U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–906 PDF 2008

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE McKINNEY-VENTO

HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT, PART I

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 4, 2007

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 110–68

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

PETER T. KING, New York 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

October 4, 2007 ................................................................................................. 1

Appendix: 

October 4, 2007 ................................................................................................. 45

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2007

Allard, Hon. Wayne, a United States Senator from the State of Colorado ......... 3

Anderson, Barbara, Executive Director, Haven House Services ......................... 21

DeSantis, Deborah, President and Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for 

Supportive Housing .............................................................................................. 19

Foscarinis, Maria, Executive Director, National Law Center on Homelessness 

& Poverty .............................................................................................................. 15

McKinney, Hon. John, State Senator, State of Connecticut ................................ 17

Reed, Hon. Jack, a United States Senator from the State of Rhode Island ....... 1

Rosen, Jeremy, Executive Director, National Policy and Advocacy Council 

on Homelessness .................................................................................................. 40

Vasquez, Jessica, Executive Director, New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence ..................................................................................................... 37

Walker, Pittre, Homeless Liaison, Caddo Parish School Board ........................... 23

Weintraub, Amy, Executive Director, Covenant House of West Virginia ........... 35

Young, Linda M., Executive Director, Welcome House of Northern Kentucky .. 38

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Carson, Hon. Julia ............................................................................................ 46

Anderson, Barbara ........................................................................................... 48

DeSantis, Deborah ............................................................................................ 60

Foscarinis, Maria .............................................................................................. 68

McKinney, Hon. John ....................................................................................... 74

Rosen, Jeremy ................................................................................................... 79

Vasquez, Jessica ............................................................................................... 95

Walker, Pittre ................................................................................................... 129

Weintraub, Amy ................................................................................................ 141

Young, Linda M. ............................................................................................... 150

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

McKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS 

ASSISTANCE ACT, PART I 

Thursday, October 4, 2007

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters, Cleaver, Green; 

Capito, Biggert, Shays, Neugebauer, Davis, and McCarthy. 

Ex officio: Chairman Frank. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. And I 

would like to deviate a little bit from our normal schedule and protocol. We have United States Senators Reed and Allard here this 

morning, and I would like to afford them the opportunity to make 

their statements, and then we will proceed. I will start with Senator Reed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JACK REED, A UNITED 

STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. It is 

a pleasure to be here. And thank you for your invitation, and also 

thank you, Ranking Member Capito, for your hospitality this morning. 

I am delighted to be with my colleague and friend, Wayne Allard. 

We were reminiscing a bit. We entered the House of Representatives together in 1991, and the Senate in 1997, so, this is the 

Wayne and Jack show. 

[Laughter] 

Senator REED. We have been working for a number of years on 

the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act, and we have been superbly aided by our staff members, Kara 

Stein and Tewana Wilkerson. 

This is important legislation. And, throughout this process, we 

have sought significant input, meeting with all interested parties, 

inviting written comments on all of our drafts, and holding hearings for several Congresses in a row on the reauthorization of this 

very important legislation. 

2

We are very pleased with the latest version of our legislation, S. 

1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. It was 

approved unanimously by the Senate Banking Committee on September 19th, and it is our hope to have this bill passed by the entire Senate, and sent over to you very shortly. We welcome the opportunity you have given us this morning to talk about some of the 

highlights of this bipartisan legislation. 

Though the last significant reauthorization of the McKinneyVento Act occurred in 1994, a number of important changes have 

been made over the last several years, most significantly in 1995. 

In 1995, Congress consolidated the funding from several accounts, 

and HUD began encouraging communities to submit a single application for funding. The purpose of this single application was not 

only to streamline the application process, but also to encourage 

providers to coordinate an overall strategy for preventing and ending homelessness in their community. 

This process became known as the continuum of care, and our 

bill has been designed to enact into statute this award-winning 

program. Our reauthorization legislation, in large part, has been 

designed to provide this continuum of care program on a broader 

basis throughout the country. 

We eliminate three separate programs and consolidate them into 

a single community homeless assistance program. Communities 

can now make a single application for funding from this program, 

and use the funding for a broad array of activities to reduce homelessness. 

We are particularly proud of the new focus on rural homelessness in S. 1518. Our bill would allow rural communities to apply 

for funding through a separate competition at HUD. Under the legislation, a rural community can also use funds more flexibly for 

such activities as homelessness prevention and housing stabilization, in addition to transitional housing, permanent housing, and 

support services. 

The application process for these funds is more streamlined, and 

consistent with the capacities of rural homelessness programs. In 

addition, a minimum of 5 percent of the overall funding for homeless programs would go to the rural competition, which will ensure 

that this program is truly used to better address rural homelessness. 

Another major change in S. 1518 is that 20 percent of the overall 

funding for HUD homeless programs would be distributed by formula to cities, counties, and States as emergency solution grants. 

Currently, only 11 percent of homelessness assistance funds go out 

to emergency shelter grant programs and most communities use 

those funds exclusively for temporary emergency shelters. 

S. 1518 basically doubles the amount of money that would go out 

to communities via block grant, and would allow at least 40 percent 

of these funds to be used for prevention activities, in addition to 

emergency shelter. These new emergency solutions grants will 

allow communities to help people who are at greatest risk of becoming homeless. 

I think this is a major improvement in how we deal with people 

who are living on the edge of homelessness. Instead of forcing everyone who is unstably housed to be defined as homeless—a definiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
3

tion which most individuals and families don’t want to meet—cities, counties, and States would be able to use up to $440 million 

to help people in bad housing situations from becoming homeless 

in the first place, through help with rental payments, security deposits, and utility payments. 

I would also like to mention a few things we have done in particular, to tackle the terrible problem of family homelessness. 

First is the expansion we have made to the definition of homelessness, which recognizes that families with multiple moves are in 

just as much need of the emergency stabilization that the homeless 

system provides as a family living in a car or a campground. 

Second, we have included families with a disabled member in the 

definition of chronically homeless. 

Third, we have included a family housing and service demonstration project that will allow us to study what housing and service 

models work best for families. 

As a result of all these changes, 100 percent of the funding of the 

bill is now available to families. This should make a tremendous 

difference in how our Federal homeless programs help prevent and 

reduce family homelessness. It has been 20 years since the enactment of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and we 

have learned a lot about the problem of homelessness since then. 

Senator Allard and I believe the Community Partnership to End 

Homelessness Act puts some of these best practices and proposals 

into action, and will help communities break the cycle of repeated 

and prolonged homelessness. We look forward to working together 

with you on reauthorizing the housing titles of the McKinney-Vento 

Homelessness Assistance Act, to better focus them on preventing 

and ending long-term homelessness. 

And a final point. I did not have the privilege of serving with 

Stewart McKinney, but both Wayne and I served with Bruce Vento, 

and he was an extraordinary gentleman. And this is a fitting tribute to his efforts, and if we improve it, I think he would be very 

pleased and proud. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Allard? 

Senator ALLARD. Chairwoman Waters. Well, first of all, I wanted 

to express my sincere appreciation, Chairwoman Waters, and also 

Ranking Member Capito. I ask permission to put my full statement 

into the record. It goes longer than 5 minutes. And in respect to 

your time limits, I will not read my full statement, I will just give 

you parts of it, if I may. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection, such is the order. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE ALLARD, A UNITED 

STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Senator ALLARD. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work 

that my colleague and his staff have put forward on this particular 

piece of legislation, something that we have been working on for 

several years. 

As a result of that, I think we have come up with a good bipartisan effort, and it takes us back to when we had the first homeless 

assistance act, which was in 1987, and then that was modified, 

which is now known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Programs, which I do remember serving on the Agriculture ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
4

mittee at the time, and working with Bruce Vento, who did a considerable amount of work on homelessness. 

This act was the first comprehensive law addressing the diverse 

needs of the homeless, including programs at the Department of 

Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

And, until enactment of this law, the problems confronted by the 

homeless were mainly addressed at the State and local level. Currently, the Federal Government devotes significant resources to the 

homeless, yet despite the enormous Federal resources directed toward homelessness, the problem persists. 

In my view, we need to bring more accountability to homeless assistance, increasing funding for those successful programs and initiatives, and then replacing those that are ineffective. 

So, there seems to be a consensus that the McKinney-Vento Act 

has been an important tool to help some of society’s most vulnerable members, and that the first step should be reauthorization of 

the Act. I appreciate that you are holding this hearing to explore 

this issue. 

There also seems to be increasing consensus that the second step 

should be consolidation of the existing programs. I originally introduced consolidation legislation in 2000, and then Senator Reed offered a proposal in 2002. HUD also advocated for a consolidation 

of programs for several years now. 

While we differed in some of the details, including the funding 

distribution mechanism for a new program, these legislative proposals offered consensus on the important starting points of reauthorization and consolidation. We worked together to find the best 

elements of both bills, and after extensive discussions and outreach, Senator Reed and I introduced Senate Bill 1518, known as 

the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. 

Our bill will consolidate the existing programs at HUD, and to 

the new community homeless assistance program. And why is this 

consolidation so important? I think our colleague and former HUD 

Secretary, Senator Mel Martinez, described it very well during the 

Banking Committee’s mark-up of the bill. He described how the 

HUD Secretary had his grantees confused by the various programs, 

not sure how to apply, and for which programs they were even eligible. It was under his leadership that HUD began to advocate consolidation of the programs. 

Quite simply, consolidation will reduce administrative burdens 

and maximize flexibility. Rather than dealing with conflicting eligibility requirements, conflicting eligibility uses, multiple applications, and different match requirements, applicants will have to 

deal with only one flexible program. This streamlined approach will 

combine the efficiencies of a block grant with the accountability of 

a competitive system. 

I am especially supportive of approaches such as those in the 

Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act, that focus on 

results, rather than processes. Communities that demonstrate results in preventing and ending homelessness will be rewarded. I 

think this is an important aspect. 

5

We also believe that the bill makes an appropriate distinction between rural areas and large, metropolitan areas. While both areas 

experience homelessness, the problem manifests itself in very different ways, and the solutions are different. 

I believe that we all share the goal of wanting to prevent and 

end homelessness in America. There are many different people 

with many different and laudable ideas of how to accomplish this 

goal. The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act strikes 

the balance between these many viewpoints. 

The balance is demonstrated by the unanimous support the bill 

received in the Senate Banking Committee. Republicans and Democrats, urban areas like New York, and rural areas like Wyoming, 

everyone came together to say that we believe the Community 

Partnership to End Homelessness Act would help prevent homelessness in the United States. 

Senator Reed and I, along with our other colleagues, look forward to working with you to enact legislation to accomplish this 

goal, and thank you for allowing us to be here today to testify before the subcommittee. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Once again, I would like to thank Senator 

Reed and Senator Allard, for making time to speak with us today. 

The extraordinarily thoughtful and consultative process you undertook in crafting the Community Partnership to End Homeless 

shines through clearly, and I aspire to the standard as the subcommittee focuses on reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento Act. 

We are lucky to have S. 1518, as well as H.R. 840, the Homeless 

Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act, which 

we will hear more about shortly, to work from, as we move forward. 

At this time, I know you need to return to your pressing work 

with the Banking Committee, and I ask our second panel of witnesses to come forward. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairwoman? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes? 

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairwoman, could I just make a quick comment, very quick? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut. 

Mr. SHAYS. I just want to thank both of you for working on a bipartisan basis. This is what this committee is doing. And it is just 

nice, in this kind of excited world, that on such an important issue, 

we see this bipartisan help. I thank you both. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Reed. We worked together in Armed Services, we are together 

on Banking and everything, so it is a real pleasure. 

I was thinking, Chairwoman Waters, you must have come into 

the House about the same time we did, didn’t you? 

Chairwoman WATERS. I did. I did. 

Senator ALLARD. That is right, you were in our class, I think. 

Chairwoman WATERS. That is right. 

Senator ALLARD. So, it is kind of a reunion here. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This has been a good reunion on a good 

issue that we can do something about. Thank you very much. 

6

I would like to ask our second panel to take their seats at the 

table. I will now proceed with our opening statements, and I will 

recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Allow me to begin by repeating something I have said a number 

of times since assuming my position as Chair, namely that I intend 

to make preventing and ending homelessness a priority focus of the 

Housing Subcommittee. There is simply no more stinging indictment of recent Federal housing policy than its failure to prevent 

and end literal homelessness. 

I am proud to note that the first serious attention Congress paid 

to modern homelessness consisted of hearings convened 25 years 

ago by my distinguished predecessor, as Chair of the then-Housing 

and Community Development Subcommittee, the late Henry Gonzalez. 

From those hearings evolved the McKinney Act itself, thanks, of 

course, to the dedication of Chairman Gonzalez’s full committee colleagues, Stewart McKinney of Connecticut, whose son we look forward to hearing from today, and Bruce Vento of Minnesota. 

Since enactment in 1987, the McKinney-Vento Act programs 

have helped thousands of homeless men, women, and children return to stable housing and lives, in which they can reach their full 

potential. I hope that we can move forward on reauthorizing this 

critical legislation in the same bipartisan spirit that animated Representatives McKinney and Vento. 

But the sad fact is that the McKinney-Vento Act programs 

should not be so desperately needed 2 decades after they were established. Earlier this year, I joined many of the organizations represented on the witness panels here today at last week’s hearing, 

at an event marking the 20th anniversary date itself, where appropriately, bittersweet chocolate bars were distributed, reflecting the 

ambivalence we felt. 

I dare say that Representatives McKinney and Vento themselves 

would be disappointed to learn that these programs remain the 

linchpin of the Federal response to homelessness. 

Notably, the legislative history of this bill in the Congressional 

Record makes clear that nobody involved at the time believed that 

the McKinney-Vento Act alone would end homelessness, despite its 

ambitious creation of 15 separate programs, and an authorization 

of over $400 million in funding. 

Indeed, the original House bill was entitled, ‘‘The Urgent Relief 

for the Homeless Act.’’ Simply put, the McKinney-Vento programs 

were always meant as a first step, a first step toward a social safety net in which no person is forced to live on the streets or in shelters because of poverty, whether or not that poverty is coupled with 

additional challenges like mental illness, drug addiction, or HIV/ 

AIDS. 

What also struck me was how much the people present at the 

birth of these programs we consider today knew or suspected, even 

in the midst of a new crisis, about the real long-term solutions to 

homelessness, of necessity, perhaps, given the rapid and overwhelming growth in homelessness at the time. The majority of 

early McKinney-Vento Act authorizations and appropriations funded emergency food and shelter assistance. 

7

Yet, from the outset, the McKinney-Vento Act invested in a wide 

range of interventions, including permanent support of housing, 

transitional housing, education, mental health, and substance addiction services, job training, and other interventions. 

Building on this basic infrastructure, academic research coupled 

with the hard-earned knowledge of practitioners and government, 

have moved us to a place where we now know much more about 

who the homeless are, and what it takes to end homelessness for 

them, more than we knew then in 1987. 

As we will hear from the witnesses here today, there is vastly 

improved understanding of how to meet the needs of the various 

homeless households, from the mentally ill or drug-addicted individuals who have lived on the streets for years, to families with 

histories of domestic violence or childhood sexual abuse, to veterans of the current and prior wars. We will build on that knowledge and our work to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Act. 

I want to be clear that this does not mean that I expect the witnesses today or next week to agree entirely on precisely what we 

should do, in terms of reauthorization. I mention this because it 

sometimes bothers me that policymakers impose expectations on 

advocates for the poor to deliver unanimous support on a silver 

platter when no such thing is demanded from the more powerful, 

well-heeled constituencies. 

Just as this committee routinely learns from debates between individual investment banks or hedge funds, and even battles among 

different sectors of the financial services industry, so too do we 

benefit from the perspectives of the informed and passionate stakeholders in the effort to end homelessness. Our job as legislators is 

to draw the best from all that we hear and we quite often end up 

leaving nobody entirely happy. 

I will conclude, however, with a sobering reflection that the bottom line of the homelessness is the bottom line, which is that we 

haven’t made demonstrable progress in reducing the number of 

households experiencing homelessness nationwide in the past 2 

decades. 

Indeed, despite lots of heartwarming individual success stories, 

we may very well have lost ground. Homeless people are notoriously difficult to count, for obvious reasons. So it is hard to get consensus on what estimates can reliably be compared to others. 

But let me put it this way. There is absolutely no evidence that 

the over 800,000 or so people whom we know, pretty reliably, to be 

homeless on any given night—over 10 percent of them in Los Angeles, alone—are a lower number than the day the McKinney-Vento 

Act was passed. And fully 34,000 individuals in Los Angeles County alone, and perhaps 4 times that nationwide, are considered 

chronically homeless, meaning they experience long and repeated 

episodes of homelessness. 

Let me just conclude my remarks by thanking our witnesses for 

being here today, and thanking the members of this committee for 

already indicating that this, too, is a high priority with them, and 

their willingness to work in a bipartisan manner to get something 

done. 

With that, I would like to recognize Ranking Member Capito for 

as much time as she would need. This is her first opening stateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
8

ment as the new representative for the subcommittee—thank you 

very much—on the minority side. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. And this, indeed, 

is my first hearing as the ranking member. I am trying to fill Judy 

Biggert’s shoes over here. They are large shoes over here. And 

thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for scheduling this hearing today 

on the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Act. 

I also want to take this opportunity today to welcome one of the 

witnesses here who is on our third panel, Amy Weintraub. She is 

the executive director of the Covenant House, in Charleston, West 

Virginia, my home and my district. Amy is a good friend, and a 

tireless advocate for the homeless in not only Charleston, West Virginia, but also the surrounding metropolitan area. 

She has been very active in the Charleston community, and in 

our State of West Virginia over the last decade, within the homelessness advocacy community, but also on many other issues including health care education and domestic violence. I would like 

to thank her, and all of the witnesses, for taking time from your 

schedules to share your experiences on the front lines of helping to 

end homelessness. 

While the overall number of homeless families and individuals is 

extremely difficult to predict, as the chairwoman mentioned in her 

remarks, it is estimated that at least 700,000 people are homeless, 

and as many as 2 million to 3.5 million people experience homelessness at least once during an average year. 

Unfortunately, this number continues to grow. In recent years, 

cities like my hometown City of Charleston, West Virginia, have 

seen an increase in their homeless shelter occupants. While this 

number continues to grow, we are always seeking the solution to 

make that a smaller number. 

Two comprehensive homeless bills have been introduced in the 

100th Congress. We are going to be hearing about H.R. 840, the 

Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing 

Act of 2007, introduced by Congresswoman Julia Carson, and also 

my colleague from Kentucky, Congressman Geoff Davis. Thank 

you, Congressman Davis. 

Also, we are going to be talking about, as the two senators testified, Senate Bill 1518. The Senate bill was passed unanimously on 

September 19, 2007. 

In addition to these bills, the Administration has recently transmitted a legislative proposal to Congress that is similar to the bills 

introduced by Senators Reed and Allard. 

I would like to take this opportunity to commend our colleague, 

Congresswoman Carson, who is not here today, for the work she 

has done on this issue. I am sorry she cannot be here, and I hope 

that she will be feeling better soon, and back working with us on 

this important issue. 

My hope is that this hearing today, and the recent action by the 

Senate, will represent an important step forward in determining 

how best to go about fixing today’s serious homeless problem. 

There are many areas of agreement among these various legislative 

proposals. 

For instance—and we have already heard; I am anxious to hear 

the testimony from the other witnesses—general consensus among 

9

the legislative proposals that consolidation of the three competitive 

grant programs into one program—gee, that just happens to make 

good sense, doesn’t it—would be beneficial. This consolidation 

would alleviate the need for HUD to review each proposal individually, and could cut the time that it takes HUD to make a decision 

by as much as 3 months. 

Consolidation would also increase local control and flexibility. I 

represent a rural area. We need the flexibility to put forth programs that adequately serve our constituents. 

Reauthorization reform of the McKinney-Vento homeless program is an important goal. I know that we can certainly better address the pressing needs of the homeless across this country, and 

we can do it in a bipartisan manner. I believe that the first step 

to making progress and moving forward is to focus more on the 

areas of agreement and less on the areas of disagreement. 

I know that both Congresswoman Biggert and Chairwoman Waters are committed to working on comprehensive legislation to reform and reauthorize this program, and I want to pledge my willingness, as the new ranking member of the Housing Subcommittee, 

to work together with them. 

Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for holding this important 

hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Ranking Member 

Capito. 

The lead sponsor of H.R. 840, subcommittee member Carson, is 

unable to join us today, due to health considerations, and we certainly wish her a speedy recovery. In the meantime, our chairman, 

Chairman Frank, is here, and I understand he would like to deliver 

a statement on her behalf. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I recognize the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Yes, I do have a statement that I will 

read on behalf of our colleague, Ms. Carson, who has worked so 

hard on this: 

Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito, 

for holding this important hearing. I know we share a deep interest 

in eradicating homelessness. I regret not being present today, but 

I am thankful homelessness assistance programs are receiving the 

attention they so desperately deserve. 

‘‘Today’s hearing affirms that working to end homelessness is a 

mission taken very seriously by this Congress. July marked the 

20th anniversary of the enactment of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, but the tragedy of homelessness persists. Over 

3 million individuals experience homelessness every year, and over 

1 million of those are children. This is unacceptable. 

‘‘It is in this spirit that I introduce the Homeless Emergency and 

Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2007. The bill would reauthorize McKinney-Vento, programs would provide critical transitional 

housing supportive services, emergency shelters, and permanent 

housing. 

‘‘The changes reflect the lessons we have learned since the last 

reauthorization in 1994. It addresses the concerns of diverse communities with distinct needs but one goal, ending homelessness. 

This would restore local-level decisionmaking on homeless priorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
10

ities, increase the authorization of the program, and modify HUD’s 

definition of homelessness, which is outdated and exclusive. H.R. 

840 ensures more children of families receive homeless assistance, 

by aligning this definition with the one used by the Departments 

of Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services. 

‘‘Local providers know which housing priorities best address their 

unique needs. But currently, severely inadequate funding levels, 

restrictive definitions, and inflexible requirements prevent them 

from implementing housing solutions that best suit these needs. 

Many of the witnesses today are local service providers and advocates who face these obstacles and H.R. 840 would diminish those 

hurdles. 

‘‘My home State of Indiana includes urban, suburban, and rural 

communities, each struggling with different homeless dilemmas. In 

my district, in the City of Indianapolis, more than 15,000 individuals experience homelessness each year. In this urban setting, it 

may be best to target housing and services towards the homeless 

who live in the streets for long periods of time. 

‘‘In Jeffersonville, Indiana, however, there was a dramatically 

different picture. Barb Anderson, a witness today, serves as the executive director of Haven House Services in this rural community, 

where affordable housing is sparse, and the homeless less visible, 

often living in doubled-up situations with relatives, and over-crowded, substandard housing. 

‘‘Under H.R. 840, both Indianapolis and the balance of Indiana 

continuum of care boards would be able to set different and more 

effective priorities. They would be able to address all homeless individuals, not just those who meet a narrow, federally-mandated definition. 

‘‘We would like to thank Congressman Geoff Davis for his hard 

work on H.R. 840 and all the cosponsors of the bill. I am grateful 

that so many of my colleagues have invested efforts to address 

homelessness. Congress has been disgracefully slow in recognizing 

and responding to the national crisis of homelessness, and we are 

thrilled that we have the opportunity to shed light on this issue 

today.’’ 

The CHAIRMAN.That is the statement of Congresswoman Carson. 

Madam Chairwoman, I would just add, myself, that I don’t think 

it is entirely coincidental that the last time it was authorized was 

1994, and we are taking it up again today. Something happened 

during the interim period that has changed, and that is why we 

were able to get back to this. 

But I would also note that a very important part of this—and our 

colleague, Ms. Carson mentioned it—is permanent housing. There 

is no solution to the homelessness problem, not even a serious effort to diminish it, without programs to increase the construction 

of affordable housing for low-income people. That is why part of the 

approach here will be the Affordable Housing Trust Fund bill, 

Madam Chairwoman, which you brought out of your subcommittee 

and out of our committee, and which will be on the Floor next 

week. 

So, I do say yes, we need the services. This is underlying some 

of the problems, and we have different agencies involved. We are 

going to, I hope, move forward on this under your leadership, 

11

Madam Chairwoman, but part of the solution to this, or part of the 

effort to alleviate, as I said, will be an increase in the supply of 

housing. 

The central problem of homelessness is they don’t have homes, 

those people. And they all used to, by the way. None of them were 

born on Mars, and came here, and never had a place to live. So we 

need to restore people to homes. And we can’t do that, unless we 

increase the stock of affordable housing. So that is our approach. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your interest. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

will now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, for 3 

minutes, for an opening statement. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. And 

thank you and the ranking member for holding this very important 

hearing on the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento. 

I would like to just comment on the remark from our chairman. 

I think that, starting with Congressman Lazzio, there were repeated efforts to bring this issue up which met with resistance not 

so much from the Congress but from the advocacy groups which 

were not in agreement. So, hopefully, this can be worked out this 

year, and we will find a result. But it is not for lack of trying that 

there hasn’t been a reauthorization since 1994. 

And I would also like to echo the remarks of my colleague from 

West Virginia, Ranking Member Capito. And, again, I would like 

to congratulate her on her new position. As far as shoes are concerned, I wear a size six, so I think I have small shoes to fill. I 

think you will do very well. 

And second, I would like to note that McKinney-Vento is not a 

new issue to me. Back when I was in the State legislature, I 

worked with a wonderful colleague, Mary Lou Cowlishaw, on her 

bill to educate homeless children in Illinois. And during my first 

year in Congress, I introduced H.R. 623, the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Education Act of 2001. This bill was to allow homeless 

children to be immediately enrolled in school, so that they would 

have at least one stable environment and that was education. 

This bill was included, the language was included, in the definition of homeless children which was eventually incorporated into a 

small bill which is up for reauthorization in Congress this year, 

and that’s the No Child Left Behind bill. 

But this leads me to my request. I think that—I hope that the 

witnesses will focus today, in particular, on the definitions that the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development uses for the homeless and chronically homeless. Do they make children a priority? I 

know the definitions do not harmonize with those used by the Department of Education, and I fear the HUD definition may allow 

children to fall through the cracks, and wander like nomads to hotels, to campgrounds, to cars, and to friends’ homes, leaving them 

homeless and in a very unstable living environment. 

So, focusing on the housing needs of homeless children is my 

number one priority, and I am grateful to my colleagues from both 

sides of the aisle who share this sentiment. In particular, I would 

like to thank Congresswoman Julia Carson, and I’m sorry she can’t 

be here today. I would also like to thank Congressman Geoff Davis 

for his hard work on helping homeless children. 

12

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I 

will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Congressman Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for 

what you have done through the years to help those who are less 

fortunate. Before I came to Congress, I had an opportunity to know 

of your great reputation, in terms of helping the powerless. You 

have truly been hope for the hopeless, help to the helpless, and 

power for the powerless. So I thank you for what you have done 

through the years. 

I want to thank the ranking member, as well, Ranking Member 

Capito. I have had the opportunity to—by way of hearsay, which 

is good, because reputation evidence is hearsay—get some evidence 

as to where you stand on these issues. And my belief is that you 

have a good reputation, and I look forward to working with you. 

I always thank the chairman of the full committee, especially for 

what he is doing now to help us arrive at a housing trust fund. 

Madam Chairwoman, it saddens me greatly when I look at the 

scope of this problem, the length and breadth of it, because we live 

in a country where we have houses for our cars—houses for our 

cars. They’re called garages. And yet, we have 3.5 million people, 

approximately 39 percent of whom are children, whom, each year, 

are likely to experience some homelessness. 

It really hurts my soul to know that I live in a country where we can spend $229 million per day—not per year, not per week, not 

per month, but per day—on a war, and on any given night, we 

have 700,000 to 800,000 men, women, and children who are without homes. It really saddens me to understand the length, width, 

and breadth of this problem. 

And so, I would like to let people know that, in my hometown 

of Houston, Texas, in Harris County, the problem is one that I am 

hopeful we will have an opportunity to impact with this legislation. 

The numbers are so shocking that I think they ought to be stated 

for the record. 

In Houston, Harris County, among the homeless we have: 28 percent veterans; 66 percent have no income; 59 percent lost housing 

as a result of a lost job; 57 percent have a history of substance 

abuse; 55 percent have a history of mental health problems; and 

11 percent have experienced domestic violence. 

And if I may, I would like to emphasize the domestic violence aspect of this. We must provide transitional housing for every victim 

of domestic violence, most of whom are women, who find themselves on the street because they cannot coexist in the same space 

with a spouse or a significant other. 

Twenty-four percent have been incarcerated. So this is a most 

timely hearing, because we are going to do what we can to help 

those who are living, literally, in the streets of life. The well-off, the 

well-heeled, and the well-to-do seem to fare well; it’s the least, the 

last, and the lost that we must give special attention to with reference to housing. So, I thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to these hearings, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, for 2 minutes. 

13

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I want 

to thank you for convening this hearing, and for your reaching out 

to both sides of the aisle on this very important issue. 

My predecessor was Stewart McKinney. He put his country first. 

He put his State first. He put his district first, first before everything, even his own life. He was asked one time why he served on 

the Banking Committee. He said, ‘‘I don’t serve on the Banking 

Committee, I serve on the Housing Committee.’’ It was his passion, 

it was his love, and he is the reason we are here today. 

His son, John McKinney, will be our first witness, and I just 

want to say that his dad would be so very proud of him. He, like 

his father, is the minority leader of the Senate. His dad, 40 years 

ago—or 38 years ago—was the minority leader of the State house. 

I can just say about this witness that he is extraordinarily intelligent, and very capable. I consider him a close friend, and a close 

advisor, and I am just very grateful that he would spend the time 

here today, and that he would be invited to be here. 

Let me just quickly say about the issue, I am most interested 

about this bill about getting homeless people to be able to have 

their own place to live. I stay at shelters and spend the night. I 

don’t tell the press when I’m there, but I’ve gotten to know so 

many homeless people, and there is very little difference between 

them and any other American, except they have had some rough 

things in their lives. 

I would just conclude by saying to you that I also welcome Deborah DeSantis. She has just hired away one of the most capable and 

talented staff members on the Hill, and he is just a truly good person and a good friend of mine. He is a member of my staff for another week, and I congratulate you for getting the best and the 

brightest in Jordan Press. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You are certainly welcome. Thank you. 

And I will now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, who has 

been identified as someone who has not only worked for and on behalf of homeless children, but has been dedicated to this issue for 

quite some time, Representative Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. We have come a 

long way this year, so I would like to start out with a few acknowledgments. First, thank you for holding these hearings on homelessness, and the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento. This issue is in 

need of discussion in a public forum, and I truly appreciate your 

commitment to this effort. 

Unfortunately, Julia Carson is not with us today. I know she 

wishes she could be here, and I would ask all of you to keep her 

in your prayers, as she is recovering. I know she is excited to get 

back to D.C. and keep working on this issue. She has been a tremendous force behind the HEARTH Act. 

Moreover, I would like to recognize Hillary Swab and Kathleen 

Taylor, her two professional staffers, who have worked on this bill 

over the past year, and really deserve a lot of credit, as well, along 

with the outstanding efforts of Lauren O’Brien, my staff professional for housing issues. 

Lastly, I would like to recognize Linda Young, from Welcome 

House of Northern Kentucky. I am thrilled that she was able to 

make it to D.C. today to testify about her hands-on experience with 

14

this issue. My wife, Pat, and I have worked with families in crisis 

for the last 25 years. I have known Linda in this capacity since before I was elected to Congress. She has inspired me with her tireless dedication and innovative strategies to make most of the resources available to improve the quality of life for, literally, thousands of my constituents every year. 

As a fiscal conservative, I fully support the Federal investment 

and homeless assistance grant programs. A roof over one’s head 

goes a long way, but it is truly the more holistic approach of support services, combined with housing, that have the biggest impact 

on changing a person’s path in life. 

These programs lend a helping hand to people who want to build 

a future and pursue a dream. This type of Federal assistance has 

a lasting impact, not only on the recipient, but on our communities, 

as a whole. 

I am sure everyone here is familiar with the HEARTH Act, and 

I know many of the witnesses will discuss it in their testimony, so 

I won’t go into the details. However, I want to point out briefly the 

two parts of HEARTH that I think are the most critical: the alignment of the definition of homelessness with the definition used by 

the Department of Education; and the increase in local flexibility. 

This is about acknowledging that homelessness looks different in 

different parts of the country. Homelessness has many faces that, 

for the most part, are invisible to the public at large, though it is 

all around us. These people need and deserve our help. So why 

don’t we let the people who best know the local situation make the 

majority of the decisions about how that money would be spent? 

I hope we can all agree after this series of hearings that this 

method is in the best interest of our constituents, and will be the 

most effective at decreasing all types of homelessness. With that, 

thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Cleaver, would 

you like to have a few moments? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. To share with us your thoughts on this, 

Mr. Cleaver? Thank you. 

Mr. CLEAVER. In the interest of time, I will hold my comments 

until the time for questioning. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. With that, we are 

going to introduce our witnesses on our second panel. Even though 

Mr. Shays almost introduced his very special witness here today, 

I am going to recognize him to introduce Senator John McKinney 

of Connecticut. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I have really said what I need to say about this 

exceptional young man, and so I will just say, John, it’s really an 

honor to have you here, a real privilege. I just think that one time 

I had an opportunity to walk with your dad to a hearing. He always showed up before the hearings started. And it was just fun 

to be here, and just look out and see you there. Welcome. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. The other witnesses on this distinguished panel today are: Ms. Maria Foscarinis, 

executive director, National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty; Ms. Deborah DeSantis, president and executive officer, Corporation for Supportive Housing; Ms. Barbara Anderson, executive 

15

director, Haven House Services; and Ms. Pittre Walker, homeless 

liaison, Caddo Parish School Board. 

I thank you all for being here today. Without objection, your 

written statement will be made part of the record. You will now be 

recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. With that, 

we will start with Ms. Foscarinis. 

STATEMENT OF MARIA FOSCARINIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS & POVERTY 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for 

inviting me to testify here today. I am the executive director of the 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. We are a nonprofit legal advocacy group working to end homelessness. 

I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this very 

important hearing, and I want to also thank the ranking member, 

Congresswoman Capito, for holding this hearing. It’s a very important hearing on a very urgent topic at a very critical time. It is the 

20th anniversary of the enactment of the McKinney-Vento Act, and 

this is a bittersweet anniversary, as a number of people have mentioned. And if anyone would like a bittersweet chocolate bar, we 

still have some left in our offices, and we will be happy to make 

them available. 

I want to start with just a little bit of history, because I am a 

veteran of the original campaign to enact McKinney-Vento 20 years 

ago, and I never thought I would still be here, working on this 

issue today. 

Homelessness is a crisis that has not always been with us. It 

began to explode in the early 1980’s, in a very dramatic fashion, 

affecting not only the single men in inner cities that it had affected 

previously, but also affecting many families, many children, in suburban areas and rural communities, as well. So, this is a crisis that 

not only does not have to be in a country with our resources, it also 

has not always been with us. We need to remember that, because 

I think we need to keep focused on ending and preventing homelessness. 

The McKinney-Vento Act had its origins in a comprehensive 

piece of legislation that was introduced in Congress in 1986. That 

legislation had three parts: an emergency part, to address the immediate needs of homeless people; a prevention part; and a longterm solutions part. 

The McKinney-Vento Act, through an extraordinary campaign, 

became law and was signed into law in 1987. It was part one. It 

was the emergency part only of the original legislation that had 

been introduced. Part two and part three, prevention and long-term 

solutions, have yet to be enacted. 

This was an extraordinary campaign. It involved sleep-outs, including Members of Congress, most significantly including Congressman McKinney, who really was an extraordinarily committed 

person, and an inspirational person, as was Congressman Vento. 

At the time that McKinney-Vento was passed, Congress explicitly 

stated—and there are many statements in the Congressional 

Record by many Members, bipartisan statements, about this being 

a first step only, and it was a first step to respond to the immediate crisis. It was never intended to be the final step. It was to 

16

be followed by longer term solutions. In fact, the McKinney-Vento 

Act has been the major response to homelessness since that time. 

And the remaining steps have yet to be enacted. 

That is not to say that there haven’t been changes. There have 

been a lot of changes since 1987, and there have been improvements to the Act. There have been expansions of the Act, very significant expansions. There have been some movements towards 

longer-term solutions, but not at the scale, and not in the way that 

is needed, or was initially envisioned. 

There has not been a reauthorization since 1992. Instead, 

changes have been made to the Act through the appropriations 

process, as well as through the regulatory process, primarily 

through HUD. And I am talking now about the HUD McKinney 

programs. I think it is very critical that the legislation be reauthorized, and I think it is also very critical it be improved. 

This is really an opportunity to change the legislation to reflect 

current realities, current knowledge, and current best practices, 

and to make a really important step towards keeping that 20-yearold promise of putting in place permanent solutions to end and prevent homelessness, to go beyond those emergency steps. 

I think there are a number of pieces of legislation now that are 

very significant. My organization has endorsed the HEARTH Act. 

I think the Senate piece has—a lot of people have worked very 

hard on that, and it has some very important provisions, as well. 

I am just going to summarize the key points that are important to 

us. 

I think aligning the definition of homelessness, to make it consistent with the Department of Education definition, is very important. And that is something that the HEARTH Act does. 

I realize—we recognize—that the current programs are very—are 

terribly oversubscribed, and there is an argument that expanding, 

or changing the definition, would add to that. I think, for this reason, it is very important to also increase the resources. And the 

HEARTH legislation does increase, as does the Senate counterpart, 

increase the authorized levels very significantly. Still not sufficient, 

but a very significant step forward. And that, I think, is also a critical part of the legislation. 

Another critical piece, which is in the Senate bill but is not currently in the HEARTH legislation, concerns renewals. There are 

Section 8 vouchers associated with the HUD McKinney programs 

to— 

Mr. CLEAVER. [presiding] I am going to ask you to wrap it up. 

We allotted 5 minutes. 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. Okay. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you so much. 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. May I just— 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, yes, please. 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. Okay. The renewal—to have the renewal provision through the Section 8 program, as in the Senate legislation, 

I think, is critical. The continuum of care process, where all stakeholders come together is also very critical. It is very important to 

keep that in there. 

Lastly, discouraging cities from criminalizing homelessness, 

which is in the HEARTH Act through an incentive process is very 

17

important to protecting people’s rights and putting in place cost-effective solutions to homelessness. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Foscarinis can be found on page 

68 of the appendix.] 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you very much. Mr. Shays, would you like 

to, again, introduce Senator McKinney? 

Mr. SHAYS. You know, this has never occurred in the history of 

this place, John, that someone has been introduced three times. So 

I will spare you any further introduction or embarrassment. 

He, actually, is a very humble guy, so this must drive him crazy. 

John, welcome. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Senator, thank you for being here with us. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN McKINNEY, STATE 

SENATOR, STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Mr. MCKINNEY. Thank you, sir. And I want to thank Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, and the members of the 

subcommittee for holding these hearings, and for giving me an opportunity to testify in support of a bill and a cause that is near and 

dear to my heart. 

I also want to pay special mention to my good friend and my 

Congressman, Chris Shays, and thank him for his leadership on 

this issue. 

I am here today simply because I believe, as my father believed, 

that every American has the right to a home. I am here today to 

ask you to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act, and expand our Federal Government’s role in the fight to end 

homelessness in America. 

In 1986, my father helped craft, and Congress ultimately passed, 

legislation we know now as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. It was the first major coordinated Federal response to 

homelessness in our Nation’s history. While it was an important 

first step, it was just that, a first step. We were supposed to do 

more. We have not followed through on the promise to do more to 

combat homelessness. Reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act by this Congress will get us back on the 

right track, and help fulfill the promises made 2 decades ago. 

Over those past 2 decades, the face of homelessness has changed. 

It is no longer only single men or the mentally ill who are sleeping 

on our streets or inhabiting emergency shelters. Today, it is all too 

common to see mothers and their children, entire families, arrive 

at an emergency shelter in need of a place to sleep. 

Another dramatic change has occurred over the last 20 years. We 

no longer need to manage homelessness; we can end it. In Connecticut, we are working on doing just that, ending homelessness. 

And the problem is real in our small State. A point of time survey 

that was done this past winter, which was the first coordinated 

statewide survey done in the State, found an estimated 3,300 people who were homeless on one night of January 30th. Of those, almost 400 were families. 

In my own hometown of Fairfield, Connecticut, an affluent suburb of 60,000 people where the average home price is $750,000, we 

see our own problems with homelessness. Operation Hope, which 

is a local nonprofit agency providing innovative solutions to homeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
18

lessness, reports that the people calling in need of shelter and 

housing has been rising steadily. In the last 6 months alone, over 

500 people have called in need of immediate shelter, and almost 

100 others have called in need of support services, and are at risk 

of homelessness. This is on top of the dozens and dozens of people 

they serve in their support services every day. 

In Connecticut, we have been leading in supportive housing. To 

date, there are 3,000 units of permanent supportive housing that 

have been created or are in the pipeline, and McKinney funding 

has been a critically important part to this development. State and 

local funds have been used to leverage Federal dollars, including 

McKinney funding, to pay for supportive housing. 

McKinney funding allocated by HUD is not enough, however. 

While in the late 1990’s, these funds sparked new development of 

supportive housing, today the funds only cover the expenses of 

keeping current housing open. Communities aren’t getting a boost 

in funding to ensure the continued operation of current housing 

stock, and to inspire new locally-determined developments. 

While renewal grants are important, we need new funding to 

jumpstart the next phase of supportive housing development. In 

my hometown of Fairfield—let me give you an example—Operation 

Hope used McKinney funding from HUD to open up six units of 

supportive housing for families and six units for single adults between 1999 and 2001. These homes still receive HUD funding for 

operating and supportive service costs, but the HUD funding is no 

longer available for future developments. Operation Hope has been 

able to develop the next 12 units, but they have had to do so without HUD funding. 

The model developed by Operation Hope—non-urban, scattered 

site development—works well for communities and people who are 

homeless. Integrating supportive housing directly into thriving 

neighborhoods is the best way to help families who were once 

homeless in a way that will enrich the communities around them. 

This model is especially good for children, who benefit from seeing 

their parents maintain their households and get up and go to work 

like everyone else in the neighborhood. 

But we need new capital funding to spur development. While the 

State of Connecticut has tried to pick up the slack, our current efforts are over-subscribed. There are many more developments proposed than there is money to cover them. Our goal in Connecticut 

is to end homelessness by the year 2014 through the creation of 

10,000 units of supportive housing. We have done 3,000, and we 

have 7,000 units to go. We need help. We need Federal dollars, 

combined with State and local funds, to make this a reality. 

This is an important and fiscally smart investment of Federal 

funds. It is an investment in a proven model, a better investment 

than the current emergency shelter system, consisting only of 

emergency rooms, jails, and shelters. 

Imagine if we could take those 100 people who are on the service 

wait list on Operation Hope, or the 500 people who are in need of 

emergency shelter, and provide them with financial assistance and 

support services to prevent them from ever being evicted, to prevent them from being homeless. Think of the consequences of that 

emergency aid. Children would get to stay in their homes, their 

19

schools, their neighborhoods. Their parents would be less stressed, 

more steady, and thinking and planning for the future. 

Local agencies like Operation Hope can help these families, but 

the financial assistance piece is critical. If we don’t have financial 

support, there is no ending the crisis of homelessness. With authorization of the McKinney Act, we will continue to change and improve the lives of millions of people in this country. 

In closing, let me touch upon two specific issues in the legislation 

before you. First, regarding the permanent housing set-aside, Congress has long directed HUD to dedicate at least 30 percent of 

funds appropriated for permanent supportive housing. It would be 

a mistake to remove this set-aside. Legislation reauthorizing 

McKinney-Vento should codify the 30 percent set-aside, because 

supportive housing has been highly successful in providing assistance to homeless individuals. 

Local organizations throughout the State of Connecticut have 

made incredible use of these funds. Maintaining the set-aside will 

help meet the critical needs of people, including those disabled by 

chronic health conditions or long-term substance abuse problems. It 

will also help families with the greatest challenges to stability, who 

are often not receiving any help from other Federal programs. 

Second, I want to address the definition of homeless, which some 

have proposed broadening to include individuals and families who 

are living in doubled-up situations and motels. 

While it is certainly admirable to want to address all people who 

are in need, I am concerned that this could lead to a thinning of 

resources. Changing the definition could divert resources from 

those with disabilities who are least likely to seek help or fend for 

themselves, if many more people are competing for the resources 

provided by the homeless assistance grant programs. I do not think 

any of us want to see the most troubled and sick homeless get 

pushed to the back of the line. 

Again, it is a great honor for me to be here. My father campaigned vigorously 20 years ago to end homelessness. I think it is 

time for us and our Nation to help bring this issue back to the forefront of political discourse and into American consciousness. He 

would be delighted to know that, while 20 years ago we were struggling for funds to help manage homelessness, today we know we 

can end homelessness. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator McKinney can be found on 

page 74 of the appendix.] 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate very much 

your willingness to give of your time to be with us today. 

Next, the CEO and president of the Corporation for Supportive 

Housing, Ms. Deborah DeSantis. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH DeSANTIS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE 

HOUSING 

Ms. DESANTIS. Thank you. My name is Deborah DeSantis, and 

I am president and CEO of the Corporation for Supportive Housing. CSH is a national nonprofit helping communities create permanent, affordable housing linked to services that prevent and end 

homelessness. We have worked for more than 15 years to help comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
20

munity-based nonprofits and local and State governments develop 

and operate permanent supportive housing. 

I would like to thank Subommittee Chairwoman Maxine Waters 

for committing her leadership to the important issue of ending 

homelessness. I would like to also acknowledge Representative Carson and other members of this subcommittee who took an early interest by introducing H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act. 

CSH is also pleased that the Senate Banking Committee has 

passed a comprehensive bipartisan bill, S. 1518, to reauthorize the 

McKinney-Vento programs. And let me also say it is an honor to 

speak on behalf of McKinney reauthorization, along with Connecticut State senator John McKinney, whose father is rightly recognized for his leadership and passion in responding to our Nation’s crisis of homelessness. 

Twenty years after the passage of the McKinney Act, the need 

for McKinney-Vento resources remains great. Over 200,000 individuals with disabilities experience homelessness on a repeated or 

chronic basis. By our conservative estimates, the cost to taxpayers 

of maintaining homelessness, particularly chronic homelessness, totals between $5 billion and $8 billion a year. 

Despite its tragic and costly consequences, the persistence of 

homelessness has allowed us to explore causes of homelessness and 

test solutions. This research supports the recommendations I am 

making today. 

First, I urge the reauthorization legislation to include a 30 percent set aside for permanent housing, for homeless households with 

one or more disabled persons. For those homeless individuals and 

families who confront chronic health conditions and suffer, or are 

at risk of suffering long-term or repeated bouts of homelessness, 

permanent supportive housing is the only intervention proven to 

end costly cycling between systems. 

Studies indicate that providing permanent housing with services 

to those with disabilities allows more than 80 percent of residents 

to remain stably housed after 1 year, decreases tenants’ emergency 

room visits by more than 50 percent, and increases tenants’ income 

by 50 percent, resulting in cost savings of about $16,000 per housing unit per year. 

Based on the success of permanent supportive housing, congressional appropriators, on a bipartisan basis, have imposed a 30 percent set-aside for permanent housing for the past 9 fiscal years. In 

1998, the year before the 30 percent set-aside, only 13 percent of 

McKinney money was dedicated to permanent housing. 

While significant McKinney-Vento resources have been invested 

in new permanent supportive housing since Fiscal Year 2000, the 

overall funding available for other interventions has not plummeted. In fact, it has increased by $50 million. 

Further, people experiencing chronic homelessness are more likely than other McKinney-Vento-eligible populations to be excluded 

from other safety net programs. Indeed, the average national rent 

for an efficiency 1-room bedroom apartment of $715 is more than 

the monthly income a disabled person receives on SSI. In such circumstances, it is appropriate for Federal policy to provide this population with some priority. 

21

Second, CSH recommends expanding the definition of chronic 

homelessness to include families where a head of household suffers 

from a disability, and has been homeless repeatedly or continuously. About 12,000 to 15,000 households of families with children 

are homeless for 2 or more years. These families experience chronic 

or long-term homelessness, but are not recognized as such under 

current definition. 

Third, CSH supports a prudent expansion of the definition of 

homelessness. Legislation should recognize the reality that many 

homeless people do not live on the streets, but in hospitals, treatment facilities, or jail. These previously homeless individuals 

should be considered homeless, too. 

Additionally, individuals or families at risk who have moved 

three or more times in the past year, living off of temporary motel 

vouchers or with a relative or friend on a short-term, unstable 

basis should be considered homeless. 

However, we have great reservations about expanding the definition of homelessness, as suggested in H.R. 840. While we agree 

housing affordability is at the root of homelessness, we believe 

other programs are better equipped to address our country’s housing affordability crisis. The Financial Services Committee recently 

completed work on legislation to strengthen and expand the Section 8 housing voucher program and to establish a national housing 

trust fund. 

Also, S. 1518 creates a new grant program to keep families and 

individuals from becoming homeless. 

Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to offer my testimony. I applaud you for the ambitious undertaking at this hearing 

and for responding to the homelessness and housing needs of 

America today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DeSantis can be found on page 

60 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Anderson? 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

HAVEN HOUSE SERVICES 

Ms. ANDERSON. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters. I want to 

share with the subcommittee a book Kathleen has, that I think she 

is going to be passing out shortly. It’s a book of photographs of people in my community who have experienced homelessness. I share 

it to remind you that the public policy you make affects the lives 

of ordinary Americans. 

As we get into the weeds of writing law, we don’t need to forget 

that it is our neighbors, family members, and indeed, ourselves 

who are the true subjects of this hearing. Each of us may experience homelessness at any given time. As a young student in a community that is very small and rural, I had to live in a car and in 

garages to be able to graduate from college. 

When I began my career as a social worker in 1979, the only person I can recall being homeless in my community was the man 

they called Herbie, and he was affectionately known as ‘‘The Town 

Drunk.’’ Four years later, Congress and the President enacted massive budget cuts that decimated Federal social programs. I watched 

22

those incidences of homelessness from a very practical level, not 

from a policy level. 

The consequences for countless of Americans and countless 

neighbors was that over those 2 decades, night after night of sleeping in shelters with dozens of strangers occurred. People slept in 

the woods, hidden from sight, on the couches of grudging relatives, 

and in roadside motels that lacked kitchens. I have even pulled 

people out of chicken coops and barnyards. 

Last night at our shelter, we provided 78 people with a temporary place to sleep. Our facility is suitable for 60 people. Of those 

78, 23 were children. They do not meet the Federal guideline for 

chronic homeless. Twenty-seven have full-time employment. They 

are working poor people. They do not meet the definition for chronic homeless. Thirteen work in day labor, because suitable work on 

a nomadic lifestyle is hard to find. Fifteen have disabilities. 

We serve all comers, disabled and working poor, single adult, and 

families with children. We are the only shelter serving 14 counties, 

so we have urban and rural—and many, many rural. 

As a board member of the National Coalition for the Homeless, 

with colleagues from across the country, I can tell you there are serious flaws just within McKinney-Vento itself. In 20 years, the evolution of the program has not kept up with the pace of the population outburst. 

Take, for example, the definition. It is antiquated. Congress has 

modernized the definitions used by other Federal programs to include a more complete set of living arrangements, yet HUD has 

stubbornly clung to this definition, because an undercount better 

serves the definition. 

We can’t ignore the numerous people in this country who have 

19 and 20—I have visited families who have 19 and 20 people living in a 2-bedroom home, with only 1 person on the lease. Those 

families are homeless, and they have no options but to be cluttered 

and on top of each other with all the social ills that go with that, 

including domestic violence and abject poverty, and sometimes burglary, and whatever else happens for them to make it. And it is a 

crime that we allow that to happen. We call on Congress to amend 

the HUD definition of homelessness following the HEARTH Act 

language. 

Then there is the Administration’s chronic homeless initiative, 

the set-asides and the permanent housing bonuses. The national 

directives have resulted sometimes in a concentration of resources 

on permanent supportive housing to the cost of those of us who are 

trying to build in small communities with very few resources to 

build any kind of housing. 

The HEARTH Act restores flexibility to communities to select a 

set of eligible activities that best responds to their individual and 

greatest needs, rather than dictates from Washington. The National Coalition for the Homeless supports the HEARTH Act. It addresses the above concerns and many other grievances. 

We call for Congress to authorize and appropriate at least $3 billion annually for HUD and McKinney-Vento programs, and we 

don’t need to stop there. Congress should authorize and appropriate funds for a homeless prevention initiative outside of the 

23

McKinney-Vento program, because every penny that is in HUD and 

McKinney-Vento is needed there. 

We also urge Congress to authorize and appropriate funds for a 

rural homeless assistance program through the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, where field sites are located in communities throughout this country, and where the true rural needs of rural America 

can be met with people who understand rural homelessness. 

Homelessness is our national shame and our global embarrassment. It is also a personal and family tragedy to over 3 million 

Americans every year, including the people in the book that Kathleen has passed out. These are people depicted in photography from 

my small piece of America, Jeffersonville, Indiana. In their honor, 

we must recognize housing as a basic human right, and ensure all 

Americans’ access to it. 

We must adopt universal health insurance. We must demand a 

labor agreement in which all people earn or receive an income sufficient to obtain affordable housing. We must assure the civil rights 

of all persons, housed and homeless, to participate freely in the life 

of their community. And it is time for us, with Congress in the 

lead, to bring America home. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson can be found on page 

48 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Walker? 

Ms. WALKER. Good morning. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Good morning 

STATEMENT OF PITTRE WALKER, HOMELESS LIAISON, CADDO 

PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 

Ms. WALKER. Chairwoman Waters, and members of the committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to speak to you about something that is very dear 

to my heart. 

For the past 9 years, I have served as the homeless liaison for 

Caddo Parish School Board in Shreveport, Louisiana. I am also a 

board member of the National Association for the Education of 

Homeless Children and Youth, and the Louisiana Association for 

the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. 

I will focus my comments today on the youngest victims of homelessness, our Nation’s children and youth. Homeless children suffer 

physically and emotionally. Infants and toddlers who are homeless 

are at risk of developmental delays. Homeless children and youth 

are diagnosed with learning disabilities at a much higher rate than 

other children. They struggle academically, and fall behind in 

school. 

Unfortunately, children and youth have not been a focus of the 

Federal homeless policies, except in the area of education. We are 

extremely grateful for the leadership of Congresswoman Judy 

Biggert, who has worked on the education provisions of McKinneyVento and has increased the stability and success of homeless children and youth in school. Educators have learned that without the 

involvement and cooperation of the community service providers, 

educational efforts are much less likely to succeed. 

24

A child without housing faces greater barriers to academic success than just the barriers that exist within the classroom. One of 

these barriers is the current HUD definition of homelessness. Many 

people have no choice but to stay temporarily with other people, or 

in motels, often in overcrowded and unsafe circumstances. In many 

places across the country, there are no shelters, or shelters may be 

full, or have restrictive requirements, forcing people to stay in 

other homeless situations. 

On the other hand, the education definition of homelessness includes families doubled up, tripled up, or living in motel situations. 

This allows me to serve children and youth who lack housing enroll 

in school, and obtain educational-related services. Last year, Caddo 

Parish identified and enrolled 2,031 homeless children and youth 

in grades K through 12. Of those, 1,232 were doubled up, and 72 

lived in motels. Thus, 64 percent of homeless children and youth 

in my parish are not eligible for HUD homeless assistance services. 

Since 1999, Caddo has received a HUD assistance grant to provide case management services for Caddo and six rural areas in 

our community for homeless families. But I can only help a fraction 

of those who truly need assistance, because of the HUD definition. 

For these reasons, I strongly support the definition of homelessness 

contained in the H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act. In my community, 

this definition of homelessness will allow service providers to meet 

the needs of all families that are experiencing homelessness. 

Unfortunately, the definition of homelessness in the Senate bill, 

S. 1518, is not adequate to meet the needs of the families we serve 

on a daily basis. For families who are doubled up or in motels that 

are not paid by government, multiple moves must occur before assistance can be provided. 

Just last Friday, I received a call from a mother of three who 

was at the food stamp office. This mother was in crisis, crying over 

the phone, and needed somewhere to stay. She had been to several 

different places, and could not find any help. Shelters were full. So, 

at that point, I decided to use my own credit card, and put that 

family up in a hotel, so that those children could have a place to 

stay. And to this day, they are still on my credit card in a hotel. 

It is my desire that every child have a home. So, therefore, I said 

we must work diligently to assure that all families that are experiencing homelessness have a home and services provided to them, 

to assist them in meeting those needs. 

I am not a government official. Would that person be able to 

meet the HUD definition, with me putting my credit card up, and 

receive HUD services? I say no. But, in order for that family to 

have some stability and some place to say, that was something we 

had to do. And, as liaisons throughout the Nation, we do what we 

have to do, in order for families to be able to feel safe and secure 

in their living situation. 

I say to you they are usually emotionally a wreck. These children 

had not slept in days. They were sleeping on a floor with roaches 

and rats, and I went to the house where they were, and they were 

actually put out from that place, when they were at the food stamp 

office. I say to you, we must—we cannot look at ending homelessness without looking at our families. We must address the needs 

of our families. 

25

It is hard for children to be stable in school. It is hard for them 

to academically succeed without a place to stay. 

I have other concerns about the Senate bill and current policies 

that are described in my written testimony. But I say to you today, 

as long as the needs of children and youth are not recognized, we 

will never end homelessness. I believe the HEARTH Act provides 

a stronger approach to reauthorization. 

I thank you again for this opportunity to present to you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Walker can be found on page 129 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. I would like to 

thank all of our panelists who have come here today to help us formulate public policy on homelessness. 

Now, unfortunately, as we do this working committee, voting is 

going on, on the Floor. If you heard those bells ring, it means that 

it is time for us to get up to the Floor and take some votes. There 

are 6 votes, 45 minutes at the most. We are going to have to leave, 

go up and do that. We will be back, and we will start our questions. 

So you will have an opportunity to stretch your legs, get some refreshments, and meet us back here in about 40 minutes. Thank 

you. 

[Recess] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much for your patience. 

The committee will come to order. Our members will be returning 

shortly. 

I will recognize myself for 5 minutes and begin the questions. I 

think I will start with Ms. Walker. One thing that jumped into my 

mind when you told the heartbreaking story of the family that you 

are personally going to such great lengths to help is, where is the 

TANF system in all of this? 

Now, let me be clear that I was not a supporter of the so-called 

welfare reform of 1996, but TANF funding is at least 10 times 

McKinney funding in any given year. It is funding for which chronically homeless individuals are typically eligible. I wonder whether 

this family, and others who are doubled up or precariously housed, 

are receiving any TANF funds, or whether your State is targeting 

TANF dollars toward housing. 

If not, can you tell me what the obstacles are? I just wonder why 

the TANF funds were not available for that family. Could you help 

me to understand, or all you know is that they have your credit 

card? 

Ms. WALKER. Yes, ma’am. Since I received the phone call from 

the food stamp office—which actually assists families in receiving 

food stamps, and the TANF office is also there—I am just assuming, I really don’t know, that TANF funds were not available for 

this family, and that they called me for assistance for housing. 

So, therefore, that is why we decided to go ahead and put them 

up in a hotel. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Okay. Ms. Foscarinis, I appreciate your 

long-standing involvement in the issues of homelessness, including 

your work on the original McKinney Act. 

My question is this: Wasn’t that Act itself a targeting or 

prioritization of Federal resources, namely a recognition that while 

26

America in 1987 had many poor people, it was necessary to place 

some special importance on persons experiencing homelessness? 

I pose this question because I am struggling to understand why, 

then, is it not appropriate for the Federal Government to place 

some priority in the allocation of McKinney-Vento resources on the 

chronically homeless, those who have been homeless the longest 

and most often, and frequently are the most ill? 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. That is a good question, Congresswoman Waters. I don’t think that it is inappropriate to place priority on the 

chronically homeless. I think it is very important to recognize that 

there is an extreme need among all homeless people, and that what 

we really need to do is put in the resources to address the needs 

of all homeless people. 

When the original McKinney-Vento Act was passed, part of the 

missing pieces, the pieces that were not passed, had to do with improving access to mainstream services. In response to your earlier 

question, ‘‘Where are those mainstream services,’’ often homeless 

people are kept out of those services, because they don’t have documents, they don’t have an address, or they don’t have IDs. So they 

are, literally, not able to get access to those services. Those services 

are also oversubscribed, and increasing those resources. 

So, I think we need to do those things. I think that is, ultimately, 

the solution to homelessness. I think targeting resources to the 

chronically homeless, in some communities, may work. But I don’t 

think that we should be assuming that it is going to work across 

the board. I think that should be a decision—the resources are very 

limited. The community process is very important. It is very important that it be inclusive, as it has been currently, and that the local 

communities determine their priorities. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. I will now recognize the ranking member, Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the chairwoman. I want to thank you all 

for your patience, and I am glad that we are back and addressing 

this very critical issue. 

Each of you have addressed the issue of the redefinition of homelessness in a different way. Some have expressed some reservations. And I think this is really going to be at the crux of what 

piece of legislation we come forward with, whether we match the 

Senate or go with the HEARTH bill, or create something in between. 

For those who have expressed some reservations, could you get 

a little bit more specific on what your reservation is in expanding 

the definition? Is it lack of resources? Is it inability to specifically 

define or categorize someone as homeless, if the definition is expanded? I believe Ms. DeSantis, and maybe the Senator had addressed that, as well. 

Ms. DESANTIS. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to address 

that question. And permit me for a minute to personalize the response a bit. 

As a young child, my mother was very young. My father left us 

at the age of three. And at that time, my mother was working two 

or three jobs, and couldn’t support the two of us. We moved into 

my grandmother’s house for close to 14 years. So, never once did 

I consider myself or my mother ‘‘homeless.’’ But, under the exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
27

panded definition of homelessness, we would, indeed, be considered 

homeless. 

So, to respond to your question, yes, it is two-fold. It is a matter 

of limited resources, and spreading those resources too thin. But I 

also—I worry about stigmatizing thousands more individuals and 

families, and calling them homeless, when, indeed, I think there 

are other Federal programs that could address the economic disadvantage that many individuals and families are experiencing, 

such as the Section 8 program, such as the housing trust fund program. 

Mr. MCKINNEY. Thank you. And, if I could just add, I think my 

concern is one of resources, and that is that we are—I want to 

make sure that those who are at greatest risk of homelessness, 

those with the most need, are getting the resources they need. 

I would say, though, that—and listening to Ms. Walker’s testimony, which is extremely powerful—that all of us here, and all of 

you, should not let the different definitions in S. 1518 and H.R. 840 

prevent us from passing this important Act. We should all sit together to work on it. 

If it is the expanded definition in H.R. 840, then I would like to 

see some type of flexibility, perhaps at the community level, to 

make that prioritization, so the dollars could go to those at greatest 

risk. But, yes, I think we are all nervous that we are not going to 

have the resources available. And if you are adding, say, 10 more 

people to the definition of homeless, there are going to be more people for the same number of resources. 

But those people need help, as well. So I think, at the end of the 

day, it is a matter of resources. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chairwoman, do I have time for one more 

question? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes. 

Mrs. CAPITO. I was going to address it to Ms. Anderson. I know 

you wanted to speak to this issue as well, so you can incorporate 

that. 

I am wondering, in your Haven House Services, where you are 

the executive director, one of the things in the new bill is the consolidation of HUD programs, and the consolidation of applications, 

which, to me, makes extremely good sense. In your actual day-today or year-to-year applications, how many of those HUD programs 

do you access? 

How many different applications do you have to, in your—and 

what other Federal programs do you access with Haven House? 

Ms. ANDERSON. We are a Hope Project recipient, Social Security 

Administration. We have had HUD funding. It is not a primary—

in a small community like mine, 62 percent of our funds come from 

donations, soft money, because we don’t have the ability to access 

or compete with Federal areas. We don’t have the population base. 

And we are in Louisville’s SMSA, even though we are not necessarily—we don’t receive any of their Federal funding, because we 

are in a different HUD region. 

So, we are underserved, dramatically. And while I respect the 

fact that—and I do want to address the definition issue, quickly—

we are—I have been doing this for 27 years, and I have yet to meet 

a homeless person who has trouble defining who they are. It has 

28

only been my government and the people I work with who have difficulty with that issue. And the very first question I had when I 

was a young social worker was, ‘‘How do we define homelessness?’’ 

And still, 27 years later, we are talking about definition. 

The thing that amazes me is that I would not be homeless tomorrow under any circumstances because, just like Ms. DeSantis, my 

family would be there for me. It is not broken. For the people I 

serve, what I find is that the family units have been broken for 

whatever reason. Maybe they are in public housing, and they cannot double or triple up, or they will lose the housing themselves. 

Maybe it is because they had to leave the State they were in, because they lost a job. 

There are many, many different reasons why they are doubled 

and tripled up. On a local level, we know those reasons, and we 

know who can stay with family. I can’t begin to tell you how many 

times in the course of a week I stopped somebody from entering the 

shelter, because I go back and talk to their family, and mediate a 

problem. But there are still numerous people out there who just 

can’t be mediated with. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Green, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let us start with 

domestic violence, the second most frequently stated cause of homelessness for families. Is there anyone who contends that victims of 

domestic violence who have to leave what really is their home, that 

they are not homeless? If so, I would like to hear the rationale. 

[No response] 

Mr. GREEN. Anyone? 

[No response] 

Mr. GREEN. We all agree. Now, in terms of the legislation that 

we have before us, are we doing enough in the area of domestic violence for those persons who have to leave a home, but they need 

some transitional help? Yes? 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. I think that a very significant step was taken 

when the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized with new 

provisions to protect the housing rights of domestic violence 

women, and to prevent them from losing their housing because of 

the actions of their abusers. That covers public housing and other 

subsidized housing. 

But there is more that needs to be done. There needs to be funding, specifically to provide places for either transitional housing, 

shelter, or permanent housing for women—and it is almost always 

women who are fleeing domestic violence situations, and at risk of 

becoming homeless—so that they have an alternative, so that they 

are not staying with their abuser because of fear of becoming 

homeless, because they don’t have a home to go to. 

That is really the missing element, providing the funding so that 

there are those alternatives, and making sure there is enough affordable housing so that people are not staying in domestic violence 

situations because they do not have a place to go. 

Mr. GREEN. Would someone else like to comment? Yes? 

Ms. ANDERSON. On any given day in our shelter, 90 percent of 

the women will have been sexually or physically abused. And I am 

29

not a domestic violence shelter. But those women oftentimes will 

come into our shelter, they will stay a few days, and they will go 

back to the perpetrator before they will stay homeless. And it is a 

lack of resources. 

It is also a lack of meat to the laws, and enforcement of those 

laws. No woman should have to leave her home with her children 

because she has been beaten. And I really wish and pray and hope 

that some day we understand that they need to be protected in a 

real way, and the police officers are actually given the enforcement 

rights they need to make the perpetrator leave, and not return. 

That would be the answer. 

In the meantime, she is right, Ms. Foscarinis, we do not have resources to put people in places where they are safe. They cannot 

just go to any motel, because the door gets battered down, and they 

get themselves beaten to death, or they get hurt again, or they 

have to be forced to go into some kind of substandard situation. 

So, we really do need to look at how we can make safe houses, 

and enforce the laws that allow women to stay in their homes with 

their families. 

Mr. GREEN. Let us move to another area. Voter registration, as 

a service. Ms. Anderson, are you permitted, as you perceive the 

current status of the law, to register homeless people who are in 

your facility? 

Ms. ANDERSON. I have registered homeless people in my facility 

for 22 years. And I always will. So, I am permitted, and I refuse 

for anyone not to allow me to be permitted. We register people on 

a regular basis, because it is their Constitutional right to vote. 

Mr. GREEN. Is there anyone who has experienced some complication, in terms of registering people? Please. 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. I would like to speak to that. I am not operating 

a shelter, but this is an issue that we are quite familiar with, because there are very significant barriers to allowing homeless people to vote. And voting, of course, is a Constitutional right. Courts 

have held that, even for people who don’t have a permanent residence, a permanent home because they are homeless, they still 

should be allowed to exercise this fundamental right. 

However, in practice, what is happening now—and some of this 

is unintended consequences of 9/11 measures, security measures—

people, in order to vote, they are being—they need to show a photo 

ID. And homeless people face very high barriers in getting this 

kind of identification, because they don’t have the documentation, 

they don’t have a home, they don’t have a utility bill, they don’t 

have the typical identification you need to establish identity. 

And so, this has become a very big barrier to getting access to 

public benefits, to getting access to all kinds of things that people 

need to escape homelessness, and also to voting. 

Now what we are seeing is that there is a trend to—you know, 

the ‘‘Real ID ACT’’ has complicated the ID issue for homeless people. And now we are seeing a trend in Federal legislation to attach 

a requirement—including in the housing legislation—attach a requirement that States must comply with a Real ID Act. 

So, it is making the problem even worse. I don’t believe that this 

was intended, and yet the reality is it is keeping people—homeless 

people—out. 

30

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield 

back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you— 

Chairwoman WATERS. For 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I also thank 

the witnesses. I am going to apologize to the second panel. I am 

supposed to also be in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in a hearing on Iraq, and I want to get to some of that. 

But let me start by saying I would like someone to tell me—I 

want to first make this quick comment, and say that when I go to 

a homeless shelter, what I love is that the ones I see—or most of 

the ones I see—are not warehouses. There are energetic staff there 

who are trying to work with folks so that they don’t have to keep 

coming back, so that they have a place ultimately to go to, and they 

have supportive services to help lift them. 

And so, for me, a key feature of this bill is the 30 percent setaside. Is there agreement that the 30 percent set-aside is good, and 

that it is enough or too little—I’m not looking for long dialogue if 

there is agreement. 

Let me start with you, Mr. McKinney, Senator, are you comfortable with the 30 percent, or should it be more, or should it be 

less? 

Mr. MCKINNEY. Well, we would love more. In Connecticut, what 

we have seen, and what we have seen in my hometown, is that permanent supportive housing works. And about 80 percent of the people who go into permanent supportive housing are in that housing 

a year later. That provides tremendous stability— 

Mr. SHAYS. You said 80 percent? 

Mr. MCKINNEY. About 80 percent. 

Mr. SHAYS. Wow. 

Mr. MCKINNEY. It is tremendous stability for families and their 

children. But, you know, I think we need to understand that there 

are not going to be—there are limited dollars. So I think the 30 

percent set-aside would work. 

Mr. SHAYS. Okay. Other comments from others? Yes? 

Ms. FOSCARINIS. Yes, I would like to comment. I—we have not 

supported the set-aside, and the reason is not—is simply that we 

feel that there are many needs that are not being met now, and 

that it should be a matter to be determined at the local level by—

through the community planning process, where to target the resources. 

And it is not because we do not agree. Of course, permanent supportive housing is a good thing, and there are many needs there, 

as well. But there has been a very big focus on chronic homelessness. And there are families, there are children who also have very 

big needs, and they have needs that can be met in other ways. 

So, we need to increase resources—that is very fundamental—to 

solving the underlying issue. But— 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Let me get to the next one. Thank you, 

ma’am. 

Ms. DESANTIS. We do support the 30 percent set-aside. And we 

believe that we are at a point now where we have learned a lot 

about homelessness, and the efficacy of what works. 

31

I think, now, we see a whole body of research that came out of 

the recent HUD symposium that points to supportive housing as a 

way of addressing long-term homelessness. So, we very much support the set-aside. 

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Anderson? 

Ms. ANDERSON. The National Coalition for the Homeless does not 

support the set-aside, primarily because the Stewart B. McKinneyVento Act is an emergency act, and the set-aside takes emergency 

dollars that are needed when 811 could be funded, when Section 

8 could be funded at higher levels. There are maneuvers and mechanisms that could increase supportive housing, and we totally support the—giving those funding dollars to them. But to take away 

shelter dollars when shelter doors are closing all over this country, 

we think, is detrimental. 

So, we would support increasing 811 and many other programs 

for supportive housing. 

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Walker? Thank you for your answer, Ms. Anderson. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you. 

Ms. WALKER. We do not support set-asides. We do believe that 

the money needs to be flexible enough to serve those who are most 

needy. And so, the funds should be available on the local level, to 

decide what is the most need in that community. 

Mr. SHAYS. Okay, let me—I am going to forget all my other questions, because I didn’t expect to get the answer I got, which is interesting, and it is—this is a good panel, to have both sides. 

Without talking about the shelter, I was in one shelter in my district where there was tremendous energy and dialogue and interaction and counseling. And I didn’t feel like I was in a warehouse. 

There was another one where it was just totally a warehouse. And 

I didn’t feel any hope, any dreams. I just saw a warehouse of people. And, frankly, their attitude was down. 

So, I make the assumption that part of that energy from the first 

one was because we are doing this kind of a set-aside approach. 

Tell me why I might be misinformed. 

Ms. ANDERSON. From just a practical standpoint, we have a very 

poor shelter. But the people are very energetic, they are full of 

hope, and they understand that the staff is working 180 percent for 

them. And they don’t know anything about set-asides. They just 

know that I might be able to get them into public housing, and that 

because I don’t have any resources, I am going to have to be creative, and I am going to get that way. 

They understand that the local manufacturers call us to get them 

jobs. So they believe in us. I have been to human warehouses, too, 

and I despise them. I hope in my country, in my land, that there 

will be a time when we don’t have to have them. 

Mr. SHAYS. Right. 

Ms. ANDERSON. But, in the meantime, there are many providers 

out there who, with very little, are doing as much as they can do, 

like the shelter you visited. 

And people, you’re right, when they have that hope and that 

sense of tomorrow, they will go out—we have people who sell the 

Sunday Courier in the rain and the snow to make $10 an hour. 

32

And they do it every Sunday, and they’re homeless, and they have 

not missed for 5 years. So it is—they have hope. 

Mr. SHAYS. But are they still—they have been homeless for 5 

years? 

Ms. ANDERSON. No, sir. They come back and they do that with 

us on Sunday, as housed people. 

Mr. SHAYS. Oh, I see. 

Ms. ANDERSON. They stay a part of the program. 

Mr. SHAYS. I understand. 

Ms. ANDERSON. They come back to volunteer, and to give back. 

Mr. SHAYS. I understand. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Because they believe that is important. 

Mr. SHAYS. But I am happy you clarified that. Let me just end, 

Madam Chairwoman, by thanking you. And I would love to give a 

fourth introduction of Senator McKinney. 

[Laughter] 

Mr. SHAYS. But I will say this. God bless your dad. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SHAYS. God bless your dad. 

[Applause] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Ms. Walker, I 

was once, in one of my former lives, a school board president for 

high schools, and I appreciate what you do as a homeless liaison. 

I think that really helps so much, to help the kids, particularly 

with the education. So, thank you. 

What I was wondering was if you could provide us with the Senate bill definition and HUD definition of ‘‘homeless.’’ We have been 

talking around it, but— 

Ms. WALKER. Thank you, Congresswoman. Under the Senate bill, 

the definition is: ‘‘People in motels paid for by government programs; people who are doubled up, but only if they have moved 3 

times in 1 year, or 2 times in the past 21 days, or they have been 

notified by the owner or renter of their lodging that they can no 

longer stay for a short period of time, and they do not have any 

other resources to contribute to the rent; and people who are in motels, but only if they have moved 3 times in 1 year, or 2 times in 

the past 21 days, and they can pay for the room only for a short 

period of time.’’ 

Under the current HUD definition, it states that: ‘‘Persons living 

in a place not fit for habitation, in cars, campgrounds, abandoned 

buildings, on the streets, emergency shelter, transitional living facility, supportive housing facility; or persons that have received an 

eviction notice from the unit that they are staying in.’’ 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. Do you think that these definitions serve 

the needs of the homeless children, or is there a definition that 

would help to include the homeless children? 

Ms. WALKER. In my opinion, neither one of the definitions really 

serve homeless children. And the reason I say that is because if a 

child has to move three or four times before they can be identified 

as homeless, that does not give stability to that child. That child 

loses school books, that child loses clothing, and the child doesn’t 

know, from day to day, whether or not—‘‘Do I go to Momma’s 

33

house, or am I going to Cousin’s house? Am I going to be living in 

the car today?’’ It just does not give any stability for the child. 

Under the current HUD definition, it doesn’t include anything 

about living with anyone else, or having a 21-day notice, or an eviction notice from the family member. So, both definitions really do 

not address how this would affect a child of moving, and not having 

stability in their living situation. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. So, if you were to have another definition, 

the things that you said they don’t include are the ones that should 

be included? 

Ms. WALKER. The current definition on the education for McKinney-Vento is one of the best definitions that I have seen that really 

addresses the needs of children. 

When you think about a doubled-up situation, or a tripled-up situation, we are not just talking about persons wanting to live with 

another family member, and including them in this definition. We 

are talking about families who have no other choice but to live with 

someone else, because there is no other places available, or they 

cannot afford to put themselves in a hotel. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay, thank you. About the Administration’s 

chronic homelessness initiative, do you think that this has resulted 

in less attention or services for children, or is it doing what it 

should be doing? 

Ms. WALKER. It is not addressing the children’s issues at all in 

the current chronic homeless position. 

Unless unaccompanied youth—and we’re not talking about children within a family situation—in an unaccompanied youth situation, this child has to be homeless for a year before—or three times 

within one year—before they can be considered chronically homeless, and have a disability. 

So, really and truly, it doesn’t address the families and children. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. I think we have used that definition, not necessarily with the disabilities, but ‘‘unaccompanied’’ as—usually as 

a runaway? 

Ms. WALKER. Yes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Or someone who is— 

Ms. WALKER. Run away, or someone who has been put out of 

their home, because the family has decided that they can no longer 

live there. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay, okay. So, we can just take that out of the 

mix. 

Ms. WALKER. Yes. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to 

add? 

Ms. WALKER. I just strongly believe that, if we look at our future, 

which is our children, and really look at this definition to align 

with the education definition, then our children will be served best. 

If we look at the McKinney-Vento definition, and align it with the 

HEARTH definition, which is excellent, and great, and I feel like 

this really would serve the children. 

We are not trying to over-identify, we are just trying to identify 

that which is already in existence. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. I yield back. 

34

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. We have no other 

members present to have questions. And the Chair would note that 

some members may have additional questions for this panel, which 

they may wish to submit in writing. So, without objection, the 

hearing record will remain open for 30 days, for members to submit 

written questions to all of the witnesses, and to place their responses in the record. 

I would like to thank you so very much for your patience, for the 

work that you have done, and for the care that you have given to 

this issue. I thank you for coming to Washington to share your 

knowledge and experience with us. The panel is now dismissed, 

and I would like to bring on a third panel. Thank you very much. 

I am very pleased to welcome our distinguished third panel. And 

I, too, thank you for your patience. Coming to Washington to testify 

is not an easy thing. And sitting for long hours is certainly not 

something that we would like to see happen, but it does happen 

this way sometimes, so we are very appreciative of you. 

I would like to ask Ms. Capito to introduce Ms. Weintraub. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am very pleased 

to have Amy Weintraub. I mentioned her in my opening statements, and I do mirror the chairwoman’s statements, and thank 

you for your patience. But this is extremely interesting, and a very 

important topic. 

Amy is the executive director of Covenant House, which is a 

homeless shelter serving men, women, and children. And a new 

veterans’ homeless connection, which I want to talk about. But she 

has a long history of being a real advocate for those who need help 

in our community. She has a lot of energy, a lot of intellect that 

she brings, and she has also been just recently appointed by the 

Governor to be on the West Virginia Interagency Council to End 

Homelessness. So, welcome, Amy. I am pleased that you are here. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. The next witness 

we have is Ms. Linda Young, who is the executive director of Welcome House of Northern Kentucky. Mr. Davis wanted to introduce 

you, but he could not get back in time to do so. 

And so we welcome you here today, along with Ms. Jessica 

Vasquez, executive director of the New York State Coalition 

Against Domestic Violence, and Mr. Jeremy Rosen, executive director, National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made part of 

the record. You will now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of 

your testimony, and we will start with Ms. Weintraub. 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. On behalf of Covenant House of West Virginia— 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Weintraub, if you will hold your testimony for just one moment, I am not going to deny Mr. Davis the 

opportunity to introduce Ms. Young, as he was scheduled to do. 

Thank you for rushing back. 

Mr. DAVIS. You can tell, by my disheveled look, that I was on a— 

Chairwoman WATERS. I can tell. 

Mr. DAVIS. I appreciate your graciousness, Madam Chairwoman. 

And, actually, introducing Linda Young, the director of Welcome 

House, is a great privilege for many reasons. She has invested a 

lifetime in helping many, many folks in our community, and giving 

them a real future, and is actually kind of famous in our district. 

35

The group I was with before running back over here was 150 students and teachers from Beechwood School. And they all—all the 

teachers cheered when they heard your name, that I was going to 

be coming back here. So they sent their regards and thanks for 

your contribution to the community. 

Thank you for being here, and for the years of work that we have 

invested together. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. And thank you for 

your patience, Ms. Weintraub. 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF AMY WEINTRAUB, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COVENANT HOUSE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Ms. WEINTRAUB. On behalf of Covenant House of West Virginia, 

and the Kanawha Valley Collective, which is the Charleston Area 

Continuum of Care, I thank you all for the opportunity to bring the 

voices of West Virginia to this dialogue about homelessness. 

I especially thank Congresswoman Capito for inviting me, and 

for her recognition that we, back home, are very concerned with 

how McKinney-Vento will be reauthorized. West Virginia’s motto—

you may know it—is Montani Semper Liberi, ‘‘Mountaineers are 

Always Free.’’ Our communities have a long history of resisting 

control from above, and subscribe to the theory that we know best 

how to serve our needs. 

For West Virginians, passage of this beautiful piece of legislation 

called the HEARTH Act will mean preserving community flexibility 

in both rural and more urban settings. The HEARTH Act adopts 

a simple approach to meeting the needs of rural communities. By 

aligning HUD’s definition of homelessness with the definition used 

by other Federal agencies, it ensures that people who are without 

homes in rural areas are counted as homeless. 

Let us think for a moment about West Virginia. Our mountains 

and our rugged topography mean that we don’t have a lot of cities 

and towns. Roadways wind along creek and river beds. We call it 

community. You may see it as houses here and there along the 

road. 

Now, let’s think of Dareema. She is a single mom who has just 

been evicted from a trailer park in West Virginia. She and her kids 

are staying with friends in their house down the road, but the husband isn’t pleased with the situation, and it is very precarious. It 

is easy to see that the issues of Dareema in rural West Virginia 

are far different than those faced by a similar woman being evicted 

from a housing project in the Bronx, or even in Charleston. Rural 

America has fewer options. 

Dareema’s county, like many in our State, has no shelter. It 

doesn’t have an affordable housing program, due to the current 

HUD set-asides and incentives that favor urban areas. This forces 

rural West Virginians to leave their home communities and to 

come to big cities like Charleston for help. 

With passage of this bill, and removal of HUD set-asides and incentives favoring urban areas, our localities will be able to have the 

flexibility that we need to implement a range of housing options. 

36

As you have heard from others, the HEARTH Act more closely 

aligns the HUD definition of homelessness with other Federal 

agencies, and West Virginia applauds this. Children sleeping in a 

roadside motel in rural West Virginia with their moms are in as 

much need of comprehensive support services related to housing, as 

if they were staying in Sojourners Night Shelter in downtown 

Charleston. Yet, HUD-funded services are not available to them. 

They do not meet the HUD definition of what it means to be homeless. 

I understand that Congresswoman Waters is a social worker, or 

comes from a social work background. And I am sure you can understand the frustration of our staff, at not being able to refer some 

families to other community providers, because those providers are 

not allowed to provide services. 

For example, an unemployed man who has been staying at a flea 

bag motel for several weeks, and who needs resume help and job 

help and interview assistance is not able to go to Charleston’s 

YWCA Job Readiness Center, because it is only for the ‘‘homeless,’’ 

as defined by HUD. 

Or, a woman who moves from an emergency shelter into—in 

with her new boyfriend, who is very sketchy, and she has ongoing 

emotional and mental health needs, but she has to be dropped from 

our intensive support services case management system, because 

that is only for the homeless, as defined by HUD. 

Or, a mother who is living with AIDS, and her child, who are 

currently living in an emergency shelter cannot move into our permanent Section 811 housing that Covenant House has, because it 

is only for the ‘‘homeless,’’ as defined by HUD. 

I would like to say that the idea that our system is somehow 

going to become overwhelmed by all of these people suddenly being 

defined as homeless is just unfounded. School districts have been 

using this broader definition for 10 years. And, unlike HUD homeless assistance, the education statute is an entitlement with greater costs, such as transportation. Yet there has been no, ‘‘The sky 

is falling,’’ response from the Department of Education. 

The fact is, recognizing and acknowledging the predicament and 

needs of all homeless people similarly across agencies actually, in 

my view, has the potential to streamline delivery services, and 

make the Federal machine more efficient. 

Covenant House, and our partnering West Virginia agencies and 

organizations, are fully committed to the idea that the needs of the 

hardest to serve and the most in need will be met. We assure you 

that they will always be our top collective priority. However, we 

want to provide services for all who are homeless, whether they are 

living in a shelter, or on the streets, or otherwise. 

As for the Senate bill, S. 1518, I am happy to address that in my 

Q&A. I have run out of time. I just want to again say that West 

Virginia is in strong support of the HEARTH Act. And thank you 

for your interest in hearing from our State, as we fight poverty and 

homelessness. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weintraub can be found on page 

141 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Vasquez? 

37

STATEMENT OF JESSICA VASQUEZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

Ms. VASQUEZ. Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, 

and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Jessica 

Vasquez. I am the executive director of the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and a board member of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee about reauthorization of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 

The inter-related nature of domestic violence and homelessness 

is undeniable. This is not because homeless women are more likely 

to be victims of domestic violence. But, rather, because experiencing domestic violence often forces women and children into 

homelessness. Given this connection, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act has provided significant funding for domestic 

violence shelters, transitional housing programs, and services. 

Unfortunately, HUD’s practice in recent years has caused a 

range of problems for victims of domestic violence and programs 

that serve them. H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act, solves these problems 

by returning control to the local communities in addressing the 

needs of homeless families. By expanding the definition of homelessness and eliminating bonus points and set-asides, the HEARTH 

Act ensures the diverse needs of all communities can be met. 

The difficulty in addressing homelessness within New York provides a window into the complexities faced by local jurisdictions. 

Our State combines extremely urban and extremely rural areas. 

Stays on domestic violence programs are limited by the State to a 

maximum of 90 days with one 45-day extension. But with insufficient transitional and permanent housing options, only 20 percent 

of the victims leaving domestic violence shelters enter permanent 

housing. 

In New York City, staying in a domestic violence shelter doesn’t 

count as time spent homeless, by HUD definition. So, to receive 

any services, victims must actually requalify as homeless. To prevent victims from having to sleep in the street, many programs pay 

out-of-pocket to serve them, receiving no reimbursement from 

HUD. 

The HEARTH Act would help end homelessness in New York, 

first by expanding the definition of homelessness. The Nassau 

County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which serves a largely 

suburban population just outside New York City, reports that victims of domestic violence and their children sleeping on floors and 

doubled up in untenable situations are not considered homeless, 

and are often trapped in dangerous situations. 

They estimate that they could easily serve an additional 30 families each year if the definition of homelessness was expanded. This 

would not require additional funding, and the expanded definition 

would not overwhelm their system. They could serve these families, 

if only they were allowed to do so. 

The second key way in which the HEARTH Act would end homelessness is by removing bonus point set-asides and carve-outs. 

Rather than pitting needy populations against each other, the 

HEARTH Act recognizes that there are many hard-to-serve populations, including homeless immigrants, prisoners re-entering the 

38

community, and teens who have turned to drugs and violence to 

survive. 

Every community has different groups who are very difficult to 

serve. And prioritizing one over the other at the Federal level does 

nothing to help each State address its unique homeless population. 

Instead, the HEARTH Act rewards ‘‘continua’’ of care that engage 

in an inclusive process, conduct a thorough needs analysis, and 

propose funding projects that truly respond to those identified 

needs. It returns the decision-making power to local service providers who are on the ground, in communities, and are best 

equipped to analyze the needs of homeless individuals and develop 

effective responses. 

Rural Allegheny County has one of the highest poverty rates in 

New York State, and old substandard housing stock. Because of 

bonus points and set-asides that don’t reflect their reality, the Accord Corporation lost their SHP and ESG funding, and had to close 

both their transitional and emergency shelter program. They currently only have five beds available in their county for only survivors of domestic violence. Accord was the only homeless shelter 

in the county, and many homeless families and victims of domestic 

violence are now with very limited resources. 

These bonus points and set-asides haven’t helped urban areas, either. Two years after beginning a plan to end chronic homelessness 

in accordance with HUD priorities, New York City reported the 

highest number of homeless families in the City’s history. 

While the Senate’s Community Partnership to End Homelessness 

Act takes laudable steps in the right direction, it unfortunately 

stops short of what is needed. It proposes expanding the definition 

of homelessness to include some doubled-up individuals, but only 

if they have moved multiple times. Requiring multiple moves may 

place a victim fleeing violence in greater danger. 

While we appreciate the effort to respond to the needs of families 

in rural areas, the best way to help all homeless persons in all 

parts of the country is to stop carving up McKinney-Vento funding, 

and let the States use it more flexibly and efficiently. For these 

reasons, we believe that the HEARTH Act is the most effective solution to ending homelessness for New Yorkers. 

Thank you again for your consideration of the needs of victims 

of domestic violence. We look forward to working with you and your 

staff in the upcoming months. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vasquez can be found on page 

95 of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Young, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA M. YOUNG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

WELCOME HOUSE OF NORTHERN KENTUCKY 

Ms. YOUNG. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today in support of the HEARTH Act on behalf of people who experience homelessness and in the continuum of care in the northern Kentucky 

area. I am Linda Young, executive director of Welcome House of 

Northern Kentucky. 

The agency has been serving the homeless and at-risk population 

for 25 years, providing a continuum of services, ranging from outVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
39

reach to people on the streets, a food pantry, emergency shelter, 

payee and other financial services, case management and employment services, and service-enriched housing for families whose goal 

is self-sufficiency. 

We served 9,700 people in 2006: 99 percent had incomes under 

$10,000; approximately 35 percent had a significant mental illness 

or mental health issue; 40 percent had a chemical dependency 

issue; approximately 45 percent were homeless because of domestic 

violence; and most were poorly educated. 

The fastest growing segment of the homeless population we serve 

is families—40 percent. We are in an urban setting that is part of 

the greater Cincinnati Metropolitan Area. 

The economic realities of a minimum wage job that doesn’t lift 

a family out of poverty, rising housing and utility costs, a drop in 

the manufacturing sector, and a rise in the service sector, with 

lower-paying jobs for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, have 

huge costs. The demand for shelter has increased. However, the 

people residing in shelters are just the tip of the iceberg. The condition of homelessness is, for the most part, hidden. 

There is a significant number of families living doubled up with 

family and friends because their earnings do not cover basic household expenses. Moving frequently makes it difficult to keep a job, 

and children miss enough schooling to prevent them from getting 

an education, the very thing that gives them a chance to find a way 

out of poverty, and at risk of being homeless. These families do not 

meet the current definition of homelessness, and therefore, are not 

eligible for our services until they go into a shelter, or are on the 

street. 

More recently, priorities have shifted to the chronic homelessness 

initiative, and in the future, less emphasis and funding for the renewal of supportive services grants for the homeless. Prioritizing 

funds to this specific population is limited, and diverts funds away 

from homeless families. The continuum of care has been built on 

an integrated approach of housing and services, inclusive of people 

who are chronically homeless. 

In our region, we work together to provide a comprehensive, holistic approach to meet a range of needs of homeless people in our 

community. Housing developers using HUD funds, public housing, 

and private landlords have learned to rely on the support services 

to stabilize individuals and families who are homeless. Case management is often a condition for which housing is accessed by people with poor rental histories and/or have disabilities and challenges to maintain stability. A reduction in these services will have 

a devastating impact. 

A basic understanding of the continuum of care process is that 

homelessness is not caused merely by a lack of shelter, but involves 

a variety of underlying unmet needs. Housing alone will not address the issue of homelessness. 

From the perspective of the director of a relatively small agency 

that provides services for the homeless, I can tell you that one of 

my biggest concerns is the number of children we are serving. In 

2006, 39 percent of the people served at Welcome House were children, over half under 5 years of age. 

40

If we are truly interested in ending homelessness, it will take a 

concerted effort on many focused fronts, not concentrating on one 

group at the expense of others. 

I have been an active participant in the continuum care system 

in the northern Kentucky area for over 12 years. The continuum 

of care has included faith-based organizations, businesses, government, service providers, landlords, professionals, advocates, and 

people who have been homeless. Over time, we have built a comprehensive approach to planning, organizing, evaluating, and advocating. Because we must make the most of resources in our community, we have learned to be innovative, and work together more 

effectively and efficiently throughout this process. 

The homeless assistance grants have provided critical resources 

for emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, supportive housing, and supportive services. Ours, as well as continua 

of care across the country, are functioning as HUD intended, a continuum of care system designed to address the critical problem of 

homelessness through a coordinated community-based process of 

identifying needs, and building a system to address those needs. 

The approach is predicated on the understanding that homelessness involves a variety of underlying unmet physical, economic, 

and social needs. 

Each continuum of care community is unique. Urban, suburban, 

and rural communities in various geographic locations have much 

different needs, available resources, and approaches. I support that 

planning boards, as recommended in the HEARTH ACT, be established in each locality to design, execute, and evaluate programs, 

policies, and practices to prevent and end homelessness. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I am going to have to ask you to wrap up 

your testimony. We are going to have to go back to the Floor and 

vote, and I want to make sure that we get Mr. Rosen’s testimony 

in, and we give the members each one question, because we will 

not tie your time up, and have you wait another 40 or 50 minutes 

until we get back. So will you wrap up now? 

Ms. YOUNG. Yes. I just wanted to thank Congressman Davis, and 

all the committee, for allowing me to speak, and thank you all for 

your interest in creating solutions to end homelessness. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Young can be found on page 150 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairwoman? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes? 

Mr. DAVIS. I was wondering if we could ask unanimous consent 

to submit the balance of Ms. Young’s remarks for the record. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Absolutely. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes, Mr. Rosen? 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY ROSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL POLICY AND ADVOCACY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS 

Mr. ROSEN. Congresswoman Waters, thank you for your invitation to testify today and for your strong leadership on affordable 

housing issues. Ranking Member Capito, thank you as well, for 

41

your commitment to housing homelessness issues, as you assume 

your new post. 

I would also like to thank two other members of the subcommittee: Representatives Julia Carson and Geoff Davis, for their 

leadership in introducing H.R. 840, the HEARTH Act of 2007. Let 

me also commend Representative Judy Biggert for her commitment 

to ensuring that every homeless child and youth can attend school. 

Thank you, as well, to all the subcommittee members who have cosponsored the HEARTH bill. 

I am Jeremy Rosen, executive director of the National Policy and 

Advocacy Council on Homelessness. I have spent the past 9 years 

providing assistance to homeless persons, first through direct legal 

assistance, and now by promoting comprehensive public policies to 

help end homelessness. 

We will not end homelessness in the United States without a 

major commitment to the development and preservation of affordable housing that goes far beyond the current investment made by 

Federal, State, and local governments. 

As an extremely small percentage of the current Federal housing 

budget, HUD’s homeless assistance grant programs were never designed to end homelessness in this country, and they are incapable 

of doing so. Nevertheless, it is our collective responsibility, in reauthorizing the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, to design 

an effective and efficient program that provides a full range of 

housing and services to as many homeless children, youth, families, 

and single adults as possible. 

Enacting the HEARTH Act is a critical first step in meeting our 

moral obligation to these Americans. HEARTH will consolidate and 

simplify HUD’s homeless assistance grant programs, align HUD’s 

definition of homelessness with the definition used by the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice, and HHS, eliminate administratively-created set-asides and incentives that hamper local efforts to 

prevent and end homelessness, better support rural communities, 

and provide new opportunities to fund homelessness prevention. 

Many different viewpoints will be expressed in the testimony at 

this hearing. Witnesses will say that HUD’s current policies are 

working well across the country. We believe that they are not. 

We are now 6 years through a 10-year Federal initiative to end 

chronic homelessness. We have successfully housed, through the 

initiative, many people in permanent supportive housing. Unfortunately, the number of chronically homeless individuals in this 

country is no lower today than it was 6 years ago. This calls into 

question whether or not, within the remaining 4 years, we will be 

successful in truly ending chronic homelessness. 

The reason, quite simply, for this is that, instead of providing 

new and significant resources to house a difficult-to-house population, HUD and the Administration chose to divert resources, resources that were going to provide housing and resources for other 

homeless populations, including many children, youth, and families. 

My organization, and many of the other witnesses who have testified today, do not object to serving those folks who are living on 

the street, and providing them with housing. We do, however, remain concerned that prioritizing a particular population is divertVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:56 Jan 22, 2008 Jkt 039909 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\39906.TXT HFIN PsN: TERRIE
42

ing resources away from groups who need that funding just as 

much. 

Many of the other witnesses will also say today that the Senate’s 

approach to reauthorization would be more effective than 

HEARTH. The Senate approach will be described as a careful balance, crafted to ensure that limited funding is used to serve the 

most vulnerable homeless persons. We disagree. 

Finally, witnesses will say that we cannot afford HEARTH, it 

will make too many people eligible for Federal homeless assistance. 

This is not the case. To determine eligibility for Federal programs, 

we must first adequately define the eligible population—in this 

case, the number of people in this country who do not have a home 

of their own. Resources are insufficient to serve all eligible people. 

We must strive to increase the available funds. And in the interim, 

we must rely on people in local communities to make tough decisions about how to most effectively use the limited Federal funding 

that they receive. 

In short, how we define homelessness must not be influenced by 

the funding currently available for homeless assistance programs. 

Important social programs cannot be solved by merely defining 

them out of existence, as HUD has sought to do, by declaring that 

the Federal Government is committed only to ending chronic homelessness. This is an unacceptably modest goal. 

I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosen can be found on page 79 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very, very much. I am going to 

forgo my questions, because we have to get to the Floor. 

Mr. Davis was not here to ask any questions of the last panel, 

so I will yield time to him, and there will only be time for one question, and then we have to rush to the Floor. So I recognize Mr. 

Davis for 1 minute. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This question is for 

Linda Young. 

If HEARTH was signed into law 6 months from now—and I 

think I am probably being optimistic, in the current political climate—I guess my question would be, what impact would it have 

on the types of homelessness that you see on a regular basis? And 

maybe you could tell a little bit about, in particular, how it would 

affect children in the short and long term. 

Ms. YOUNG. Well, specifically, it will give us the flexibility to do 

what needs to be done for each particular family. And, also, not 

only the flexibility, but will help bring into the fold people who we 

now have to wait until they go into a shelter or are out on the 

streets before we can help them. 

It will allow us, as a community, to be flexible in meeting the 

needs of each particular—whether we are rural or urban, and be 

able to express specific needs, and actually gather resources in our 

own community to do that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Would you just say, in closing, that the reason that 

you need this is that, in reality, the type of homelessness that you 

deal with doesn’t fit the public stereotype? 

Ms. YOUNG. That would be correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. I yield back. 

43

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we 

have to go back to the Floor and vote. We thank you so very much 

for coming, and giving us your testimony here today. 

And I note that some of the members may have additional questions for the panel, so, without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to submit written questions to 

the witnesses, and to place their responses in the record. This 

panel is now dismissed, and I thank you again so very much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(45)

A P P E N D I X

October 4, 2007

46


39906.001
47


39906.002
48


39906.003
49


39906.004
50


39906.005
51


39906.006
52


39906.007
53


39906.008
54


39906.009
55


39906.010
56


39906.011
57


39906.012
58


39906.013
59


39906.014
60


39906.015
61


39906.016
62


39906.017
63


39906.018
64


39906.019
65


39906.020
66


39906.021
67


39906.022
68


39906.023
69


39906.024
70


39906.025
71


39906.026
72


39906.027
73


39906.028
74


39906.029
75


39906.030
76


39906.031
77


39906.032
78


39906.033
79


39906.034
80


39906.035
81


39906.036
82


39906.037
83


39906.038
84


39906.039
85


39906.040
86


39906.041
87


39906.042
88


39906.043
89


39906.044
90


39906.045
91


39906.046
92


39906.047
93


39906.048
94


39906.049
95


39906.050
96


39906.051
97


39906.052
98


39906.053
99


39906.054
100


39906.055
101


39906.056
102


39906.057
103


39906.058
104


39906.059
105


39906.060
106


39906.061
107


39906.062
108


39906.063
109


39906.064
110


39906.065
111


39906.066
112


39906.067
113


39906.068
114


39906.069
115


39906.070
116


39906.071
117


39906.072
118


39906.073
119


39906.074
120


39906.075
121


39906.076
122


39906.077
123


39906.078
124


39906.079
125


39906.080
126


39906.081
127


39906.082
128


39906.083
129


39906.084
130


39906.085
131


39906.086
132


39906.087
133


39906.088
134


39906.089
135


39906.090
136


39906.091
137


39906.092
138


39906.093
139


39906.094
140


39906.095
141


39906.096
142


39906.097
143


39906.098
144


39906.099
145


39906.100
146


39906.101
147


39906.102
148


39906.103
149


39906.104
150


39906.105
151


39906.106
152


39906.107
153


39906.108