Federal Homeless Policy Update
Telling the truth, or at least getting the facts straight, has apparently become an increasingly arduous task for the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (US-ICH). The same Federal agency that in recent years has characterized deep cuts to the Section 8 program as a “reform” measure or described flat funding of annual homeless assistance grants as a “record investment,” has now gone international to assert the following in the Council’s June 28, 2006 newsletter:
“During the discussion of government definitions of homelessness, it was noted that England, Scotland, and Canada, like the US, do not consider persons living in ‘doubled up’ situations to be homeless, and believe the appropriate focus of efforts in this situation are prevention activities that can help to keep them from falling into shelters or onto the streets.”
In fact, both England and Scotland have broader definitions of homelessness. In England, under guidance provided in Section 175 of the Housing Act of 1996, a person does not have to be sleeping on the streets or in a shelter to be classed as homeless. An individual or family might also be legally homeless if they are temporarily staying with friends or family; staying in a hostel; living in very overcrowded conditions; at risk of violence or abuse in the home; living in poor conditions that affect health; living somewhere with no legal right to stay in (e.g. a squat); living somewhere that they can’t afford to pay for without deprivation of the basic essentials; forced to live apart from family, or to live with someone a person wouldn’t normally live with, because accommodations aren’t suitable. Similarly, in Scotland, an individual or family may be homeless if it isn’t possible for immediate family and anyone else who normally lives together to maintain accommodation. This might be because accommodation is too small, or the landlord doesn’t allow children. Or perhaps an elderly parent or grandparent is unable to live in a household that is not suitable for their needs.
England and Scotland have not only broader definitions of homelessness than HUD, but also a greater state commitment to the basic social welfare of families through housing and income supports. Any comparison of British homelessness policy and the ICH’s “chronic homeless” initiative is highly dubious indeed.
From a $1.5 million dollar agency charged with coordinating the Federal response to homelessness, complete with ten regional offices and a highly paid and well traveled executive director, one might read the musings of the ICH’s e-tabloid as factually sound and above politics. The problem is that it often willfully misrepresents issues and news, selectively frames policy developments, and generally serves to promote the agency and its narrow focus rather than honor the Council’s actual Federal mission.
Certainly the ICH newsletter blurb on definition, however factually wrong or clumsily placed within a story about the World Urban Forum, comes at a peculiar time. NPACH and many other national, state, and local organizations have joined together in a growing movement to expand HUD’s definition of homelessness to include those living doubled up and in motels for lack of adequate alternatives. The grassroots campaign gained considerable support at the June meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors as 27 mayors lent their support to this effort through a resolution introduced by Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.
During the Mayors’ meeting, ICH Director Philip Mangano and two ICH regional representatives aggressively lobbied against the resolution, arguing that it would overwhelm the HUD homeless assistance budget; dilute current efforts to address “chronic” homelessness; and interfere with current 10-year-plans to “end” homelessness. Mangano further contended that people voluntarily sharing housing should not be considered homeless, demonstrating that he either failed to read or understand, or willfully misrepresented the resolution which expressly referred to people living doubled-up or in hotels due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or similar reasons.
Subsequent reporting of the meeting and ICH tactics, including that in July’s Street Sheet, have apparently left the agency feeling vulnerable on the issue. Indeed, ICH’s “look what they are doing in Britain” response represents what has now become a predictable pattern in promoting its policies. It’s a familiar drill, really. Through speeches, ribbon-cutting ceremonies for the latest local 10-year plan, and in the agency’s newsletter, the Administration’s “chronic” homelessness agenda has been promoted through a curious brew of New Age free association, arcane and slippery historical references, and management guru talk. Everything from the books The Tipping Point and Good to Great, to the abolitionist movement, ending Apartheid in South Africa, and the success of the Oakland A’s baseball club, has been cited as providing models and justification for the “chronic” initiative. But in this obsessive crusade to deliver good on a politically expedient and faulty policy premise (“ending chronic homelessness in 10 years”) truth is but one casualty. Meaningful and just housing policies that address the needs of all who suffer in homelessness, of course, is the other.
Brad