority, City of
Richmond Housing Authority, and as senior manager at the
Oakland Housing Authority.
Our jurisdiction--Mr. Miller and Mr. Royce are our leaders
there--is located east of Los Angeles, containing 24 cities and
covering the largest county in the contiguous USA. That portion
of the county actually has a greater population than 15 of the
country's States. This region likely contains every aspect of
your own represented communities, such as rural areas, cities
of both wealth and poverty, urban treasures and ills, and, of
course, ongoing needs for every type of housing.
This backdrop of our region creates an even greater need
for the hub in the wheel, the launchpad for all: stable, safe,
affordable housing. Our waiting lists at our agency have
reached over 45,000 at times.
As you have heard or will hear today, this demonstration
program--which is really not a program but a broad waiver of
regulations kind of redesigned at a local level--which also has
tremendous HUD oversight by an excellent HUD staff which has
allowed housing authorities to operate much more efficiently
and effectively.
Our housing authority currently has 22 approved MTW
activities. We are here to testify that Moving to Work works.
It can make rents much more simple and fair. For an example, we
are about to start a streamlined assisting program where rents
will start at 21 percent of gross income, go up by 2 percent
every year for a couple of years, and then stabilize. That
means if families make more money, they get to keep their money
instead of have their rent go up--not a disincentive to
employment.
Moving to Work works locally such as abolishing the HUD
fair market rent system and having a market-like study to pay
rents. Everybody here, at HUD and the housing authorities, will
testify that HUD fair market rent is not fair and it is not the
market. That allows deconcentration of residents, residents to
move into better neighborhoods with better schools and that
kind of thing.
We are also one of the few agencies in the country--and I
want to emphasize that, that we are one of the few MTW agencies
instituting trial time limits for new families pulled from the
housing choice voucher waiting list, or Section 8 waiting list.
This 5-year strategy, applicable to non-senior and non-disabled
adults only, is a bold initiative that changes the premise that
once a person is in the program, they get to stay forever. It
makes space on our waiting lists. It has kind of a life coach
and counselor for each resident entering the program. And it
really is helping to advance the quality of life of the persons
we serve.
I mentioned the waiting lists. Some of our agency neighbors
have waiting lists which have more than 100,000 families
waiting to get in. Many will never get in. Those families are
affected by the policies of HUD and the policies locally, yet
those waiting-list families really don't have a voice and are
not heard.
We have an increase in the total number of families served
due to MTW. We have an increase for non-housing services
related to school, mental health counseling, transportation. We
have an increase in the number of effective initiatives that we
can now fund. We have a tremendous decrease in the number of
staff hours utilized for some of these old-fashioned, out-of-
date regulations.
In conclusion, Moving to Work works. We urge your committee
to help make it permanent and to help other public housing
authorities move forward with creative, timely, life-changing
advancements, even in this time of program budget cuts.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today about our
local strategies, reduced costs, permanent and expanded Moving
to Work, and the same levels of people served.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nackerman can be found on
page 35 of the appendix.]
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Nackerman.
Next, Mr. Reed for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GENE REED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ABILENE HOUSING
AUTHORITY
Mr. Reed. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member
Capuano, and members of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Insurance, I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Gene Reed. I am the executive director of the
Abilene Housing Authority in Abilene, Texas. I have 19 years of
combined leadership experience between the affordable housing
industry and the gas and electric utility industry.
During my time in the affordable housing industry, I have
worked 4 years at the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing
Authority, which is the 17th largest in the country, and 5
years for the Abilene Housing Authority. My housing authority
is authorized to serve 1,536 vouchers in a 20-county area, 213
public housing units, and a 170-unit affordable/market complex
in Abilene, Texas.
Over the past 3 years, public housing authorities have
experienced unprecedented funding cuts in our programs.
Unfortunately, the cuts come at a time when unemployment rates
are still extremely high. Hardworking American middle-income
families who never thought about utilizing affordable housing
programs now qualify. It is my hope that funding for our
programs will stabilize. Our programs only represent 2 to 3
percent of the overall Federal budget.
In addition to the challenges that hardworking Americans
are facing in the current economy, PHAs are also faced with the
challenge to meet the same regulatory requirements that we were
required to meet when we were receiving higher funding amounts.
Today, I am speaking from the perspective of housing
authorities wanting access to MTW. There are four points that I
would like to make in support of expanding MTW to housing
authorities nationwide.
First, MTW can assist housing authorities by allowing them
to have the flexibility to change, alter, and remove costly
practices required under the housing choice voucher and public
housing programs.
Due to deep budgets cuts over the past 3 years, regulatory
reform that the MTW Program allows is increasingly needed by
PHAs nationwide. Again, given our current and projected funding
situation, MTW provides PHAs with the ability to determine what
is important in their programs and communities and provides
them with the ability to manage those processes in a way that
are in the best interests of the housing authority participants
and the community in which we serve.
I would like to be clear on this point. My intent for
allowing more regulatory reform is to allow better management
of operational funds and to continue to abide by the rules. It
is not my intent to lose the focus on our mission of housing
low-income families.
Second, MTW has a component which allows PHAs to properly
manage the full range of funding that they receive. Presently,
PHAs receive funding from the government in four areas: two in
the HCV Program; and two on the public housing program. Each
pot of money is designated for specific activities. The
ultimate goal is to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing
for low-income families while they live in units provided by
the PHA. Why should it matter if PHAs want to move money from
one program to another to accomplish this goal?
Third, I am a big advocate of assisting families to become
self-sufficient. During my time at AHA, we have grown our
family self-sufficiency program from 5 participants to 50
participants. Over the past 18 months, we have had 2 families
complete the FSS program early and purchase a home. While our
efforts have been substantial for a program of our size, having
access to MTW would provide AHA with more tools to assist more
families to move toward self-sufficiency.
Fourth, public housing funding has been, again, on the
decline for years. In the past 3 years, I have seen AHA's
capital funds absorb a 22 percent cut. AHA typically received
anywhere between $400,000 to $600,000 in operating subsidy
annually. In 2012, we didn't receive any subsidy at all.
Looking for new ways to increase funding streams outside of
Federal funding is paramount. MTW gives PHAs the ability to
combine funding to meet the PHAs' strategic plans, one of which
includes leveraging resources to drive new development and
rehab.
AHA is currently looking for ways to generate revenue
outside of the traditional government-provided funding streams.
Development activities such as low-income housing tax credit
programs, et cetera, will allow PHAs the opportunity to move
away from dependence on traditional government funding. This,
in turn, will assist the government in reducing the Federal
budget.
In summary, I would like to once again thank the members of
the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee for allowing me to share
my views on how MTW can better assist PHAs during these budget-
cut times. It is my hope that in the near future, PHAs across
the country will be given the necessary flexibility to best use
the resources we have at our disposal. Programs with MTW-like
features are needed to provide PHAs the flexibility needed to
continue to service the housing needs of low-income families
nationwide.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed can be found on page 45
of the appendix.]
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Reed.
Next, Mr. Scire. Did I pronounce that correctly?
Mr. Scire. It is ``Scire.''
Mr. Luetkemeyer. ``Scire.'' Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MATHEW J. SCIRE, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Scire. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member
Capuano, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to discuss our work on HUD's
Moving to Work Program.
We conducted our study at the request of this subcommittee
and focused on program results, agency monitoring, and
potential expansion. Overall, our report raised serious
questions about HUD's evaluation of program results,
identification of lessons learned, and establishment of
monitoring standards. We made a number of recommendations, and
HUD has recently taken action in response to several of them.
With regard to program results, we found that HUD had not
required that annual performance information reported by MTW
agencies be quantifiable and outcome-oriented. Thus, the
results of like activities could not be readily evaluated.
Also, HUD had not identified performance measures that might be
used in assessing the effectiveness of the program as a whole.
Such performance measurement weaknesses limit efforts to
comprehensively evaluate program results. HUD also lacked a
systematic process for identifying lessons learned or for
promoting practices more broadly.
We made a number of recommendations, including that
performance information be quantifiable and focus on outcomes,
that HUD develop a strategy for quantitatively assessing
effectiveness of similar activities and the program as a whole,
and that HUD create a systematic process for identifying
lessons learned.
With regard to program oversight and monitoring, we found
that HUD had not defined key terms needed for ensuring that
program purposes are addressed and requirements are met. For
example, the purpose of increasing housing choice had not been
defined. Also, the requirement of serving a comparable mix of
families had not been defined, and HUD had not assessed
compliance with that particular requirement.
Finally, HUD had not performed required annual risk
assessments of the program and was not verifying reported
performance information. Here, we recommend that HUD do much
more to define key program terms, assess compliance with
statutory requirements, and verify the accuracy of agency-
reported information.
HUD has taken some important steps in addressing these
recommendations. Most notably, it has revised its reporting
form to collect standard, quantifiable information on program
activities. This revised form was just approved by OMB last
month.
Ultimately, the weaknesses we observed in performance
measurement and evaluation make it difficult to assess the
results of the program and the potential benefits of expansion.
Likewise, the lack of a systematic process for identifying
lessons learned and bringing them more widely to the remaining
housing agencies limits the potential for the MTW Program to
serve as a test platform for innovation.
Looking ahead, the demand for most efficiently using
limited budgetary resources and the continuing demand for
affordable rental housing for households with limited income
make it more pressing that HUD, working with Congress, work to
improve the efficiency of housing assistance programs.
Improving the capacity of the MTW Program to serve as a testbed
has the potential to help in this effort, but only if it
clearly demonstrates the impact that flexibilities have on
reducing costs, helping households become self-sufficient, and
increasing housing choice.
This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you again for the
opportunity to speak today. I would be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scire can be found on page
64 of the appendix.]
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
Mr. Woods, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LARRY C. WOODS, CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WINSTON-
SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY
Mr. Woods. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member
Capuano, and members of the subcommittee, good afternoon. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
I am Larry C. Woods, chief executive officer for the
Housing Authority of the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
I have over 27 years of experience in the field of community
and economic development. The authority I represent has
approximately 1,300 public housing units. We administer 4,600
housing choice vouchers. We manage market-rate units and two
office buildings.
In 2010, we opened our housing choice voucher waiting list
for only 5 days and received over 6,000 applications. It would
take approximately 10 years to realize enough voucher turnover
to address these applications. Our public housing waiting lists
are currently at 130 percent of our total units.
These difficult days in our economy, given the current
pressures on the Federal budget, it is now more important than
ever to empower local housing authorities to do all they can
with the available funding. Moving to Work, with this program
and funding flexibility is the most effective means to address
the needs with a positive and long-lasting effect for both
families and our community.
I testified before this subcommittee in October 2011. I
asked at that time to be an MTW agency, and I asked that you
hold me accountable. I am here today to renew my request and my
commitment for you to hold me accountable.
In preparation to becoming an MTW agency, we designed and
implemented a program, the PATH Program, that will reduce
families' dependency on Federal support, break generational
poverty, and provide a controlled transition for families to
move back into the mainstream, thereby opening up new
opportunities to help others.
The PATH Program is a hands-up assistance approach to
families. All program activities are based on a unique,
permanent, and positive exit strategy for the family. The
personal skills portion of the program has several components,
such as full educational services, job training, people skills
training, employment placement, retention, services, and
financial literacy. These services are available at no cost to
all tenants.
Another component of the PATH Program is STEP-UP housing.
These units mimic traditional market rate communities and serve
to ease the families' transitions back into mainstream housing.
Each family's needs for housing and assistance to reach
self-sufficiency are clearly unique. So are the issues and
solutions for each city. No single standard or federally
prescribed solution will work since the issues in Winston-Salem
are not the same as in other cities across America.
MTW contracts need to be for an indefinite term. This would
allow housing authorities to undertake long-term planning and
continue to develop programs as local circumstances and their
economy changes.
MTW is the solution for Winston-Salem, and the PATH and
STEP-UP housing are some of our tools. We have gone as far as
we can, as a traditional housing authority can under existing
rules and regulations. We are at a huge risk of losing the
momentum that has been built amongst our community partners. I
need full flexibility in funding the programs with the greatest
impact and designing programs that will work in my City.
Without MTW, I cannot fully execute the PATH Program, and
thereby I cannot achieve the above goals and objectives.
I invite you to come to Winston-Salem and see what we are
doing, meet with our partners, my board of directors, staff,
and city officials. Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer and members of
this subcommittee, again, I ask you to give me full, flexible
MTW and hold me accountable.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have, and provide
greater detail about our PATH Program and our immediate need
for MTW authorization now.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Woods can be found on page
80 of the appendix.]
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Woods.
And finally, Mr. Russ for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY P. RUSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CAMBRIDGE
HOUSING AUTHORITY
Mr. Russ. Thank you.
I would like to thank Vice Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking
Member Capuano, and the other members of the subcommittee for
allowing me to speak here today.
My name is Gregory Russ, and I am the executive director of
the Cambridge Housing Authority. And I have been involved with
the public housing program for over 40 years, in fact, even
before there was a voucher program. So that is a long time ago
now. I have worked in small, medium, and large housing
authorities, including Chicago and Philadelphia. And I also
served at HUD in the Troubled Agency Recovery Program in the
mid-1990s.
In my testimony today, there are a couple of things, some
ideas, some snapshots of Cambridge, things that I would like
the committee to be aware of.
Why is MTW so important to us, and why do we believe that
its expansion is critical to the public housing and related
programs?
In our community, we have to balance four things. I have to
balance the mission that the 1937 Housing Act has given us. I
have to balance the market demands that the real estate market
in Cambridge dictates. I have to look at our family profile and
their needs, which is different from some other housing
authorities and different even from other communities in
Massachusetts. And now, because of the capital funding, I have
to make sure that we preserve hard units.
That I can do that, that our organization is capable of
walking across those four things, is a revolutionary statement.
And I can make it because we have Moving to Work. It is a
unique business model in terms of how you can have a national
housing act and respect local decisions and local issues. It is
a very unique model that I believe could benefit my colleagues
here at the table and many, many others.
What is Cambridge like? We are a city of about 105,000
population compressed into 6\1/2\ square miles, home to Harvard
and MIT, thousands of students, lots of biotech and high-tech,
and a high demand for housing. Our housing prices are
stratospheric. We have a two-bedroom unit range right now of
between $1,450 and $3,500 in the community. In addition, the
average sale price of a condo, which accounts for most of the
market, is up over $570,000. In that kind of real estate
market, there is pressure to even keep the hard units that we
have in place in Cambridge.
And how have we responded to that? Through MTW, we have
project-based 852 vouchers to keep those properties available
for low-income families. And, in probably one of the most
unique alliances I have ever had the privilege to participate
in, we have been able to preserve expiring-use multifamily
properties for low-income by project-basing vouchers into those
buildings using our MTW authority. And that was an activity we
never even dreamed of when we started the program. It has been
very successful, and we did 130 units of that just last year
alone.
We currently assist about 4,500 families in Cambridge: 74
percent are extremely low-income; and 45 percent are senior-
disabled. The families pay a healthy rent, on average around
$390 a month.
And we are unusual in that we have about 46 percent of our
families with earned income. And when we saw that, we said,
well, what is a package that we can put together to use MTW to
assist those families? The first thing we did was simplify the
rent rules to allow families to keep more of the income they
earn and to encourage asset-building. If you look at the
regulations that come out around public housing, there is very
little in there that encourages people to save and build assets
and encourages them to work, with a few exceptions.
We also use public housing subsidies that are modified to
support the mentoring and coaching programs that we are
involved with with our nonprofit partners. And, in doing that,
we modify the size of the subsidy, how long the duration, and
we change that subsidy to tie into the economic mobility
advancement of the family. It is very flexible and very helpful
in terms of dealing with families who are on the path to self-
sufficiency.
Our process is very public. We have public meetings on all
of these items. I had a resident leader tell me just last week
that she felt she could influence policy more with MTW than in
any other public context she has had the opportunity to
participate in--a very powerful statement that I wanted to
share with the committee.
My last comments are around evaluation and monitoring. We
think there is more that can be done, and the MTW agencies are
already working amongst ourselves and with HUD to do this. We
can make better use of the existing plans and reports.
This is the report I will be turning in to HUD in a few
weeks. It tells you everything we did in the last fiscal year;
it documents it. And we think that access to this information,
in cooperation with HUD, would be very beneficial to the
program and address some of the concerns that the GAO has
noted.
With that, I want to conclude my testimony and thank the
committee for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russ can be found on page 53
of the appendix.]
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
And, with that, I will begin the questions. I will yield
myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Woods, thank you very much for your very passionate and
very thorough testimony today.
We are highlighting the need to reform public housing, the
model. You state an expectation of lifetime entitlement by the
non-elderly, non-disabled has been created, and this
expectation is passed from one generation to the next. As a
result, there is an inability to assist those families who have
been on the waiting lists.
What would the MTW Program mean for the housing authority
in Winston-Salem to address that problem and others?
Mr. Woods. We think that if we were an MTW agency, we could
help families who are highly motivated to move forward, to
increase their family income. We would require all able-bodied
eligible adults in that household to be involved in the PATH
Program.
The PATH Program is not just for adults, though. It runs
from cradle through college. We have both the Forsyth Community
College involved, the Forsyth community school system involved.
We have foundations involved. We have a lot of resources
available to residents.
Our biggest problem right now is we have no way to require
residents to participate at all. Residents can live in public
housing right now without having any responsibility of becoming
self-sufficient. As a result, our waiting lists are being
backed up, and we cannot help as many families as we choose.
We believe that by being an MTW Program, we could put in
rules and regulations and still protect the most vulnerable
families in our communities, help them to become self-
sufficient, help them move through a public housing assistance
program, and ease them slowly back into mainstream housing,
thereby reducing their dependency on the Federal Government,
and breaking the cycle of poverty.
Everybody agrees that the way you break the cycle of
poverty is both through education and employment. Volunteerism,
watching someone's children does not bring income into
someone's family.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. You mentioned a number of agencies that
you work with. Do they come to you, or do you go to them?
Mr. Woods. What we did in Winston-Salem after the last
testimony here, I looked within my own community to see exactly
what is the best way of mobilizing agencies. We identified our
local workforce development agency, which is already funded by
the State.
They have 30 separate agencies under their umbrella,
agencies that provide GED assistance, job training assistance,
after-school programs for adults, ex-offender programs,
substance abuse programs. We have groups like the Urban League.
We have groups like Goodwill, Best Choice Center, Head Start,
day care.
We went into an intergovernmental agreement with them at no
cost, that they are already funded. What they agreed to do is
to provide these services to our residents. We identified 729
households that would be eligible for these programs. I went
out personally to three developments twice, had community
meetings. I sent staff out, knocked on everyone's door. I would
tell you today, right now, we have 15 participants, period.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Okay. MTW would not stymie what you are
trying to do here either, right?
Mr. Woods. Actually, it would help us.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. It would enhance it?
Mr. Woods. It would enhance it because we would have
certain requirements. Right now, there are no requirements for
participation.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. In your testimony, you gave a nice list of
about 12 different things that really, you believe, would help
you with the implementation of all these things. It is a very
extensive list, and we appreciate your thought there.
Mr. Nackerman, I have a quick question for you. You are in
the program. Can you give me an example of the flexibility and/
or the cost savings of some things that you are able to do
because of this?
The word ``flexibility'' is thrown around, but I never
heard a concrete example of what you actually can do with that
flexibility.
Mr. Nackerman. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would start by
mentioning that we are in the third worst foreclosure spot in
the United States, and we have had $21.4 million cut from our
HUD budgets over the past 5 calendar years. Yet we are serving
more people with less money, just like everybody talks about
doing.
But some of the specific things that we are doing: We are
eliminating very dated programs. We are, on a trial basis,
doing time limits for some adults. We only do income
examinations on people with fixed incomes. I emphasize the term
``fixed.'' Why would you have to take a senior in and
practically do their--it is like doing your income taxes just
to calculate their income once a year. We do that every 2 or 3
years now. That is saving money.
So we have saved at least $300,000 a year in staff time. We
very carefully measure the hours in the very report that my
colleague just mentioned that we give to HUD every year. And we
have many, many other examples.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Okay. Very good.
I want to set a good example here. I am out of my time,
and, with that, we will go to Ranking Member Capuano--oh, I
yield to Mr. Clay. Excuse me.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the panel for participating in this
hearing today. Let me start with Mr. Woods.
And welcome back, Mr. Woods. A recent Wall Street Journal
article stated that the average length of stay for non-
disabled, non-elderly voucher recipients at the housing
authority was nearly 8 years. Recent HUD studies have shown
that this number is 5\1/2\ years for voucher holders.
Is this number consistent with the median length of stay in
your agency?
Mr. Woods. In Winston-Salem, ours today is approximately,
for the housing choice voucher, about 8 to 10 years.
Mr. Clay. Okay. Now, under an MTW Program that you
envision, how long do you predict the stay would be? Could you
actually transition these recipients?
Mr. Woods. Our MTW Program will allow for a 7-year
transition. Our goal is to develop alternative housing through
a goal through diminished support over a 7-year period while
bringing up families' income and their educational level to a
point where they can move either into market rate units or into
other affordable units that are below market rate that we would
develop or partner with other agencies on.
And I want to be very clear. I am not here to blame the
victim.
Mr. Clay. Yes.
Mr. Woods. I believe they are following the existing rules
and regulations. They are in full compliance with the law.
These rules and regulations are just outdated.
Mr. Clay. What about the other program that requires that
any construction going on, that a percentage of those
construction jobs be given to housing authority tenants? Have
you experienced that program?
Mr. Woods. Yes, we have. We have a project going on right
now, which is our first STEP-UP development unit. We partnered
with our workforce development agency who had underneath our
construction site anyone in the community, particularly public
housing residents, who were interested in a construction job to
contact them, to get assessed, so that when the general
contractor was hiring local labor, they would pull from that
pool.
We got zero participation from public housing residents.
And the reason why, once again, the comment we received the
most was that they were not required to participate.
Mr. Clay. Okay. Thank you for your response.
Mr. Reed, how has your experience been? Are the Wall Street
Journal numbers close to what your authority has experienced?
Mr. Reed. Yes, when you look at the Abilene Housing
Authority, I think there is a dynamic that is a little
different than some of the other housing authorities that are
here. Some of these guys are from larger housing authorities. I
am from a large housing authority but at the very lower end of
a large housing authority.
So, in our community, we are looking at about 3 years as
the average stay for a person on the program. Our rates in
terms of employment are typically a little bit higher than the
State's and also for the entire country. We have about 56
percent of the families on our public housing program who are
employed currently, and about 32 percent of the folks on our
voucher program have earned income, as well.
So we are a little different dynamic than what you are
going to find at some of your larger housing authorities and
whatnot, so--yes?
Mr. Clay. You also cover a 20-county region; is that what
you said?
Mr. Reed. Correct.
Mr. Clay. Okay. Now, do they transition out and go on to
their own housing?
Mr. Reed. Yes. The 3-year time frame is for everyone, the
entire 20 counties that we service.
Mr. Clay. Okay.
Mr. Nackerman, what has been your experience? How long is
the length of stay of your tenants?
Mr. Nackerman. Because we are in an MTW Program, we
carefully measure everything with our partner, Loma Linda
University. And that is the same for all of the newer MTWs, for
sure. Our average stay in the Section 8 Program is 7.4 years.
And I will mention that this is a great example of the
reason to have MTW, that those numbers will vary so much from
housing authority to housing authority. There are cities, like
Santa Monica in California, where nobody ever moves, I think.
They have rent control.
But if we move that 7.4 years to 4.4, we conceptually house
approximately 1,500 more people over that 5-year or 4.4-year
period. If you had to build new units to house those 1,500 more
people, that would be over $110 million just to build more
units to house that many people--upfront costs, by the way, not
subsidy costs.
Mr. Clay. Sure.
Mr. Nackerman. So, the stereotypes of people staying for
generations are sometimes true, sometimes not. But the
economics of moving people through programs, as opposed to
stagnation, and having incentives to move through the programs
have a real great economic bottom line.
Mr. Clay. And I thank you all for your responses. My time
is up. Thank you.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Royce,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are many, many stories of families with heartbreak,
with job loss and homelessness. We need more positive stories
of recovery and return to self-sufficiency. And with the Moving
to Work Program, Section 8 does have the potential now to be
viewed not as another entitlement program but as an empowerment
program. And I think that is what is interesting about these
stories.
And, Mr. Nackerman, your staff has related the story of
Yvette from Chino, a mother of three providing for her family
by driving a bus for the local school district there. Yvette
had been living in an affordable housing complex since July of
2000, but she cherished the dream of owning her own home. And
through the help of your agency and, in particular, the family
self-sufficiency program made possible through Move to Work,
Yvette this year was able to realize that dream and purchase
her own home free of any rental subsidy.
And so I was going to ask you a couple of questions, but
the first is, what obstacles were removed by Move to Work that
made Yvette's story possible?
The second I was going to ask you is, have you seen more
success stories like this one? Because when you relay that type
of a story, it helps us to better understand exactly why the
program works.
And, also, specifically, what has been the reaction to your
time limits, to the focus on helping residents get up and out?
Those were the three questions I was going to ask you.
Mr. Nackerman. Thank you, Representative Royce. Let me
start with Yvette and our homeownership program.
MTW, it gets a little technical, but it allowed us to do
some things like take this traditional family self-sufficiency
program, where you put money in an escrow account over years
instead of having your rent raised, we used MTW to actually
make that account much more flexible. You can actually draw the
money over those 5 years if you have some kind of emergency.
And we also have incentives that go beyond 5 years. So we took
a traditional HUD program and made it better.
We are one of the biggest homeownership housing authorities
west of the Rockies. We sell between one and two houses a month
to public housing and Section 8 residents.
People don't give these residents enough credit. There are
many residents who work and many residents who need a helping
hand. So people like Yvette are happening one to two a times a
month.
To answer your--another kind of interesting element of MTW
on the homeownership side is we are able to, once a year, kind
of ask HUD to modify regulations that customize them towards
our homeownership program. And HUD sometimes says no. The idea
that HUD doesn't monitor this is--that GAO account I would
encourage you to read. It is over a year old now. HUD agreed
with every finding but one at the time. They are now running
with it. So the idea that it is not monitored is a little bit
of a stretch.
How our residents are reacting to the 5-year lease
assistance program, which is what we call it--I am really
surprised myself how the residents are embracing the fact that
they have a life coach when they come in the door, that they
have somebody who cares about their life and is going to help
them over the next 5 years, that we have a bigger and bigger
quiver of resources in order to help that family. So the
residents are very positive about this.
We are a year-and-a-half into it, I should caution you.
Tulare County near us has been in it for many years. But the
residents' reaction is overwhelmingly positive that the housing
authority is going to be a part of their lives for that 5 years
and that we have an individual case plan for each resident for
improvement over that 5 years. And, most importantly, at the
end of the 5 years, we will have all kinds of ways to continue
if you haven't been successful versus just ending the process
cold.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Nackerman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
With that, we will recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Mrs.
Beatty, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ranking
Member.
Let me say to all the gentlemen present, thank you for your
testimony and for allowing us the opportunity to hear your
stories, especially those in public housing authorities.
Let me also disclose that for about 20 years, I was a
consultant to public housing authorities in Ohio. So I have had
an opportunity, whether it was Section 8, whether it was one of
the training and work programs, to see firsthand your work.
And, oftentimes, those lessons learned are not documented
in an analytical way that can be presented. Thus, in reading
about Move to Work, I have two basic questions. For me, it was
always difficult to discern when you talk about self-
sufficiency, what that really means to a person who is not in
the system, someone who is not in leadership at a public
housing authority.
And so I guess my question is, I have looked through the
documents and I have listened today, and I have heard a double-
digit number of times, ``We have moved people to self-
sufficiency.'' I guess I would like to know if you have a
definitive definition.
I can remember working with the public housing authorities
and using ``self-reliant,'' when the person could become more
self-reliant was easier to be defined. So I want you to think
about that.
Also, you see that a lot when you talk about Move to Work.
And I am a big proponent of Move to Work. I think it makes a
difference. I think it is creative. And it is moving us from
what we were doing 20 and 30 years ago when I was there.
But, with that, my second question is, when I look at the
Move to Work Program and I look at the fact that the public
housing authorities have to have 5,000 units or less--I am from
Ohio. So in Ohio, we have--in Columbus, Ohio, we have more than
5,000 units, just a little more, but we are not allowed to
participate in the program.
I like the word ``flexibility,'' so you know where the
question is going. Do you think, or can you help me figure out
so I can make my public housing authority folks happy with me,
if there would be any consideration to having a waiver or
allowing those housing authorities with 5,000 or more to
participate?
Because one of the critical things is that you don't have a
sophisticated system to document in an analytical way the
lessons learned. So now to have to create this only for about 1
or 2 percent of the public housing populations would be, for
me, a good argument to have some type of guidelines to let
public housing authorities with more units be engaged.
And we can start with any one of you.
Mr. Woods?
Mr. Woods. Thank you.
I like your definition, or your comment about ``self-
reliant'' versus ``self-sufficiency.'' I think that makes a lot
of sense. Our PATH Program, in thinking about it, is geared
toward helping reduce family dependency on government support.
That is how we say we are trying to help someone become more
self-reliant or self-sufficient.
Your experience in Ohio has been our experience in Winston-
Salem. I started in 2006. I received a phone call from my local
Greensboro office that said, guess what, there is a NOFA out
concerning Moving to Work applications. We wanted to apply.
Back then, we found out we were too small. Two years later, we
got the call once again, and now we were too big. So I share
the frustration that you share.
We believe that MTW--and we have contacted many MTW
agencies around the country. It is amazing that residents
respond extremely well under a structured program to trying to
improve their lives when it becomes a requirement. Though I
complain about lack of participation, I received that same
comment in many MTW agencies in the past prior to becoming MTW.
They become MTW; you then interview their residents. They are a
complete turnaround. I am a full proponent of MTW.
Mr. Reed. Under the definition of ``self-sufficiency,'' I
would really define it as a person being able to leave the
program.
We had one individual lady who joined the program who was
divorced, had several kids, and utilized the housing choice
voucher program because of a low subsidy. She joined our FFS
program to redevelop her job skills, volunteered at a
department store, and then actually was hired on as a manager
making over $50,000.
She didn't have to move off the program right at that
particular point, but she wanted to give another family an
opportunity to be able to utilize that spot who may need that
spot, and she actually moved off of the program.
So when I look at self-sufficiency, I am really looking at
a family who is able to do it financially, on their own, and to
really make it happen. And, kudos to her. She really made it
happen.
Mrs. Beatty. Thank you.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
Next, we will recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
Miller, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This kind of reminds me of the song, ``Now the Times, They
Are A-Changin'.'' Because when I remember when I first started
this--you do, Mr. Woods, where none of my friends on that side
of the aisle would support it. They thought I was a demon
trying to throw people out in the street. You remember this.
And I am so glad to hear the testimony, because we need to
focus on how we can really help people.
And this is probably the most bipartisan issue I have ever
seen. There are three major housing authorities, CLPHA, PHADA,
and NAHRO, and all three of their organizations support Move to
Work. And I don't think I have ever seen anything like this,
which is really, really a good thing.
And another thing we have been fighting for is, we want to
help people become self-sufficient. And another argument I have
had for years, that we do everything wrong to make sure that
can't happen.
For an example, if you want to build an apartment complex
today or a townhome, condo, or apartment today, you have to get
an FHA-insured construction loan, because nobody will lend
money if you are not insured by FHA. Yet, FHA reads the law
wrong. They require every FHA loan to be Davis-Bacon. Now, I am
not anti-union. I am just saying that the law says that if
government dollars are expended, they need to be expended
through Davis-Bacon. But FHA is not spending any money; FHA is
merely guaranteeing a loan.
And so we are saying we want to help you get people into
self-sufficiency. Yet, by requiring this Davis-Bacon mandate,
we are beating up the price of apartments and condos and
townhomes by 20 to 25 percent, relegating people to where they
are today and the exact opposite of what we are trying to do.
And time limits has been the biggest argument I have heard
people make against Move to Work. Mr. Nackerman, you testified
that San Bernardino County implemented a new time limits
program. How did you design it to ensure that it is useful and
does not unintentionally harm the participants?
Mr. Nackerman. Thank you, Congressman Miller.
We are one of the few agencies in the country trying this.
I want to emphasize that again. Sometimes, all MTWs are painted
with this time-limit issue.
This 5-year lease assistance strategy, again, is applicable
only to non-senior and non-disabled households, are helping to
change that premise, that you can really stay as long as you
want. You know going in up front that you are going to have 5
years. You know that there are some escapes from that 5 years
at the end, with reason.
But, as I mentioned, each household is given kind of a
counselor or a life coach. And our university partner is
creating a baseline for these residents. We found, as an
example, Loma Linda University found that even some of these
residents who are on disability want to be employed. We are
advancing the quality of lives kind of on a case-by-case basis.
Each resident signs and helps develop an improvement plan over
time.
And we have already had some great success stories. Renee
Calloway allowed us to use her name. Her plan went into
superdrive, and she already has a security job. She has already
reconnected with the university. She will probably leave the
program in less than a year because of Moving to Work.
And then, again, the protections will be, if somebody
doesn't try at all, that is not okay. We are looking for people
who try, and to--and try to help. And if you think about it,
the only way to really move through housing is to have higher
economic income in that household, again, for the non-disabled,
non-seniors.
Mr. Miller. And one problem I have always had is that we
have a system that people are involved in, yet other people who
need the same assistance are kept outside the system for years
and years because we are unable to move people to self-
sufficiency. And I believe time limits, where you have support
services and proper hardship exemptions, can be a useful tool
for motivating people.
But, Mr. Woods, you talked about the situation you have
been put in. If you were able to require participation in the
PATH Program, with exemptions for the elderly and disabled,
what would that mean for participants currently and the ones
you would like to help?
Mr. Woods. We are in a unique position in Winston-Salem.
Currently, we have a new medical research park that is under
construction. It is targeted to employ 27,000 to 30,000 new
employees within our City. The bus transportation that runs
through that research park actually stops at three of our
larger public housing developments. The closest one is actually
a 5-minute bicycle ride; the furthest is no more than a 15-
minute bus ride.
We have Winston-Salem State and Forsyth Community College
that has guaranteed to put a small campus, train, assist the
lab technicians, get janitors. Anyone who finishes that program
will be guaranteed a job.
So we have an opportunity here. With MTW, we could require
participation. It would open up a world of career
opportunities, employment opportunities, raise family income
levels--
Mr. Miller. And those people who are unserved out there,
how--
Mr. Woods. That is my biggest issue.
Mr. Miller. That is mine.
Mr. Woods. And I have a waiting list. Again, we opened up
in 2010. I am only around about 4,200 that I still haven't even
processed yet.
Mr. Miller. My time has expired, but these are good men,
Mr. Chairman, who want to be trusted to help the people who
need help in this country. And I think we as a committee and as
a Congress need to do everything we can to support them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
With that, we will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the panel for being here.
I am a former mayor of my city. We used to get CDBG money
and other Federal funds. I empathize very strongly with the
idea of getting a little more flexibility and getting the
Federal Government off your back a little bit.
At the same time, I also know that there were other cities
that got Federal money where people went to jail for misuse of
that money. So that is the balance of reporting and keeping
some kind of a thing. Which I know you know that, because all
public housing authorities have to do that.
I also--it is my understanding that HUD joins all of us in
wanting to expand the MTW Program. I am not aware of them being
opposed to it at all, with one caveat: They want the resources
to be able to do it. And it is my understanding they have three
people currently on staff dedicated to MTW. There is no way
they can expand the program unless they get the proper
resources, as none of you could expand any program you ever
wanted unless you have the resources.
So I think we are all on the same page, as far as that
goes. But let's be honest. If we are going to expand this
program, we have to understand that we have to empower HUD to
actually do a reasonable and decent job doing it.
Mr. Nackerman, you have had the MTW for several years now.
Do you still have a waiting list?
Mr. Nackerman. Oh, yes. We have 32,600 people on our
waiting list.
Mr. Capuano. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Russ, do you have a waiting list?
Mr. Russ. I do, Congressman, about 10,000 people.
Mr. Capuano. All right.
So I ask that question because, though, again, I am a
supporter of MTW, let's not pretend that it is the panacea and
answer to every issue that faces people with housing problems.
We will still have a waiting list. It will be a shorter one. We
will be able to serve more people, and I think that is a good
thing. But you are still going to have waiting lists. There is
still going to be more that we can do.
Mr. Nackerman, I believe you said you have lost $24 million
of Federal money in the last few years?
Mr. Nackerman. Yes, sir, $21.4 million.
Mr. Capuano. $21.4 million.
Mr. Reed, have you lost Federal money in the last few
years?
Mr. Reed. Yes, we have.
Mr. Capuano. Several million dollars? A million dollars?
Mr. Reed. About a million dollars.
Mr. Capuano. Okay.
Mr. Woods, have you lost Federal funds?
Mr. Woods. Yes, we have.
Mr. Capuano. Mr. Russ, have you lost Federal funds?
Mr. Russ. Yes, we have.
Mr. Capuano. So what if I told you that I would bring you
back to the level that you were 3, 4, 5 years ago, whatever it
was, could you do more with that money? Or would it just be
wasted money? Would you not be able to service more people on
the list?
And I know the answer. We all know the answer. The answer
is, yes, of course you could. And, again, I say for the same
reason.
MTW is a good program. I don't know why we couldn't pass an
expansion 2 years ago. I don't know what the holdup is now. I
don't know why we have to reinvent the wheel.
Mr. Russ, are you familiar with the stakeholder compromise
that was on the table in 2011?
Mr. Russ. I am, Congressman.
Mr. Capuano. Mr. Woods, are you familiar with it?
Mr. Woods. I am familiar with it.
Mr. Capuano. Mr. Reed, are you familiar with it?
Mr. Reed. Yes, somewhat.
Mr. Capuano. Mr. Nackerman, are you familiar with it?
Mr. Nackerman. Yes, I am, and I would love to comment on
it.
Mr. Capuano. If we could pass that tomorrow, as is, not
that you get everything you want, would you suggest I vote yes
or no, Mr. Nackerman?
Mr. Nackerman. I would suggest you vote no.
Mr. Capuano. Why?
Mr. Nackerman. The stakeholder agreement did not include
many stakeholders, for one thing. We have many resident
organizations in California, as you might expect. None of those
resident organizations were involved in any kind of stakeholder
agreement.
There are some items in the stakeholder agreement, we think
it may add bureaucracy to a program that is attempting to
streamline. Also, there are some really dangerous things in the
stakeholder agreement where it doesn't really mirror the MTW
Program that we have now, so you are, in essence, creating a
brand-new complicated program.
So I don't want to dismiss it completely. I think there are
some great core pieces that we can work with there. But I think
that is--
Mr. Capuano. Do you think it is a place we should start
with or a place we should just throw it out and start from
scratch?
Mr. Nackerman. I think we should take one step back to some
of the earlier iterations of that bill and then move from
there.
Mr. Capuano. Okay.
Mr. Russ, how do you feel about it?
Mr. Russ. I will give you an honest answer.
Mr. Capuano. I would like an honest answer.
Mr. Russ. Yes. I have mixed emotions about the stakeholder
agreement. I like the agreement because it brings more agencies
into the portfolio. I think that is very, very important. And
for me, or for our organization, that trumps what I would echo
that Dan said, that there are elements of that agreement that I
think are very, very complicated and would, in fact, really
radically change the program.
I am not opposed to that if it advances the opportunity for
more agencies to get Moving to Work, and in the end that is why
I decided to support it. But there are things in the agreement
that I think deserve further attention.
Mr. Capuano. Yes.
Mr. Woods, how would you feel about it? My time is actually
up, but--
Mr. Woods. I would also have mixed emotions about it. I
think that the basic MTW portion of it does provide the
flexibility, but it doesn't give you the ability to make the
necessary policy changes that are really key, a key factor in
changing the lives of individuals, to helping families move
through the system. That is a big problem for me. That is a
huge problem for me.
Mr. Capuano. My time is up, but, Mr. Reed, I would like to
hear your opinion, as well.
Mr. Reed. Okay. I have mixed emotions, as well. I think
some of those pieces and share some of the sentiments of my
colleagues, that there is some flexibility allowed, but there
are some things that would hold housing authorities back. I
think more housing authorities should have the opportunity to
have the full expanse, ability to utilize MTW at its best. So,
mixed emotions right now.
Mr. Capuano. Great. Thank you all very much.
I thank the chairman for indulging me.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. My pleasure.
Next, we will recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Duffy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the panel being here today and I thank you all
for your testimony. We are doing a fantastic job of shattering
the reputation of this committee and of Congress to actually
have such a beautiful ``Kumbaya'' moment, all agreeing that we
should support MTW. And to have a panel who is in agreement, as
well, is actually fantastic.
I have to tell you, I would agree with the Assistant
Secretary of HUD when she was talking about rental assistance,
talking about moving in, moving up, and moving out. And I
appreciate the reality that you all deal with in shrinking
budgets as we sit in difficult times. I realize how much more
strain that puts on all of you to do your jobs and do them well
and serve folks in your community who are in need.
We are faced continuously with trillion-dollar deficits, a
$17 trillion debt. And we have to look around our agencies and
ask, how can we ask everyone to do more with less, how can we
ask everyone to be more efficient and still not let people fall
through the cracks, still have a system that helps people who
fall on hard times, have a safety net for them and, frankly,
hopefully, have a trampoline for them where they can hit and
bounce back up into a lifestyle that they can support.
And it sounds like, as we are talking about MTW, that it is
not necessarily, as the gentleman from Massachusetts was
discussing, spending more money, which is always helpful. How
can we find a program and ideas that will allow you to spend
money more efficiently, to help more people be more effective
in these very difficult budgetary times?
And I appreciate everyone coming in and sharing your points
of view. But is it fair to say that you all would agree that we
should expand the MTW? To all of you. Yes?
Mr. Nackerman. Yes.
Mr. Duffy. I am not misreading the panel, am I?
Mr. Reed?
Mr. Reed. Yes.
Mr. Scire. So the point that I would make here is that the
MTW Program and how it might offer the opportunity to serve as
a platform for demonstrating the efficiencies from these
practices, these flexibilities, is not being optimized right
now.
So if you were to expand MTW, I think it would be important
to build into it an evaluation component so that you can then
take these practices that are working at one or more agencies
and possibly apply them more broadly. And that is the
opportunity for greater efficiency for those agencies that are
not now MTW agencies.
Mr. Woods. I would totally agree with the expansion of MTW,
but my caveat is that there needs to be full flexibility within
MTW and not limited flexibility.
Mr. Duffy. Are you telling me, Mr. Woods, that you know how
to better spend your budget than bureaucrats in Washington?
Mr. Woods. Not to pat myself on the back, but the answer is
yes.
Mr. Duffy. You can pat yourself, that is fine.
Mr. Russ. I would definitely support the expansion.
And I do believe that there are two questions in the
evaluation part of this that deserve some thought. The first
is, and I would make sure that we all understand that the kinds
of evaluations we are talking about are very difficult to do.
If you are talking about sort of the gold standard social
policy study, you are looking at probably a 5- to 7-year
commitment and you are looking at funding someone, potentially
the housing authority or HUD or some other group, to do that.
And we must be cognizant that these studies will take time.
I do think that the program as it currently exists has
really demonstrated that it is a workable solution in the
communities in which it is operating. And we could do more with
the reporting structures we have now. The MTW agencies
recognize that, and we are collaborating amongst ourselves and
hope to continue collaborating with HUD to do that.
And our long view, if I may offer that, is that part of
what should come out of this, we feel, is an accreditation
program. And the accreditation program would get to some of the
fundamental issues that deal with not only evaluation but also
things like the governance of the organizations that we all
run. And we feel that the MTW platform is an ideal platform to
help launch that idea.
Mr. Duffy. And, Mr. Russ, I think that is good advice.
I only have 25 seconds left. But, to the panel--we have a
wealth of knowledge here--any downside risk to us if we make
this move on a bipartisan level? Or any advice you have for us,
as we have you all together, on how we could effectively make
these changes?
That is an open-ended question to anyone who wants to take
it.
Mr. Russ. I think you should go ahead and do it.
Mr. Nackerman. I would just say, make sure that almost all
agencies can get in, I think. There is a very few--this term
``troubled'' or ``high performer,'' I would stay away from. I
think all agencies can do this, except the very, very few that
are completely mismanaged that would ruin our program if they
got in.
Mr. Reed. I know we are out of time, but I would like to
bring up one point that I haven't heard.
A lot of times, you have large housing authorities and then
you also have smaller housing authorities. And the dynamic
between the two is pretty significant. So if you talk about
implementing a Moving to Work Program with all of the
requirements and reporting requirements that are involved, some
of your smaller housing authorities are going to struggle to be
able to provide that type of information and continue to
service the needs of the families that they have. So larger
organizations have many more resources, but, again, the small
guys don't have as much.
Mr. Duffy. Good point.
And my time has expired, but I want to thank you all for
the good work you do and for coming in today and testifying.
Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
Mr. Stivers from Ohio?
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here.
I want to follow up on something Mr. Reed just talked
about, and it follows up on a question that my colleague from
Ohio, Mrs. Beatty, asked earlier.
But you just talked about some of these small agencies.
And, as you know, the Moving to Work Program was recently
expanded but limited to smaller agencies. And I am just curious
how these smaller agencies are doing at utilizing the
opportunities that are created by the program. And why
shouldn't--and you guys have all kind of spoken to this
already--there be more of a competitive opportunity and allow
basically everyone into these opportunities of Moving to Work?
I guess I will direct that one to Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed. Yes, I definitely agree that all housing
authorities should have the opportunity to have full access to
MTW. Again, my one caveat is that the smaller guys will
struggle somewhat with some of the reporting requirements. So,
as more definitive studies come out of the program and they
look at different size agencies and how they are doing, that
would be really good information to bring back to the housing
authority and maybe make adjustments on the fly.
But right now we are really experiencing a lot of funding
shortages. And, really, one of the reasons that I would like to
have access, with the size agency that I have, is because when
we have full fungibility, if we are short from one pot of
money, we can actually subsidize that with another pot of money
without going through the reporting requirements that we do
right now.
So I don't have a lot of information on how the small guys
have implemented the program. But those are a couple of things
that we would be interested in.
Mr. Stivers. And that gets me into, sir, my second
question, which follows up on something that my colleague from
Massachusetts talked about. And his point was, would you like
to have all the money you had 8 years ago? I guess I would ask
the converse of that. Which program is the best for you to
utilize every single dollar you get, the standard program or
the Moving to Work Program, for housing?
And you can just go down through the list and let each of
you say whether you think that the current program or Moving to
Work would be a better way for you to utilize every single
dollar you get in the best way possible to help your residents
get positive outcomes and serve your mission.
Mr. Nackerman. That is a fantastic question, because it
really, again, hits the nail on the head as to each local
housing authority has different issues. The housing authority I
just came from was Marin County Housing Authority, really low
on public housing budget. Now we have enough.
So the site-by-site, place-by-place elements of Moving to
Work allow us to balance those groups of HUD funds and survive
things like sequestration. It is a huge--it is probably the
first thing an MTW agency would do is combine their funding so
they can weather the storm.
Mr. Reed. Yes, I would echo those sentiments. Yes, we would
definitely like to have the flexibility of MTW with the funding
that we have had in the past. All the programs and some of the
things that we have talked about already, it would give us more
funding and financing available to assist families, create new
developments, and a multitude of other things in terms of
assisting families to become more self-sufficient.
So there are a few programs, a transportation program, that
I would love to get into. We had one individual lady on our
program who was going to quit her job because she didn't have
reliable transportation. So, we would definitely create
programs like that.
Mr. Scire. There have been several attempts to try to
assess the impact of this program overall. None have been
successful in doing that. So I think the verdict is really out
right now as to whether or not, on net, the MTW Program
agencies are doing more than they would have without the MTW
flexibilities. I think that remains to be demonstrated.
Mr. Woods. I totally agree with my colleagues. I believe
that MTW is the solution at this present time.
I believe that the income that is generated from there, for
us in Winston-Salem, our goal is to plow those dollars back
into our program to make our PATH Program self-sustaining, give
us the ability to develop new housing opportunities so that we
can serve more people. We cannot do that under existing rules
and regulations. It is very prohibitive.
Mr. Russ. I have two thoughts. The first is, it is money,
honey, if you want to get along with me. And that is a--that is
true. You would long for those days because there was more. But
I have to be a realist. And, realistically, where we are now,
it is a much more difficult position.
I would say this. I would say with the additional money, or
our current situation, we are managing to figure out how to do
more things. The Preservation Program for the multifamily that
I told you about, that is an activity that we would never have
imagined. And it has a spillover effect that is very positive
for the community.
We are doing more. We are assisting families in very
difficult circumstances that we normally couldn't assist. We
have sponsor-based vouchers to assist the nonprofits in our
community. There is a long list that my colleagues who have MTW
share.
And I would say there is a combination here, and it is
pretty powerful. And, yes, would I use additional money? Sure.
But where we are now, I believe we are doing more and we are
using the resources to the best of our ability.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is gone. I
yield back what I don't have.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Thank you.
With that, I would ask unanimous consent to introduce into
the record the following: a letter from the New York State
Public Housing Authority Directors Association dated June 26,
2013.
Mr. Capuano, do you have a letter also?
Mr. Capuano. Yes, from New York City.
Mr. Luetkemeyer. Okay.
Without objection, we would like to also introduce a letter
of June 26, 2013, from the New York City Housing Authority,
also to the chairman and ranking member.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
With that, I would like to thank each of the witnesses who
appeared here today for your testimony. It has been excellent
and enjoyable and informative. And I appreciate each of you
taking the time to come to us with your ideas and concern and
passion. I certainly appreciate it and certainly note it.
Is there another letter?
We have another letter to be submitted for the record,
without objection. And it is a letter from Doug Guthrie,
president and CEO of the Housing Authority of the City of Los
Angeles, dated June 26, 2013.
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 adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:51 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
June 26, 2013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1770.066