[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4057--THE SAMARITAN
INITIATIVE ACT OF 2004
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 108-99
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-528 WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
PETER T. KING, New York NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair JULIA CARSON, Indiana
RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
JIM RYUN, Kansas BARBARA LEE, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JAY INSLEE, Washington
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
Carolina HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
DOUG OSE, California RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois KEN LUCAS, Kentucky
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California JOE BACA, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois
TOM FEENEY, Florida DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JEB HENSARLING, Texas ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey CHRIS BELL, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
RICK RENZI, Arizona
Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio, Chairman
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin, Vice MAXINE WATERS, California
Chairman NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska JULIA CARSON, Indiana
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana BARBARA LEE, California
PETER T. KING, New York MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
Carolina MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DOUG OSE, California WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
GARY G. MILLER, California DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
RICK RENZI, Arizona
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
July 13, 2004................................................ 1
Appendix:
July 13, 2004................................................ 59
WITNESSES
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Buckley, Stephanie, Director, United States Veterans Initiative
Inc., Prescott, AZ............................................. 6
Hess, Robert V., Deputy Managing Director for Special Needs
Housing, Adult Services, Philadelphia, PA...................... 7
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W., Mayor, City and County of Denver, CO. 43
Mangano, Philip, Executive Director, Interagency Council on
Homelessness................................................... 44
Mauck, James, President and CEO of Catholic Charities and
Community Services in the Archdiocese of Denver, on behalf of
Catholic Charities USA, Volunteers of America, and Lutheran
Services in America............................................ 9
Netburn, Mitchell, Executive Director, Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority............................................. 11
Poppe, Barbara, Executive Director, Community Shelter Board,
Columbus and Franklin County, OH............................... 13
Pucci, Mike T., Executive Director, Housing Authority of the City
of Alameda, Alameda, CA........................................ 15
Roman, Nan, President, National Alliance to End Homelessness..... 16
Simpson, Hon. Bobby, Mayor-President, Baton Rouge, LA............ 38
Whitehead, Donald, Executive Director, National Coalition for the
Homeless....................................................... 18
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Oxley, Hon. Michael G........................................ 60
Sanders, Hon. Bernard........................................ 61
Matheson, Hon. Jim........................................... 64
Buckley, Stephanie........................................... 65
Hess, Robert V............................................... 71
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.................................... 76
Mangano, Philip.............................................. 79
Mauck, James................................................. 88
Netburn, Mitchell............................................ 106
Poppe, Barbara............................................... 111
Pucci, Mike T................................................ 137
Roman, Nan................................................... 142
Simpson, Hon. Bobby.......................................... 148
Whitehead, Donald............................................ 150
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Frank, Hon. Barney:
Resolution by U.S. Conference of Mayors...................... 155
Department of Health and Human Services, prepared statement...... 157
Department of Housing and Urban Development, prepared statement.. 160
Department of Labor, prepared statement.......................... 166
Department of Veterans Affairs, prepared statement............... 173
National Low Income Housing Coalition, prepared statement........ 176
H.R. 4057--THE SAMARITAN
INITIATIVE ACT OF 2004
----------
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Ney
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Baker, Hart, Tiberi, Renzi,
Waters, Sanders, Watt, Frank, Scott, Davis. Also present were
Representatives Stark and Matheson.
Mr. Renzi. [Presiding.] Good morning. This hearing of the
Subcommittee on Housing will come to order. I thank my
neighbor, Mr. Scott, for attending.
This legislation, guided by the Interagency Council on
Homelessness, creates a collaborative grant that authorizes the
VA, HHS and HUD to pool their resources and to work together to
provide housing with supportive services to those experiencing
chronic homelessness.
In May of this year, Veterans Affairs Deputy Secretary
Mansfield testified before the VA committee on the issue of
homelessness and assistance programs for our nation's veterans
and the status of the goal to end chronic homelessness. The
Deputy Secretary explained that they work in a variety of
venues with many partners at the federal, state and local
levels, and with faith-based and other community providers.
Most notably, he states that only through such effective and
extensive collaborations, combined with innovation, can the
opportunities for success be maximized.
Approximately 150,000 to 200,000 people nationally are
categorized as chronically homeless. There is so much great
need in this community that unfortunately this population
consumes a disproportionate amount of emergency resources,
specifically in shelters, emergency rooms and hospitals. These
costs are being incurred by communities year after year. One
research study followed 15 chronically homeless adults and
discovered that in 18 months they had made 299 trips to
hospital emergency rooms at a cost of $967,000 to the community
public health system. The cost of providing supportive housing
is substantially offset by the savings of not having these
individuals continue this cycle.
Additionally, the quality of life for both the individuals
and the communities are vastly improved. One of the
misunderstandings of chronic homelessness is that it is not
just an issue for the urban areas, but also affects the rural
areas. In Yavapai and Coconino Counties in my home State of
Arizona, we have over 2,000 estimated people who are
chronically homeless. To this end, I am pleased today to see
Stephanie Buckley on the witness list. Ms. Buckley serves as
site director for the U.S. Veterans Initiative in Prescott,
Arizona.
U.S. VETS is the largest organization in the country
dedicated to helping homeless veterans. It is a nationally
recognized leader in the field of service delivery to veterans.
U.S. VETS offers housing, case management and employment
assistance to hundreds of homeless veterans in and throughout
Northern Arizona. Their career center has placed over 70
percent of our veterans in competitive employment. Their
outreach teams visit the parks, forests and shelters throughout
the area to offer our services and make veterans aware of our
program.
I am happy to see this introduction of the Samaritan
Initiative has begun, and that we will together today discuss
the effects of the homelessness. As we hear today, many groups
will have additional needs and they would like to see this bill
addressed. However, I am pleased that this legislation has
garnered solid support by individuals and groups, including the
Enterprise Foundation, the National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill, National AIDS Housing Coalition, National Alliance to End
Homelessness, the Corporation for Supportive Housing, the
Association for Service Disabled Veterans, the National
Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the National League of Cities,
and the United States Conference of Mayors.
I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses and thank
each of you for coming all the way here to Washington. Let me
begin with the recognition of members's opening statements for
3 minutes, and recognize Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, Mr. Renzi. I want to thank
Chairman Ney and Ranking Member Waters, and of course you, Mr.
Renzi, for presiding over this important hearing. I also
commend the fine job that you are doing in your work in dealing
with housing, especially with some of our Indian population and
populations in the Western United States.
Chronic homelessness is an extraordinarily important issue.
In metro Atlanta in the area that I represent and other Georgia
cities, we are currently implementing 10-year plans to end
chronic homelessness. I believe that the resources discussed in
this hearing today could further the efforts in Georgia and
this nation to address these community needs.
In December 2002, the United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta
convened a 16-member Commission for the Homeless, led by
retired King and Spaulding law partner Horace Sibley. The
Commission was co-chaired by civic leader Myrtle Davis and Dr.
Leon Sullivan, president emeritus of the Morehouse College of
Medicine. The Commission carried out a comprehensive and
exclusive process that included, one, reviewing plans that had
already been developed locally; two, collecting data from
service providers, faith and other community leaders and
government representatives through one-on-one interviews and
surveys, and incorporating findings from local and national
research studies on homelessness conducted by Deloitte
Consulting.
In addition, the Commission's efforts were supported by
working groups comprised of more than 90 individuals
representing 64 organizations. The Commission used this
information and compiled data in combination with input from
the community to design a framework for practical, fundable
solutions. At the end of February 2003, the Commission unveiled
the Blueprint to End Homelessness in Atlanta in 10 years.
These efforts were complemented by a tremendous effort in
the community led by Duane Ackerman of BellSouth and other
corporate and civic leaders to truly address and get underneath
the problem of homelessness. While I do support efforts to
specifically target chronic homelessness, I also believe that
this committee should focus on eliminating all homeless
populations altogether. To that end, I am a cosponsor of the
National Housing Trust Fund, H.R. 1102, which will provide
funding for 1.5 million units of affordable housing over the
next 10 years.
I am also concerned with the loss of $1.6 billion from the
Section 8 housing voucher program. We could provide better
assistance to help families become self-sustaining, and we
could not find a better way of doing it than helping them with
rental assistance. These cuts are misguided and they should be
reversed.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to this
morning's testimony.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.
Mr. Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this important hearing on an issue of great
significance to our country.
As I understand it, the Samaritan Initiative authorizes $70
million to provide permanent housing services for the homeless,
with the goal of ending chronic homelessness within 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, that is a goal that I certainly applaud and I see
no reason for anyone to oppose this bill. Anything that
Congress can do to reduce homelessness in this country is a
step forward and should be strongly supported.
But Mr. Chairman, let us not delude ourselves: $70 million
within the context of the problem of homelessness and
affordable housing in this country is not a real solution to
the affordable housing crisis that our country is experiencing.
And I might add, at the same time that the Administration is
supporting a new $70 million program to combat homelessness, it
is also lobbying Congress for a $1.6 billion cut in the
nation's most important affordable housing program in this
country, the Section 8 rental assistance program. So it is fine
that we are adding $70 million for chronic homeless services,
but cutting $1.8 billion for affordable housing more than
negates that $70 million.
The Administration's Section 8 budget for fiscal year 2005
is $1.6 billion for what is needed to renew all existing
Section 8 rental assistance for some two million families. This
means that up to 250,000 low-income families, senior citizens
and people with disabilities are in danger of losing their
homes or being thrown out on the street, including 740 families
in my own small State of Vermont. In other words, if the
Administration's Section 8 budget is approved, more people in
this country will experience homelessness even if the Samaritan
Initiative is signed into law. I cannot quite follow the sense
of that, of putting some money to help people not be homeless
at the same time you are creating more homelessness over there.
We are taking from Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, there is an affordable
housing crisis in this country. More than 14 million people are
paying over 50 percent of their limited incomes on housing; 3.5
million in this country will experience homelessness this year,
including 1.35 million children and 500,000 veterans.
Mr. Chairman, there is a solution, a serious solution to
this problem. I have introduced and now have 213 tripartisan
cosponsors on the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This
legislation has been endorsed by over 5,000 organizations
throughout the country. This legislation would provide the
resources necessary to construct, preserve and rehabilitate at
least 1.5 million affordable housing units over the next
decade, and would lead to the creation of 1.8 million new jobs.
Mr. Chairman, that is a serious solution to address the housing
crisis.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman for his words.
Mr. Stark, did you want to introduce your witness, or have
any comments?
Mr. Stark. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for affording
me the privilege of visiting with you in this distinguished
committee today. I am very pleased. Probably it is little
known, but I used to sit on this committee some 30 years ago,
and have enjoyed watching the committee do excellent work in
the area of housing.
We are faced today with a serious problem, and it is my
privilege to introduce Mr. Michael Pucci, the executive
director of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. It is
a city of 72,000 people, home formerly to the Alameda Naval Air
Station. We have 1,600 Section 8 housing vouchers and almost
600 units. I think Mr. Pucci has been in this business over 30
years, if I am not mistaken. It is vitally important, through
changes that we are trying to correct, and probably going to
cause an increase in homelessness. I guess I would consider it
penny-wise and pound-foolish. We have an established system. I
certainly know that in California it has been the premier
method by which we have been able to provide housing for those
less fortunate. We have the situation of having extremely
expensive housing, for which many of us who are fortunate
enough to own a house should be very thankful, but for those
who cannot, it just exacerbates their problem.
So along with Mr. Pucci and the City of Alameda, I have
been working with the members of this committee and you, Mr.
Chairman, and others to see if we could not encourage HUD to be
a little more generous in this program, perhaps carry us for
another year while we find a solution that would be more
suitable. I hope that this distinguished committee can reverse
some of the changes or moderate them that are being made in the
Section 8 law to protect those. I think that Mr. Pucci and his
colleagues at the witness table, I think we will hear a lot of
discussion about what we could do in a very modest way relative
to the total federal budget to help many of our constituents.
Again, I appreciate your interest. I know that the State of
Arizona will be well served. I thank you again for allowing me
to introduce Mr. Pucci. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman from California.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Tiberi.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for your leadership in introducing this legislation. I am
pleased to be a cosponsor with you in this effort.
It is my pleasure to introduce a friend of mine from
Columbus, Ohio, from my community, who is the executive
director and has been since 1995 of the Community Shelter
Board. Barbara Poppe has over 20 years of experience in working
in the nonprofit, homelessness and housing-related
organizations. The Community Shelter Board is a nationally
recognized nonprofit in charge of funding, planning and
coordinating prevention, shelter and housing to end
homelessness in Columbus and Central Ohio, Franklin County.
Barbara received the 2003 Buddy Gray Award for homeless
activism from the National Coalition for the Homeless. She
received the 2002 citizens of the year award from the Central
Ohio Public Relations Society of America. She has published and
presented on various homeless research topics, including
strategies to end homelessness, needs assessment, chemical
dependency treatment and employment and training.
Mr. Chairman, we are really lucky to have Barbara here
today. She has done more for ending homelessness and more for
the homeless in Central Ohio than anyone in the history of
Columbus. On a personal note, she is a very wonderful person
and it is a treat to have her here today. Barbara, thank you so
much for spending time here in DC to share your experiences
with us.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Tiberi.
We will go ahead and introduce the witnesses now. I am
grateful to have all of you here. Panel one consists of Ms.
Stephanie Buckley. Ms. Buckley is the director of United States
Veterans Initiative, Inc. in Prescott, Arizona. She is also
served the State of Arizona as a child protective services case
manager.
Mr. Robert V. Hess is the deputy managing director for
special needs housing, Adult Services, for the City of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Mr. James Mauck is the president
and CEO of Catholic Charities and Communities Services,
Archdiocese of Denver, and is testifying on behalf of Catholic
Charities USA, Volunteers of America, and Lutheran Services in
America. Catholic Charities is a nationwide alliance of
Catholic groups working to alleviate the daily struggles of our
country's less fortunate.
Mr. Mitchell Netburn is the executive director for the Los
Angeles Homeless Services Authority, or LAHSA. LAHSA is a joint
powers authority created by the City and County of Los Angeles
and is responsible for planning, funding and coordinating local
homeless programs.
Ms. Barbara Poppe, as Mr. Tiberi just introduced, is the
executive director for the Community Shelter Board of the City
of Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio, where she has been
working for the last 5 years. Prior to her current position,
Ms. Poppe served as executive director for Friends of the
Homeless and served as assistant director for the University of
Cincinnati's Department of Environmental Health.
Mr. Mike Pucci is the executive director for the Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda, California, a good Italian
American, welcome. Ms. Nan Roman is the president of the
National Alliance to End Homelessness. The National Alliance to
End Homelessness is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
founded in 1983 by a group of community leaders with the mutual
goal of ending homelessness. And Mr. Donald Whitehead, who is
the executive director of the National Coalition for the
Homeless, which is the nation's oldest and largest advocacy
organization that works exclusively with and on behalf of
people experiencing homelessness.
I welcome each of you and I am grateful you have come all
this way. Without objection, your written testimony will be
part of the record. Each of you will be recognized for 5
minutes to summarize your testimony. We will begin with Mrs.
Buckley.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE BUCKLEY, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
VETERANS' INITIATIVE INC., PRESCOTT, AZ
Ms. Buckley. On behalf of the United States Veterans
Initiative, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the
recommendations on H.R. 4057, which we hope will assist
programs serving homeless veterans.
We have been operating at the Prescott site since January
16, 2003. In that time, we have been able to serve 206 veterans
in most of Northern Arizona, which is a rural area. Seventy-
four percent of our veterans leaving our program have been able
to be successfully discharged into homes or apartments. We have
been able to find 112 jobs in a rural area for our veterans.
Two of our residents have been able to complete their college
degrees since being in our program.
Every year, we are able to outreach to over 900 veterans in
our area through forests and deserts and the 20 different
organizations in Northern Arizona. As the representative
mentioned, there are over 2,000 veterans in Yavapai and
Coconino Counties alone. U.S. VETS has had a positive impact on
the domiciliary, which we are co-located. The domiciliary has
increased in capacity from 75 percent to 92 percent, and the
length of stay in the domiciliary has decreased from 120 days
to 98 days.
U.S. VETS supports any measure that will provide assistive
programs for the homeless, particularly those making provision
for our homeless veterans. H.R. 4057 introduced by
Representative Rick Renzi is a valuable opportunity for rural
communities to address the homeless veterans that sleep on our
streets every night.
We do have some concerns. The $10 million appropriated by
the VA to perform its functions in the multi-department
collaboration program is set up simply as a directive to the
VA, earmarked previously authorized funding for treatment of
homeless veterans under medical care, rather than a separate
and distinct authorization. This really does nothing to
increase the care of homeless veterans. We recommend a new line
item authorized for the Samaritan services within the VA
medical care, rather than a $10 million redirection of existing
VA specialized homeless service programs. The VA component of
the Samaritan program should not be funded at the expense of
existing programs which are already overstretched and
underfunded.
The legislation required applicants to provide 25 percent
non-federal cash or in-kind match in years one and two, and a
steep 50 percent in year three and beyond. These match levels
suggest that the grant programs are targeted to already well-
funded applicants or municipalities. Even relatively large
nonprofits like my own, with many collaborative agreements and
local providers, would have considerable difficulty raising
such amounts, and small community-based and faith-based
organizations are very unlikely to generate such a sizable
match.
The authorization of treatment and supportive services in
the measure do not even mention the rehabilitation, prosthetics
or other services that may be especially critical to the
homeless veterans that this very bill is targeted. The list of
eligible treatment and supportive services should be expanded
to include the authorization for assistance to chronic homeless
persons to obtain mainstream benefits such as VA disabilities,
veterans compensation, veterans healthcare, Medicaid, Medicare,
Social Security disability insurance, food stamps, temporary
assistance for needy families, and legal aid.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Stephanie Buckley can be found
on page 65 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Ms. Buckley.
Mr. Hess.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. HESS, DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING, ADULT SERVICES, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PA
Mr. Hess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I am appearing before you today to provide testimony
in support of the proposed H.R. 4057, the Samaritan Initiative.
I firmly believe that the Samaritan Initiative would be an
important component that our nation needs in order to achieve
the goal of ending chronic homelessness.
For 20 years, people working with and on behalf of people
experiencing homelessness have seen the same faces on the
streets and in our shelters. For 20 years, we have been
tirelessly trying to engage the men and women experiencing
chronic homelessness. We have made significant strides in this
endeavor, but we need to do more. By creating a new investment
source dedicated to funding chronic homeless programs, this
legislation would enable us to do more of what we already know
needs to be done and frankly what we already know works.
Without it, cities like Philadelphia will continue to see the
same faces on our streets and in our shelters for another 20
years.
I want to take just a few minutes this morning to talk
about the Philadelphia story. In Philadelphia, we were
fortunate enough to have the strong leadership of Mayor John
Street recognize years ago that addressing chronic homelessness
and street sleeping is something we can and should and must do
as a community to make our city even stronger.
You see, just a few short years ago, there were 824
individuals sleeping on the streets of center city
Philadelphia. Last week, there were 147. What has happened in
these intervening years has been a focus and a commitment to
eliminating the need for anyone to sleep on the streets of our
city that has been unparalleled. We brought tremendous
resources to bear locally. We have learned a tremendous amount
about what works and what does not.
But that is only part of the story. I think one of the more
interesting parts of the story is that in the first 2 years of
our efforts, we were able to reduce the street population by 50
percent. Then we hit kind of a lull. The numbers stayed about
the same. The intervention strategies that worked so very well
for the first half or 50 percent of the folks living on our
streets were not working. So we scoured the country for best
practices for research to help us focus in on new strategies,
new tools for our toolbox, if you will, that would allow us to
assist additional people to move off the streets.
What we came across were Housing First programs in Los
Angeles and New York and in other places, with years of
research behind them, that showed that if you brought people
into permanent housing with the proper set of supports, you
really could help them move from the streets into permanent
housing once and for all, and stop the cycle of folks moving
through our shelters and onto our streets. People that in some
cases have been on our streets for 10, 15, 20 years are now
living in their own apartments doing extraordinarily well.
That is what this initiative is about. Yes, it is modest.
Yes, $70 million will not end all of our problems. It is not
adequate even at that. But it is a major step in the right
direction, to help us move the remaining folks that are on our
streets, off of our streets and into their own apartments and
out of our many, many systems that are extraordinarily
expensive from hospitals to courts to prisons and back to the
streets again.
We know this technology works. We now know how to end the
need for any individual in this country to sleep on our
streets. We know the technology. We know how to do it. What we
have lacked are the resources, the political will and the
commitment to do it. This bill takes us a step in that
direction, and for that we are extraordinarily grateful and
supportive.
Some will say that we need to put more into families, and
certainly we do. That is probably a discussion for another bill
and another day. But from our view, the City of Philadelphia's
message is, we know what works; we know how to end chronic
homelessness; we deserve to do it; it is a national disgrace
that should have been done many years ago. But now given that
knowledge and the technology, we need the political will and
the resources to follow in a way that will allow us to move the
last couple of hundred people off of our streets.
We look forward to that day and we hope to be the first
city in this nation to have accomplished that lofty, but
important goal.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Robert V. Hess can be found on
page 71 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Hess, thank you for that story. I appreciate
it.
Mr. Mauck.
STATEMENT OF JAMES MAUCK, PRESIDENT AND CEO OF CATHOLIC
CHARITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER,
TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA, VOLUNTEERS OF
AMERICA AND LUTHERAN SERVICES IN AMERICA
Mr. Mauck. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Waters, members of
the subcommittee, my name is Jim Mauck. I am president and CEO
of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver. Today, I am
testifying on behalf of Catholic Charities USA, Volunteers of
America and Lutheran Services in America.
As faith-based providers of housing and supportive
services, we believe that our national community has a moral
obligation to end homelessness for all Americans. We thank the
subcommittee for its attention to this serious problem.
The focus of my testimony will be the critically important
needs of homeless families and children. I will begin by
drawing the committee's attention to four facts that taken
together have important implications for the Samaritan
Initiative and for the homeless policy in general.
Fact one, the population of homeless families is large and
growing. According to the best data, about one million children
in families suffer homelessness every year. Recent shelter
surveys indicate that family homelessness is on the rise.
Fact two, homelessness has a devastating impact on family
and children. The effects of homelessness range from the
increased incidence of acute chronic health problems to high
rates of failure in school. Less widely appreciated is the
impact on family stability. When families lack adequate
housing, child welfare agencies often step in to separate
children from their parents. Over 10 percent of homeless
children end up in the foster care system, while 30 percent of
foster kids could be reunited with their families if their
housing problems were solved. This intervention is costly. The
average annual cost of foster care is about $45,000 per family.
This is roughly four times the cost of providing permanent
supportive housing.
Fact three, a substantial percentage of homeless families
with children endure repeated or long-term homelessness.
According to the landmark Urban Institute study of homeless
populations, 21 percent of homeless mothers with children have
been homeless at least three times, while 39 percent have been
homeless for periods ranging from 7 months to over 5 years. In
other words, large numbers of homeless families suffer chronic
homelessness.
Fact four, members of these families often suffer from
domestic violence or sexual abuse, mental illness, chronic
substance abuse or other disabling conditions. Intensive
support services must therefore play a critical role in helping
families to stabilize and make progress toward self-reliance.
One-third of homeless women have experienced recent domestic
violence. Among homeless mothers with children, over half
report mental health or substance abuse problems. In the
experience of our agencies, families often cycle through
repeated episodes of homelessness because they have not
received mental health care, substance abuse treatment, or
other supportive services that they need.
These four facts have important implications for the
Samaritan Initiative. The Samaritan Initiative is part of a new
model of how supportive services for homeless persons are going
to be funded, what types of services will be funded, and who
will be eligible for these services. Most federal homeless
assistanced is now distributed by HUD through the McKinney
cometittive grant programs. Yet HUD has announced its intention
both to reduce McKinney funding for supprtive services and to
restrict this funding to only four basic types of srevices:
outreach, case management, lif skills training, and housing
counseling. The Samaritan Initiative is intended in part to
meet the expectation that other federal agencies such as HHS
and VA must replace HUD funding for substance abuse, mental
health care, and other supportive services for homeless
persons. Yet the Samaritan Initiative in its current form would
fund supportive services only for homeless individuals. Our
concern is that these combined policy changes will effectively
reduce the availability to homeless families of a wide range of
critical services.
Accordingly, we recommend the following revisions to the
Samaritan Initiative. First expand eligibility to include
homeless families with children. The Samaritan Initiative
relies on a definition of a chronically homeless person that
categorically excludes families with children, even families
with disabled members who have suffered often repeated and
extended periods of homelessness. This critical exclusion,
combined with policies being advanced by HUD, will hinder the
efforts of homeless service providers to assist many homeless
families with children in their struggle to achieve stability.
Two, shorten or eliminate the durational requirement of the
Samaritan Initiative eligibility to clients who have been
homeless for at least 1 year or have experienced four episodes
over a period of 3 years. On both moral and policy grounds, we
should move people out of homelessness as quickly as possible,
not to perpetuate it by denying them assistance they need
simply because they have not been homeless long enough.
I would conclude with the following. Families are young and
their children are our future. They come to us with complex
multiple problems, yet our experience has shown that they can
be helped. Within families, hope can be rekindled. Children and
parents can be nurtured and they can build better lives for
themselves and for their communities. We will all benefit if we
make it our task to help them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of James Mauck can be found on page
88 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Mauck, thank you.
Mr. Netburn.
STATEMENT OF MITCHELL NETBURN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES
HOMELESS SERVICES AUTHORITY
Mr. Netburn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Waters, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity. My name is Mitchell Netburn.
I am the executive director of the Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority, known as LAHSA. Thank you for the
invitation to provide testimony.
LAHSA and the City of Los Angeles readily endorse the
Samaritan Initiative because it will continue a successful
collaborative model that will help us reach the national goal
of ending chronic homelessness. It is estimated that 80,000
men, women and children are homeless throughout Los Angeles
County on any given night. Of those, we estimate that at least
10 percent can be considered chronically homeless.
In November 2003, Los Angeles began a strategic planning
process to end homelessness throughout the county in 10 years.
Led by Supervisor Burke and Mayor Hahn, a total of 10 elected
officials convened a 60-member blue ribbon panel of community
leaders to oversee the development of our plan, which will be
adopted this fall. Los Angeles is committed to ending
homelessness.
In the past year-and-a-half, for the first time ever the
City and County of Los Angeles have contributed over $10
million to turn a temporary winter shelter program into a year-
round program which serves a high percentage of chronic
homeless people and is operating at 103 percent capacity. In
2003, 1,108 clients were placed in transitional housing and 685
were placed directly in permanent housing. These outcomes
clearly show that homeless people, even chronically homeless
people, want a home.
To reach others, we need new models. Last year, as a
precursor to the Samaritan Initiative, 11 grants funding such a
new model were awarded nationally through the Interagency
Council on Homelessness under the collaborative initiative to
help end chronic homelessness. Among the grantees was a skid
row collaborative comprised of 11 agencies. Skid row is located
in the eastern part of downtown Los Angeles and has the largest
concentration of street homelessness in the United States.
Approximately 10,000 people live in this area.
I am pleased to report that the project has met its goal to
house 70 percent of its clients within the first 6 months of
the program. This model works. The promise of this intense
collaborative can be seen in the experience of participants
such as Gloria, who is mentally ill. She was engaged by the
team this spring, who also helped complete the paperwork needed
to access her Shelter Plus care unit. Despite numerous
challenges, she was one of the first people housed in this
program. Gloria sees the on-site psychiatrist and nurse,
maintains her appointments, and has increased social skills.
She is even humorous at times. She pays her rent and she has
gained so much trust that she recently self-reported her first
experience with drugs to our case manager, who was able to
deter her from further use.
Gloria and others like her could not have attained this
level of success without the consistent and coordinated efforts
of the collaborative. The chronic homeless initiative, by
providing funding and requiring local collaboration among
diverse agencies, ensured that this could be the case. While we
fully support continuing this model through the Samaritan
Initiative, I would like to share some concerns with you.
Our primary concern is that the funding authorized in this
bill is not sufficient to meet the Administration's goal of
ending chronic homelessness. The collaborative initiative
provided a total of $35 million nationally. We are fortunate in
Los Angeles to have been one of 11 recipients of this funding.
The Samaritan Initiative proposes to double that amount of
funding. However, let me make the crude assumption that if Los
Angeles successfully competes for this new funding, it will
receive twice the amount it received under the chronic homeless
initiative, allowing us to help 124 people over 3 years. While
we would be grateful to have these additional funds, it would
only allow us to help a fraction of the chronic homeless
population.
To truly end chronic homelessness, we have to be realistic
about the costs. Congress must increase the authorized and
appropriated levels of funding for the Samaritan Initiative if
our country is to meet the Administration's goal of ending
chronic homelessness in 10 years. We also request that the
Samaritan Initiative ensure that the participating federal
agencies take to heart the directive to collaborate. The
initiative sets forth the expectation to collaborate, but
offers to the maximum extent feasible and appropriate. We
suggest removing this language.
As much as we appreciate the Administration's bold
commitment to end chronic homelessness, we cannot lose sight of
the significant needs of homeless people who do not meet the
federal definition of chronic homelessness. We do not believe
that the Samaritan Initiative's focus on chronic homelessness
will make it more difficult for us to reach our goal of ending
all homelessness, provided resources are not diverted to help
end chronic homelessness.
For this reason, LAHSA supports additional funding provided
by the Services to End Long-Term Homelessness Act, the National
Housing Trust Fund, and adding an additional $150 million to
the fiscal year 2005 homeless assistance grants budget. Because
the Housing Choice voucher program is one of the most important
tools we have for ending homelessness, we strongly oppose the
Administration's proposed cuts. It is estimated that California
would lose 35,000 vouchers and the city 5,000.
Mr. Chairman, your subcommittee came to Los Angeles last
year to hear public comment on the Administration's proposal to
convert the Housing Choice program to a block grant. It met
with widespread opposition and Congress rejected it. We
respectfully request that Congress reject the Administration's
proposed cuts.
In conclusion, housing coupled with supportive services is
the key to ending chronic homelessness and lays the foundation
not only for rebuilding individual lives, but for restoring
vitality to communities that have been neglected. By supporting
H.R. 4057, the esteemed members of this committee have the
opportunity to bring the vision of ending chronic homelessness
in America closer to reality.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mitchell Netburn can be found on
page 106 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Netburn.
Ms. Poppe.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA POPPE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY
SHELTER BOARD, COLUMBUS AND FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH
Ms. Poppe. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Waters, Congressman
Tiberi and other distinguished members of this subcommittee, I
am Barbara Poppe, executive director of the Community Shelter
Board in Columbus and Franklin County, Ohio.
As the lead organization charged with our community's plan
to address and end homelessness, we thank you for the
opportunity to testify this morning. I bring greetings from
Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman who endorses both the
Samaritan Initiative and services to end long-term homelessness
act. My testimony is offered as one of 11 recent grantees under
President Bush's collaborative initiative to end homelessness,
the prototype for the Samaritan Initiative Act.
Our community has found that affordable housing drives
success at all levels. For the family or individual, it
represents the foundation for success in other areas:
employment, health and wellness, education and community
involvement. For the community, affordable housing drives
success in improving neighborhoods and business districts.
Affordable housing is the obvious solution to both chronic and
short-term homelessness.
While services are important, we have found that without
affordable housing, services cannot be successful. While
integration of mainstream resources is important, without
housing integration is not successful. While discharge planning
is important, without access to affordable housing discharge
plans fail. Success begins by addressing affordable housing
needs first.
In 1998, our community's plan to end homelessness was
issued. Known as Rebuilding Lives, it outlined a better, more
targeted system that provides both emergency housing for those
in crisis and supportive housing for those with long-term
needs. Our goal is to develop 800 units of permanent supportive
housing. Since July 1999, we have created just over 450 units,
as well as another 125 or so in development. The units have
been a mix of new construction, rehab and leasing. Just under
half of these units receive a Section 8 rent subsidy. One-
quarter are public housing units and the balance are other
subsidies, including McKinney-Vento.
Almost one-half of the operating and services costs are
covered by local public and private funds. Just over half are
federal funds. The newest Rebuilding Lives project is funded by
the collaborative initiative. It is known as the Rebuilding
Lives PACT Team initiative. It serves men and women who have
experienced chronic homelessness and have serious and
debilitating illnesses that prevent them from living
independently. We are developing just over 100 housing units.
We hope to house over 150, including almost 50 who will be
veterans. It is a multi-agency partnership providing a multi-
disciplinary team of professionals that is implementing
evidence-based practices to deliver services.
To date, we have served 42 individuals and of those, 37 are
already housed. Most are between the ages of 46 to 61. One-
third are women. Thirty percent are veterans and more than
three-quarters have at least a high school degree. We have
documented results from 5 years of Rebuilding Lives
implementation. There are individual stories like the 81-year-
old man who was recently featured in the Sunday Columbus
Dispatch for competing in the Senior Olympics. The little-known
fact is, prior to entering our rebuilding lives supportive
housing, he had been stuck in the shelter system.
Another gentleman, Max, is a frequent and notorious
downtown panhandler and experienced long-term homelessness.
Today, he is a resident of the Rebuilding Lives supportive
housing program at the YMCA and he is the greeter at the door,
welcoming me each morning to my morning workout. I am sure you
would agree you would rather have Max greet you at the door
than be on the streets panhandling.
Other results are our changes in the system of care, such
as through the collaborative initiative, where we have
decreased the processing time for an SSI application from more
than 6 months to just a few weeks. Another example just
recently occurred when an overnight shelter for homeless men
closed. Through a coordinated case management team, we
successfully placed 75 men into market-rate, affordable and
supportive housing in just a 90-day period.
Overall program evaluations of our rebuilding lives
initiative have successfully documented that we are effective
at ending homelessness. The overall tenancy exceeds a year-and-
a-half, and overall rates of turnover are less than 20 percent
a year. But in order to achieve the President's stated goal of
ending homelessness by 2012, we believe that we will need not
only new HUD and HHS funding to realize the recommendation of
the Millennial Housing Commission and the President's New
Freedom Mental Health Commission, which call for the creation
of 150,000 units of supportive housing, but we also must
maintain existing programs such as the McKinney-Vento programs,
as well as the housing voucher program.
The Samaritan Initiative will help combat chronic
homelessness. We applaud the initiative's call for new funding.
The Samaritan Initiative is truly a very positive step in our
collective goal to end chronic homelessness. The availability
of new federal housing and services dollars in a single funding
stream means that local communities can more effectively
implement a comprehensive strategy to provide services
coordinated with permanent housing. We also, though, do agree
that the funding level proposed falls short of the stated goal
of ending chronic homelessness by 2012.
We also support the Services to End Long-Term Homelessness
Act, to be introduced by Representative Burr, continued funding
for McKinney-Vento programs, and also affordable housing
production. But most important, I need to call your attention
to the President's proposal to cut the voucher program. It
threatens more than half of our Rebuilding Lives units, and
with deeper cuts proposed through fiscal year 2009, we believe
this will contradict the Administration's stated goal of ending
homelessness. Rebuilding Lives offers the best approach to
addressing chronic homelessness, but without a fully funded
voucher program, we will lose ground.
We thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Barbara Poppe can be found on
page 111 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Thanks, Ms. Poppe.
Mr. Pucci.
STATEMENT OF MIKE T. PUCCI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, ALAMEDA, CA
Mr. Pucci. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Waters, members of
the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify this
morning. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Lee for
inviting me to testify, and also Congressman Stark for his help
in trying to resolve our Section 8 problems.
While the primary thrust of this hearing is about the
Samaritan Initiative and finding adequate means to prevent
homelessness, I am here to address the recent changes to the
Section 8 housing choice voucher program and the impact those
changes are having on our community and Section 8 participants
who are now at risk of becoming homeless.
The City of Alameda is a community in the San Francisco Bay
Area of approximately 72,000 population. This is an expensive
place to live. Rents here are some of the highest in the
nation. The low-income members of our community depend upon the
Section 8 housing choice voucher program to stay in this
community near friends and family members who provide critical
support. In addition to the over 1,600 families that we serve
through the Section 8 program, we have a list of 6,000
additional families waiting for assistance. HUD's failure to
pay on an actual cost basis and its failure to fund our
reserves resulted in the housing authority no longer having
enough money to pay for 1,625 authorized vouchers. This
situation has put 108 families at risk of becoming homeless on
August 1.
The situation is having a direct impact on these families.
Recently, Malika Nassirrudin, a young woman who has lost her
assistance, testified before the Alameda City Council. She
said, ``I do not want to port out to another county that is
getting ready to endure the same hardships. The uncertainty is
physically and mentally draining for me and my family. My son's
social behavior is declining. He hesitates to make new friends
in Alameda. He likes it so much. It is hard to lose good
friends and moving around is not fun.''
Another young man named Anthony, a single parent of a
teenaged son, told me this past year it was the first time he
and his son were able to live together. The Section 8 voucher
allowed him to get a decent place to live so he was able to get
custody of his son. This was the best year of both of their
lives. If he loses his Section 8 voucher, he will lose his
housing. If he loses his housing, he will lose custody of his
son. We need to help these families and the other 106 families
at risk of becoming homeless.
In 2001, the Bay Area experienced a really tight housing
market. Rents were increasing faster than the fair market
rents. Section 8 landlords did not want to accept housing
vouchers at that time. They would rather get families that were
working and able to pay the full amount of rent and full amount
of security deposit. As a result, we were grossly under-leased
and HUD had recaptured about $4 million in the years 2002 and
2003.
By late 2002, though, the market had softened and voucher
holders started to lease-up. By the end of the fiscal year, the
Housing Authority was 98 percent leased-up, but HUD had used
all of our Housing Authority's program reserves to pay for the
increased leasing costs. Even though we were not over-leased
for fiscal year 2003, HUD has failed to replenish our reserves,
even though they are required to do so by their own
regulations. This has exacerbated the underfunding situation
and directly impacts these 108 families.
During this fiscal year, the housing market continued to be
soft and voucher holders continued to lease-up. Our turnover
rate declined dramatically, and for the first time we are over-
leased. Despite the softer market, costs for the program
continue to rise because of increases in utility rates,
decreases in family income, portability moves to higher-cost
areas, reasonable accommodations provided to the disabled, and
several other reasons.
On May 6, the Housing Authority received a call from the
HUD San Francisco office telling us that our June 1 housing
assistance payment check from them would be reduced by
approximately $800,000. Well, we were faced with having to
terminate all of our families at that point because we did not
have the money to pay for housing assistance payments. We had
been paying for payments using our own reserves throughout the
fiscal year, and this was the last month of our fiscal year and
we had no other choice. But our City Council and our Board of
Commissioners said, well, we do not want any terminations to
occur. Therefore, use all Housing Authority reserves to pay for
this shortfall, which we did. As a result, nobody went without
on June 1.
However, later in the month of May, we got notice of what
our funding would be for July 1 under the renewal formula.
Under the renewal formula, we were facing a $200,000 shortfall.
Roughly, that meant we had to terminate over 200 families for
housing assistance. We could not do that either, so we did have
to send out termination notices. But we were able to make up
that shortfall. Right now, we are looking at 108 families that
are going to be terminated as of August 1 in case something is
not done.
We are looking to HUD for more funding under the renewal
formula. We are looking to HUD to replace our reserves so we
can help these families. But these families need our immediate
help, and if nothing is done by August 1, these families are
going to be facing evictions and will be homeless.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mike T. Pucci can be found on
page 137 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Pucci.
Ms. Roman.
STATEMENT OF NAN ROMAN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Roman. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Waters and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the board of the National Alliance
to End Homelessness, I am honored to be here today to testify
in support of the Samaritan Initiative. In deciding to support
the Samaritan Initiative, of course, we had to be realistic
about what it might accomplish. It is not designed to address
homelessness overall: other bigger programs do that. It does
not appear, with its limited resources and scope, that passing
the Samaritan Initiative alone will end chronic homelessness.
But while recognizing that it is not a silver bullet, we do
believe that the Samaritan Initiative is a needed and useful
program that can help communities end chronic homelessness.
In 2000, the National Alliance to End Homelessness
announced a pragmatic new template for ending homelessness in
10 years. One of the things we pointed out was that the
existing homelessness system was not working very well for one
particular group of people who were staying homeless for years
on end. For this group of chronically homeless people, a
strategy of permanent supportive housing has proven to be very
effective, and 150,000 units of such housing would be needed,
we believe, to end chronic homelessness. If spread over 10
years, this would be a modest 15,000 units per year, a doable
national goal.
The cost after 10 years, when all of the housing is in
place, we estimate to be approximately $1.2 billion per year in
rent subsidies, with a similar amount for services. Before you
have a heart attack, much of this cost we think can be offset
by savings to health, corrections and shelter systems. There
will indeed be a need for upfront investment and, of course, we
appreciate that savings in one area does not always necessarily
translate into resources that are available in another area.
Nevertheless, it seems to us that ending chronic homelessness
is something that we can and should do.
As communities across the country have begun to develop and
implement their plans with respect to ending chronic
homelessness, they have faced many challenges. The Samaritan
Initiative addresses some of these problems. First, by
providing targeted resources, it encourages communities to take
on this difficult task. Second, it provides flexible resources,
allowing communities to utilize the federal funds as gap
fillers, and it models an important level of federal
coordination.
The Samaritan Initiative additionally provides funding for
many of the activities that will have to be undertaken if
chronic homelessness is to be ended. It funds outreach. It
provides capital to acquire housing units. It funds operating
and rent subsidies and it provides flexible funding for
services.
In my written testimony, I have suggested a few changes to
the Samaritan Initiative which we believe would make it even
more effective. These involve bringing the amount of service
funding more in line with the amount that is dedicated to
housing, and also adjusting the match provisions to better
leverage mainstream, state and local service dollars. Of
course, additional steps are going to have to be taken if we
are going to achieve the Administration's goal of ending
chronic homelessness in 10 years. In particular, prevention
measures and additional housing and services resources will
have to be put into place.
As other people on this panel have mentioned, one
critically important additional source of housing subsidy which
impacts chronic homelessness is the Section 8 voucher program.
This program is important to ending chronic homelessness for
three reasons. First, it prevents people from becoming
chronically homeless by keeping them in housing. Second,
Section 8 vouchers are being used now in many communities, as
you have heard, to pay the rent on apartments for chronically
homeless people. For example, right here in the District, I sit
as a volunteer on the board of a new nonprofit, Pathways to
Housing, that in accordance with the city's just-announced plan
to end chronic homelessness, is using Section 8 vouchers to
house chronically homeless, chronically mentally ill people. Of
our first two tenants, one had been on the street for 10 years
and the other had been on the street for 20 years. So I know
that Section 8 can end chronic homelessness.
Finally, the availability of rent subsidies is essential to
attract capital for the development of supportive housing. For
example, Fannie Mae has recently committed to provide capital
financing and pre-development loans for supportive housing to
chronically homeless people. Reliable rent subsidies like
Section 8 must be available to access these private funds.
It is therefore with great alarm that we view the
Administration's actions and proposals around Section 8. They
simply are in direct contradiction to their own goal of ending
chronic homelessness. We urge Congress to fully protect and
fund the Section 8 program. Further, if you really wanted to
end chronic homelessness, a relatively simple way to do that
would be to create a dedicated pool of housing vouchers that
would be linked to capital to create the balance of the 150,000
units of permanent supportive housing that we need to end
chronic homelessness.
Mr. Chairman and Ms. Waters, the National Alliance to End
Homelessness supports the Administration's goal of ending
chronic homelessness in 10 years, although of course not at the
expense of or to the exclusion of ending homelessness for other
homeless people. We support the Samaritan Initiative and we
urge you to authorize it. We extend our gratitude to the
subcommittee for taking on this difficult task, and we look
forward to continuing to work with you on the goal of ending
chronic homelessness.
[The prepared statement of Nan Roman can be found on page
142 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Ms. Roman, thank you.
Mr. Whitehead, thanks.
STATEMENT OF DONALD WHITEHEAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS
Mr. Whitehead. Thank you.
Chairman Ney, Ranking Member Waters and other distinguished
members of the committee, it is an honor to be asked to testify
today on H.R. 4057, the Samaritan Initiative Act of 2004. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today with many of my
esteemed colleagues to offer insight on this proposed
legislation.
I am Donald Whitehead, executive director of the National
Coalition for the Homeless, the nation's oldest and largest
organization that works exclusively with and on behalf of
people experiencing homelessness. The National Coalition for
the Homeless, like many of our partners, is deeply concerned
about the recent growth of homelessness across America. We are
pleased that the Interagency Council on Homeless is
coordinating with other federal agencies to respond to the
growing needs of homeless individuals. This coordination is
essential as we work together to end homelessness.
The number of people experiencing homelessness continues to
grow unabated and new resources are required to meet the
demand, but those new resources cannot come at the expense of
reduction to existing programs. The Samaritan Initiative would
be funded at the expense of the McKinney-Vento homeless
assistance program. The President's budget proposal for
McKinney-Vento is $1.26 billion. It is estimated that $1.3
billion is required to maintain the programs at their current
levels.
Leaving the program at fiscal year 2004 levels still leaves
us with a huge amount of unmet need. In fiscal year 2004, HUD
had to turn down $273 million in Continuum of Care requests due
to lack of funding. Instead of using resources to start new
programs, we should be concentrating on fully funding the
programs that already exist. The McKinney-Vento program offers
greater flexibility in geographic targeting and eligibility of
participants, while also targeting the chronically homeless
population. Furthermore, by putting this money in McKinney-
Vento, the administrative costs associated with starting and
administering a new program can be avoided and more people can
be served.
The Samaritan Initiative is only available to people
experiencing chronic homelessness, and the government
definition of ``chronically homeless'' applies only to
unaccompanied homeless individuals with a disability who have
been continuously homeless for a year or more or who have had
at least four episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years.
While this is an important population to serve, this definition
excludes families who have experienced long-term homelessness,
and families are the largest-growing sector of the homeless
population. Families now represent 40 percent of the homeless
population. Even families whose head of household is disabled
are excluded from the Samaritan Initiative.
This targeting issue is one I feel very strongly about, for
both personal and professional reasons. Ten years ago, I was
forced to utilize the services provided by the McKinney-Vento
program. Had my ability to access those services been limited
to the narrow definition of ``chronically homeless'' in this
legislation, I would certainly not be here testifying today and
there is a very high probability that I would in fact not be
alive because I would not have qualified for these services.
Furthermore, we object to the codification of this
definition of ``chronic homelessness.'' There is widespread
disagreement among practitioners about the definition of
``chronic homelessness'' as well as the ethics and practicality
of using this definition to deliver services. Congress should
not put this definition into statute.
We are also concerned that this initiative on its own does
very little for its target population: $10 million in the
Department of Health and Human Services to be distributed
across 50 states for people with complex health and mental
health needs is woefully insufficient.
In addition, this program provides only 3-year grants
followed by the option to reapply for another 3 years of
funding at half the amount. The people who will be served by
this initiative have, by definition, severe mental health and
physical disabilities. In order to remain in permanent housing,
they will likely need supportive services for the rest of their
lives. If funding is cut off, they are at risk of becoming
homeless again.
We applaud the drafters and sponsors of this bill for their
recognition that both supportive services and affordable
housing are necessary to end homelessness, but we question the
effectiveness of earmarking $50 million for affordable housing
production, while at the same time cutting $1.6 billion from
the Section 8 housing voucher program. As long as the Section 8
program is in crisis, we cannot end homelessness in this
country.
In conclusion, any initiative to end homelessness or
chronic homelessness in this country must be forward-thinking
and comprehensive and it must include the production of large
amounts of affordable housing. There are two such initiatives
in the House of Representatives right now, both of which have
more sponsors than H.R. 4507. These are the National Housing
Trust Fund, H.R. 1102, which would provide funding for 1.5
million units of affordable housing over the next 10 years, and
the Bringing America Home Act, H.R. 2897, which is a
comprehensive bill to end homelessness in this country. The
Bringing America Home Act includes housing, healthcare,
economic justice, and civil rights provisions. A list of
endorsers is attached to my testimony and we ask that it be
entered in the record.
We appreciate the recognition by this committee that ending
homelessness must be a priority in this country, but the
Samaritan Initiative in its present form is not an effective
way to accomplish that goal.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Donald Whitehead can be found on
page 150 in the appendix.]
Mr. Renzi. Thank you for your insights.
Before we move to questions, I want to move to our ranking
member, Mrs. Waters of California.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Chairman Renzi. I thank
you for the introduction of the legislation and your chairing
of this hearing today.
This is a very important hearing. I suppose we are all here
to review the homelessness issues, including those that are
particular to the chronically homeless. As you have heard
today, there are approximately 80,000 people who are homeless
each night in Los Angeles. Many of them are concentrated in
Central and South-Central Los Angeles. A hugely
disproportionate number of these homeless are African American.
A larger segment of the homeless than in the general population
is disabled.
There has also been an explosion in the number of families
with children experiencing homelessness. Simply put, in Los
Angeles and many communities throughout America, we have a
crisis and the problems are getting worse.
Chairman Renzi, there are several technical questions
raised by this legislation. I am pleased that we are covering
some of those questions today, especially the issue of whether
the definition of ``chronically homeless person'' that is used
in the Samaritan Initiative improperly excludes families with
children, even those families with disabled members.
I am pleased that some of our witnesses are exploring
whether we need to expand the definition of homelessness to
reach unstable housing situations where families with children
are living doubled-up with extended family members or others
who are willing to provide them with shelter temporarily. I,
too, believe that we should be using the broader definition of
homelessness employed by the U.S. Department of Education so
that families lacking fixed, regular or otherwise adequate
housing would be eligible for programs even if they are not
living on the street or in a shelter.
Also I believe that the services funding authorized by this
bill is grossly inadequate to meet the needs of those who would
be covered by the initiative. The services funding should be
substantially increased by at least an additional $45 million
as the U.S. Conference of Mayors has requested.
Mr. Renzi, as important as these technical questions are, I
submit that there are far larger policy questions that we must
address. Respectfully, I submit that there is somewhat of an
Alice in Wonderland quality to the Administration's discussion
of these issues. The Administration appears to believe that the
issue of homelessness can be considered in isolation from the
broader issues of poverty and affordable housing production.
Yet nothing could be further from the truth. How can anyone
seriously believe that we can achieve the worthy objectives of
this initiative by authorizing a total of $70 million in
funding, at the same time that the Administration is proposing
cuts of $1.6 billion in the Section 8 voucher program, cuts
that if implemented would result in a reduction of 250,000
Section 8 vouchers.
The impact of the cuts to the Section 8 program, if
implemented, surely would result in a tremendous increase in
homelessness and make it all the more difficult to achieve the
Administration's professed goal of ending homelessness in 10
years. It is clear that the Administration's Section 8 policies
are dislocating households and forcing many public housing
authorities to raise rents and lower subsidies to needy
seniors, persons with disabilities, and families with children.
The funding level proposed by the Bush Administration will
result in 250,000 vouchers being funded if housing authorities
choose to maintain the current level of subsidy for those
vouchers that they do maintain. If housing authorities choose
instead to maintain the same number of vouchers currently
authorized nationally, the average Section 8 tenant to rent
would have to rise by an average of about $850 per year. In Los
Angeles, the City Housing Authority would have to issue 5,336
fewer vouchers and the County Housing Authority would have to
issue 2,457 fewer vouchers if they choose to make up the
funding shortfall by reducing the number of vouchers that they
fund.
If they issue the same number of vouchers, the City of Los
Angeles would have to raise the average tenant's rent by $933
per year and the County Housing Authority would have to raise
the average tenant's rent by $977 per year in order to absorb
the impact of the Bush Administration's proposed funding level.
Mr. Renzi, the National Low Income Housing Coalition has
prepared an impact matrix that explains how public housing
authorities around the country are responding to the
Administration's destructive Section 8 housing policies,
including HUD's April 22, 2004 notice announcing changes to
HUD's Section 8 payment policies. I believe this document is
crucial to obtaining a realistic understanding of the state of
affordable housing in this country. I ask that it be made a
part of the record of this hearing.
Mr. Renzi, you do not get close to your destination by
taking one step forward and 10 steps back. I know that is not
you, because you are trying to move this process forward, but I
have to be very honest with you, the Samaritan Initiative
cannot be divorced from the broader issues of affordable
housing policy. Most housing experts believe that an
incremental 150,000 housing units will be required in the next
10 years to end chronic homelessness for those who are
currently experiencing it. Yet, I see no evidence that the
Administration has any plan to produce the units required.
During the questioning period, I want to find out, and I
will be asking Mr. Mangano, to provide the details and explain
just how the Administration proposes to create the 150,000
incremental housing units that would be required to address the
supportive housing shortfall for the chronically homeless. To
me, the numbers just do not add up.
Mr. Chairman, I know that an awful lot of work is taking
place in Los Angeles and many other communities around the
country to develop, with community input, 10-year plans to end
homelessness, a project that Mr. Mangano is championing. I
certainly recognize the value of a planning process and
community input. Yet if our goal truly is to end homelessness,
we must be prepared to devote the resources required to make
such plans a reality. The plans are a means to an end, not an
end in themselves.
If we end up producing carefully considered, well-developed
plans that simply gather dust on a shelf because we are
unwilling to devote the resources required to implement them,
then we need to ask why we went to the trouble of creating the
plans in the first place. In my view, we must not offer simple
solutions. We need to fully fund the Section 8 voucher program
and support affordable housing initiatives like the National
Affordable Housing Trust that can produce the supportive
housing required to address homelessness.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today.
Again, I know, Mr. Chairman, that you are very much concerned,
as I have witnessed the work that you are doing in your own
district, not only with the homeless but with the Indian
population, and have a great appreciation for that. I think
that you are on the right track, but we have a long way to go.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentlelady and I appreciate her
comments and agree with a lot of her insights.
We are going to move to questions now. We will alternate
back and forth. Each member has 5 minutes and we will start
with Mr. Tiberi.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Poppe, thank you for your testimony. Can you expand a
little bit more on what you experienced when you first took the
helm of the Community Shelter Board in 1995? What I mean by
that, when I was in the legislature starting in 1992 in
Columbus, Ohio, the in-vogue way to deal with homelessness was
just to warehouse the homeless in Columbus. Through your
leadership on the Community Shelter Board, you obviously have a
much different approach. I have toured your facilities and seen
that approach. Can you explain how that transition occurred in
Columbus and how that is occurring nationally, and what we can
do here in addition to this legislation to help you at the
local level?
Ms. Poppe. Yes, thank you for your kind words and the
question.
In Columbus and Franklin County, we were facing a situation
where downtown economic development was likely to displace two
major shelters serving homeless men, as well as areas along the
riverfront where homeless folks were congregating and sleeping
outdoors. So we received a charge from our Mayor, along with
County Commissioners and the United Way of Central Ohio which
asked us to undertake a study to see if there were different
ways to approach homelessness, and specifically to address the
needs of those persons who would be impacted by the
displacement of those facilities and the reconstruction.
That resulted in a period of intensive research where we
looked at our homeless management information system data,
which went back to the early 1990s, along with best practice
research. Together, we formed a plan that included input from
our providers. It included input from those who had been
consumers. It also had a strong constituency within our
neighborhoods who were very concerned about homeless people on
the street, but also did not want to see facilities developed
in their neighborhood, kind of the ``not in my backyard''
approach
We also had the support of the downtown business community
and all of our elected officials. What that resulted in was the
community came together across all party lines, across all ways
of doing things, and committed on a path to improve emergency
services. So we developed three new emergency facilities which
replaced the two outdated facilities. We had a better system to
deal with those who were publicly inebriated. We increased our
outreach and intake processes.
But the centerpiece of it was the development of permanent
supportive housing. I can tell you that having worked in
Columbus for all these years, there are people that I was told
could not be housed. They simply wanted to be homeless and this
was their lifestyle choice. It is no great surprise, but they
are today housed and successfully in supportive housing. They
are working. They are dealing with their mental health issues.
So it has become a real point of pride for our community,
whether it is our Commissioners who are very invested in the
success of it, or our Mayor or City Council. It has become a
point of pride in our community. We have also successfully
dealt with the issue of NIMBY and have developed good neighbor
agreements that help assure projects operate successfully.
It has very, very much changed the way we address
homelessness in our community and I believe it is a model for
other communities that can be adopted and addressed. We were
able to do this because we had strong local support and local
investment of city and county tax revenue, as well as the
private sector support, and then strong support from the
federal government through the various federal housing
programs.
Mr. Tiberi. What can we do? The Samaritan Initiative is a
pilot program. What else can we do, in your eyes, to help the
Columbuses and Franklin Counties of America?
Ms. Poppe. I certainly believe the Samaritan Initiative is
very good, and a first step in dealing with chronic
homelessness. Beyond that, the single most important issue to
us really is how we deal with the voucher program and
preserving and expanding that. It is incredibly successful at
addressing chronic homelessness, whether we use them as tenant-
based or attached to actual projects like the Commons Grant,
which is our newest downtown supportive housing development.
Beyond that, we do need resources for services to help
stabilize families as well as individuals, and we do need to
all work together and put aside some of our outdated notions
about what an emergency shelter is or what a transitional
housing program is. There are many things we have learned in
the last 20 years, and some of those things we do need to cast
aside and to move forward in a new, more effective and targeted
way.
Mr. Tiberi. You mentioned the voucher program. Can you
comment to me, in your opinion, there is an issue of the cost
of the voucher program. In dealing with the issue of
homelessness and chronic homelessness, do you believe that the
federal government can do a better job? What I mean by that is,
invest federal dollars in the voucher program in a way that we
can long-term save dollars by getting people to be productive
and self-sufficient through what you have done with supportive
services?
Ms. Poppe. We have seen that the voucher program, by
providing a rent subsidy, enables us to take in individuals who
have no income at the time of intake into supportive housing.
In fact, 85 percent of the folks have no income. What they are
able to do is by stabilizing their lives, they are over time
able to increase that income. We have had folks who have moved
up to being able to fully pay their rent. There are other
individuals, frankly though, whose serious mental illness is
such that full-time work is not really going to be something
that they can do, but it is at a lower cost than was long-term
institutionalization or their excess use of emergency rooms and
psychiatric hospitals.
I do believe there probably are some administrative savings
possible within the voucher program. I do not believe those
administrative savings will amount to $1.6 billion, such that
we can save all of the existing units. We are very concerned
that the program moves forward and we do not lose ground, but
we also need to expand the supply of affordable housing.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just one final point.
Ms. Poppe, you do believe, though, that with the proper use of
the voucher program that we can actually, not everybody, there
is no question about that, but I have seen it in Columbus where
someone will be homeless, and rather than just warehousing
them, providing them with supportive services and the housing,
that potentially, in fact it has happened, people can become
self-sufficient.
Ms. Poppe. Absolutely. We do see folks become self-
sufficient. We do see about 10 percent of supportive housing
residents actually graduate from the program into a larger
unit. Often it is because they have a job and they want a
better apartment near their job or they are reunifying with
their family. So success does occur even with those who are the
most disadvantaged and difficult to otherwise serve.
Mr. Tiberi. Thank you.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Tiberi.
I would like to recognize the Ranking Member from our full
committee, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
Mr. Frank. I thank the Chairman.
My question is for Ms. Roman. I thought you made the point
very well in your testimony when you said one critically
important additional source of housing subsidy impacting
chronic homelessness is the Section 8 voucher program. The
program seems to me very well structured, except that it misses
an important semantic point. ``Homeless'' means people do not
have homes.
Now, we should also be clear here, and I am glad to have
this chance to underline this, we are talking about homes, not
homeownership. Homeownership is a good thing, but for many of
the poorest people in this country most of the time they will
not be able to own homes. A policy that looks only at ownership
and not at home occupancy is flawed.
Now, for low-income people it seems to me the Section 8
program is very important. Here is my question. If we were to
adopt this bill today and it went into effect, but the current
policy regarding Section 8 vouchers stayed the same, how much
of a dent would we be making in homelessness?
Ms. Roman. We would probably have more homeless people if
the Section 8 voucher policies that are proposed went into
effect. It appears to us that the Samaritan Initiative would
support, it runs over 3 years, so it would support about 2,500
units a year. If it kept being appropriated at the level that
is requested, it could ultimately support a maximum of 7,500
units per year. So we would stand to have a much greater net
loss if we lose the vouchers that we are anticipated to lose,
as other people on the panel have described.
Mr. Frank. Let me ask another question of everybody here.
One of the arguments we have seen, and I will address this to
Mr. Mangano later because he talked approvingly of the
Administration's proposal to restructure Section 8. As
Secretary Jackson has said, the problem is the Section 8
program is costing us too much money, partly because the people
we are helping are too poor. He points out correctly that you
pay 30 percent of your income for Section 8, and people with
very little income are thus more expensive than people without
because there is a bigger gap to be made up.
If we were to act on Secretary Jackson's proposal that we
re-target Section 8 and try to hit a higher income level,
obviously still below the 80 percent, how would that interact
with this program? Let me go down the list here. Let me start
on the left, ma'am. Do you favor Secretary Jackson's argument
that we should reorient the targeting of Section 8 to get a
higher income group of people?
Ms. Buckley. No, especially not in rural Arizona. That
would be missing probably 85 percent of the veteran population
that my project serves. They just do not meet the threshold
that he has set forth, so it would increase the homelessness in
Arizona.
Mr. Frank. Okay. Thank you. Next?
Mr. Hess. It would be problematic. It would certainly be
very challenging. It is already challenging to find an adequate
number of affordable housing units for people at the lowest
income ranges. We see people in our shelter system that
typically are 15 percent of mean and below, and it is almost
impossible to move them into affordable housing without
subsidy. So it would be a movement in the wrong direction.
Mr. Frank. Next?
Mr. Mauck. The elimination of public housing in many
communities has really put an additional stress on Section 8 as
we know it. The change in the income levels merely exacerbates
the problem. We have not really raised people's income at the
lowest end that are in fact enjoying the benefits of Section 8
housing. So I think you exacerbate the problem and ultimately
it will create more homelessness.
Mr. Frank. Thank you. Let me just interject here, and I am
glad you mentioned the public housing situation. I am not happy
that we have the situation. I am glad you mentioned it. One of
the things Secretary Jackson pointed out was that the Section 8
program has now, to his dismay, become a much larger percentage
of the overall HUD budget. But it has become a larger
percentage of the HUD budget partly because it has grown, but
partly because almost everything else has shrunk. Section 8 is
a larger part of the HUD budget because public housing and
other construction programs are not there. So I think that is
exactly right. We have put a greater burden on Section 8 at the
same time we lament the fact that it is growing.
Yes, sir, next?
Mr. Netburn. I concur that it would definitely create more
homeless people, particularly in Southern California,
especially in Los Angeles. There is an extremely low vacancy
rate. Housing costs are extremely high. It is challenging
enough for us as it is now to house all the people that need
housing. With the loss of this program, I am really not sure
what we would do with those very low-income people who would
not be eligible for the Section 8 program.
Mr. Frank. Yes?
Ms. Poppe. We would absolutely see homelessness increase in
Columbus and Franklin County. Just to give a perspective, the
typical homeless family has less than $200 a month that they
can afford to pay for housing, and the typical two-bedroom
apartment costs over $650. So we are already facing a $450 a
month gap.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent just
to let the last three witnesses answer, if that is okay.
Mr. Pucci. Mr. Frank, I have been administering the Section
8 program for about 27 years, back in the days when we could
assist families up to 80 percent of median income. I believe
that if we were to go back to that that it would seriously
impact those folks who are below 35 percent of median income.
It would increase homelessness. If we are not going to be
assisting them, who else is?
Mr. Frank. Ms. Roman?
Ms. Roman. We have homeless people because people cannot
afford housing. So if we remove the primary subsidy program for
low-income people to be stable in housing, we will definitely
have more people homeless.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Whitehead?
Mr. Whitehead. The chronically homeless initiative is based
on the idea that people can move quickly through the system. If
the Section 8 housing program is not funded at an adequate
level, it will definitely increase the number of homeless
people. We have already started to see some effects in programs
that have partnered with their local housing authority. People
are already starting to not be able to utilize vouchers.
Mr. Frank. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will summarize. I
just want to reemphasize. I am not making this up. It is a
repeated theme of Secretary Jackson that the way to fix the
Section 8 program is to help people with higher income. I think
that the contrast between that and a professed concern for the
homeless is so glaring that I appreciated the chance to be able
to talk about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Frank.
We have been joined by the Chairman of our Subcommittee on
Housing, Mr. Ney. I want to first of all thank you for allowing
me to chair and also for bringing forth the legislation. I
recognize you.
Chairman Ney. Thanks for the job you are doing, and the job
you are doing today chairing this, and also the legislation you
have worked on. I know it is appreciated in all parts of the
country.
I have a couple of questions, for whoever wants to answer
it. What about de-institutionalization? I am talking about the
State of Ohio because I was a State legislator. We were
involved in that. I am not saying institutionalization is good
as a wide brush, but the process of de-institutionalization in
the United States, with persons that have some form of a
problem when it comes to some form of mental illness, is that
still making the situation worse, to create homelessness?
Ms. Poppe. I can speak first from the Ohio perspective,
which is that because we have been so many years into the
process of de-institutionalization, what we are seeing is the
after-effect of that, which is that there are many, many
individuals who are homeless and who have never had the chance
to be institutionalized because it happened so long ago. But
they do not have adequate community services, nor do they have
adequate housing.
We are still in the process of further downsizing our
psychiatric hospitals. One of our newest rebuilding lives
projects is actually targeting those who have been
institutionalized on a step-down basis. What we are able to see
is that they are able to over time be sufficiently housed in a
pretty low-demand situation, in permanent supportive housing.
So very much supportive housing is a really cost-effective
alternative to institutionalization. It only costs us about
$14,500 a year to house someone in supportive housing. I know
that in-patient psychiatric hospitalization exceeds costs of
$80,000 to $90,000 a year. But we simply have not had that
investment of those dollars translate into affordable housing
with community services.
Chairman Ney. You get a lot of ``not in my backyard,'' too,
as you know, dealing with this issue.
Ms. Poppe. Absolutely. I think there is a lot of fear about
folks who are either poor or mentally ill, but we have been
able to overcome that in Columbus by working with neighbors to
create covenants around good neighbor agreements. So it is
still possible. It does require local political will to
overcome those neighbors' objections and it requires good
quality operations to make sure we fulfill our promises.
Chairman Ney. Of course, I am familiar from being in the
legislature about 14 years there and the work you have done, a
lot of you, and Bill Faith and a lot of good work that has been
done.
I had a question for Mr. Netburn. I think in your testimony
you mentioned that the early administration of the
collaborative grant was complicated. Can you expand on that a
little bit?
Mr. Netburn. Yes, the original request, the notice of
funding availability that was issued was really several
different applications that were just in one envelop, so to
speak. There was a really short time frame, and it was
incredibly challenging for the providers who put together the
skid row collaborative, to respond to that request.
Additionally, in the early part of the grant, particularly the
administration of it, there were different start dates to the
different funding streams; different reporting rules.
The original concept was really great, of putting funding
into one single application with the idea that it would be
administered singly, but the initial administration was clearly
not like that. I know they have been working hard in Los
Angeles to make it a lot smoother. I do hear that it is
smoother, but it was extremely challenging in the beginning.
Needless to say, dealing with this population was very
challenging. Where you really want to focus your efforts is on
helping the chronic homeless people get into housing and stay
there, not with the oversight of the program. Not to say there
should not be clear oversight and accountability, but I have
been doing government work for about 20 years and it was
probably about the most complicated application I have ever
seen.
Fortunately, as I said, that has somewhat been worked out.
I think the new legislation does address that. Just given that
early experience, we wanted to make sure that those federal
agencies involved in this matter really take it to heart and
collaborate and try to make it as easy as possible, ensuring
the proper oversight.
Chairman Ney. Thank you.
I have run out of time, but I just had a generic quick
question, Mr. Chairman. It is also good to be here today with
our Ranking Member, Ms. Waters. It deals with rural versus
urban homelessness. Any recent stats on it? Homelessness is
homelessness, but obviously in the urban centers it just
statistically has to be a lot more.
Ms. Poppe. I think the rate is higher in urban areas than
rural areas generally in homelessness per capita.
Ms. Buckley. I know that in rural Arizona, just in two
counties, we have over 2,000 homeless veterans, and that is
just of the veteran population. I think in the rural areas, the
problem that you have is they are not so visible. You have them
in the desert areas, in the forests. There are not as many
resources such as emergency shelters, transitional programs
where you can get headcounts.
So it is a big issue in rural areas as well. There are not
as many opportunities for nonprofits and faith-based
organizations to set up programs to help the homeless because
there is not as much funding and everything like that.
Chairman Ney. We have homelessness, but also like down in
Blair, Ohio at Salvation Army, you will see a lot of people
passing through from other places also, and they will come into
the small areas to try and get some help.
My time has expired.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Whitehead?
Mr. Whitehead. I was just going to echo that, that there
are definitely fewer resources to address the problem of
homelessness in rural communities. We have also found in some
rural communities like Iowa, the population is primarily
families.
Chairman Ney. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Netburn. Could I just add?
Mr. Renzi. Yes, sir.
Mr. Netburn. I come from the second-largest city in
America. I know from speaking to many of the providers in rural
areas, that they feel that particularly in the colder rural
areas that their clients may not necessarily meet the
definition of ``chronic homelessness'' because in those areas
people will take people in, offer them housing particularly
during the cold months. So they feel disadvantaged.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the questions.
We move to our Ranking Member, Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much. I would like to just take
this opportunity to thank Chairman Ney. As was mentioned
earlier, he came to Los Angeles when we first opened the
discussion on Section 8. We had tremendous turnout and a lot of
support from the service providers and people in this community
who are working at this every day, landlords, everybody who
sent the word back here to Congress, please do not cut Section
8. So we all are warned that it would lead to, and quickly, to
homelessness. I would like to thank you, Chairman Ney, and I
would like to thank all of those who participated.
Let me talk about Los Angeles and ask some questions about
Los Angeles for a minute. I do not know if other members of
Congress are having this problem, but we have a growing
confrontation between downtown and South Los Angeles. Something
happened in this service authority that gave Sheriff Baca some
authority to do something. I am not sure as of this moment what
it is. Many of our organizations got word, and they defined it
as Sheriff Baca had the mandate from the authority to get rid
of the homelessness downtown because of the proposed new
developments downtown, and ship them to South Los Angeles with
some plan to have temporary shelters under freeways and some
other places. As you know, the community exploded.
I got Sheriff Baca out to a meeting where 900 people showed
up at Crenshaw Christian Center, and of course they sent the
word back in no uncertain terms that there should not be a
shifting of homeless population. There is a significant amount
of homelessness in South Los Angeles already, and everybody
agrees that every community must do its share of bearing the
responsibility for the homelessness.
Can you tell me if the Authority has a plan to shift the
homeless from downtown? I wish other members of Congress would
tell me if they have these kinds of plans going on the area, if
something is going on and we are now in confrontation about the
homeless. Do you know anything about this, Mr. Netburn?
Mr. Netburn. I can state emphatically we do not plan on
shifting resources or housing to South-Central or other areas.
What we have seen over time is a concentration of services
within the skid row area. It was a conscious policy of the City
of Los Angeles many years about, about 20 years ago, to create,
in effect, a skid row. It has developed in a chicken and egg
scenario. What I mean by that is, homeless people not only
throughout the City of Los Angeles, but really throughout the
county and sometimes from other areas of the country know of
the concentration of services in skid row and come there. Those
providers have said, we need the funds because we have the most
number of people. The reason they have the most number of
people is because they got the funds years ago and they have
the services. So it has become a self-perpetuating situation.
So what the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority has
said is that we are not going to de-fund projects in that area,
but as much as possible we want to have new projects in other
areas of the city and the county. Our estimates are that in
skid row there are about four homeless people for every
available bed. In South-Central, our estimates are that there
are 44 people for every available bed. So what we want to try
to do is eliminate that disparity so that people can be served
in their own areas.
One of the misnomers about homeless people is that people
think they have come from some other area. Our experience is
that they are neighbors; that they live in the area where they
have gone to high school and the like, and that they are going
to be most successful if they are receiving services and
housing in their neighborhood with the support services.
So we are not looking to shift the funding. What we are
looking to do is to more equitably distribute the funding and
the housing and the services so that people in the other areas
have access in the areas where they live.
Ms. Waters. If I may, Mr. Chairman, on the Homeless
Authority, how many people serve on the Authority Oversight
Board?
Mr. Netburn. There are a total of 10 members. The Mayor
appoints five, with the approval of the City Council, and each
of the five County Supervisors has one appointee.
Ms. Waters. Well, I am finding that the problems of the
homelessness is landing on the doorsteps of the members of
Congress. On Section 8, they are beating our doors down. I have
had three meetings already, working with the Housing Authority
and others. Just as the question of whatever Sheriff Baca was
doing came to light, then I was bombarded with the neighborhood
councils and all who came to me.
In the creation of the Authority, was any thought given to
asking the members of Congress whether or not they wanted to
participate in any way? Do you know?
Mr. Netburn. The creation pre-dates me. It was created in
1993. It really arose out of a lawsuit between the City and the
County of Los Angeles. They agreed to settle that lawsuit by
creating the Authority. State law allows two jurisdictions such
as the city and the county to enter into a formal agreement. So
those were the parties to the agreement. I have not heard of
any specific discussion about that, but I certainly can check
and get back to your office on that.
I do want to state for the record, because you have
mentioned Sheriff Baca, who has been a real champion of
homeless issues and been very forceful. His actions were not at
the direction of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
nor did we endorse those. We do seek and applaud any leadership
we receive on homeless issues and funding and the siting of
facilities, but his action in that specific area was
independent from LAHSA.
Ms. Waters. I thank him, and he is a friend. I know that he
is well-meaning. We just need to understand the relationship to
the Authority and what is taking place. What I am going to do
is ask this committee to come to Los Angeles one more time. I
do not know if it will, but maybe some of the members will. We
want you to walk us through the homeless network. I,
surprisingly, have not been invited to do that. I think I am
going to take more responsibility in figuring out what is
happening in Los Angeles, and I want my colleagues to go along
with me.
Chairman Ney. Would the gentlelady yield? I think it would
be a good idea to go to Los Angeles. I have been there, of
course, on other issues, but I think to view first-hand
homeless problems in that and any other cities I think would be
excellent.
Mr. Netburn. Let me take this opportunity to publicly
invite all of you. We would be truly honored to show you the
situation in Los Angeles, which Philip Mangano can talk about.
We are not proud of this fact, but certainly the skid row area
and other parts of the city and county have a street population
unlike any other city in the entire country.
Ms. Waters. When we come, we do not want anybody to clean
it up. I want my colleagues to see exactly what it is.
Mr. Netburn. We do not give a cleaned-up tour.
Ms. Waters. Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. I share the commitment, and I look forward to
also coming and visiting and seeing Los Angeles.
The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart.
Ms. Hart. I have a quick question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It really runs along the same lines, but it is much more
general in nature. I have had and continue to have regular
meetings with housing advocates in the six counties I
represent, but especially in Allegheny County, which is a major
center of my district. Though they are very happy with some of
the programs that we provide, they always tell me that they
will have someone who they would term as chronically homeless
who seems to fit everything, but then there is one criterion
that always seems to prevent them from actually finding a
place, not always but often prevents them from finding a place.
So my question is actually for the executive directors of
the housing authorities or for the homeless authorities. I
think there are three of you on the panel, Columbus, LA, and
Alameda, the three of you. Are there things that we need to do
aside from a comprehensive outline of the program, that are
more specific? Do you find, for example, that there are certain
conditions that seem to be all the time eliminating factors for
a person that you are trying to help? Or is this something that
maybe I need to get more details from my folks? They have given
me some, and we have gone back to HUD and said, why do you do
this; why do you do that. Are there things that you find that
are chronic issues that we need to address?
Ms. Poppe. Speaking from the Columbus perspective, as well
as we have heard from those around the State of Ohio, one of
the current challenges we are seeing is that an increasing
number of folks who find themselves homeless, whether it is
families with children or single adults or those who have
records of incarceration, and those records of incarceration
prevent them from being eligible for any of the federal housing
programs through public housing or Section 8. I would say that
is the number one issue, is how to deal with housing for ex-
offenders.
We work very closely with our State of Ohio. They are very
interested in doing improved discharge planning, but simply
there are not resources available to house that population, so
they end up un-housed. Within the population of ex-offenders,
the most difficult to house are those folks who have been
labeled as sexual predator and are subject to community
notification. Many of those individuals are effectively
completely un-housable and present the greatest challenge.
The other issue that we consistently face is that folks who
have been homeless have very bad credit records. Increasingly,
private landlords as well as the Public Housing Authority will
not accept folks who have bad credit records. So there is not a
process by which they can resolve those prior debts. They may
be education debts; they may be health debts. Those credit
issues become a rental factor. They are not embedded in any of
the federal laws, but because the housing authorities, as well
as the private landlords, are looking for the best tenants, and
there are more people who need housing than there is housing
available, that is the additional factor that can often make
families in particular un-housable.
Mr. Pucci. In Alameda, we have a similar example. We were
trying to do a project-based assistance program using Section 8
vouchers with a homeless collaborative. They wanted to target
the housing to folks who needed supportive services in the area
of drug and alcohol counseling. Our local HUD rep said, well,
you cannot do that because they would not be eligible for
Section 8 if they had chronic drug and alcohol problems. So
there is a conflict there.
Mr. Netburn. I would, in the interest of time, just agree
with the things that were said. These are our clients. They are
people who are mentally ill, who have been convicted of quality
of life crimes, et cetera; people who have been evicted from
other units because they could not pay their rent. That is why
these people are homeless. So to have many of those things be
barriers to them going to the type of housing we are talking
about is very problematic.
Ms. Hart. I think Ms. Poppe mentioned families as well. Is
it because the head of the household faces the challenge that
they have been incarcerated, or have that kind of a challenge?
Ms. Poppe. Yes. It is usually the head of household.
Occasionally, it is a youth offender who is a member of the
family, where the youth has committed a crime, that they will
be ineligible. Usually those would be a sex-related offense.
They are pretty rare circumstances, but they are the most
difficult to house. In part, it is because there is not a good
availability of treatment services to go with the housing to
help the individual be really stable out in the neighborhood
and out in the community, because we certainly do not want them
to re-offend.
Ms. Hart. So part of the solution is actually to have a
more complete package of services?
Ms. Poppe. Absolutely.
Ms. Hart. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentlelady.
My neighbor across the hall in the Cannon Building, Mr.
Scott, who showed up on time, but we had all this seniority we
had to get through. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you. I appreciate those brownie points.
My question is to the gentleman from Philadelphia, Mr.
Hess, about the phenomenal success in Philadelphia. I have
spent some time in Philadelphia attending college at the
University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. While there, this
homelessness problem was really being magnified in
Philadelphia, while at the same time there was a lot of
downward pressure because of urban decay and Philadelphia's
massive loss of housing stock, especially up in North
Philadelphia, which makes your success story all the more
remarkable.
Especially the fact that you went from, I think you said,
about 400,000 and some homeless to around 150,000 homeless, and
then you had a 50 percent drop. Given all of that and the
downward pressure also from the loss of all that housing stock,
the nation would be very interested in knowing what were the
centerpieces of your strategy that provided this remarkable
success story of homelessness in Philadelphia?
Mr. Hess. I thank the gentleman for his kind words. We
point out that Mayor Franklin is from Philadelphia as well.
Mr. Scott. Absolutely.
Mr. Hess. We are proud of the work that is going on in
Atlanta. Really, it started in our city with a public
discussion over the issue of the number of people sleeping on
the streets. It really was a very vocal discussion on both
sides of that issue that led to Mayor John Street taking very
strong leadership to say we were not going to criminalize the
act of being homeless on the streets of our city, but yet we
were going to try a social service engagement strategy and put
$5 million new dollars immediately on the table to bring the
appropriate systems and resources to bear.
So we added street outreach teams and created a police
detail strictly dedicated to homeless service issues to work
with those social service teams. But the biggest thing we did
was add residential treatment placement slots, housing with
treatment and support. That has been really remarkably
effective. At first, it was drug and alcohol treatment programs
with residential housing and behavioral health housing. We
added about 2,000 units of behavioral health beds with services
attached in the city, and hundreds of drug and alcohol recovery
house beds.
So that was the first piece. Once we were able to reduce
the street population by about 50 percent, we then recognized
that those strategies in and of themselves would not get us to
our goal of ending the need for anyone to sleep on our streets.
That is when we turned to the Housing First approach.
Supportive housing is just so incredibly important. I was
really thinking about Chairman Ney's question about the de-
institutionalization. The fact is that I think now we have
learned over time how to provide services in housing for almost
anybody.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Hess, let me ask you because I do not want
to use all my time here, but let me ask about rental
assistance. Tell me how rental assistance played in your
program and how impactful and important it is?
Mr. Hess. It is absolutely critical to be able to house
people permanently with supportive services. We were able to
kind of cobble together some of the services locally, but we
had to have the rental subsidies to make that portion of our
success happen. It remains critically important as we look to
the future.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Ms. Poppe, may I ask you this question, in the legislation
there is a funding mechanism that says you get 3-year grants,
and then after that 3 years you get a renewal, but that 3-year
renewal is one-half of what the original was. Do you believe
that that authorization is sufficient to provide the necessary
funds to address this chronic homelessness?
Ms. Poppe. It has been our experience that overall just
over half of the support for our supportive housing units that
have been developed in Columbus do come from the federal
government. That does not mean that at the beginning of the
project their funding got cut by half as we move through the
process. So I do believe that that formula should be addressed
and adjusted. It is one thing to say it is 50 percent of the
overall project cost, but it is another thing if the real
intention is to cut the funding by 50 percent.
Under the current collaborative initiative to end
homelessness, we are in a declining scale as it relates to the
HHS component, under SAMHSA, but the rent subsidies under HUD
under the SHP program have remained constant throughout the
term of the grant. We believe that the housing subsidy portion
of it definitely needs to stay fully in place. The service
piece perhaps could decline as you could bring in locals,
because there is a substantial part of funding for services
that can come from the local and the state government. But
absolutely, the housing component needs to stay there because
that is the only way we can keep folks affordably housed.
Mr. Scott. One final question, Mr. Chairman. There has been
some debate and discussion among professionals as well as
housing and homeless advocates in terms of the definition of
``chronic homelessness.'' Do you feel that there is a need for
us to try to come up with some definition, and this could be
for any member on the panel, for chronic homelessness, and if
we needed to write that into the statute? If so, what do you
think, just very quickly, what it would say? Mr. Hess?
Mr. Hess. I would say that we follow the research, and we
look at the research of Dr. Culhane from the University of
Pennsylvania and we see that 10 percent of the population meet
the chronic definition that he has developed, and that they are
using 50 percent of our resources, we would say with or without
a definition that is a group we ought to target and we ought to
focus on because we believe that if we are able to move that 10
percent that is utilizing 50 percent of our resources, into
permanent housing and out of our shelter systems, that
ultimately we will have more resources to be able to address
the need of everyone else that experiences homelessness in our
community, whether that be individuals or families.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whitehead. Mr. Scott, we certainly believe that the
definition should be expanded because we certainly believe that
it is important to address the issues of this population, but
we do not believe that you should be pitting populations
against each other. Homeless families and children are just as
vulnerable as chronically homeless individuals as defined in
the legislation.
In addition to that, there is also additional research by
the RAND Corporation in Houston that says people that are
homeless have some of the same issues as people that are
chronically homeless by definition. We do not completely
understand the freed-up resources because if people are
chronically homeless and need the resources for permanent
housing, permanent housing is housing that remains forever. So
we do not understand how resources are freed-up if you provide
permanent housing for people over a period of time.
Mr. Scott. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Renzi. I thank the gentleman. I want the gentleman to
know I am willing to work with him, too, maybe during the
markup period at looking at what an amendment might be on the
definition, particularly given all the testimony we have gotten
here today.
The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin my
comments by saying that while I think I agree with a lot of Ms.
Waters's comments that there are some well-founded objections
to this legislation, I do think that this needs to be said on
the outset. Mr. Renzi has certainly shown a remarkable
commitment on this issue in the last year-and-a-half, and not
just with the work that he is doing today.
As we speak, the agriculture appropriations bill is being
marked up and Mr. Renzi and I are cosponsors of a bill that
will allow guarantee fees to be included in financing for FHA
loans, USDA loans. That is, I think, the fourth or fifth time
this year that Mr. Renzi has been successful in getting a bill
of his enacted into law. I certainly want to thank him and it
is something that people in this room should know.
Let me pick up, if I can, on Mr. Scott's questions.
Obviously, you have heard from a number of people on this
panel, from a number of yourselves, about the weakness of the
definition of ``chronically homeless.'' The overwhelming
majority of you were supporters of this bill. Those of you who
are supporters, how many of you are wedded to that definition?
How many of you think that it is critical to the efficacy of
this bill that the definition remain as it is now? Any of you?
As we used to say in the courtroom, let the record reflect that
no one answered that question affirmatively, and several nodded
their heads negatively. So let's work from that assumption.
One of the things that is striking to me is that under both
the McKinney-Vento formula and under this formula there is a
tendency to fixate on people who are homeless because of long-
term issues in their lives such as disability or alcoholism or
mental illness. It strikes me that there is another emerging
population of homeless people who fall frankly outside the
ambit of all these bills, and I want to talk about that for a
minute.
Given the dislocations we have had in this economy in the
last several years, given the fact that in my opinion and the
opinion of a lot of us on this committee, the economic
inequality in this country is widening and we are pushing
people onto the margins who have never been on the margins
before. There is a new class of people who are homeless not
because they are mentally ill, not because of any lifestyle
issues, but simply because they cannot afford to make payments
which are unbelievable in a lot of our major urban areas. The
price of rent in DC, San Francisco, Boston, you have a lot of
people who do not come anywhere near the profile of homeless
who fit that category because they cannot afford $2,500 a month
in rent.
Can any couple of you talk for a moment about what we could
do to address that problem of people who have fallen into
short-term economic distress?
Ms. Roman. If I could speak to that, I have two
observations. The first is, we want to avoid a situation in
which having a housing crisis enter the homeless system and
cannot get out. That is what is happening now. Anybody who has
a housing crisis enters the homeless system and their stays are
becoming longer and longer because there is no exit strategy.
So we need to get people back into housing faster. The way we
do that is by increasing the supply of affordable housing.
So this is not a homelessness issue. This is a housing
affordability issue. We need a strong rent subsidy program like
Section 8 and we need a production program like the National
Housing Trust Fund or other production programs. I think we
need to be careful not to try to solve the entire housing
affordability issue of the country through the homeless
programs. We ought to strengthen the affordable housing
infrastructure and avoid people becoming homeless in the first
place.
Mr. Davis. Do any one of you think that the
Administration's proposed changes in Section 8 over the last
several years are a good public policy goal for this country?
Does anybody on the panel think that? As we used to say in the
courtroom, let the record reflect that nobody bit on that one
either.
[Laughter.]
Let me close on this observation with you, Mr. Whitehead.
The nature of these hearings is that there are a lot more of
you all witnesses than there are of us members who were here,
and there are a lot of lobbyists out there and a lot of interns
and a lot of staffers, and they miss a lot of what is said. So
I want to make sure people heard something that you said today.
If I understood you correctly, 10 years ago you experienced
a situation of temporary homelessness. That is something I want
people in this room to hear for two reasons. First of all, no
one looking at you today would recognize that. That is
important because it shows us that the profile of this problem
does not always look like the people we suspect.
Second of all, if I can just take 30 seconds to make this
point, you acknowledge that the rehabilitation in your life
happened in part because of publicly assisted and guarantee
programs. It is important for us to know that because every now
and then on this committee and all the others, we tend to
reduce these problems to an analysis of numbers and we get
caught up on the merits of not doing anything versus not doing
enough, and we have all these abstract arguments.
Every now and then it is important for somebody to come in
here and tell us that there is a power in what we do, and that
power is the ability to every now and then shape the lives of
individual people. So I wanted to make sure everybody in this
room who might have missed your success story in the midst of
all the interruptions, to make sure that they heard it because
it speaks to ultimately what this institution can do.
I will yield back.
Mr. Renzi. Mr. Davis, thank you for your articulation, as
always substantive.
We are going to go ahead and dismiss this panel. Let me say
to you, thank you very much. I am open to an amendment on the
definition of homelessness, given the fact that you all brought
great arguments to the dais today I think most of us here in
this room agree with, and I was part of the ones that did sign
on to the Section 8 letter that was worried about that issue. I
would also say that this is new money. It is not money taken
from one program for another. The motive was simply to target a
specific area where we could make some gain, again not to, and
I know there are tons of issues out there that we can deal
with, and hopefully in that targeting make some people's lives
better.
Thank you for coming all the way from all your homes and
towns, and for being part of this. Let the record reflect that
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 30
days for the members to submit written questions to these
witnesses and place their responses in the record.
We dismiss the first panel and welcome the second panel,
and also welcome our chair, Mr. Ney.
Chairman Ney. [Presiding.] I want to thank the second panel
for your patience. We have the Honorable John W. Hickenlooper,
Mayor, City and County of Denver, Colorado; Mr. Philip Mangano,
executive director, Interagency Council on Homelessness.
I am going to defer to Chairman Baker for the introduction
of the third panelist.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
appreciation to you for courtesies extended in providing an
opportunity for the Mayor of my principal municipality in the
Sixth District of Louisiana to be able to be with us this
morning, Mayor Bobby Simpson. The Mayor has been an outspoken
advocate for housing reform within our community.
We have been a fortunate recipient of a significant Hope VI
grant providing for the first time significant HUD resources to
revitalize housing in a very depressed area of the city. The
Mayor has been a leader in this arena and I think one of the
first cities to demonstrate leadership with regard to the
Samaritan Act in formulating their own visionary plan. I wish
to extend a warm welcome to the Mayor and my deep appreciation
to you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesies extended.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ney. I want to thank the Chairman for his
introduction.
We are going to start with the Honorable Bobby Simpson. Is
it true it is Mayor-President in Louisiana?
Mr. Simpson. Yes, sir. We are in a consolidated form of
government. I am actually Mayor of the city of Baton Rouge and
President of our Parish or County.
Chairman Ney. That is great. We will begin with you, Mayor.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY SIMPSON, MAYOR-PRESIDENT, BATON ROUGE,
LA
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
First of all, let me thank my Congressman, Richard Baker,
for the courtesies extended to us. He has been a partner with
us in changing some of the affordable housing stock in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. We have made significant improvements to
single-family homeownership in our community.
I also want to thank Mr. Mangano for making several trips
to Baton Rouge, Louisiana and being part of us and helping us
to establish our 10-year plan, one of the first, probably the
first in the State of Louisiana and one of the first in the
south.
As Mayor-President of East Baton Rouge parish, I represent
a diverse community of both rural and inner-city. Our community
has been fighting the problem of chronic homelessness. The
problem of chronic homelessness is not just a big city problem.
It is a problem that affects the communities across the
country, both large and small, urban and rural.
We have formed the Mayor's Task Force to End Chronic
Homelessness. This task force was established to link and
expand the local network of homeless service providers to
include businesses, schools, law enforcement and the faith
community. Our goal was to create a one-stop shop for
homelessness support. No one agency will be able to solve
chronic homelessness. This has to be a collaborative community
effort.
As a community, we took what we have learned from our
Mayor's Task Force to End Chronic Homelessness and applied it
to our 10-year strategic plan. Our 10-year plan is an example
of the way that private and public agencies can come together
to strategically coordinate and collaborate in the development
and implementation of a community-wide plan to end chronic
homelessness.
Our Office of Economic and Community Development, along
with entities such as the Capital Area Alliance for the
Homeless, Volunteers of America, Salvation Army, St. Vincent de
Paul Society, Myriam's House, Catholic Community Services and
other nonprofit providers represent a diverse and strong
community response, which includes both faith-based and
traditional nonprofit provider organizations.
As president of the Louisiana Conference of Mayors, the 10
big cities in the State of Louisiana, I am very familiar with
the Samaritan Initiative. In June 2003, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors met and passed a resolution endorsing the
Administration's effort to end chronic homelessness and
supporting the 10-year planning process for cities. On January
15, 2004, East Baton Rouge parish unveiled its 10-year plan to
end chronic homelessness. The City-Parish of Baton Rouge
supports the concept of single application process
Mr. Mangano from the Interagency Council was with us for
that announcement.
The City-Parish of Baton Rouge supports the concept of the
single application process provided by the Samaritan
Initiative. It fits ideally into our City-Parish efforts of a
one-stop shop for homelessness services. We support the housing
strategies that move the chronic homeless from the streets and
shelters into housing. We have created the Neighborhood Housing
Network to partner with the city to utilize adjudicated
properties for developing housing for the homeless. We continue
to identify available land to construct Housing First homeless
development.
We have formed a partnership with the Baton Rouge Police
Department to create the Homeless Triage Center. This center
gives police somewhere else to bring the homeless instead of
incarceration. The Homeless Triage Center puts the client in
touch with proper services to help end chronic homelessness.
The goal is to have all our assets working together. East Baton
Rouge Parish has many services, but for them to have the most
effect there needs to be collaboration and strategic
partnerships. The Samaritan Initiative encourages this
collaboration and partnership.
Chronic homelessness is a challenge we must fight together.
It is not just a big city problem. Chronic homelessness affects
us all. This is a problem that taxes our police department,
health services, and our community. No one agency will be able
to solve it. To accomplish our goal of ending chronic
homelessness, local, State and federal entities must work
together to maximize our assets. I truly believe that in the
world's most prosperous country, it is unacceptable to have
men, women and children living on the streets. A home is
fundamental to an individual's happiness, health and success. I
am committed to our community's effort to end homelessness in
Baton Rouge.
We wish to thank the committee for allowing us to testify.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Bobby Simpson can be found
on page 148 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. Thank you, Mayor.
Usually we go on and move on to the other witnesses, but as
I understand it you have to be out at 12:30. So if there are
any questions for the Mayor now, we will then move on.
Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor, one of the areas where I know we have particular
difficulty in Baton Rouge is with homeless veterans. If there
is any segment of our population that may deserve special
treatment, it is those who have served the country and now find
themselves out on the street.
Is there any particular portion of the Samaritan program
that speaks to that particular segment of the population? Is it
generally blind and it is up to the local community to identify
the needs? Finally, what else can be done, in addition to the
basic boilerplate? I understand the funds for the Samaritan
program are fairly limited, about $70 million nationally.
Obviously, one answer from a Mayor is always more money.
Mr. Simpson. That is right.
Mr. Baker. But is there any other additional resource,
help? What else could we do to work more effectively with you
in meeting these needs?
Mr. Simpson. More money.
[Laughter.]
No, I think Mr. Mangano will address that a little bit in
his testimony. The VA is part of the collaboration under the
Samaritan Initiative. A lot of the things that we talk about,
including the Section 8 vouchers, are about rental properties.
To me, chronic homelessness, to end it you have to establish
homeownership. I think that is one of the mandates and one of
the basic tenets of what we are all working on is true
homeownership for all.
We have had this discussion over the last couple of hours
about whether you need to change Section 8 or whatever, but we
have a housing stock problem in this country. In my own parish,
we are building $200,000-plus houses, but we are not building
the $100,000 starter homes. This is an issue that faces the
young folks that are growing up, but it also affects anyone
that has a major health problem, which many of our veterans do.
So I think the collaboration that is there with the
Samaritan Initiative is something that will help us all in
solving that problem, particularly as it relates to veterans.
Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mayor.
I yield back.
Chairman Ney. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.
Mayor, let me take advantage of your expertise at the local
level to get a little bit of insight from you on Section 8. I
understand the thrust of your last answer is that you believe
there is a major housing stock problem. I do not think it is an
either/or and I do not necessarily disagree with that
observation, but I do not think it is an either/or.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Davis. Let me ask you this, how long have you been
Mayor again?
Mr. Simpson. Off and on for 12 years.
Mr. Davis. All right. Over that 12 years, obviously you
have had a chance to work with the Section 8 program. Do you
believe that the Section 8 program is somehow overfunded, that
we are putting too many resources into it?
Mr. Simpson. I do not believe any federal program that
filters down to the local level is ever overfunded. We need
more money.
Mr. Davis. Do you have any agreement or any sympathy with
the Administration's decision back in April that will lead to
the elimination or the reduction of Section 8 vouchers?
Mr. Simpson. No, not exactly. I mean, again we were called
here on the Samaritan Initiative.
Mr. Davis. I understand that.
Mr. Simpson. We do not see what is going on behind the
scenes with some of your dictates and discussions.
Mr. Davis. But you see what is going on above the scenes,
and from what you are saying you think Section 8 is something
that is a good valid commitment from the government.
Let me ask you this question, do you have any explanation
or do you have any clue why the Administration, because frankly
a lot of mayors agree with you. I have not heard from any
mayors who have a different perspective on Section 8 than you
do. Do you have any explanation of why the Administration seems
to be in a different place on Section 8 from where the
overwhelming majority of Republican and Democratic mayors are?
Mr. Simpson. No, I do not.
Mr. Davis. Have you shared that with Mr. Baker and any of
your friends who may have the ear of the Administration?
Mr. Simpson. No. All I can tell you is I am a member of the
National League of Cities and we support the Samaritan
Initiative, but we also support Section 8. We are still having
the housing issues that just about any city of any size is
having.
Mr. Davis. What about Hope VI? Is Hope VI also a good,
valid program?
Mr. Simpson. Hope VI, we are a recipient of Hope VI, we are
very, very proud of it.
Mr. Davis. How many Hope VI programs are going in your
community right now?
Mr. Simpson. Just the one.
Mr. Davis. When was that one launched?
Mr. Simpson. Last year.
Mr. Davis. Last year? And do you believe that something is
going to be in effect a program for housing in your area?
Mr. Simpson. Yes.
Mr. Davis. And you do not support the elimination of Hope
VI, do you?
Mr. Simpson. No.
Mr. Davis. I do not know very many mayors who do. Have you
communicated to Mr. Baker or to the Administration your
confidence in the Hope VI program?
Mr. Baker. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. Davis. I will.
Mr. Baker. It was because of his effective congressional
representation and continued unswerving commitment to
excellence.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. Exactly what I was going to say, Congressman.
Mr. Baker. Fighting the odds against many large urban
centers which take most of the Hope VI money that our small
community was able to get a few crumbs and help our Mayor take
an excellent step toward progress in helping those underserved
in our community.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Davis. Reclaiming my time, I welcome that commitment
and I hope that your testimony and Mr. Baker's testimony, as it
will, is one that is heard by the Administration.
I yield back.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Ney. Are there other questions? Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. One quick one, Mr. Mayor. In your opening
comments, you mentioned your preference for homeownership over
rental units. The Millennial Housing Commission's report, have
you read that?
Mr. Simpson. No, sir.
Mr. Scott. It states that the lack of affordable low-income
rental units is by far the more serious problem. On the panel
before I asked the gentleman from Philadelphia and others about
rental assistance. It appears to me that the general national
opinion runs counter to yours. I was wonder why is that?
Mr. Simpson. In my personal opinion, again I am giving you
my personal feelings, I believe that homeownership is
tantamount to being American today. I think we need to move all
of our goals towards homeownership. I agree with Mr. Davis's
comments, we cannot do one without the other. You cannot take
the population that are having to live in the rentals and just
do away with the program. But to me, if we can transition from
rental into ownership, and that requires a tremendous
collaborative effort with the building of new homes and the
affordability of those homes. To me, that is the issue that we
are facing as a nation today is the affordability of single-
family homeownership.
Mr. Scott. Would you say that might be unique according to
the region of the country?
Mr. Simpson. I think so. Some of the things in Louisiana,
and particularly Baton Rouge, you can almost buy as cheap as
you can rent. So that may have something to do with some of the
things you are talking about.
Mr. Scott. Right, especially on some of the real hardcore
urban centers where housing stock is not as plentiful, say, in
Denver or Atlanta.
Mr. Simpson. And with the deterioration of inner-cities and
the revitalization efforts that are going on, if we can put
some programs together that can make low-income housing
affordable to where the folks that are already living there can
move from the rental vouchers, and take those vouchers into
homeownership which, to me, that is a good program also.
Mr. Scott. Are you comfortable with the definition of
``chronic homelessness''? Or do we need to write one, and if so
what would it say?
Mr. Simpson. I think he has already said that he would be
willing to take a look at that. You know, we create a specific
program, this Samaritan Initiative, to target a particular
population. It seems that it is getting caught up in all the
other programs that are available. I do not think you throw the
baby out with the bath wash.
This is a program from a local government aspect that is
very needed, because when you have 10 percent of the folks that
are involved using 50 percent of our resources, and a lot of
times for some of the cities with no mechanism in place to even
move them off of the street anywhere else. So a lot of times
the frustration from local governments is you just do not tend
to deal with it. So the program continues to grow and you get a
larger homelessness section. So if it is a definition aspect, I
think you gentlemen need to work that out yourselves.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Chairman Ney. Any further questions? Mayor, I want to thank
you. I know you have to leave.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Chairman Ney. Thank you. I appreciate your trip to the
capital and your testimony.
Next, we will go to the Honorable John Hickenlooper. Mayor?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, MAYOR, CITY AND COUNTY
OF DENVER, CO
Mr. Hickenlooper. Good morning, Chairman Ney, other members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
before you in support of the Samaritan Initiative Act.
I was only elected a year ago and had never really been
involved in political campaigns. I did, as an entrepreneur,
develop housing as a private individual and also did affordable
housing. One of the reasons I ran for office was the lack of
nonpartisan collaborative and programs with measurable
outcomes. I think that is one of the things that this Samaritan
Initiative act really stands for.
You have heard about most of the details already so I will
not bore you with that. In Denver, we received last year $1.9
million from HUD in the Shelter Plus Care Program over 4 years.
We sub-granted that out to the Colorado Coalition for the
Homeless, who have since receiving the first funding in January
have already placed 47 out of 60 of the individuals in that
program for the chronically homeless.
I also want to thank Mr. Mangano and the Interagency
Council on Homelessness for really addressing this issue in a
collaborative way and bringing together, especially those of us
on a local level and new to government. The matrix of services
and how to patch them together is often challenging. I think
that this initiative is a second step in making a seamless
approach to addressing homelessness.
One of the major issues we face in Denver is our hospital,
Denver Health, our large urban hospital which is the major, by
far, provider of indigent care and spent over $44 million last
year on healthcare for the homeless. That has driven us. That
has grown by over 20 percent for the last 2 years and driven us
to be on the precipice for the first time in our history of
considering specifying certain types of care that we would no
longer be able to give to indigent people.
I am also, in addition to representing the people of Denver
today, representing mayors from across the country. Last month,
the U.S. Conference of Mayors enthusiastically endorsed the
Samaritan Initiative Act of 2004 as a vital first step in
addressing some of the issues around chronic homelessness. At
the same time, the U.S. Conference of Mayors also
enthusiastically endorsed maintaining full funding for Section
8. I think it recognizes that Samaritan is a complement, and
not a substitute for that funding, and that you cannot do one
without the other.
I am assured and am confident that the Samaritan Initiative
would help Denver and many other cities bring an end to chronic
homelessness and be a major step to ending homelessness
altogether. Again, as someone who ran for measurable outcomes,
to see we now have over 125 cities committed to ending
homelessness in 10 years. That is something that those of us
outside of government have rarely seen. I see it as incredibly
encouraging. This initiative, again, is one of the steps to get
to that destination. I hope that we can get all of your support
for that.
Thank you for your attention today, as well as your support
of Denver and other communities as we work together to end
homelessness.
[The prepared statement of Hon. John W. Hickenlooper can be
found on page 76 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Mangano.
STATEMENT OF PHILIP MANGANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS
Mr. Mangano. Thank you, Chairman Ney. I want to give a
special thanks to Mr. Renzi for sponsoring the Samaritan
Initiative legislation. I believe it is an important next step
in the efforts to end homelessness, and specifically focusing
on chronic homelessness in our country.
In this room are a number of the federal partners from HHS,
HUD and VA and Labor who have worked to reduce the statutory,
regulatory and cultural barriers to make the Samaritan
Initiative possible. Without them, this unprecedented
collaboration would not have been possible.
From all those who have testified today, some who I have
known for many years during my 24 years of advocacy for
homeless people, mostly spent in Massachusetts, what I heard
was a near-unity in support of the Samaritan Initiative. In the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget proposal and then again in
his 2004 and 2005 proposals, he has called on this nation to
end chronic homelessness in the next 10 years, the homelessness
of those most likely to be on the streets of our communities,
severely disabled by mental illness, addiction or developmental
disabilities, and tragically those most likely to perish on
those streets from exposure.
Cabinet secretaries and agency and department heads have
responded, and the revitalization of the U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness has convened 20 federal agencies in the
Administration's response. Not only is this Administration
reorienting its homelessness resources to accomplish the
objective, investing deeper resources in the prevention of
homelessness and providing technical assistance through policy
academies for states to partner with Washington in making
mainstream resources more responsive and available to homeless
people, the president has also proposed the Samaritan
Initiative.
Mr. Renzi, as lead sponsor and others who have signed on,
understand that the Samaritan Initiative represents a new
approach to our country's effort to reduce and end the national
disgrace of homelessness. Disabled homeless veterans who live
in encampments in the woods in rural areas or who forage for
food from dumpsters in our cities; homeless mentally ill elders
wandering the streets of our communities, sleeping in doorways
or long-term in overcrowded shelters; those with the disease of
addiction on the streets of every city in our country;
physically and developmentally disabled men and women who
wrestle with homelessness in their treatment and their
recovery; these and others are the focus of the Samaritan
Initiative.
As the name implies from that old story, this initiative is
targeted to those who are on the side of the road, on the
street, long term in shelters, long term in homelessness.
Others ignoring their plight, indifferent to their situation,
insulated from their presence, have walked by. The Samaritan
Initiative is saying that we are going to stop. Federal
agencies and our governmental partners in statehouses, city
halls and county buildings, and our private sector business
partners and our community and faith-based partners, we are
going to stop and ensure that those who are on the side of the
road are moved toward housing and the services they need to
stabilize their lives, treat their ailments, and sustain their
tenancies.
That is what the Samaritan Initiative is, supporting
neighbors. We have all long understood the moral and spiritual
and quality of life issues attending to these lives. But the
recent research tells us that there is another compelling
reason to respond, economics. Across our country, study after
study from Seattle to New York, from Columbus to Denver, is
telling us that those experiencing chronic homelessness on our
streets are some of the most expensive citizens in our
communities. A recent study in San Diego demonstrates this new
understanding.
The City and County of San Diego commissioned the
University of California at San Diego to follow people who are
experiencing chronic homelessness on their streets. The
presumption was that these people did not cost very much; that
they slept on the beaches and in the parks and on the streets
of San Diego, and that they begged for what they ate and what
they drank.
But when the city and county engaged the university in the
study, they uncovered a different story. Their research
following just 15 chronic street inebriates for 18 months
revealed that the 15 people had 299 entrances into the
emergency rooms of local hospitals, similar to what Mayor
Hickenlooper described in Denver. In that period, they were
usually taken by ambulances and EMTs to those 299 entrances at
the cost of nearly $1 million to the city and county of San
Diego.
When acute substance abuse and mental health treatment were
added for the 15, plus law enforcement interventions and
temporary incarcerations, the total cost for the 15 in the 18
months was $3 million, or an average of $200,000 per person.
San Diego knew that they could do better. Through results-
oriented, cost-effective planning, they are, through their SIP
program and a 10-year planning process.
What was most disquieting and the cause of much frustration
to those city officials was that after the expenditure of $3
million or $200,000 per person, those 15 were in the same
condition and the same situation as before the funds were
spent. Those ad hoc siloed crisis interventions were expensive
and ultimately ineffectual in remedying the situation or
improving the condition.
A long time ago, Einstein warned us that a certain sign of
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting
different results. Well, the Samaritan Initiative aims to break
that cycle on our streets and in the shelters of our country.
How? First, moving from ad hoc, siloed crisis responses to
coordinated strategic solutions, starting in Washington where
three federal departments, HUD, HHS and VA, are partnering in
the unprecedented Samaritan Initiative to ensure that housing
and service resources are available together in a single
application, and through that coordination requiring a similar
coordination in communities across the nation. Samaritan leaves
room for other of the 20 federal agencies now partnering in the
United States Interagency Council to join that effort.
Second, the Samaritan Initiative moves beyond simply
funding programs to investing in results. The bill calls for
grantees to measure outcomes and quantify results.
Third, the Samaritan Initiative challenges the status quo
of homelessness in calling for a new standard of expectation
that we will see visible, measurable and quantifiable change on
our streets, in our programs, and especially in the lives of
homeless people. No longer are we content to shuffle homeless
people from one city to another, from one side of town to
another, or from one homeless program to another, or from the
street to treatment and back to the street. The Samaritan
Initiative, along with the prevention resources proposed by the
president in his budget, offer a whole prevention and
intervention strategy to reduce and end chronic homelessness.
Fourth, the Samaritan Initiative offers to our state and
city and county partners, such as Mayor Hickenlooper and Mayor
Simpson, new resources to invest in the results-oriented 10-
year plans that they are creating across the country from
Massachusetts to Chicago, from Minnesota to San Francisco. The
Council has partnered now with 46 Governors in the creation of
State Interagency Councils, and with 127 mayors and county
executives in the creation of 10-year plans to end chronic
homelessness.
This partnership that literally extends from the White
House to the streets, moves through 20 federal agencies,
statehouses, city halls, in partnership with the private,
nonprofit and faith-based sectors, along with homeless people
themselves, partnerships to create results-oriented, cost-
effective plans, driven by data and research and performance
and outcome-based.
Samaritan is an investment in these plans and partnerships,
and indicates our nonpartisan support to reduce and end
homelessness on our streets. In developing these city plans, we
have worked closely with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, who
have agreed with us that on this issue of homelessness,
partnership trumps partisanship. There is no D or R or I on
homelessness. We are just Americans partnering to end a
national disgrace.
Congress has received two letters from over 80 mayors
endorsing Samaritan. The U.S. Conference of Mayors endorsed the
Samaritan Initiative last month at its annual meeting. A number
of national homeless, faith-based and issues-related
organizations have endorsed it as well, as have individual
provider agencies.
But the most important endorsement for Samaritan comes from
the field, from the streets. Last year's precursor to the
Samaritan Initiative, the Collaborative Chronic Homelessness
Initiative, has produced results. Invested in 11 cities across
the country, initiatives begun earlier this year such as the
one in Denver have already found the target and hit the bull's
eye. Hundreds of those who have been on our streets for years,
and long term in our shelters, have moved into permanent,
supportive housing and are staying there. By the end of the
year, hundreds more will join them.
When we make any investment, we should expect a return. The
return we are looking for from Samaritan is that people will
move off the streets, out of long-term homelessness stays, into
housing and stay here. We are doing and getting just that. The
investment in the Samaritan Initiative will produce those
results and move us further away from punitive responses that
just have not worked.
Samaritan offers us an opportunity to meet our spiritual
and moral obligations to the poorest, to improve the quality of
life in our communities, to save money on homeless and
healthcare systems, to foster deeper and more collaborative
relationships in Washington, and then between Washington and
our nation's communities, and to move beyond the status quo to
results and efficiencies.
Finally, when our country says that we will no longer
tolerate chronic homelessness; we will no longer tolerate a
homeless veteran foraging for food from a dumpster; we will no
longer tolerate a mentally ill person finding their sleep on
our streets; we will no longer tolerate a homeless elder
succumbing to exposure; when our toleration of street
homelessness diminishes, our country's soul will feel the
healing. That remedy will move us closer to the day when
everyone in our communities will be known by a single name,
neighbor, and treated as one.
The Samaritan Initiative moves us as a nation beyond
indifference and insulation and allows us with all of our
partners to stop on the side of the road for our neighbor.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Philip Mangano can be found on
page 79 in the appendix.]
Chairman Ney. I thank you for your testimony.
The gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this panel
and thank you for taking the time.
I want to ask, when we looked last year at the initiatives
that were put together, there was a collaborative grant process
that had some money behind it. We had a little bit of feedback
where it talked about some of the bugs needing to be worked
out. Apparently, the process is new. It is a little bit
burdensome. As we move forward with the hope that the Samaritan
bill will move, and again open to possibly some clarifications,
what would it look like as far as the actual process? What kind
of lessons learned from last year could we apply that we will
not be bogged down in implementing this? Mr. Mangano?
Mr. Mangano. First of all, we received the same feedback. I
think it is to be understood that what we were attempting to do
with the collaborative initiative, which is the precursor to
the Samaritan Initiative, was unprecedented. Never before had
three federal departments, involving four federal agencies
worked together on a single notice fo funding availability for
homelessness resources to provide to the field what they would
need to end chronic homelessness housing and service resources
together.
So it was unprecedented, and therefore it was a prototype
of what needed to come. I think we all remember the first cell
phones. They were cumbersome. Sometimes they worked, sometimes
they did not. You needed a little briefcase to carry them
around. Well, in a similar way the collabarative initiative of
last year was a prototype. It was cumbersome.
What we have done with the Samaritan Initiative is to
streamline that process, make the funding more flexible in
terms of the pooled resources that would be available. The
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness fielded all
of those responses from the field and that information was
brought to the agencies. Many of those agency personnel are
here and because of the work done on the Collaborative
Initiative to identify the statutory, regulatory and cultural
barriers, they were able to put the Samaritan Initiative
together.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you. The first panel did a great job of
unanimously looking at the classification situation and saying,
well, we understand that you are trying to target something
here. I really was looking at the idea of going after those 15
individuals that you talked about who we are describing as
chronic homeless. Is there a better way for me to describe that
in defining it?
You hear from the testimony from the gentleman from
California who talked about families being now one of the
growing sections. I am the father of 12 kids. I do not want to
turn my back, especially on children. But again, this was meant
to be a specific arrow of that specific group, particularly
that came out of that study of 15. Also I heard great testimony
from the gentleman who talked about seasonal homelessness, how
particularly in the cold regions of America those seasonal
individuals maybe go inside and be temporary homeless, but then
they would be restricted because they do not meet the 1-year
definition that was brought out.
So could you help me refine what is the chronic portion
that we are going after?
Mr. Mangano. Sure. First of all, I think it is important to
understand that not only is it one study, but it is multiple
studies across our country that have indicated that people
experiencing chronic homelessness are the people most likely to
die on our streets, to be disabled, and they are the highest
cost in healthcare systems. When I go around the country and
meet with people in cities and I ask to look at the lists of
people who have died on the streets in their cities, nearly
every person fits exactly the profile of people experiencing
chronic homelessness. When I talked to mayors like Mayor
Hickenlooper from Denver and other mayors around the country
and they are talking about the people who are in their
emergency rooms, they meet the definition of chronic
homelessness here.
There is no question that the full policy of this
Administration is to address all of homelessness, and much of
that was addressed in the testimony that was giving to the
committee by HUD wherein they indicate that nearly half of the
persons to be assisted by the homeless assistance funds
invested by HUD are homeless families. HUD's funding assisted
over 200,000 families including 350,000 families in the latest
round of McKinney funding.
As you said, this is exactly a specifically targeted
initiative meant to make an intervention in the lives of people
who are on our streets and long term in shelters. There are
resources addressing other populations. There is no need to put
every population into the Samaritan Initiative. It is meant as
that arrow that you described. Certainly, there are many other
initiatives addressing the homelessness of other profiles of
homeless people.
Mr. Renzi. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman just for a few
more seconds, if we look at the chronic homeless, particularly
those most in need on the street, the 15 particularly in the
study, and that is the arrow I was trying to shoot here, those
individuals who may live in the cold regions of America and
necessarily be brought into a temporary shelter, this bill
right now in its current language would restrict those
individuals from being part of our initiative. While we may be
putting and looking at the chronic homeless, those individuals
that we talked about, and we are talking about individuals
rather than families, and not turning our back on the families,
would you be open to the idea of expanding the definition on
the seasonal side of it?
Mr. Mangano. Actually, this definition was derived by a
series of conversations and deliberations that were made by
HUD, HHS and VA over a 9-month period, really attempting to
refine the definition to come to terms with what the research
was indicating to us. The definition attempts to be research-
and data-driven. It is not quixotic in terms of having someone
come up with a definition, but it responds to the research that
is being done.
Needless to say, to the degree that there are other
concerns, I think other initiatives are being fostered to
address concerns of other profiles of homeless people.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Ney. Thank you.
The gentleman?
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mangano, you mentioned the mayors resolution in support
of this program. Have you seen their resolution on supporting
Section 8 HUD funding?
Mr. Mangano. I was actually at the U.S. Conference of
Mayors meeting and heard both of these resolutions brought
before the Housing Committee.
Mr. Frank. Okay. It did seem to me relevant to mention both
of them, because here is my question. And of course the Section
8, and I would ask unanimous consent to put that into the
record, it is very critical of HUD's position with regard to
Section 8. I believe Mayor Hickenloooper referred to it in his
testimony to the need to have Section 8.
My problem is you say we are going to end homelessness. I
am all in favor of that, but I am also skeptical of our over-
promising. Do you believe we now have enough affordable housing
units to end homelessness in this country, available to the
homeless?
Mr. Mangano. I think we have made it clear through the
research that has been conducted independently of the
Administration and in documents that the Administration has
talked about, that we need to provide for 150,000 tenancies
over the next 10 years with the objective of ending chronic
homelessness.
Mr. Frank. That would be additional units. Are these
additional units to what we are now doing?
Mr. Mangano. I think part of the notion was to both access
what units exist----
Mr. Frank. You are talking like a bureaucrat. Can we talk
like real people here? Are there going to be additional units
or existing units?
Mr. Mangano. They will be additional units in the lives of
people who experiencing chronic homelessness. Whether they are
brand new units that are produced, that is a question that is
now being focused on.
Mr. Frank. Not produced, because we are not talking about
necessarily new production, but made available. Here is the
problem. Mayors are telling us that because of the policies of
your Administration, they are having trouble solving the
problems now.
I am all in favor of ending homelessness. I think it would
be a terrible error, and I am sure you agree, if we did that at
the expense of existing people in this. You do not want to set
up a fight between working families who need Section 8, at the
working low-income, and the homeless. That is why I am asking
you, does this anticipate an increase in the number of units
that are made available for affordable housing through federal
help?
Mr. Mangano. Part of the work that we are doing in the
Administration right now, just as we have called on states and
cities to develop 10-year plans, we are working within the
Administration right now in terms of developing precisely a
strategy that will get us----
Mr. Frank. Can I ask you the question again? Please. I am
glad you have plans, but these are fairly specific questions.
Do you think we have enough units right now under the current
budgetary situation? Let me put it this way, do you anticipate
finding more permanent housing for homeless people than we now
have?
Mr. Mangano. Absolutely, and that is----
Mr. Frank. Okay. Do they come from new units made available
under federal programs? Do they displace existing people? That
is the problem we have. I want to do this. I want to
accommodate this. But I think you are kidding people if you
suggest it can be done within the existing allocation of----
Mr. Mangano. Both the collaborative initiative of last year
that was described by both Mayor Hickenlooper and myself, and
the Samaritan Initiative of this year, are housing initiatives.
They are both targeted to the creation of more housing
specifically for this population. So the trajectory is
precisely to create more units.
Mr. Frank. Okay. So how are you going to create more units?
So you do agree we need to create more affordable units. The
problem is you are working for the Administration that is
cutting back on them, according to the mayors who you are
working with. The mayors say, mayors and their residents who
receive Section 8 vouchers are facing a serious crisis as a
result of a policy guidance from the U.S. Department of HUD
where approximately 250,000 Section 8 vouchers would be
eliminated across the country based on the fiscal year 2005
proposed funding request.
I have a disconnect here. You say that this assumes more
units, but the mayors whom you cite, and I assume you cannot
turn the mayors on and off, much as you might like to, if you
cite them in support of your initiative, we have to assume they
are still valid on the support of the general one. Do you agree
with the mayors' characterization of the fiscal year 2005
funding request's impact?
Mr. Mangano. First of all, I have never found myself able
to turn off and on mayors. I find that they respond to
results----
Mr. Frank. Good. Could you answer my question now? Do you
agree with their characterization that the fiscal year 2005
proposed funding request will eliminate 250,000 Section 8
vouchers and result in unforeseen housing and financial
hardships by the most needy of our low-income population of
working poor. That is the mayors. Do you agree or disagree with
that statement?
Mr. Mangano. As you know, in Massachusetts there were two
significant housing programs----
Mr. Frank. Excuse me. Do you agree or disagree with the
mayors' statement? Mr. Mangano, you know better than that. I am
not asking you about what we did in Massachusetts. Nobody
cares. They have heard too much about Massachusetts lately,
frankly. They will be talking it about it all day tomorrow in
the Senate.
Let us answer my question now. Do you agree or disagree
with the mayors' whereas, that is a straightforward question.
Mr. Mangano. I am trying to answer that question.
Mr. Frank. But not by what you and I did in Massachusetts
where nobody cares.
Mr. Mangano. My concern about Massachusetts is that we had
a housing program that was specifically targeted to this
population, namely the 707 program. Because of a lack of
political will there, because people did not want to reform any
aspect of that program whatsoever, that program now does not
exist.
Mr. Frank. Okay. Now can I ask you a question?
Mr. Mangano. The constellation of political will for a
housing program----
Mr. Frank. Now I have to ask you a question.
Mr. Mangano.--that supports the poor.
Mr. Frank. Very impressive, Mr. Mangano. I am not asking
you about Massachusetts. Will you answer the question, do you
agree or disagree with the mayors' comment about the fiscal
year 2005 budget request causing this hardship and losing
250,000 units. I do not understand what that has to do with
707. Would you just tell me----
Mr. Mangano. My concern is exactly that, about----
Mr. Frank. Do you agree or disagree with the mayors?
Chairman Ney. Look, let's not do crossfire. The Congressman
has asked him a question.
Mr. Frank. I am just trying to get an answer to that simple
question. It does not have to be yes or no. It can be yes but,
no maybe.
Chairman Ney. I am not telling you what to answer. I am
just saying rather than go back and forth.
Mr. Mangano. My concern is to sustain political will for
the Section 8 program. I support the Section 8 program. I came
from many years when I was an advocate for homeless people in
Massachusetts, here to Washington to support the Section 8
program. No one wants to see any diminishment----
Mr. Frank. That is not what I asked you.
Mr. Mangano.--of people losing housing. The point of the
matter, though, is that sometimes, as we learned with the 707
program, when reform is not constellated, you can lose the
entire program. So my concern in supporting the Section 8
program is to ensure that it can----
Mr. Frank. Okay. Let me try one last time. Having said all
that, do you agree or disagree with what the mayors said? I am
really disappointed at your dancing around this one. I
understand the problem. It is a problem because you are part of
the Administration, and if you do not want to say so, say so.
By the way, I am not aware of specific reforms they have set up
here, other than the Secretary saying we have to give it to
richer people.
Mr. Mangano. The flexibility that they are talking about
gets to reform.
Mr. Frank. But what do you think about the mayors' comment
in this whereas. Do you agree or disagree in general with what
the mayors said?
Mr. Mangano. Which is about the 250,000 units? I have not
conducted that kind of data research so I cannot speak exactly
to that. Obviously, I have a concern about the loss of any
units that would create more homelessness. I do not know of any
appetite in this Administration, in the Council or in the
Congress for taking actions that would create more homelessness
in this country. It is not a growth industry.
Mr. Frank. You know better than to think that is an answer.
I am going to close with this. I did not ask you for self-
justification. You should not feel you have to do that. I think
what you have done on the program is a good thing. But to dance
around this critical question, because you know we can do all
of the planning, but these people still have to live somewhere.
What we have is, your own allies, the people you quote say
yes, but there is a problem. And the people of the homeless
coalition. Almost everybody but you, concerned with this
program, says it is true; it would be good to restructure it
this way, but the people still have to live somewhere. I really
am disappointed I cannot get a straight answer out of you.
No further questions.
Chairman Ney. The gentlelady from California, the Ranking
Member.
Ms. Waters. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think Barney's question
makes a lot of sense. I mean on the one hand we have all of
this planning. This is an agency that plans. But how do you
plan to solve a problem that is being exacerbated by the
cutbacks? I guess the philosophy of the Administration that
feels that it has been too costly and you have not reaped
enough for it, I mean, that is where it seems that you are
coming from in your planning.
Having said that, having done studies and you have learned
all of this terrific information about chronic homeless people
costs cities and counties a lot of money. It is cheaper to keep
them than to just let them stay out there and go these
emergency rooms and the jails and all where they cost more
money.
Now having said all that, who has come up with a model to
deal with chronic homelessness? I think we have to recognize
some things. These people are mentally ill. They are disabled.
They are veterans with agent orange problems, on and on and on.
What is the solution?
Mr. Mangano. You asked for models. I think represented on
the first panel are two cities that have done an exceptional
job, both Columbus, Ohio and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in
specifically targeting results-oriented, cost-efficient plans
at this population that have moved people off the streets, out
of the clogging of emergency rooms, to housing. There are a
number of initiatives around our country.
In your home State of California, the Direct Access to
Housing program in San Francisco is a perfect example of a
program that in fact moves people off the streets, the most
complex, the most disabled, targets those people, moves them
into housing, provides the support services necessary for their
well-being to ensure that they will stay in that housing.
So across the country, there are a number of initiatives
exactly accomplishing that objective.
Ms. Waters. Do you know of a model? I missed some of the
testimony, and I am sorry about that. Do you know of a model
that basically recognizes that some people barely function.
They will never be able to live independently, and that they
need to have the kind of support services that places them in a
unit where you have centralized services in a complex where
there are two meals a day and there are janitorial services and
people are able to do what they can do, but that they will
never be able to live independently. Do you know of anything
that recognizes that?
Mr. Mangano. There are a number of programs around the
country that in fact respond to that issue. But what we are
learning more and more is that the strategy of permanent
supportive housing, which again provides support services to
people who are disabled by virtue of mental illness or
addiction, actually that is the model that is most in use in
our country. That is exactly the kind of model that we are
attempting to fund with the Samaritan Initiative.
Ms. Waters. No, but I have not seen this. I want to
describe it again. I just do not know about it, I guess.
If someone built 200 units of housing and not necessarily
would there be another design for families. Say these were for
single adults who are severely disabled, who are mentally ill,
who will never be able to live independently.
Mr. Mangano. Yes.
Ms. Waters. But they can live with some support services,
providing they have a clean place to live, someone is preparing
the meals and they do some kind of group therapy and work in
crafts or day care, whatever. Who is providing that kind of
service?
Mr. Mangano. For example in my home state, we had a special
initiative to house people who are homeless and mentally ill.
We moved people from the streets and from long term stays in
shelters directly into permanent housing, and again provided
the support services that they needed. Some of those people
needed deep services for a very long period of time, perhaps
for the rest of their life.
Ms. Waters. Those are the only ones I am talking about now.
I am talking about the ones that are always going to be on the
street unless extensive services are provided.
Mr. Mangano. Right.
Ms. Waters. Did this place that you are describing, did it
have a central dining room?
Mr. Mangano. It was actually scattered-site housing, but
there are certainly models that have congregate living where
people live together, receive their services in the same
building, and have meals together. There are many models of
that across the United States.
Ms. Waters. For permanent living?
Mr. Mangano. That is correct.
Ms. Waters. Do we have that in Los Angeles? Where is that
located?
Mr. Netburn. There are several throughout the city and the
county.
Ms. Waters. Give me one.
Mr. Netburn. A Community of Friends projects, and there are
some in South-Central that specifically----
Chairman Ney. I am sorry. Can you come to the mike, and
that way the record will be clear on it.
Ms. Waters. Community of Friends?
Chairman Ney. I am sorry.
Mr. Netburn. Can I state my name?
Chairman Ney. Yes, identify yourself.
Mr. Netburn. Mitchell Netburn from the Los Angeles Homeless
Services Authority.
One provider that comes to mind would be a Community of
Friends which specifically develops permanent housing projects
for people with mental illness, and some of those people with
mental illness are so severely ill that they need a tremendous
amount of support services.
Ms. Waters. I have a design in mind. I want to know if
there is a program where you have multiple units that provide
services for the severely handicapped, mentally ill, disabled
homeless, that is envisioned as permanent living, where you
have centralized services, where food is prepared, where you
have psychological, psychiatric health services and activities
of some sort, where we are not anticipating that they are going
to roll off anywhere. They are going to be there for the rest
of their lives. Who has that kind of service?
Mr. Netburn. As I said, the Community of Friends would be
one agency that does, and certainly you offered to come on a
tour of some of these.
Ms. Waters. Tell me where it is. I will be there before you
get there. Tell me where it is.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Netburn. I doubt that. I am on a plane early tomorrow
morning.
Ms. Waters. Where is it?
Mr. Netburn. There are several. I cannot think of an
address, but I know they have facilities specifically in South-
Central so I assume there are several.
Ms. Waters. How many do they have in that facility?
Mr. Netburn. Their facilities, they tend to be in the 20-to
about 60-person range.
Ms. Waters. Is this the only one that you know about? Any
in downtown Los Angeles?
Mr. Netburn. Again, that would be some of the SRO housing.
Ms. Waters. SRO usually does not fit this model that I am
talking about. SRO just does not fit this model that I am
trying to describe to you.
Mr. Netburn. Some of them do, some SROs have individual
units where they have a bath.
Ms. Waters. And they are on their own.
Mr. Netburn. Yes, but not all of them. Some of the older
ones do not have kitchens, so there are congregate settings.
Even some of the newer ones, have a very small kitchen, but
they have group social services, and group meals within that
facility for the people who either can not cook for themselves
or who are not going to cook properly.
Ms. Waters. All right, let me ask, if I may Mr. Chairman
just a little bit, have any units been developed specifically
for this population, say, outside of urban areas? Fifty units,
100 units, 200 units, outside the urban area in open spaces
that is supported by city, county or federal dollars? Anybody
develop any of that, and do we have the services to go along
with it if someone developed that kind of model?
Mr. Netburn. Not specifically in Los Angeles. There are
probably some around the country. As you just pointed out,
these are expensive models when you are attaching all of those
support services, so one of the reasons that we are supporting
the Samaritan Initiative is to fund those services.
Ms. Waters. This will not fund those services, will it?
This is not a lot of money. Is this envisioned to support the
kind of services I am attempting to describe here? What I would
like you, and anybody can answer this, do we all agree that the
chronic homeless who are never going to be able to
independently take care of themselves, do we agree that that is
true?
Mr. Netburn. There are probably some individuals. We always
say we, empower people to live independently.
Ms. Waters. Oh, come on. I know. Look, I have been going
through downtown Los Angeles for years now and we have people
who are never going to be----
I would like to think that we empower people as much as we
possibly can, and that you guys are doing a good job of doing
that. I would like to think that. But do we recognize that
there are some people who are never going to be empowered? They
are chronically homeless, ill, unable to manage themselves and
their lives, and never ever will be able to. Do we have any
models that recognize that?
Mr. Netburn. Yes, I think there are some. There is always
the hope that they will become more independent, but yes, we
have some of these models.
Ms. Waters. No, no.
Mr. Netburn. Accepting that they will be like that, and
giving them the----
Ms. Waters. No, you have people that have been on the
street in downtown LA for the past 15 or 20 years. So the first
thing I want to tell you guys is, if we, and I put myself in
the group with you, if we do not recognize that and develop
services for that population, we are always going to have the
homeless on the streets.
Mr. Netburn. We agree with that and do definitely need to
fund and create those models.
Ms. Waters. Does your planning recognize this? And what
does your planning say about this?
Mr. Mangano. Absolutely. The Samaritan Initiative is really
targeted to creating housing for people. Some people will go on
to live quite independently. They will get jobs.
Ms. Waters. No, they will not. I am not talking about that.
Mr. Mangano. Some will. I can show you there are people.
Ms. Waters. No. No.
Mr. Mangano. That is their story.
Ms. Waters. No. I am talking about the people who will not.
Mr. Mangano. I understand. I am just saying there are some
people who will.
Ms. Waters. No, I know that.
Mr. Mangano. Right.
Ms. Waters. But I am not talking about them now. I am
talking about the people who will never ever be able to go on
and get a job or manage a house. Do we recognize that? Or have
we not come to that conclusion that there are people who will
never be able to?
Chairman Ney. Can I answer that?
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Chairman Ney. There are going to be people that no matter
what you do, they will not be self-sustaining. That is my
opinion, so I thought I would try to answer it.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Waters. I have this theory that we have a population of
people who are homeless who will never ever be independent. It
is good social work to talk about empowering them so that they
will go on and get a job and a house, but they will never ever
do it. I come from a social work background and I say it. They
will never be able to do it. Do we have a model that recognizes
that and will take care of them until they die?
Mr. Netburn. One that I would point out is HUD funded and
is referred to as Safe Havens. There are two types. One is
permanent housing. They tend to be small units of about 25 that
are for people with very severe mental illness. There are
really different rules that they are asked to follow because
there is an understanding that they are in the exact category
of the people that you were just talking about. They are not
going to follow rules of the traditional programs. They are
going to need more flexibility. Some of the programs will allow
the clients to sign leases. They can stay there the rest of
their life, and they are very intense social service models.
In skid row, there is an agency called Lamp Community which
has really been a pioneer in developing that type of housing.
We did receive HUD funding a couple of years ago for a project
on the west side of Los Angeles for a Safe Haven, which the
city of Santa Monica supported. Recently, the provider
purchased a building and they are developing it. That would be
another model that would come to mind.
Ms. Waters. I am not convinced, based on my limited
conversation with you today, that that population, I guess that
is what we are all referring to as the chronically homeless, is
being serviced or can be serviced in the way that I am talking
about.
I just want to say this. You know, we have got the chronic
homeless who have gone from shelter to shelter to shelter to
shelter. They change corners and they change pocket parks and
they die on the street. We know that. At some point in time, we
have to recognize that. We have to know the difference between
those that we can transition and we can get services for and we
can get into jobs and homes and houses and places that they can
manage, and those that cannot. I guess that is what we are
trying to talk about. But I am not hearing what I need to hear
to believe that we are going to be committed to doing that.
The other thing that I have not heard is I have not heard
that there has been housing specifically developed for this
clientele, with the support services. And when I say
``support,'' I mean everything. I mean the central kitchen. I
mean the psychiatric services. I mean the daily services that
keep people busy and involved and all of that.
I know it is costly, but I just do not hear us admitting
that that is what we have to have.
Mr. Mangano. I think the Samaritan Initiative would fund
exactly that, and there are a number of other programs
sponsored by HUD and HHS, including the Safe Havens that
Mitchell mentioned that in fact do target that population. So I
want to assure you that that population is being served. In
fact, again in your home state, in San Francisco, the Direct
Access to Housing program master leases buildings and in those
buildings places people who we would have thought, if we passed
by them on the street, they will never get off the street. In
fact, those people are now placed in those buildings and slowly
their lives are turning around and they are living in those
buildings.
Ms. Waters. Well, I appreciate that. I am going to go out
and search and take a look and see what is out there. But I
know that in downtown Los Angeles, there are people who have
been on the streets many, many years and they have baskets that
they have been rolling around for 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years. I
think it is senseless to talk about anything other than
permanent services for them. I hope this initiative will get to
that.
Mr. Mangano. To the degree that they are placed in housing,
the services will last as long as they are needed, to assure
you of that. So if it is needed for a lifetime, the services
would last that long, because it is done in partnership with
the local communities as well. So I think there is a
responsiveness to that population. Those are people who are
targeted by the Samaritan Initiative.
Ms. Waters. We shall see. Thank you.
Chairman Ney. I want to thank the gentlelady. For the
record, the National Low Income Housing Coalition has a
statement for the record, a resolution of the U.S. Conference
of Mayors, agency statements by HUD, HHS, the Department of
Labor, and Veterans Affairs.
The Chair notes some members may have additional questions
for this panel and might want to submit them in writing.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30
days.
I appreciate your testimony and your passion for this issue
and your frontline work on this issue.
I really appreciate Congressman Renzi. I think it is a good
bill that begins the process of seeing how the government can
come together with the private sector in a lot of different
areas to utilize the funding in a collective, collaborative way
to help the homeless.
Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:04 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
July 13, 2004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6528.119