Federal Homeless Policy Update
For there is no such thing in economic growth which is
not, at the same time, growth or change of a culture;
and the growth of social consciousness, can never, in
the last analysis, be planned.
E.P. Thompson
Ending homelessness through local plans has become the watchword in Washington, DC and elsewhere, but paradoxically, there is a rather revealing and ongoing debate over what homelessness even is, let alone how to end it. For its part, the Bush Administration has been quite deliberate in promoting an understanding of homelessness as the “most visible,” and has accordingly prioritized funding and policies reflecting this limited analysis.
Left out of such a political calculus are the roughly other 95 percent of people who struggle with homelessness. By federal definition, the “chronic homelessness” initiative excludes the following groups of people: children (with and without disabilities) who are homeless with their parents; parents (with and without disabilities) who are homeless and who have children with them; youth with disabilities on their own who have not been homeless long enough to fit the federal definition; youth on their own without disabilities; unaccompanied individuals with disabilities who have not been homeless long enough to fit the federal definition; unaccompanied individuals without disabilities; and unaccompanied individuals who are unwilling to be declared disabled. Phew! Got it?
Yet, as narrow as this definition is, press releases, plans to end homelessness, and news articles are using the terms “chronic homelessness” and “homelessness” interchangeably, as though they were one and the same. No other kind of homelessness appears to exist—or at least to be worthy of discussion or action. One might then reasonably conclude the administration’s policy thrust represents little more than a cynical attempt to redefine homelessness out of existence.
Certainly the evidence points in that direction. While steadfast in its refusal to confront the nation’s housing crisis, which underpins all homelessness, the administration has proposed deep cuts to mainstream programs as it simultaneously and cynically promotes “a cost-effective solution”(i.e. the “chronic” initiative). This is an especially unconscionable “strategy” given the concurrent cuts to housing programs that serve extremely low income families, the elderly and the disabled. It also conveniently shifts attention away from an equally vulnerable, larger population of people experiencing homelessness: young children. Without access to programs and services, young children, who are the most likely to experience homelessness, will surely become the “chronically homeless” of tomorrow. Amazingly, this same administration, whose current budget request puts 250,000 low-income households at risk of homelessness, brazenly suggests that housing advocates are “irresponsible” for raising legitimate concerns about the wisdom and scope of the Samaritan Act, a centerpiece of the “chronic” homeless initiative.
To be sure, the carefully fostered and now familiar lexicon of “abolishing” or “ending” homelessness may make for impassioned rhetoric, but it does little to appropriately honor our rich history or to provide much of a road map out of homelessness. Rather than inherit an American tradition of social justice, the Bush administration’s focus on “chronic” homelessness suggests a medical model where an economic solution is needed. Rather than devote significant new resources or get behind comprehensive solutions like the Bringing America Home Act, the National Housing Trust Fund Act, and the United States National Health Insurance Act, the administration instead instructs local communities to develop plans to end homelessness. And, to be certain, “planning” an end to “chronic” homelessness at the local level—whatever positive outcomes such an exercise might achieve—is a long, long way from “ending homelessness.” There should be no confusion.
The great abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison once cautioned not to “tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm.” Sadly, it seems the administration has taken his good name and done precisely that.
The House version of the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development bill brought some good news to those concerned about the proposed cuts to the Section 8 program. As STREET SHEET readers are already aware, the President’s FY2005 budget for Section 8 underfunds the program by $1.6 billion. On July 20, however, the House VA-HUD appropriations subcommittee forwarded a bill that funds the program at nearly the level advocates have argued is necessary to maintain existing vouchers.
Now the bad news: in order to fund Section 8, lawmakers cut virtually every other housing program in HUD’s portfolio. McKinney-Vento homeless assistance grants were slashed by $54 million; the HOME program by $86 million; housing for persons with AIDS by close to $13 million; housing for persons with disabilities by $11 million; housing for the elderly by more than $32 million; public housing operating funds by $153 million; fair housing programs by almost $2 million; and community development block grants by over $200 million.
And the list goes on.
Sadly, we shouldn’t be surprised by this zero-sum game. What often passes for advocacy in DC these days is nothing more than account management. And as long as Congress can get away with claiming budget constraints and tight allocations, or as long as quasi-state organizations seek to promote what is “realistic” within the process, we should fully expect to see more of these kinds of tradeoffs. People should be making noise as the HUD bill makes its way over to the Senate for consideration.
Amidst a landscape of war, reckless tax cuts, inequity in federal housing investment and dramatic cuts to low-income housing programs, the links between military spending, social inequity and the resultant tradeoffs of poverty and homelessness are becoming ever more apparent.
In his FY2005 budget, President Bush proposed an allocation of $420.7 billion for the national defense, a seven percent increase over last year’s budget. This proposed budget is almost fourteen times the entire budget of HUD, and close to three times as large as HUD, the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, food and nutrition, and job training combined. Furthermore, Congress has already appropriated close to $200 billion, outside of the military budget, to fund the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Calculating the cost: If the proposed seven percent increase in the FY2005 military budget alone were redirected toward affordable housing construction and rent subsidies, more than 280,000 units could be created. And, while the FY2005 HUD budget contains a $1.6 billion shortfall for the Section 8 program, the largest source of federal assistance for low-income households, the proposed military spending bump approximates three million new housing vouchers. Finally, the $166 billion supplemental to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could wipe out homelessness and solve the housing crisis that underlies it. To date, the cost of the two wars could have paid for more than two million new units of affordable housing or provided rental assistance to over 24 million households.
Brad