Let’s Do the Math: Across the United States and territories, communities are being urged by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (ICH) to develop 10-year plans to end homelessness (some specifically to end “chronic” homelessness). According to ICH, over 100 communities to date have either completed or initiated a local planning process. Sounds pretty impressive. Meanwhile, as homeless task forces take shape, plans get written, and press conferences held, the Bush administration has proposed cutting $1.6 billion from the Section 8 program, the largest source of federal housing assistance for low-income renters. Put differently, such a cut amounts to roughly $1.55 billion more than the proposed “new” money of the $50 million Samaritan initiative, the cornerstone of the president’s “chronic” homelessness agenda. Homeless families, already low on the priority list of current federal homeless policy, seem to be the group ready to take the greatest hit.

Should we be surprised? Not really. Urging communities to develop local plans to end homelessness, even without the necessary resources, seems consistent with recent policy impulses. After all, devolving federal social investment, responsibility and assistance to localities certainly isn’t a new phenomenon, even as we, sadly, remember that the very emergence of homelessness corresponds with the larger assault on “big government” and the related cuts to federal social programs beginning in the early 1980s. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the administration has never imagined Sec. 8 (or any significant investment in new housing) serve as a central feature of its plan to end “chronic” homelessness. Instead, we’ve heard how it can be done cost effectively through a permanent supportive housing set aside in the McKinney-Vento emergency assistance program, better coordination among federal agencies, and mandated data collection. It’s all very simple, really; create a plan, cite “research,” click your heels three times and, whamo–you’re on your way to “ending” homelessness! Very inspiring. Or perhaps, just more of the same “local problem, local solution” nonsense that allows the administration to justify its opposition to Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) National Housing Trust Fund bill, a proposal that would create 1.5 million units of housing within the end of the decade.

It is, of course, always tempting, albeit clicheŽd, for Washington policymakers to confess their fear of upsetting the applecart, but truth be told, federal policy on homelessness has remained essentially locked in the same mold since its explosion more than 20 years ago. We’ve seen plans come and go (the best, to my eyes, Priority Home: The Federal Plan to Break the Cycle of Homelessness, now sits collecting dust in the archives, having just celebrated its ten-year anniversary), but given the ongoing cuts to housing and social services, to say nothing of the spurious charge to ending homelessness locally, one might be tempted to characterize the whole initiative as a brilliant setup, or, at least, slick marketing. How else might we understand or explain cuts to Sec. 8 and McKinney-Vento or HUD«s opposition to new housing production, especially against the backdrop of recent federal decisions to deny local requests for housing, shelter and support services? In fact, requests for emergency assistance have increased by 13 percent nationwide and almost a third of people requesting shelter are turned away for lack of space. But to hear the feds tell it, we have evidently solved the riddle of modern homelessness; emergency shelters, outreach workers, providers of transitional housing, soup kitchens, neighborhood organizations, and non-profits, which have traditionally been at the front lines of the crisis, are, it turns out, responsible for “managing” and perpetuating the problem. “Performance-based, results-oriented” measures, it seems, are what will pull us out of this mess, not an assault on poverty or a massive investment in affordable housing. And the resources to accomplish these goals? Well, to date, providing adequate resources hasn’t been a required part of any plan.

Whereas widespread homelessness during the Great Depression was, in large measure, solved by an activist state through the creation of public housing and works programs, social policy over the last quarter century has been driven by three Republican administrations and one New Democrat. And, the balance sheet reveals one constant; a failure to reconcile the dramatic cuts to federal housing and the resultant homelessness. Sadly, it appears the Bush administration is now ready to hoist a straw man and blame the “liberals,” the “doubters,” the well-meaning providers and the people on the front lines for “accommodating” homelessness. Such charges, of course, conveniently ignore the 64 percent cut to the HUD budget since 1978, the annual loss of some 90,000 affordable housing units, the lack of universal health care, and instead place the burden of that failure on the very people struggling to address the problem.

Strange math to be sure. It just doesn’t add up.

Legislative update: You may recall from the April issue of STREET SHEET that we mentioned an important Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) bill pending in Congress. Well, there’s good news: the Murray-DeWine amendment to IDEA passed and, once a few differences with the House-passed version of the bill are worked out, promises to improve special education for homeless children with disabilities. Among other provisions, the legislation decreases the length of time children and youth wait to receive special education and related services; increases access to special education for homeless unaccompanied youth; increases access to early intervention services for infants and toddlers; ensures educational stability by clarifying that special educational placements must comply with the McKinney-Vento Act; and increases collaboration between special education personnel and McKinney-Vento Act personnel.

The National Housing Trust Fund Act (NHTF) and the Bringing America Home Act (BAHA) continue to gain momentum. Two bills in Congress now carry forth a trust fund proposal, HR 1102 and S. 1411. HR 1102, with 212 co-sponsors, enjoys the support of almost half of the US House of Representatives, and over 5000 organizations have now endorsed the related national trust fund campaign. BAHA (HR 2897), which includes a trust fund provision as well as a set of comprehensive housing, health and income proposals necessary to end homelessness, counts 49 co-sponsors to date. If you haven’t done so already, please urge your senators and representatives to become co-sponsors of both the NHTF and BAHA.* * *The war in Iraq continues to illustrate the terrible costs of that ill-judged venture. Beyond the tragic loss of life, the resources drained away from domestic spending are staggering. It now turns out that President Bush wants $25 billion more to pursue the war. This on top of a previous $87 billion supplemental. Taken together, that is almost the equivalent of the last four annual HUD budgets combined. Needless to say, with a similar commitment to housing we could construct and subsidize enough units to effectively end America’s homelessness crisis.

Brad

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 1st, 2004 at 12:09 pm and is filed under Federal Policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.