[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS
CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND INSURANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 6, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 115-97
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-473 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking
Vice Chairman Member
PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BILL POSEY, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio AL GREEN, Texas
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
ANN WAGNER, Missouri ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
ANDY BARR, Kentucky JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania BILL FOSTER, Illinois
LUKE MESSER, Indiana DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
MIA LOVE, Utah DENNY HECK, Washington
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California
TOM EMMER, Minnesota JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada
ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio
TED BUDD, North Carolina
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana
Shannon McGahn, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Vice EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking
Chairman Member
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BILL POSEY, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California
STEVE STIVERS, Ohio STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio
KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
TED BUDD, North Carolina
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
June 6, 2018................................................. 1
Appendix:
June 6, 2018................................................. 27
WITNESSES
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Berg, Steve, Vice President for Programs and Policy, National
Alliance to End Homelessness................................... 6
Duffield, Barbara, Executive Director, SchoolHouse Connection.... 4
Lilley, Kat, Deputy Executive Director, Family Promise of
Colorado Springs............................................... 8
Rounsville, Millie, Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Wisconsin
Community Services Agency...................................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Berg, Steve.................................................. 28
Duffield, Barbara............................................ 32
Lilley, Kat.................................................. 57
Rounsville, Millie........................................... 66
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Rothfus, Hon. Keith:
Written statement from HEARTH................................ 72
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS
CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017
----------
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing
and Insurance,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean P. Duffy
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Duffy, Posey, Luetkemeyer,
Stivers, Hultgren, Rothfus, Trott, Hensarling, and Cleaver.
Also present: Representatives Green and Moore.
Chairman Duffy. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance
will come to order.
Today's hearing is entitled, ``Legislative Review of H.R.
1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017,'' though it
is 2018.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the subcommittee at any time.
Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
within which to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for
inclusion in the record.
Without objection, members of the full committee who are
not members of this subcommittee may participate in today's
hearing for the purpose of making an opening statement and
questioning our witnesses.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 3 minutes for an
opening statement.
First, I want to thank our witnesses for participating in
today's hearing on homelessness.
A few weeks ago, members of this committee convened for an
overall review of homelessness in America. I thought it was a
great hearing. Witnesses discussed how homelessness looks
different in urban areas versus rural areas. We heard how the
Point-in-Time, or PIT, is utilized by HUD (U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development) to provide a snapshot of
homelessness levels from one year to the next.
We are here today to dive a little deeper into the
definition of homelessness. More specifically, we will look to
uncover how HUD's definition is creating barriers in impacting
our Federal Government's ability to keep our families out of
poverty.
As I read our witnesses' statements today, it became
apparent on two different issues. First, the PIT numbers that
HUD uses to give us a picture of homelessness year over year
seems to be a misrepresentation of the entire or complete
picture. Why doesn't it paint a whole picture? I think that is
going to be the question that all of you are going to throw our
way in your testimony today and by way of the questions we are
going to ask you.
I expect to hear that you are going to talk about certain
homeless populations that go uncounted because they live in
tents in the woods or they couch-surf or simply don't want to
admit their family is homeless for fear of losing their
children. The last thing we want to have is people that hide
from the reality of their living situation because of the
potential the Federal or State Government might take away their
kids.
All of these reasons are familiar because of the same
reasons you don't choose--or we don't see homelessness in our
rural communities, and it is a problem. And I think taking a
deeper dive on this issue to make sure we can expose and shed
light on it is critical and key.
The most jarring fact in today's testimony is HUD's
definition of homelessness doesn't match the definition used by
other Federal agencies. We have seen this in several Government
programs. We tend to amend the law by passing various bills
over the years, and the Federal Government ends up with
different definitions for the same subject matter, which
obviously creates complication and confusion. We need to make
sure that the definition of homelessness is uniform throughout
all of our Federal programs.
As a father of eight--one that is 18 and one that is 2 and
everywhere in between--I was touched by the testimony of one of
our witnesses who discussed how she had gone through to support
her six children while trying to navigate the definition of
homelessness. It is a testimony and a statement of strength.
I believe her story, along with the testimony of others,
will shine a light on why we need to address HUD's definition
of homelessness to make sure we are doing all we can to improve
the plight of our impoverished families.
And I do want to thank you all for being here today. I am
looking forward to this hearing.
And I want to now recognize the gentleman from Missouri,
the Ranking Member, for 3 minutes. And if he wants more, I will
give him more.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank those of you who have come to provide us with some
information that we will need in trying to deal with this
issue.
The hearing today is a legislative hearing focused on H.R.
1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017. This bill
would expand the definition of homelessness to include more
children who lack stable homes. Currently, homelessness under
HUD is defined under the parameters of the HEARTH Act, which
defines a homeless person as someone who lacks a fixed
nighttime residence. The definition is targeted to help those
in greatest need.
H.R. 1511 would also make several restrictions on HUD,
including limiting HUD's ability to set national housing
priorities or incentivize Continuum of Care (COC) programs to
use housing models that rely on evidence-based practices.
The Housing and Insurance Subcommittee recently held a
quite necessary and appropriate hearing on the state of
homelessness in the country. And though the overall
homelessness rate has, in fact, been decreasing--and that is
always good news, yet homelessness remains an issue of critical
concern, one that should remain a priority for our committee.
According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, on
a single night, an estimated 184,661 people in families, or
57,971 family households, were identified as homeless, and
almost 17,000 people and families were living on the street in
a car or in another place not meant for human habitation. It is
estimated that there are 550,000 homeless people in the United
States.
But here is the rub, as it relates to this legislation. Due
to Federal funding limitations, hundreds of homeless
individuals and families are unable to access resources, and
waiting lists for services are already far too long. Only a
fraction of children who would fall under HUD's current
definition of homeless are able to be served by HUD.
Expanding the definition of homelessness, though well-
intentioned--and I support the effort, but this expansion could
add millions of people to already strained waiting lists.
Without providing additional funding, this proposal could make
it even more difficult for children already on waiting lists to
receive help from housing.
Housing our Nation's children should be at the forefront of
our national priorities. This shouldn't be a fleeting
conversation but one both sides of the aisle should commit to.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, the
author of 1511, the subject of today's hearing, Mr. Stivers,
for 2 minutes.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate
you holding this hearing on our bipartisan bill, H.R. 1511, the
Homeless Children and Youth Act.
First, I want to thank each of the witnesses for joining us
today. While we may not all agree on everything, I certainly
admire your dedication to combating homelessness, all of you.
This hearing, I think, will highlight the discrepancies
between the definition of homelessness used by different
Federal agencies and different programs.
Most Americans would consider Housing and Urban Development
to be the flagship agency in the effort to prevent
homelessness. Consequently, they might be surprised to learn
that it uses the most restrictive definition of homelessness,
one that denies vulnerable children who are couch-surfing or
living off the generosity of family and friends or children who
are living day to day out of motels--those folks are denied the
definition of homelessness because of how their homelessness is
being served. Let me be clear: These children are homeless, and
they deserve our help.
But data from Head Start and the National Center for
Homelessness Education indicate that the problem is getting
worse, with 1.3 million children experiencing homelessness from
2015 to 2016, a 3.5-percent increase. But if you search for
these kinds of kids in HUD's homelessness statistics, you won't
find them, because they are not included in the definition.
I understand the point of the Ranking Member about
resources. But if we can't get the number right, we can't know
what the resources need to be. I am fully supportive of getting
more resources, but we have to get the count right.
I think my bill would bring visibility to these children,
give our communities more flexibility so they could choose how
to address this growing problem, and give policymakers the
information they need to get the resources that we need to
combat homelessness.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time. I appreciate you
holding this hearing. And I look forward to the information
coming out.
I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back, and I appreciate
his work on this important issue.
I now want to welcome our panel of witnesses.
First, we have Ms. Barbara Duffield, Executive Director of
SchoolHouse Connection; second witness, Mr. Steve Berg, Vice
President of Programs and Policy at the National Alliance to
End Homelessness, who has been a great partner on this issue.
Thank you.
Our third witness is Kat Lilley, Deputy Executive Director
of Family Promise of Colorado Springs.
Welcome.
And, finally, our fourth witness is Ms. Millie Rounsville,
CEO of the Northwest Wisconsin Community Services Agency, based
out of the great city and the great State of Superior,
Wisconsin.
Welcome.
The witnesses will in a moment be recognized for 5 minutes
to give an oral presentation of their written testimony.
Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will be
made part of the record following their oral remarks.
Once the witnesses have finished presenting their
testimony, each member of the subcommittee will have 5 minutes
within which to ask the panel questions.
I would just note that on your table you have three lights.
Green obviously means go, yellow means you have a minute left,
and red means your time is up. We will try to be cognizant of
our time. You also, please, try to be cognizant of the 5-minute
limit as well.
Your microphones are sensitive. Make sure they are on and
you are speaking directly into them.
With that, Ms. Duffield, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for an oral presentation of your written testimony.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA DUFFIELD
Ms. Duffield. Good morning, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member
Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide this testimony today.
I worked at the Intersection of Homelessness and Education
for nearly 25 years, and I have witnessed many improvements
over that time. But HUD's definition of homelessness and its
national priorities have created real barriers to helping
homeless children and youth. As a result, we are perpetuating
homelessness. We are guaranteeing that homelessness will
continue indefinitely. The Homeless Children and Youth Act will
help ensure that today's homeless children and youth do not
become tomorrow's homeless adults.
Let me put this debate in context. I worked with a student
who stayed in a house with 11 adults and 4 children because her
mother was mentally ill and kicked her out. All the adults in
the house used cocaine. Many of them worked in the strip club.
The student provided childcare in exchange for a roof over her
head. But she said this was better than other situations she
had been in because ``a lot of guys wanted to get something out
of you.'' She was in high school.
As this committee knows, Federal agencies do use different
definitions of homelessness. And with few exceptions, in
practice, the HUD definition only includes people living in
shelters or outdoors. Under HUD's definition, the student I
described is not homeless.
In contrast, the definition used by the Department of
Education and other Federal agencies includes children and
youth who are staying in motels or are staying temporarily with
others due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar
reason.
This definition reflects reality. Schools are present in
every community, even those without shelters, even those where
shelters are full. So, contrary to the picture painted by HUD,
school numbers have increased by 34 percent since the end of
the recession, now totaling 1.3 million homeless students. Head
Start homeless numbers have nearly doubled.
And new research shows that child homelessness often leads
to youth homelessness and then to adult homelessness, where
children of homeless adults may start this life again. HUD's
definition contributes to this damaging cycle by preventing
some of the most vulnerable homeless children and youth from
accessing services. Also, it keeps them invisible, which limits
both public and private action.
Make no mistake, the children and youth who meet
Education's definition are every bit as vulnerable as those who
meet HUD's definition. And my written testimony documents the
same poor academic, health, and mental health outcomes of all
homeless students regardless of where they sleep.
It also shows how frequently families and youth move
between Education homeless and HUD homeless. In fact, when I
described this debate to a remarkable young woman who stayed in
all sorts of homeless situations, her response to me was, ``The
open sky never made me bleed.''
Yet homeless children and youth who don't meet HUD's
definition are barred from even being assessed. The Homeless
Children and Youth Act would allow children and youth whose
homelessness has been verified by one of eight Federal programs
to be assessed for services rather than basing their
eligibility very simplistically on where they happen to find a
place to sleep.
Just last week, we tried to assist a young couple with a
toddler who are expecting their second child. They are staying
in a toxic household with other people. They will be kicked out
in a month. They have nowhere to go. But Coordinated Entry in
their community said they weren't in a place from which they
could get evicted, so they are not eligible for prevention
assistance. And they don't meet HUD's definition of
homelessness, so they aren't eligible for homeless assistance.
But under the Homeless Children and Youth Act, an early Head
Start program could verify the family's homelessness and they
could be assessed. So the trajectory of four lives, including
their unborn child, could change for the better.
But beyond definitions, HUD has deprived communities of the
flexibility that they need by creating strong national
incentives for housing models in certain populations. They
don't meet all communities' needs. The high school student I
worked with, she couldn't benefit from Rapid Re-Housing. She is
too young to sign a lease. Rapid Re-Housing is failing many
families who become homeless again, but they don't show up in
HUD's metrics. Meanwhile, program models that have been
successful in helping families leave homelessness and sustain
their housing have been defunded.
The Homeless Children and Youth Act would remedy this one-
size-fits-all approach with scoring that is primarily based on
the extent to which projects meet priorities in a local plan
and are cost-effective to the local plan. In this way, it
allows communities to respond flexibly to new challenges and
opportunities.
Please know that the Homeless Children and Youth Act has
broad support from organizations that work directly with
homeless children and youth. And we ask you to enact it so that
homelessness will cease to rob millions of children, youth, and
adults of their full human potential.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Duffield can be found on
page 32 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Duffield.
Mr. Berg, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE BERG
Mr. Berg. All right. Thank you, Chairman Duffy and members
of this subcommittee and the committee.
I want to start by saying we at the National Alliance to
End Homelessness and I personally have worked with this
committee for many, many years on this very difficult issue,
and I thank you all for your devotion to dealing with it and to
finding things that are really going to work.
I would especially like to address Congressman Stivers. We
literally 15 years ago identified Columbus, Ohio, as one of the
places that leads the country in a new approach to homelessness
that could actually start getting results, really based on
going beyond just funding a bunch of individual programs and
empowering a community-wide system that would look at data,
look at what really works, make decisions about how to allocate
scarce resources and get results. And Columbus has continued to
do that.
We work very closely with people at a community shelter
board who oversee this process in Columbus. They, I know,
regard you as an ally in this work. And even though we disagree
on this particular bill, we can work through that, but we also
regard you as an ally in this. And I thank you for your work on
this.
This is a crucial time on the issue of homelessness, as all
of you may be aware. But as the HEARTH Act has become fully
implemented and has--and the good practices both that are
incentivized by the HEARTH Act and that are incentivized by,
say, the homeless programs in the veterans world, communities
are finding that they are getting better and better results.
The kind of results that Columbus was getting 15 years ago are
now more common in communities, in terms of people who are on
the streets quickly being housed.
At the same time, because of where we are in the short-term
business cycles and longer-term issues of housing, the problem
of affordable housing in the country is getting far, far worse,
so that one effect of that is that people are pouring into the
homelessness system. So, even as communities of care to do
better, they are dealing with more and more people in their
community who are falling into that system. This is a time we
need to be doing our very best work. And we need support from
everybody in Congress to do that.
This particular bill, the concerns we at the Alliance have
about this bill are mainly around eligibility rules for the
Continuum of Care. The Continuum of Care is the primary
homeless program at HUD. It accounts for 4 percent of HUD
spending, so it is a small program. It has, however, a very
important role to play. As it was overhauled by the HEARTH Act
in a bipartisan manner, it has become what is driving
communities--through the competitive grant process, driving
communities to get better results and to focus on the people
who have the most severe and immediate problems.
Much of what the HEARTH Act did was to make changes in who
is eligible for the program, the definition of homelessness,
but particularly as it relates to who is eligible. People who
are in housing, who are sleeping in an apartment or a house,
but who are in immediate danger because the house they are
sleeping in is a drug den, because they are victims of domestic
violence, because they are dealing with all kinds of truly
dangerous situations, those are all eligible for the Continuum
of Care right now. You don't need to change anything to make
them eligible. You need to change the funding levels in order
to have enough money to actually address the whole problem, but
the eligibility rules don't need to change.
The problem with this bill's large expansion of the
definition is that it will, at best, overwhelm systems that
communities have for determining how to allocate the scarce
resources of the homeless programs, and, at worst, it will mean
that the worst-off people, the people in the gravest immediate
danger, will have a harder time getting help because they will
be out-competed for the resources by people who have a little
more stable situation, living with relatives or friends or
family.
The work that HUD has done on this has been very responsive
to what Congress has told HUD to do. And the report language
from this committee, from the Appropriations Committee over
many years has been very clear that HUD needs to find out what
kind of interventions are doing the best work, are getting the
best results, and then make sure communities are using the
money for those. This bill moves in exactly the opposite
direction, and that is the other concern besides the
eligibility rules.
So I am happy to answer questions about this. I can come
and see you in your office if you have other questions. But
thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berg can be found on page 28
of the Appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lilley for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KAT LILLEY
Ms. Lilley. I would like to thank the committee for
allowing me to come here and speak today. It truly is an honor
to be able to be here.
In my written testimony, I highlighted my personal story
with you all. I didn't do that lightly. It is hard to relive
the time that I experienced homelessness with my six children.
I did it because I think you really needed to understand the
vulnerability that exists prior to meeting the definition of
HUD homelessness.
I highlighted for you what my family and I went through
months leading up to homelessness, weeks leading up to
homelessness, and the day that I finally hit the threshold for
the HUD definition of homelessness.
What I can tell you is that, had any of the other avenues
that I pursued for my family for housing prior to entering
shelter come through, I would not be sitting here today. I
would not be working in the homeless industry. I would not be
successful.
And I can tell you that because, while Mr. Berg is well-
informed on policy, he is not on the ground level. He is not
seeing what these families are living in. I reached out to
situations that I knew were dangerous for my family, looking
for four walls to keep us out of a shelter. I reached out to a
biological family member who had a registered sex offender
living in their home, begging for a floor to sleep on. Had they
told me yes, I would have been there in a heartbeat, because I
believed and I know that there are families in all of our
communities that believe dealing with the dangers we know is
safer than dealing with the dangers that are unknown in the
shelter system.
In my work now, providing care to families and children who
are experiencing homelessness, I am out in the community. I am
an active member of our COC, and because I have six children, I
am active in a number of school systems. I see the
vulnerability in our community. I know that we have families
who are living in situations that are dire.
Just 3 weeks ago, I was in a motel room with a family of
five who had been living there for 4 months. I sat down on the
bed, and it was wet. It is what the motel had for them. There
were lice, there were cockroaches, there were bugs. The 3-year-
old showed me her little bed on the floor. She had what she
called a nest. There were blankets, there was a pillow, and
there were bugs. It was a horrendous situation.
While we were sitting there and we were talking, there was
a banging on the door. It was a neighbor in the motel room. He
was upset that last night the baby had been crying and was
going to go talk to management to see if they could be put out
of the motel although they had paid for this week.
These are not situations children should be living in.
These are not safe situations.
And contrary to what Mr. Berg tells you, this family is not
eligible for COC services. If we do a VI-SPDAT, or a
Vulnerability Index, on this family, they are going to be told,
``You have one recourse. We may offer you one service. We can
rapidly re-house you or assist you with prevention.'' This
family is not suitable. Their vulnerability does not meet a
successful outcome for us to put them in a place that they
can't afford and say, ``We are going to provide you with
limited assistance, limited services, and we are not going to
address the vulnerability that brought you here.'' We are
setting them up to fail.
This is happening nationally. Family Promises across the
Nation in 43 States can give you hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of stories where this is true.
The biggest pushback to the bill is that it is going to
overwhelm the system or that it is a funding issue. This isn't
a funding issue. This is an issue that, while we are saying
Continuum of Cares are prioritizing the most dire situations,
they are excluding some of the most vulnerable and dire
situations.
We are not asking to bump chronic homeless people down on
the list. We are not asking to bump people without shelter down
on the list. We are asking you to include individuals who are
truly being victimized because of their situations on the list.
We are asking you to prioritize them the same way you
prioritize the people who don't have shelter at this time.
Honestly, my vulnerability was lower when I was in shelter
than it would have been had I been doubled up or in a motel.
And we are just asking that you consider that issue and move
forward with this.
Our PIT counts are inaccurate. Because they are inaccurate
and because we are continuing to leave families invisible, we
don't know the trends that are going on in family and youth
homelessness. We can't say that family homelessness is going
down just by sticking our head in the sand and not counting
individuals that are truly vulnerable and homeless.
I thank you for this time, and I am open to questions at
the end of this. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lilley can be found on page
57 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Lilley.
Ms. Rounsville, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MILLIE ROUNSVILLE
Ms. Rounsville. Thank you, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Cleaver, for
the opportunity to come here and speak. This is a conversation
we have on a local level, so I am happy to be able to be here
in front of a larger audience and to see that a lot of the
things that I am seeing locally are also agreeing with Ms.
Lilley's community.
I am the Director of Northwest Community Services Agency.
We are what is called a community action program. We have been
providing services to low- and moderate-income throughout our
five-county service area for the last--over 50 years now. Being
as we are community action, we do prioritize vulnerable
populations, low-income populations, and, unfortunately, for
our service area, homelessness is a large part of that world.
On the local level, as homeless service providers, we work
well together. We work with our school districts, we work with
our local units of Government, our Head Start agency, our
faith-based partners. And we truly pull together a toolkit to
try to accommodate those needs.
From a geologic perspective, my service area covers 8,000
square miles. In that 8,000 square miles, we only have 90,000
people. We probably have more trees than we do population. Our
agency has served as the lead in terms of the HUD world, the
ESG (Emergency Solutions Grants) world, those sort of things.
And it predominantly has to do with capacity and the
requirements that come with receipt of those Federal funds.
We in the city of Superior are fortunate that we have three
shelter facilities. We have a homeless men's shelter that is
operated by our organization. We have a family shelter that is
operated by one of our faith-based partners. And then we have a
domestic violence shelter. In Ashland, which is 70 miles away,
we also have a domestic violence shelter.
But that is it. Throughout the rest of our service area, we
are relying on hotel vouchers to try to prevent individuals
from sleeping in their cars, sleeping in the campsites. It is
cold. It is 40 below. Anybody that we can get sheltered on our
Point-in-Time counts, we bring our faith-based partners, they
issue hotels.
The reason I bring this up is related to some of the Point-
in-Time data that has been discussed--is a lot of our
homelessness numbers and the homeless needs going up and down
are based on those PIT numbers, and they are also based on the
HMIS data. And for our service area, to try to go out and cover
that 8,000-square-mile area between 11 at night and 6 in the
morning, finding people that are living in campsites, we have
two reservations that we need to cover, those numbers aren't
truly accurate in terms of what our community looks like on a
given night.
In terms of the homeless information database, which is a
requirement with HUD, our organization, along with our family
shelter, are the only two organizations that are entering data
into that system. So if we were looking at, from a community
level, what the homeless needs are in northwest Wisconsin and
the number is going up and down, it is not reflective of 50
percent of our shelters because they are domestic violence, it
is not reflective of our faith-based partners that are
providing services, and as we have discussed earlier, it
doesn't include the number of homeless identified through our
school districts and our Head Start agencies.
One of the things that this bill would allow would be local
flexibility. In our service area, our needs are similar in
terms of the families, people that are being placed in foster
care, the families that are doubled up because there is no
shelter availability.
The Continuum of Care process, while it is important and it
does fund a variety of services in our country, I believe,
looks very different in our part of the country than it may in
some other parts of the country.
I provide a lot of written testimony, so I am trying to
focus my oral on things that may be a better use of your time.
But in the State of Wisconsin, we have 72 counties. HUD
recognizes four Continuum of Cares. So our bigger cities--
Racine; Dane, which is Madison; and Milwaukee--HUD designates
those as their own Continuum of Care. Our northern five
counties is what is called the Balance of State Continuum of
Care. So, on the ground level, there are 21 local groups:
Myself representing my 5 counties; Duana Bremer that was here a
few weeks ago representing her service area. But we compromise
what is the Balance of State Continuum of Care.
So, as this process started many years ago--I have been
involved in this process for 21 years--the Continuum of Care
was designed to meet homeless needs. There was a pro rata need
that was established by counties. We started a lot of
supportive services-only programs, transitional housing
programs, things that are identified locally as a need.
As this evolution in time has changed, the only new
programs that communities are able to apply for is permanent
supportive housing. And, in our case, we don't have enough
chronically homeless meeting that definition in our rural
areas. And what has been happening in reality is we have had
larger cities that are having more services available for
chronic homeless, which is great--that is their need; people
are being housed--but what we are doing is we are continually
taking away services from our rural communities, and we have
less services available to meet the needs of the families that
we are working with.
So I do see I am over time. I will pause there. I will be
available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rounsville can be found on
page 66 of the Appendix.]
Chairman Duffy. Thank you, Ms. Rounsville.
And I want to thank the panel for their testimony.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
Just a brief note. I am sorry, I--we defend the
bureaucracy, we defend the status quo and argue for more money.
I don't think that answer actually works. You can argue for
more money. I get that. But also say, is the system actually
working? Are we actually effective with the dollars that we
use? Because with $21 trillion in debt, it is fair to come back
and say, ``I need more, because I am using the dollars that you
have given me really well right now,'' but if we can't look at
how we are actually using today's dollars, how do we come back
and ask for more?
And I think that is the point of this conversation. How are
we using our current dollars? Let's use them well. And if there
is more that is needed, let's fight for more money to help
those who have fallen into homelessness.
Ms. Rounsville, as you might know, I was the D.A. in
Ashland County, which covers your area, and have dealt with the
women's shelter, and it is a great facility.
But you made a comment about how money might flow into the
Dane County area, Madison, and maybe a little less up north in
the rural part. And is that because you have been so effective
in addressing homelessness and they haven't been effective in
Dane County, or is something else happening in how money is
distributed?
Ms. Rounsville. I would be happy to cover that.
It is actually multifold. So, in our rural areas, we don't
have United Way dollars. We don't have entitlement communities.
We are piecemealing packages together.
One of our largest funding sources for the shelter side,
such as New Day that you referenced, is the ESG money through
the State. Based on one of their formula allocations, the
dollars are divided up throughout the State of Wisconsin based
on things such as your homeless counts.
As I referenced earlier, when people aren't using HMIS, the
numbers go down. As the numbers go down, I am issuing less
hotel vouchers. I am the one entering into HMIS. Thus, next
year we have a lower allocation, we have less resources.
On the Continuum of Care side, it is that 69 counties that
are submitting an application. So it is all 69 counties looking
at in terms of competing nationally to bring resources into our
State following HUD's priorities, getting the extra points on
the application to keep serving homeless throughout that 69-
county area.
The needs of us in northern Wisconsin, while they are
important, we don't have a high population of chronic homeless.
One of HUD's priority areas is serving chronic homeless. And
there are pockets throughout the State that do have a need to
serve chronic homeless. So those resources are coming into our
State and enhancing services in those areas, but we are no
longer able to apply for transitional housing, which works
well. And then we lost a transitional housing program this last
round, so we are only going to have one COC-funded project left
in our service area.
But that is what is happening, is, as they are prioritizing
specific populations, the more urban areas that have that
population are able to access those dollars, as opposed to we
don't have an opportunity to apply for a transitional housing
program, which would better meet our needs.
Our Rapid Re-Housing that we fund with the ESG and the
State dollars, we have people that come up on our priority
list, but if you are in a town like Ashland and you have
something on your background or you have been evicted by one of
the property owners, nobody is going to give you a lease. It
wouldn't matter if you had dollars available.
Chairman Duffy. Just quickly, the Point-in-Time counts, are
those accurate? Do you--
Ms. Rounsville. No.
Chairman Duffy. --think they get--they don't. And does that
affect your funding?
Ms. Rounsville. Well, HUD says you have to cover your
geographic footprint. Does anybody here think they could cover
8,000 square miles in 7 hours? I mean--and especially in the
wintertime. We have two-lane roads. We have no cell phone
service. We have national forests. It is not an easy--
Chairman Duffy. It is impossible.
Ms. Rounsville. --feat to get try to get that.
Chairman Duffy. Yes. It is impossible. And, right, you
don't get an accurate count. And then, obviously, the dollars
don't necessary flow.
To the panel, is there a correlation between child
homelessness and adult homelessness? Does that correlation
actually exist? The panel agrees with that?
Doesn't it make sense, then, especially when you have kids
or young adults, the youth, that we try to address that problem
early on and say, let's help these kids get into housing so
they are not pulling resources in their adulthood from others,
they are actually self-sufficient, let's start them off on the
right path?
Ms. Lilley, does that make sense to you?
Ms. Lilley. It absolutely makes sense to me.
I understand that we want to serve the most vulnerable, and
I feel like, as a Nation, we are overlooking that the most
vulnerable are the individuals that are experiencing
homelessness that we can't see. They are not the people
sleeping on the street. It is the youth that are being
traumatized by the experiences--
Chairman Duffy. I am sorry. The story that you tell about
the kids in the hotel room, or your own story, who is more
vulnerable than kids going through this process from their teen
years into adulthood? Who is more vulnerable than that?
I have a--and my time is up. As I have asked you all to be
respectful of the red dot, I am too. So, with that, I am going
to recognize Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes. We will do a second
round. Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes, the Ranking Member.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is an important issue. And I want to reiterate
something that Mr. Berg said earlier, and that is that I would
prefer to believe--and I think I am actually correct--that
there probably is not any person in here who is anti-help
homeless individuals.
I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for taking the lead
in this. It is always a very emotional issue with me. My wife
and I had a homeless kid show up on our doorstep. And it had
something to do with the NBA, one of the players. I won't go
into it here. But he moved into our home, and because he went
to school with our twin boys, all three of them went off to
college together on basketball scholarships.
And then I think it was May 11, Flight 592, ValuJet went
down in the Everglades, and Jerrold was on that flight. I saw
what he went through as a homeless kid, 15 years old--and I
mean homeless. I don't mean--he wasn't staying with his
grandmother or chose not to stay with his uncle. I mean with
nothing, his clothing on his back.
And so this is something that is very, very meaningful to
me. And I want to express, in no small way, my appreciation for
the Chairman for putting this on the docket and for Mr. Stivers
and the people on the Democratic side who are working with him.
I think it is the gentlewoman from Ohio who is also part of
this bill.
And so, for me, this is a worrisome issue. It is not easy
to resolve, and we are going to have to struggle with it. It is
not a question of whether or not these erratically housed
families and youth deserve housing assistance. That is just not
the issue. The issue, for me, is whether or not they should
skip the line, ahead of other families and youth with other
problems.
I don't know if we will ever have enough money to resolve
this issue. But we will never handle homelessness until we
envision a Nation without homelessness and try to go there.
So this legislation is not perfect, but I think the whole
effort in Congress--and this is what I think all of us forget--
is that we are hopefully moving toward perfection. Nothing is
perfect. We are moving in that direction. So I appreciate it.
So if someone could address the issue I raised about
whether or not putting people ahead in the line is something
that we can figure out how to get around. I would love to have
everybody in here supporting the same piece of legislation.
Mr. Berg. Well, if I could start, I think it is extremely
important to have clear goals and clear ideas about what kind
of things the Continuum of Care is funding that get the best
results and then really focus on getting the people who can
benefit from that into those programs.
At the same time, the Continuum of Care, as I said at the
start, it is 4 percent of HUD's budget--4. There are a lot of
other things that go into communities' responses to this issue,
including other HUD funding, funding from other Federal
agencies, lots of philanthropic funding. So there is a range of
things that different people need, and it is possible to set up
a system that provides people with what they need while still
understanding that this one program, this one 4 percent, needs
to be reserved for people who are in immediate danger.
Because I think the rules of the Continuum of Care really
are that people in immediate danger are covered. If the only
place you have to live is with your kids with a registered sex
offender, you are eligible right now. You are. You can't get
help because--
Ms. Lilley. You are eligible for one program, not the
program that necessarily meets your vulnerability. That is
ineffective and fiscally irresponsible.
Mr. Berg. That is not about--that is not--this bill
wouldn't help that.
Ms. Lilley. But it would.
Mr. Berg. This bill changes eligibility. It doesn't change
what kinds of programs are available and what the community is
doing.
Ms. Lilley. The Ranking Member raised a very interesting
question about whether or not this bill should be passed based
on people skipping the line. And the bill isn't about people
skipping the line or moving ahead in the line. The bill is
addressing letting people join the line based on their
vulnerability on the same scale as people who are outside.
Currently, they can't even get in line. This isn't about
jumping a line. It is about being able to stand in the same
line for the appropriate resources based on their
vulnerability, the same scale of vulnerability that people
outside are being measured on.
Mr. Cleaver. Now, I think the--well, let me reiterate. I
support and, in fact, voted that we create the line in the
first place. So, I don't want--I think we need to be careful as
we are discussing something that almost everybody in here
supports.
Ms. Rounsville. Mr. Chairman, can I address the line
quickly? Am I allowed to do that?
I just want to talk about the line. Because we talk about
vulnerable, and we are talking about the doubled-up
individuals, and then we are talking about families in shelter.
And I believe there is an impression that the families in
shelter are already in the line.
The threshold to meet for permanent support of housing that
is chronically homelessness, you have to have an adult with a
disability to meet that definition.
So our shelters and families that are staying in the
domestic violence shelter, while they may be at the bottom of
the list, they are still not eligible, because to be
chronically homeless, the adult has to have a disability.
So it isn't just a matter of the couch-surfers not being
able to get to the line. It is the families that are sitting in
the line that we can't help because they are not meeting
chronically homeless.
Mr. Cleaver. I thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Posey, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for calling this hearing. Homelessness is not something that is
on the radar every day, but it is a massive, massive problem,
and I don't think anyone's districts are completely immune from
it.
Ms. Lilley, I think your written testimony and your verbal
testimony may be some of the most compelling that I have heard
so far. Thank you very much for that.
I love Family Promise. My wife and I became aware of it,
and we work through our church. And I know it is effective; I
know what you are saying is the truth. It is another example of
how much more productive, efficient, and effective privately
operated functions can be than Government, monolithic, one-
size-fits-all, you-are-in-or-you-are-out structures that
clearly have not seemed to have worked very well, or there
wouldn't be a need for so many of the other organizations, such
as yours.
A question that demands an answer after reading all of your
testimony, a couple times actually: How did you break the
cycle? How did you free yourself and your family?
Ms. Lilley. I was supported by Family Promise. And so I am
actually the Deputy Director of the organization that served my
family 4-1/2 years ago. So it was the support that allowed me
through that process.
And they extended a lot of grace to me. Emergency shelters
generally will time a family out after 90 days and ask them to
exit and then reapply if there is availability. I stayed in
shelter straight for more than 6 months.
I did receive assistance through Rapid Re-Housing on the
back end of shelter to be able to house my family. And that
supported me on my trajectory forward.
Once I exited the shelter and was stably housed, I wanted
to give back. And so I started volunteering with Family
Promise. A year after exiting shelter, I became a staff member
and have just climbed up the ranks ever since, and homelessness
has become my life since.
I think it is important to recognize in my personal story
that I received some assistance that was HUD-funded that helped
me overcome my situation. It was after 6-plus months in
shelter. It was after an extreme amount of time of struggling.
My special boy, during my homeless situation, had two more
long-term hospitalizations because the process was stressful
for him, as it was for me.
But that HUD funding that helped me get back on my feet, I
was able to utilize it before that 6-month mark. However, when
you are looking at Rapid Re-Housing, I had to qualify for a
landlord that was willing to take those funds and my family. As
you can imagine, a lot of landlords look at an application and
say, ``Currently homeless, six kids, lower income than it used
to be a year ago,'' and they go, ``I think I will pass,''
especially when you are in communities with low vacancy.
And so it took a long time for me to find a landlord
willing to work with me, which is why that may not have been
the most effective across-the-board intervention that we are
offering to families.
Mr. Posey. How would you specifically suggest we redefine
homeless eligibility at HUD?
Ms. Lilley. Specifically, I think that we need to broaden
the definition to align with other Federal systems. We need to
include the families that are doubled up. We need to include
the families that are living in a motel.
They are not stably housed. Most of these parents are out
trying to figure out how they are going to pay for the motel
room tomorrow. They are not sure how they are going to stay
with a friend another week longer. They are sitting in bedrooms
on floors with their children, telling them that they can't
cry, telling them that they can't access the refrigerator
because it is not their food.
It is not a housing situation; it is a floor, it is a cot,
it is a blanket. And it is not acceptable. We have to expand
it. We have to truly work to serve the most vulnerable and
acknowledge that just because a family has four walls around
them, that doesn't mean that they are not vulnerable.
There are a lot of assumptions that go into the Alliance
saying that we're not--this expands it and we are no longer
going to be serving the most vulnerable that they haven't done
the research to back up. These families are vulnerable, they
are being victimized, and they deserve a spot in the line for
resources based on their vulnerability.
Mr. Posey. If you could make one change besides the
definition, what would that be?
Ms. Lilley. I would allow communities to be able to use the
resources that best fit their community dynamic and the current
housing dynamic of that community. So if transitional housing
is effective in a community and proven effective in a
community, that HUD not prioritize it being defunded.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the author of 1511, the gentleman
from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And before I go to questions--I do want to ask a bunch of
questions, but I want to acknowledge what Mr. Berg said
initially, is while we may disagree on this individual issue, I
want to thank you for your passion and what you are doing to
combat homelessness, because we are all on the same side on
that even if we disagree about a particular issue.
And I want to acknowledge the folks back in Columbus, Ohio:
Michelle Heritage, who I am sure you work with, Mr. Berg, who
has been a friend of mine for 20 years, so I have known and
worked with at Saint Vincent's and worked with her on combating
homelessness at the Community Shelter Board. They are doing
incredible work. They have been one of the most innovative
organizations in the country; they continue to be. And while
they may disagree with me on this issue, I consider them
friends and know that we have the same goals in mind.
So I want to continue on what Ms. Lilley was just talking
about. And because the Ranking Member and because Mr. Berg have
brought it up, I just want to be really clear what this bill
does and doesn't do.
This bill is about taking invisibly homeless people that
are seen as invisible today--by the law, they are invisible.
That is tragic. It is unacceptable. It produces very bad
results for those people and allows them to be taken advantage
of--and brings them into the light and allows them to be
counted. That is what this bill does.
It does not prioritize them, does not put them in line in
front of anybody else. The communities can decide who they want
to serve based on who has the most emergent need and who is in
the most danger. But it brings those invisible people into the
light. That is what we should be about.
And then I am--I want to pledge to all of you, I will be
fighting for resources.
But I do want to start a few questions by asking Ms.
Duffield, so tell me, does this bill require anybody to move to
the front of the line?
Ms. Duffield. No, it does not. It simply means you are
eligible to be assessed on the same vulnerability indicators as
anybody else. You are not to the front of the line. You are in
the line. You are actually being seen by the same standards.
And, again, my testimony provides data showing that these
children are every bit as in dire straits as anybody else.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
And that is where I want to move to Ms. Lilley, on that,
because you have been so eloquent already on this issue. Talk
about how these invisibly homeless people can be and are taken
advantage of today in the name of getting them housed by
friends, family, strangers, and other folks, either financially
or in other ways taken advantage of, and how that makes them
vulnerable and how they are--help us understand why they are
vulnerable people.
Ms. Lilley. Absolutely.
As we all know, people who are feeling desperation make
choices out of that desperation, and they are not always
choices that align with the end goal or that are safe choices
to make.
We see families who are able to pay for a motel this week
and next week come up $30 short, so they are outside and they
are asking people to come up with that money. And then someone
will walk up to them and say, ``You know what? I have 30 bucks.
Let me join you in your room.'' So now a stranger has joined
these children in a room because a family needed $30 to pay for
next week. And that is introducing the children to new, unknown
dangers.
Also, when we are talking about community systems,
community systems are important when we are looking at the
human need for community. And when we are talking about family
homelessness and children homelessness, it is very isolating.
When you have families who are in shelter, there is a community
there. Parents in a shelter look out for each other. They
support each other. They cheer each other on.
Families who are experiencing homelessness in a motel or a
situation where they are staying with others, it is not
generally family. It is not generally grandma and grandpa. It
is not generally aunt or uncle. A lot of times, it is strangers
that happen to offer a place to stay. A lot of times, it is
people that were in the past with a family who now have a place
to stay.
I currently--it breaks my heart to say, I have a mom and a
dad with a 3-week-old baby that on Monday decided to move in
with someone they met 3 hours prior, because that was a better
choice for them than going to the shelter with their vulnerable
baby. That is not safe.
Mr. Stivers. Wow.
Ms. Lilley. They are not considered homeless anymore. And
they are in dire need for that baby, who is at a key
developmental stage and will be for the next 3 years, for an
intervention to be offered.
So we are forcing families--we are telling families, ``You
are not homeless enough to help.'' And then we are faulting
them for being in situations that aren't safe and keeping them
in the shadows, when we are trying to draw them out so that we
can help, so that we can assist. We want them to see the
friendly face that says, ``You are not alone. It can be OK.''
Mr. Stivers. And I know I am basically out of time, but if
I could just have each of the panel members, one at a time, say
whether they believe these children should be counted or hidden
in homelessness.
Ms. Duffield. They should be seen and served.
Mr. Berg. I think the more data we have about all these
problems, the better. So, certainly, if we can get information
about who is living in what situations, that would be
excellent.
Ms. Lilley. Counted and served.
Ms. Rounsville. Counted and served.
Mr. Stivers. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Rothfus, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for calling today's hearing.
And I would like to commend Representative Stivers for his
hard work on this important issue.
The Homeless Children and Youth Act addresses a number of
problems with our current approach to homelessness, but I want
to start by focusing on one in particular. As HUD has
prioritized one-size-fits-all mandates, like Housing First, and
connected those priorities to funding, it has pushed
communities to move away from programs and strategies that
actually work.
As a result, local organizations have lost out on necessary
funding or have been forced to change their model. Ultimately,
this hurts the very people we are trying to help: The poor, the
vulnerable, and those in need of a helping hand.
One of the organizations that has been harmed is the HEARTH
organization in my district. HEARTH is a transitional housing
provider focusing on women fleeing domestic violence. Due to
the one-size-fits-all approach pushed by HUD, HEARTH has faced
pressure to completely change its model or risk losing funding.
This is unfair to the western Pennsylvania families that need
HEARTH in their community.
And I want to enter their statement on the Homeless
Children and Youth Act into the record.
Mr. Chairman, if I could offer a statement from HEARTH into
the record on the Homeless Children and Youth Act.
Chairman Duffy. Without objection.
Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Lilley, you have both personal and
professional experience with your homelessness relief programs.
Could you comment on what happened in your community when HUD
prioritized Rapid Re-Housing and permanent supportive housing?
Ms. Lilley. Absolutely. I actually sit on the Ranking and
Prioritization Committee on my Continuum of Care, so I know
exactly the decisions that were made to try and meet the
competitiveness of the COC.
In my community, we have only a couple transitional housing
programs. One of them specifically serves families with
children. We have My Transitional Housing Program, which is
exclusively privately funded; I don't ask for HUD money for it.
And then we have a transitional housing program that--it is
a borderline. Under HUD's definition, it is considered
transitional housing. However, it truly hits an emergency need
for unaccompanied women in our community, in that it only
serves women, and it is a short-term transitional housing
program. It maxes at 6 months instead of the 2 years for the
most markers.
When HUD pushed the prioritization, saying that we really
needed to focus on Rapid Re-Housing and that we really needed
to focus on permanent supportive housing, as you can imagine,
these are things that we would love to expand in our community,
but they take infrastructure. And infrastructure takes time to
develop, especially when you are talking about permanent
supportive housing, which requires units, a lot of units, to
meet that need.
Our Continuum of Care looked at how we were meeting that
need and decided that, to stay competitive as a continuum,
although our family transitional housing program, which was
large, was high-performing, had highly successful outcomes and
lower recidivism rates, we had to remove funding from that
program and reallocate it to a different program. It was
actually a new program, so we weren't sure how that was going
to play out, but it matched the HUD priority. As a result, this
transitional housing program had to struggle the next year to
backfill the funding that was removed from them.
In my community, the women's transitional housing program
in this last go-around, they did not receive COC money because
of the HUD priority. And, in addition, because the city has
decided to align with the HUD priorities for ESG and CDBG
(Community Development Block Grant) money as well, they did not
receive their ESG or CDBG money either. That shelter closed
last week.
Mr. Rothfus. Ms. Rounsville, I understand the transitional
housing project in your area lost Federal support as a result
of HUD's push to deprioritize transitional housing.
Does transitional housing have a good track record in your
area?
Ms. Rounsville. Transitional housing in our world was
ideal. We held the lease. We could take high-barrier families.
Landlords had worked with our agency for 50 years, so we didn't
have a problem with getting that housing provided.
The Rapid Re-Housing is also a good model, but it is not a
one-size-fits-all. Having the Rapid Re-Housing, especially
under the stimulus--we had about $900,000 for 2 years, as
opposed to now we get, like, $60,000 for 2 years. But having
those two services available in the community really
complemented each other.
We had our high-barrier families where you are the single
mom that is 21 with five kids. Transitional housing gave us
more time. It had intensive case management. They could seek
mental services or if they had kids with disabilities,
addiction counseling, those sort of things.
Versus the Rapid Re-Housing model--ideally, it works best
for first-time homeless, low-barrier. Rapid Re-Housing would be
an ideal program for the issue that we face with our foster
care system. Our families that have their children removed,
placed in foster care, we have our human services that have a
group of those. If those people could just find housing, they
could get their kids back. That is not a program--they are not
eligible for our services.
But if we could take a program like Rapid Re-Housing and
target it, or transitional housing, to that population, we
could bring our families back together, we could support our
families, as opposed to increasing the number of children
remaining in foster care that as teenagers are either running,
staying with other people, or they are aging out of foster care
and then we are hitting on the other end as chronic homeless
later on.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Trott, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Trott. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member for organizing this hearing today and also thank the
panel for your time today but also and perhaps more importantly
for all the good work you no doubt do every day back in your
communities.
Mr. Berg, so all of the other panelists have disagreed with
your assertion that someone who is in a situation, a drug den
or an abusive situation or maybe a potentially trafficking
situation is eligible for the COC program. Do you stand by your
position in that regard?
Mr. Berg. Yes, absolutely. I would recommend the committee
get HUD in here and let them explain all the rules that they
have in place.
Let me just be clear, though, we are talking about
eligibility because this bill addresses eligibility. The
program is not funded well enough--
Mr. Trott. Let's talk about that in a minute.
Mr. Berg. --to help everyone who is eligible. So that is a
separate problem. And that is why a lot of people who need help
aren't getting it.
Mr. Trott. So the other panelists are just wrong with
respect to their definition of eligibility. Is that what you
are saying?
Mr. Berg. I think that to the extent that they have said
what you said, that is not correct.
Mr. Trott. You said that HUD needs to ascertain what
programs are working and this bill undermines that. How does it
do that?
Mr. Berg. Well, several provisions in the bill would
prohibit HUD from setting various kinds of priorities, even
though Congress has been quite clear over 20 years that they
want HUD to set priorities based on what works best.
Mr. Trott. OK. So that is the basis for that conclusion.
Mr. Berg. That and also the concern that, by massively
expanding who is eligible for the program, there would be an
overwhelming effect that would prevent--
Mr. Trott. Would you be supporting the bill if there was
more funding?
Mr. Berg. That is hard to say.
Mr. Trott. I am trying to determine whether really your
opposition is based on lack of resources or some other, more
fundamental concern.
Mr. Berg. The fundamental concern is that this program has
a very specific purpose, which is to quickly get people who are
in immediate danger because of their housing situation out of
that.
There are a lot of other people, millions of people, who
are being hurt by the fact that they don't have decent housing.
I think there are other approaches to that that would work
better to fix that problem.
Mr. Trott. I appreciate that.
Do you agree with Ms. Rounsville's concern that the
program, as currently configured, favors urban areas over rural
areas?
Mr. Berg. I am concerned about that. I can't say definitely
yes or no, but it is definitely a concern of ours.
Mr. Trott. So this is to the entire panel.
Ms. Lilley, you have already responded quite eloquently,
and your comments I found to be very powerful and persuasive.
So you can certainly add in another suggestion besides
community flexibility, but this is for the entire panel.
The COC program, what one or two changes would you make,
other than the debate we are having regarding the eligibility
definition?
Ms. Duffield. I think the Homeless Children and Youth Act
does what needs to be done, which is to go back to the original
purpose of the COC, which is to really have the communities
figure out what they need, as opposed to having HUD tell them
what they need.
So if those projects were scored based on a local plan and
local plans that will identify whether they were for a local
plan, then we would see a flexible, effective system. But right
now it is a very heavy-handed system. There is no competition.
The only competition is how well you can meet HUD's priorities.
Ms. Rounsville. I would agree with that. I think, in terms
of the Continuum of Care process, if there was an opportunity
to bring back programs like transitional housing that we knew
worked within our communities, or if there was a way that our
local communities could look at what our needs are--as I have
talked about, in a 69-county area, trying to do a coordinated
entry system that is identical through a 69-county area using a
screening tool that maybe your local groups don't agree with
but another community wants, there are so many pieces that are
required now in this geographic area, and when it becomes a 69-
county area, it is very difficult to get everybody across that
spectrum to follow one-size-fits-all.
If there was flexibility that local communities or local
regions could each have their own process and prioritize what
our needs are, that would make sense. And maybe in another
community, chronic homeless is their focus, and they need to
continue serving that population. But that doesn't preclude
another group within the Continuum of Care from serving
children in foster care, homeless and runaway youth, or other
populations that may be what our highest need is.
Mr. Trott. Great. Thank you.
I will yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, as well, to
the Ranking Members and the witnesses.
I would like to visit with you about empirical evidence.
What I would like to know first is, are we spending too much
money on homelessness? If we are and you believe we are, would
you kindly extend a hand into the air?
Please allow the record to reflect that none of the
witnesses have extended a hand into the air.
Mr. Berg. Could I just extend one finger in the air?
Because we are spending a lot of money on homelessness, not to
solve it, but to deal with it and manage it. Jails are spending
money on homelessness. Mental health systems are spending money
on homelessness. We are spending a lot of money on not solving
the problem.
Mr. Green. Are we spending too much is the question.
Mr. Berg. We are spending too much money not solving the
problem. We are not spending nearly enough to solve the
problem.
Mr. Green. Because we are not helping enough people, does
that mean that we are wasting money? If you think so, would you
kindly extend a hand into the air?
Let me continue then.
If you think we are wasting money, give me one empirical
piece of evidence of how we are wasting it.
I think, Ms. Lilley, you had some evidence?
Ms. Lilley. Well, I do.
So Mr. Berg continues to say that the families that we are
trying to expand this definition to serve are already able to
be served under the Continuum of Care. And what I keep
reiterating is that they are not able to be served adequately
based on their vulnerability score, which is fiscally
irresponsible.
Because we are saying that if you want assistance and you
need assistance, we can offer you one form of assistance,
regardless of whether or not your family has a chance of that
form of assistance--
Mr. Green. A quick follow up, if I may, Ms. Lilley.
Ms. Lilley. Yes.
Mr. Green. Are you indicating that because we are helping
some and we are not helping others that that is a waste of
money?
Ms. Lilley. I am indicating that because we cannot--
Mr. Green. I didn't quite get the answer to my question.
Are you indicating that because we are helping others who need
help that we are wasting money?
Ms. Lilley. No.
Mr. Green. OK.
Now, here is where I think we are. I think we are victims
of a lilliputian conviction that the poor can do more with less
and that the rich need more to do more.
It really is painful to see you at odds with each other
because we have decided that there is a finite amount of money
that is available. It is very painful to see this happening,
especially given that we are the richest country in the world,
especially given that we continually tout the expanding economy
and we talk about how great Wall Street is doing and how people
are faring so well. To see you have to combat each other over
some--did you say 4 percent, Mr. Berg?--4 percent of HUD's
budget, 4 percent, when, the truth be told, we need to expand
the budget.
Now, I know that there are those who would say that if you
pass this bill we will expand the budget because we will
appropriate the funds at the appropriate time. Well, there are
ways to ascertain what will be needed for that appropriate time
before we pass the bill.
I believe that we ought to help every person that you have
called to our attention, Ms. Lilley. I really do. I think yours
is a noble cause. It is not a quixotic effort. It is noble.
And, Mr. Berg, I believe you want to make sure that all the
people who have been getting help continue to get help. But
with this lilliputian theology--and it is almost a theology;
not really--but this belief that the poor can do more with
less, keep the finite amount of money, but expand the number of
people who need it, and then have the debate that I see here
today, which is very painful, very painful.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Duffy. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes one of the coauthors and sponsors
of this legislation, the gentlelady from the great State of
Wisconsin, Ms. Moore, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Moore. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And I do want to thank the witnesses and apologize for my
late arrival, but I am very, very interested in this topic.
And I just want to associate myself with some of the
comments that the gentleman from Texas just made, because it is
painful to recognize that there is a dearth of funding to
address this bill.
I guess I have a comment before I ask any questions. I have
found myself 67 years old, and, I am a person who has always
had a sea of income--I have had an island of income in a sea of
need. And so friends and family and strangers and others--I
have taken in many homeless people. And the minute you take
them in and they get a place on your couch for a night, they
are no longer considered homeless, even though you are unable
to extend that beyond a few days. And so that was, of course,
my interest in this bill.
I also understand the plight of runaway youth. And children
in my community--we have one in four kids who go to bed hungry
every night, so those folks who would qualify under the Child
Nutrition Act.
But I am empathetic with the notion that we are scrambling
over crumbs that are falling from the master's table. And this
bill has been very well-intentioned over the years, but it has
never come with the commitment to actually fund these programs.
I am wondering, Mr. Berg--and forgive me if you are going
to be repeating yourself because I was absent, but do you have
some sense of how we can prime the pump to really meet the
needs of all homeless people?
And I do believe that you sincerely want to see us address
homelessness. You mentioned we are spending money but we are
not addressing it. Can you just share with me what you think
would be worthy of our consideration?
Mr. Berg. Sure. Absolutely.
And thank you, Ms. Moore. I know you were a great proponent
of the HEARTH Act a few years ago--
Ms. Moore. Yes.
Mr. Berg. --that changed the eligibility rules, expanded
the eligibility rules.
But really what we are looking at in terms of a broader
housing campaign, we are working with a lot of different
organizations, including people from the education field, the
healthcare field, to address the problem that we all recognize,
that people don't have housing that they can afford. Whether
they end up homeless as a result or whether they end up on your
couch, they still need help.
We need more investment in rent subsidies. We need more
building of houses that are affordable to people with those
rent subsidies. And we need short-term help too. I mean, this
is something that a lot of communities are understanding. They
are looking--
Ms. Moore. So I guess what you are saying is that this is a
well-intentioned bill, but there are some things we need to do
preliminarily. Is that what you are suggesting?
Mr. Berg. Yes. I mean, thinking you can really solve these
problems by changing the eligibility rules in this little
homeless program, that is not--
Ms. Moore. I mean, for example, I was stunned to learn just
recently--we haven't raised the minimum wage in a dozen years.
And I don't care how hard you work, there is no housing
anywhere in the United States of America, urban, rural, ex-
urban, a person cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment anywhere
in America off a minimum wage job. So they are at risk of
homelessness.
So when you expand eligibility, if I am hearing you
correctly, you may be bringing in a universe of people who earn
the minimum wage. Is that--
Mr. Berg. Right.
Ms. Moore. --a takeaway?
Mr. Berg. Right.
Ms. Moore. OK.
Any of the rest of you have anything to offer in my 8
seconds?
Ms. Duffield. I would like to comment.
We are aligning definitions. This isn't adding millions of
people. We are actually talking about creating efficiencies.
Ms. Moore. OK.
Ms. Duffield. The HEARTH Act changes didn't work, or we
wouldn't be here. Those categories that were added are not
meeting the needs of the most vulnerable. We are actually
creating a system that is so complicated that we spend millions
of dollars on technical assistance to figure it out. We have
flowcharts, like this, for the definition of chronic
homelessness.
So what is the better use of time? Documenting all of this,
figuring out the three layers, figuring out all the regulations
HUD added on to those categories, or talking to a school social
worker who knows the child, talking to a Runaway and Homeless
Youth Act program who knows the child? What is a better use of
time? Taking advantage of existing systems that have identified
these kids already and helping them collaborate better and
leverage services, or running around documenting their status
and all the many hoops that HUD has put before these children?
Ms. Moore. I can see that my time has expired. I just want
to thank the Chairman for his generosity, and I yield back.
Chairman Duffy. The gentlelady yields back.
Here, here, Ms. Duffield. Thank you very much.
I want to thank our panel. This has been wonderfully
informational. I actually appreciate the debate that you all
had. That is actually helpful to us. It is inspiring that we
can go back and forth and hear a rigorous conversation. So
thank you.
The Chair notes that some Members may have additional
questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions
to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record.
Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion in
the record.
Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
June 6, 2018
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]