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

39–712 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–872

MCKINNEY-VENTO REAUTHORIZATION AND

CONSOLIDATION OF HUD’S HOMELESS PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

EXAMINATION OF S. 1801, TO AMEND THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS 

ASSISTANCE ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE ACT, AND PROVIDE FOR 

CONSOLIDATION OF HUD’S HOMELESS PROGRAMS

MARCH 30, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

(

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/senate/senate05sh.html 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

KATHLEEN L. CASEY, Staff Director and Counsel 

STEVEN B. HARRIS, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH R. KOLINSKI, Chief Clerk and Computer Systems Administrator 

GEORGE E. WHITTLE, Editor 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman 

JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ranking Member 

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

TEWANA WILKERSON, Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

Page

Opening statement of Senator Allard .................................................................... 1

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 3

WITNESSES 

Roy A. Bernardi, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development ......................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26

Response to written questions of Senator Shelby .......................................... 48

Philip F. Mangano, Executive Director, U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness ................................................................................................................. 6

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28

Response to a written question of Senator Reed ........................................... 49

Gail Dorfman, County Commissioner, Hennepin County, MN ............................ 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32

Steven R. Berg, Vice President for Programs and Policy, National Alliance 

to End Homelessness ........................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

Charles W. Gould, National President, Volunteers of America ........................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37

Anthony Love, President/CEO, Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris 

County, Inc. .......................................................................................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Dennis Patrick Culhane, Ph.D., Professor of Social Welfare Policy and Psychology, University of Pennsylvania ................................................................... 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Response to written questions of Senator Shelby .......................................... 49

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUPPLIED FOR THE RECORD

Letter submitted by Ellen Bassuk, MD, President, the National Center on 

Family Homelessness dated March 28, 2006 ..................................................... 51

Statement of Martha R. Burt, Ph.D., Principal Research Associate and Director, Social Services Research Program, Urban Institute .................................. 54

Statement of Gloria M. Guard, President, People’s Emergency Center Philadelphia, PA ........................................................................................................... 69

Statement of Carla Javits, President, Corporation for Supportive Housing ...... 83

Statement of Amy Knudsen, Interim Director of the Iowa Coalition for Housing & the Homeless .............................................................................................. 114

Statement of the National Council of State Housing Agencies ........................... 120

(III)

(1)

MCKINNEY-VENTO REAUTHORIZATION 

AND CONSOLIDATION OF 

HUD’S HOMELESS PROGRAMS 

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met at 3:34 p.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Allard, (Chairman of the 

Subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD 

Senator ALLARD. In brief, I will call the hearing to order. 

I would like to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Housing 

and Transportation Subcommittee hearing on the McKinney-Vento 

Act Reauthorization and Consolidation of HUD’s homeless programs. I want to thank all of you also for being patient while we 

finished the full Committee action and also had a chance to go 

down to the floor to vote, and I am sure that later on, I will be 

joined by Senator Reed. 

In 1987, Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, now known as the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance programs. The 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. 

Until enactment of this law, the problems confronted by the 

homeless were mainly addressed at the State and local level. The 

McKinney Act represented a consensus that had developed that a 

major Federal commitment was required in order to end homelessness. Currently, the Federal Government devotes significant resources to the homeless. In fiscal year 2006, HUD’s homeless grant 

programs were funded at $1.34 billion. 

Yet, despite the enormous Federal resources directed toward 

homelessness, the problem persists. We need to bring more accountability to homeless assistance, increasing funding for successful programs and initiatives, and replacing those that are ineffective. There seems to be consensus that the McKinney-Vento bill 

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. 

2

There also seems to be consensus that the second step should be 

consolidation of the existing programs. I originally introduced consolidation legislation in the year 2000, and Senator Reed offered a 

proposal in 2002. HUD has also advocated for a consolidated program for several years now. 

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

distribution mechanism for a new program, these proposals offered 

consensus on the important starting point of consolidation. After 

extensive discussion, Senator Reed introduced Senate bill 1801, the 

Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act, a bill I was 

pleased to cosponsor. The bill will consolidate the existing programs to eliminate administrative burdens, multiple applications, 

and conflicting requirements. 

The streamlined approach will combine the efficiencies of a block 

grant with the accountability of a competitive system. Localities 

will submit applications outlining the priority projects for their 

area based on outcomes and results. I am especially supportive of 

approaches such as this one that focus on results rather than processes. 

In considering reauthorization of such an important program, especially given the scope of the potential changes, I believe it is important to solicit a variety of viewpoints. Thus, I have convened today’s hearing to facilitate that discussion. I would like to hear the 

witnesses’ views as to what is and is not currently working in the 

McKinney-Vento programs as their suggestions for reauthorization, 

including their comments on Senate bill 1801 or any other reauthorization proposal. 

We have an excellent lineup of witnesses today. First, we will 

hear from Roy Bernardi, Deputy Secretary of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. In addition to his perspective as 

the second in command at HUD, Secretary Bernardi has the added 

advantage of his service as a mayor. 

He will be followed by Phillip Mangano, who has provided excellent leadership for the Interagency Council on Homelessness, 

partnering with cities nationwide in developing 10-year plans to 

end homelessness, and I appreciate your efforts, Mr. Mangano, 

with our Denver Mayor, Mayor Hickenlooper. He tells me that he 

felt like his working relationship has been just superb, so we appreciate you helping us out there. 

Our final witness on the first panel will be Gail Dorfman, County 

Commissioner of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin County 

has been active on the issue of homeless and on Tuesday announced a commission to end homelessness in the country. 

The second panel will begin with Steve Berg, Vice President for 

Programs and Policy at the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The Alliance is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to 

addressing the root causes of homelessness. 

Next, we will hear from Charles Gould, who is the National 

President of the Volunteers of America, an organization that has 

been helping people in need for 110 years; Anthony Love, President 

and CEO of the Houston Coalition for the Homeless will be able to 

give a front line perspective on reauthorization based on his daily 

work providing homeless assistance. Finally, we will hear from 

3

Dennis Culhane of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Culhane is 

known nationwide as one of the leading experts on homelessness. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. 

Your testimony will be helpful as the Subcommittee moves forward 

with these issues. 

Now, I would like to call on my colleague, Senator Reed from 

Rhode Island, to make an opening statement, and then, we will 

proceed to the panel. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

thank you not only for holding this hearing on reauthorization of 

the McKinney-Vento Homeless Act but also for your leadership in 

championing Senate bill 1801, the Community Partnership to End 

Homelessness Act. And let me thank the witnesses, all of them, for 

their testimony today. We look forward to it. 

How we deal with homelessness is not just an issue of policy. It 

touches on the values that we cherish as a Nation. What do we say 

to children whose parents cannot afford adequate housing? To 

women in abusive relationships who have to flee and find shelter, 

to veterans who served their country and cannot find a home, to 

the mentally ill, who are challenged in finding adequate places to 

live, if we cannot respond with adequate and safe housing? 

This is about values as well as about policy. We have to tackle 

this complex issue. We have learned a great deal since the passage 

of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 20 years ago. 

For one, we learned that keeping a chronically homeless person 

off the streets saves money. If you look at the medical, enforcement, emergency shelter, other expenses that these individuals accrue, it is far more cost-effective to find them permanent housing. 

We also know that many people who are temporarily homeless 

often experience homelessness as a result of a job loss, a medical 

crisis, a discharge from a medical facility or even a correctional facility. For these people, allowing communities more flexibility in 

trying to help them through assistance in paying utility bills, with 

planning for transition is effective and could be more effective. 

We know that. We know that coordinating discharge, as I said, 

from hospitals and from jails makes sense. We know that communities are making substantial inroads with limited Federal dollars 

they are receiving. Thanks to many of these programs, households 

that typically lacked housing stability have moved into supportive 

housing environments. Eighty-five percent of such households have 

remained in permanent housing 2 years later, thanks to the services they receive, so we know that supportive services can make a 

key difference. 

We know giving communities flexibility will allow them to target 

the populations that need the most assistance to prevent family 

homelessness, provide successful support of housing programs, and 

quickly provide transitions for individuals from homelessness to 

permanent housing. We also know that the HUD implementation 

of the Continuum of Care has stimulated increased coordination 

within communities, better programs, and real results. 

As we move forward in this process of reauthorizing McKinneyVento, we are in an unusually strong position not only to reauthorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:49 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\39712.TXT SBANK4 PsN: KEVIN
4

ize the Act but also to improve it. And we can codify the structural 

improvements that have already been put in place by HUD and 

agencies throughout this country. 

And by asking communities to provide better documentation on 

homelessness, on the steps they are taking to combat it, and on the 

effectiveness of these steps, we increase their ability to share information on what works, enhancing the potential for future improvements. 

Through a collaborative effort with HUD, the Interagency Council on Homelessness, homeless advocates in communities throughout the country, and service providers, Senator Allard and I and 11 

other Senators from both sides of the aisle crafted the Community 

Partnership to End Homelessness Act, S. 1801, legislation—and the 

Senator has described it before—consolidates existing homelessness 

programs into one program; creates a unified, performance-based 

process of funding that would allow more funding to flow to communities that demonstrate a commitment to ending homelessness 

and accomplishing the goals they set; focuses public and private 

sector on ending and preventing homelessness, not just simply 

warehousing people time and time again; encourages collaboration 

and planning; and ensures that multiple Federal agencies are involved as appropriate for their missions to serve homeless people. 

With limited Federal dollars, our legislation promises to make 

significant progress in giving communities the flexibility and creativity they need to combat homelessness. Tackling this issue along 

with the issue of affordable housing are of paramount importance 

to the American public. I look forward to working with Senator Allard on these goals, as we have worked before, and I thank him 

again for his cooperation and his collaboration. 

And Mr. Chairman, I have three letters from homeless service 

providers I would like to put in the record. 

Senator ALLARD. Without objection. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. Again, let me thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

I am going to run a pretty tight hearing. The reason for that, I 

have been told that at least on our side, we may have votes around 

5:00, in which case, we are going to have our clock running here. 

When we get on 5 minutes, I am going to start cutting you off, just 

because I see three witnesses on this panel and I have four on the 

other. And by the time we get into some questioning, we are going 

to eat it up. I would just hate to have us break at 5:00, and maybe 

we have two or three votes, and you sit around for an hour, and 

then, we are back. 

So, I would like to get this wrapped up within the next hour and 

a half if we can. And your full statement is going to be made a part 

of the record as a lot of other information. We are not going to get 

all of our questions presented to you in the hearing. I am going to 

have some that I do not think I will be able to ask; same thing with 

Senator Reed. 

But the way we handle that is we then request the witnesses to 

respond to those questions in writing. So we will give those to you, 

and then, if you can get back to us, to the Committee, within 10 

5

days on your responses to that, we will then make them part of the 

record. We will hold the record open that long. 

Okay; having shared that good news with everybody, Mr. Secretary, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF ROY A. BERNARDI, DEPUTY SECRETARY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BERNARDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Reed. I will be brief. I will ask and I know that you will hopefully 

allow me to submit my written testimony for the record. 

Senator ALLARD. We will, without objection. 

Mr. BERNARDI. Mr. Chairman, it is important to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing and recognizing you and Ranking 

Member Reed for your leadership in the fight against homelessness. We have been going at this for a number of years. 

Each of you has played a pivotal role in this effort, and it is appropriate to acknowledge that your bill, S. 1801, introduced last 

fall, represents a major step forward in the effort to consolidate the 

three Continuum of Care programs and codify them in statute to 

allow far greater flexibility which will enable improved performance and effectiveness of the HUD’s homeless assistance grant programs. 

I am pleased to report that in the House of Representatives yesterday, Congressman Rick Renzi introduced the Administration’s 

bill. As you know, the Administration’s proposal to consolidate our 

three competitive homeless assistance programs, our Supportive 

Housing Program, our Continuum of Care, and our single room occupancy Section 8 program into a single program is aimed at alleviating homelessness in this country. 

In our view, consolidation would provide more flexibility to localities; devolve grantmaking responsibilities to local decisionmaking 

bodies; fund prevention of homelessness; dramatically reduce the 

time required to distribute the funds to the grantees, which right 

now is a very onerous process; and further the Administration’s 

goal to end chronic homelessness. 

These two bills are the culmination of several years of hard work 

and I am proud to say bipartisan good faith work that has included 

input from so many, including some of you who are going to be appearing on the next panel. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Reed, I would be remiss if 

I neglected to recognize two staff members in particular who have 

served each of you with great distinction: Ms. Tawanna Wilkerson 

and Ms. Kara Stein have worked tirelessly with us to produce solid 

legislation that is represented by Senate bill 1801 and the Renzi 

bill in the House. 

These bills are very complementary, and while there are differences between them, I think the most remarkable feature is that 

there is common ground there to really go ahead and do some wonderful things. Both of these bills consolidate the three competitive 

programs into a single program with a single match, and both affirm the role of local planning entities to provide for more local decisionmaking authority and flexibility. 

Both bills would greatly simplify how HUD’s resources can be 

used to effectively and efficiently solve homelessness. Both bills 

6

would greatly compress the time it takes to get Federal funds into 

the hands of grantees and the providers. 

As I mentioned, while the two bills are similar in overall design, 

in a number of areas, there are differences that merit our attention. The Administration bill ensures broader participation in the 

Continuum of Care; that is, we feel, greater participation by the 

nongovernmental entities. It ensures greater accountability in the 

expenditure of funds for homelessness by each Continuum of Care 

by requiring each Continuum to be a legal entity; focuses more on 

chronically homeless persons living on the streets; provides for renewal of all types of projects, including transitional housing; provides greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed to solve 

homelessness; provides greater flexibility in using supportive program funds to prevent homelessness and we feel better targets its 

permanent housing resources for those who are the most vulnerable, the disabled. 

It is my view that if we continue our dialogue and work together, 

we can bring these bills to closure, and in closing, I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing once again; look forward to participating and answering your questions. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your brief testimony. 

Mr. Mangano. 

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP F. MANGANO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

U.S. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS 

Mr. MANGANO. Thank you, Chairman Allard and Senator Reed. 

Thank you for your opening statements and for having this hearing 

committed to homelessness. 

Having been committed to the abolition of homelessness for the 

past 20 years, beginning then as a full time, bread line volunteer 

and now as the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council 

on Homelessness, I want to first acknowledge the historic and heroic role that countless community and faith-based groups have 

demonstrated on this issue. They have been on the front lines and 

in the forefront of response to homelessness in our country for 30 

years, and the McKinney-Vento resources have been critical in that 

effort for 20 years. 

While I know it is unusual and even unorthodox, I want to report 

some good news on homelessness. We are now achieving in this 

country what we have sought for a quarter of a century: Results 

on homelessness, change, progress on our streets, in our shelters, 

for our neighborhoods and communities. Visible, measurable, quantifiable change. Mayors reporting these results: In Miami, a 30 percent reduction in street homelessness; in Portland, Oregon, a 20 

percent reduction; in Nashua, New Hampshire, a 26 percent reduction; in Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a 17 

percent reduction; in San Francisco, a 28 percent reduction; and in 

Philadelphia, an 81 percent reduction in Central City street homelessness. 

At a hearing 2 weeks ago, the VA and providers reported a reduction in the number of homeless veterans. 

Why is this new results-oriented mindset and approach working? 

For the past 20 years, Federal investment has increased. From the 

McKinney Act of 1987 to the President’s record $4.15 billion level 

7

of proposed funding for 2007, the increase is tenfold, 1,000 percent. 

In that time, homelessness has increased. Researchers tell us that 

more than 2 million Americans experience homelessness in a year. 

Increased resources and increased numbers are a frustrating reminder that while new resources are important, new ideas are just 

as important. We cannot simply take the new resources and expend 

them on the old status quo. That is why these new resources and 

bills are so important, and that is why change is happening. 

We have learned much in the last 20 years. In the past few 

years, the Council has encouraged the creation of jurisdictional 

plans in States and cities that are informed by a management 

agenda that prioritizes results and outcomes. Informed by GPRA 

and the President’s Management Agenda that calls for every Federal investment to be research and data driven, performance based 

and results oriented, those plans put new ideas and innovative initiatives to work for homeless people. 

Who benefits when Federal and other public and private resources are invested for results? Homeless people benefit, as do our 

neighborhoods and communities, businesses and police, ER workers, pedestrians, librarians, and we join with them. We are changing the verb of homelessness. No longer managing the crisis but 

ending the disgrace. We are moving from funding programs that 

serve homeless people endlessly to investing in the result of ending 

people’s homelessness. We have seen it work in England, and now 

we are seeing it work here. 

And we have discovered that our attention to measurable and 

quantifiable outcomes makes common sense to jurisdictions that 

measure every other initiative in that way, and dollars and cents 

to the taxpayer. Shuffling homeless people between homeless programs or cycling them through expensive systems of health and 

law enforcement is expensive. Studies in a number of communities 

around our country indicate what that expense is in emergency 

rooms of hospitals, in police and law enforcement, in court costs. 

We have learned through those studies that the old status quo 

of ad hoc, siloed crisis interventions is more expensive and less effective. 

Of course, we have learned that what makes the most sense is 

to prevent homelessness in the first place. We save the human 

tragedy and taxpayer resources in that dollars and cents strategy. 

I am proud to be here today with Commissioner Dorfman, who 

this week joined with Minneapolis Mayor Rybak to become the 

212th community joining with us in a partnership across the country that includes 53 governors and 20 Federal agencies. 

Thankfully, the Community Homeless Assistance Act, forwarded 

by both of you and others is informed by 20 years of learning. With 

expansive input from stakeholders in and out of government, Committee staff is to be commended for their inductive approach to create added value in emphasizing housing, prevention, and performance to affirm in the law what is working and to dismiss what is 

not. 

And the HUD intent to consolidate several HUD homeless programs into a single initiative makes sense, common sense. It would 

be better in the field, for communities, for Continuums, and for the 

8

front lines. I endorse that consolidation and affirm the common direction in initiatives in both of these bills. 

Finally, our common intent through a national partnership is to 

end chronic homelessness in our Nation. The initiative is a priority, 

not an exclusivity. We have not forgotten homeless families. And 

the research and data is now being created to inform family policy 

and investment. 

Is everything perfect? No. Is progress being made? Yes. And the 

act and the consolidation will forward that progress. We have much 

work to do, but we are better prepared and equipped than ever before. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you for your testimony. Secretary 

Bernardi had a minute left over. I just gave it to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MANGANO. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Commissioner Dorfman, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL DORFMAN

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 

Ms. DORFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Reed. I 

am honored to address the Committee this afternoon. And I first 

want to remember former Minnesota Congressman Bruce Vento. 

He spent his life dedicated to improving the lives of people experiencing homelessness. Congressman Vento left us too soon, but he 

left behind a legacy of working effectively on behalf of America’s 

homeless, and that legacy will not be forgotten in Minnesota or in 

the Nation. 

I applaud you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed for introducing 

the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento is absolutely critical if we are to change 

the paradigm, as Mr. Mangano said, from managing homelessness 

to ending homelessness in our communities. 

Yesterday, as has been said, we began an intensive 100-day effort to develop a blueprint for ending homelessness in Minneapolis 

and Hennepin County. Mr. Mangano joined us as leaders from the 

public and private sectors, nonprofit and philanthropic communities and the homeless—and I say that again, and the homeless—

came together to commit to ending homelessness over the next 10 

years. In partnership with the Federal Government and our State 

government, we will be successful, and will do it before the 10 

years is up. 

In Hennepin County, we well remember what it was like before 

McKinney-Vento. Our shelters were overflowing, and we were 

vouchering families into hotels and motels, about 100 of them 

across the Twin Cities every night. Our average shelter stays were 

three times what they are today, and an alarming number of families were cycling in and out of shelter on a regular basis. McKinney-Vento dramatically improved upon the situation by supporting 

results-oriented programs. Additionally, through our partnership 

with the Federal Government, we have been able to leverage significant amounts of local dollars, $12.4 million in 2005 alone. 

Together, we have ended homelessness for thousands of men, 

women, children, and unaccompanied youth in our community. 

9

Over the past two decades, we have learned a great deal in Hennepin County about what does and does not work to end homelessness. We no longer look to shelters as the solution. Instead, we first 

focus on preventing people from becoming homeless whenever possible and rapidly rehousing them when they do. 

It costs 10 times more to house and resettle a homeless family 

than to prevent them from losing their housing in the first place. 

Through the support of McKinney-Vento funds, we have established one of the best family homeless prevention models in the Nation. 

In Hennepin County, we work hard to keep people in the housing 

they have. We have learned that prevention is the best and most 

cost-effective way to end homelessness. When families do become 

homeless, we work with them through our Rapid Exit program to 

quickly place them in permanent housing. Rapid Exit is a supportive services program funded by HUD, McKinney-Vento, and is 

listed on the HUD website, as a national best practice. 

Through Rapid Exit, Hennepin County contracts with highly effective, community-based providers who support both clients and 

landlords, the landlord piece is really critical, providing housing 

stabilization assistance while maximizing mainstream resources. 

They provide ongoing case management, help clients resolve personal issues that are barriers to their housing, and build relationships and build on the strength of their clients. 

As one provider told me, most homeless people are survivors. 

They have the innate strength to be successful, and we encourage 

them to use that strength. The case managers also assist landlords 

in resolving issues when their clients’ housing is in jeopardy, cosign 

leases, provide financial and legal assistance. They are the intermediaries with the private landlords, and that is the single most 

effective way to recruit and maintain landlords, who are willing to 

rent to high barrier tenants. 

Our 2005 results, like past years, far exceed expectations. During 

the one year, 588 families, an average of three children per family, 

and 48 chronically homeless adults were placed into housing by 

Rapid Exit. Of the families, 94 percent remained out of shelter for 

the full 12 months. Of the 48 chronically homeless, we followed 

them for 6 months; 79 percent remained out of shelter. Additionally, 30 percent of the families, 60 percent of the single adults who 

have been chronically homeless, increased their incomes during 

that period. Through the expansion of our prevention efforts in 

Rapid Exit, we have seen dramatic reductions, as I said, in the average length of stays, and the number of parents and children sheltered per year. 

And these kinds of results highlight the importance of innovative, results-oriented practices and our ongoing partnership with 

the Federal Government through McKinney-Vento. But, you know, 

the numbers are good, but the personal stories are the best, like 

the single mom from Illinois who fled from an abusive relationship 

with her four children and showed up in our county shelter in Minneapolis. She struggled with finding work, caring for her children, 

and getting them to school on time. 

Our Rapid Exit worker helped her locate a job and an apartment 

she could afford. Now, 10 years later, she owns her own modest 

10

home. Two of her children have graduated high school and are attending college, and she still calls her case manager every 6 

months to proudly report on her success. 

The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act and 

McKinney-Vento will bring us another step forward in our quest to 

end homelessness and provide stable housing. We support consolidation of McKinney-Vento programs, renewal of rent operating subsidies, automatic renewal; the 30 percent permanent set aside for 

individuals and families with disabilities; and the recognition of the 

critical importance of prevention. 

We are, however, concerned with just one point, the proposal to 

curtail certain services after 3 years. It is critical that services that 

directly support housing placement, coordination with the private 

landlords, and housing stabilization remain intact. 

Last, we support increased flexibility. The more creative we can 

be at the local level, the more likely we will be able to end homelessness for people in our community. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. 

Senator ALLARD. I would just add that I served with Congressman Bruce Vento on the Ag Committee when I served in the House 

of Representatives, and he was truly dedicated to—at that time, we 

served on the Nutrition Committee on the Ag Committee, so he 

was truly committed, and I very much enjoyed working with him 

at that time on nutritional programs and how they would impact 

the homeless. 

So now, I am over here on the Banking Committee and taking 

a little different perspective, and I could not agree more with you 

that having a home to start with is a great starting spot. And then, 

things get much easier from that point on. 

My first question is to you, Mr. Secretary: What outcome and 

performance measures does HUD currently use for grantees? Given 

that the Continuum of Care has been rated as an effective program 

by the PART analysis, why is HUD proposing to change these highly effective programs. 

Mr. BERNARDI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are very pleased with the performance measurement score 

that we received from OMB. To end chronic homelessness and 

move families and individuals to permanent housing, we want to 

make sure that we use GPRA, and we use the measurements that 

are in place. We have increased the percentage of homeless persons 

staying in permanent housing over 6 months. That was at 70 percent last year, and we are looking for an incremental increase in 

2006; increase the percentage of homeless persons moving from 

transitional housing to permanent housing; we also measure the 

increase in the percentage of homeless persons becoming employed 

by 11 percent. 

I would like to state some accomplishments, if I may. In 2005, 

HUD assisted nearly 125,000 homeless persons in moving from the 

streets or other living situations into the HUD McKinney-funded 

transitional housing or permanent housing. Of these, over 27,000 

were chronically homeless, over 20 percent. Only 1 percent of people in HUD McKinney-funded housing fell back into the streets in 

2005. 

11

Persons employed in 2005: Almost 30,000 persons became employed while in HUD-funded housing, and of those, 5,700, or approximately 20 percent, were chronically homeless. With our homeless management information system, of the 450 Continuums, 

about 75 percent of them right now have that system in place. And 

it is a collection of data; it is working with Mr. Mangano and the 

Interagency Council on the Homeless on their effort to end chronic 

homelessness. Both of those paths run parallel. And each and every 

year, the Continuums are doing more when it comes to measurement, when it comes to performance and reporting back to us. 

The difficulty that we have and the purpose of this legislation is 

that anywhere from 10 to 20 percent of the individuals that are 

homeless are what we identify as chronically homeless. And yet, 

they use up to 50 percent of a community’s emergency resources. 

Now, that is an incredible number. So we feel very strongly, this 

Administration, the President, Secretary Jackson, and ourselves, 

that we really need to address that, and that is what the bill we 

have been working for does, with the consolidation of these three 

programs. 

I will stop there. I would like to go further into how strongly I 

feel about this consolidation; hopefully, I will have the time to do 

it, but we really need—as a former mayor, I can tell you, the Continuums of Care in this country, those 450, they represent 3,700 jurisdictions, about 92 percent of the population. 

And with the Interagency Council on the Homeless, with their 

200-plus States and cities that have signed onto their own individual plans and with the resources, $1.3 billion this year; a $200 

million proposed increase for 2007, we feel we can do more with the 

resources that we have; that we can take these chronically homeless individuals and stop that revolving door; place them, these disabled individuals, into permanent housing, and with the supportive 

services that the Continuums provide and other agencies, we can 

bring them back to a productive life and eliminate that kind of expenditure not only from the Federal Government but also from the 

communities. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Mangano, I believe that you look around, 

and you see what programs are working and what are not, and 

those that are working, you try and replicate their success. 

As you look around the world, what countries have taken approaches to homelessness that have been effective, and what best 

practices can you see us adopting? 

Mr. MANGANO. Well, I appreciate the question, and I was just at 

a meeting with 25 European countries who are all meeting together 

specifically on the issue of homelessness, and I would have to say 

the countries that had results as the orientation of their investment were England and Ireland. And there is no question that one 

of the best practices in the world is what is known as the Rough 

Sleepers Initiative in England, which targeted specifically people 

who were living on the streets of England. 

That best practice involved modest new resources from central 

government in England; had the political will of the Prime Minister; and was oriented to local planning processes that themselves 

were results oriented. The modest new resources of central government were invested in those results oriented plans, and in 31⁄2

12

years, 3 out of every 4 people who were sleeping on the streets of 

England were no longer there, not through punitive means but 

through solution-oriented efforts. 

We have committed an act of ‘‘legitimate larceny’’ on that effort, 

and I think what we are doing here in the United States, thanks 

to the investment of HUD resources, and the Secretary mentioned 

the $200 million additional in the HUD budget, which is the Samaritan Initiative in the President’s proposed budget; those would 

be important new resources in the investment that we are making 

in ending the homelessness of those who are the most visible and 

on the streets of our country. 

We are certainly learning from England and from Ireland where 

jurisdictionally based plans that are targeted to end the homelessness of the most visible. I will finish with this, as they achieved 

success in terms of the Rough Sleepers Initiative, 3 out of every 4 

off the streets; people in Parliament were going home to their districts. There were fewer people on the streets in Manchester, 

Leeds, and Birmingham; fewer people as they walked to their offices in London. 

That remoralized Parliament, who had been reluctant to invest 

in any more, because they had not seen any results or outcomes. 

That remoralized them to reinvest in the issue of homelessness, 

and now, there is a deeper investment in family homelessness as 

a result of the achievements that were secured in the Rough Sleepers Initiative. 

Senator ALLARD. Success breeds success. 

Mr. MANGANO. Exactly. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay; Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

ask, if I can, one question to each person and then reserve the right 

for additional questions later. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for recognizing Kara Stein and the 

staff members. She would be here, but she has about a 31⁄2 weekold child to care for, and you understand that. 

Mr. BERNARDI. That is the priority. 

Senator REED. Indeed. 

In 1993, HUD created the Continuum of Care. It is a very effective program. What additional benefits do you see by essentially 

codifying the Continuum of Care in legislation that we are looking 

at? 

Mr. BERNARDI. Well, I think it puts all the Continuums throughout the country basically in the same situation to be working together as they presently do. The part of the legislation that I really 

like is the prevention that we do not have now, and we have a little 

difference in our bills. We want to allow the Continuums to use 10 

percent of the resources, and your bill, I believe, speaks to 5 percent. 

But we need to do more with prevention. If we can do more with 

prevention, obviously, I think, in the final analysis, we can begin 

to decrease the numbers. The Continuums, our proposal, as you 

know, calls for at least a 65 representation of nongovernmental entities. Those are the not for-profits, the foundations, the hospitals, 

the homeless people, people who have been homeless, and about a 

35 percent representation of local officials. 

13

To codify that, to give them the emphasis that they need, right 

now, we at HUD receive—let us see, the notice of funding availability went out March 8; the 6,000 applications will be there by 

May 25, the close of business. We spend 6 months going over those 

applications and another 2 or 3 months putting that all together 

and making the announcements. 

By changing this and by codifying the Continuums, having a single application with a single match and comprising boards throughout the country in each one of these Continuums, we push where 

we should back to the local level. And then, they will hold their 

own individual competitions among their projects that they will 

prioritize and that they need the most. 

Again, I think this is the legislation that we need. I know legislation is difficult to come by, but I think we are very close on it, and 

with the support in the House and with your continuous support 

and the Chairman’s, I feel very strongly that the Continuums, the 

450 that we have in the country, I believe we have met with many 

of them; they are in favor of this; this would really address the 

chronic homeless situation that we have in this country by providing more permanent housing and even bonuses for these Continuums as we have these competitions; if their first priority is the 

chronically homeless, they can receive, after the pro rata share for 

need, 15 percent more in their application, with a maximum of $6 

million, so the large cities do not take too much of the money, but 

that would provide additional dollars to really address those individuals. 

Now, some people may say to you, well, what about families, and 

what about other people that are homeless that are maybe not disabled? Well, the way the funding works right now, it is about 52 

percent goes toward the chronically homeless and about 47 percent 

for all the remaining homeless population. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Mangano, I just want to thank you for your over 20 years 

of dedication to this issue and your help in working with the staff 

along with the Secretary and developing this legislation. And because time is dwindling, let me ask a question of Ms. Dorfman. 

Your project, Homeless Connect, is one that has been noted, and 

it features one-stop-shopping. I would hope and assume that the 

legislation we are talking about would facilitate these types of onestop-shopping arrangements. Might you just briefly comment on 

that? 

Ms. DORFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Reed. 

Project Homeless Connect I believe started with Mayor Newsome 

in San Francisco, and we thought it was a good idea, so we took 

it up last year. And it really is getting all the resources in one room 

from our community and broad-based participation and volunteers. 

And the way it works, and I will give you one success story, is we 

had a guy who was homeless come in at our last Project Homeless 

Connect who had serious and persistent mental illness, and there 

was a housing provider there who had a vacancy. But he needed 

to get on SSI, and he needed to get a mental health assessment 

in order to be eligible. 

But the mental health providers and psychiatrists were in the 

room, and the Social Security Administration was in the room, and 

14

so, they could fill all of those eligibility slots and problems that 

day, and this one individual was moved into supportive housing 

that very day. And in addition to that, he got a haircut before he 

moved in and a pair of shoes. 

And so, that is what it is all about breaking down those barriers 

that the chronically homeless have faced in having access to services. So if we have Project Homeless Connect combined with the 

McKinney-Vento supportive housing programs, it works beautifully, and that is what we are trying to do. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I think we are going to have to move on 

to the other panel. I was hoping maybe we might get another 

round of questioning. We have used up about 45 minutes or 40 

minutes right now, and we have about 45 minutes. 

And I do not think we have heard anything different on the vote 

schedule, have we? We have not yet, so let us still assume we have 

5:00 votes. 

Senator REED. We have warned everyone that we could send 

questions out and ask you to respond, and I think they waited for 

awhile before we did CFIUS. 

Senator ALLARD. They have already done a lot of waiting. 

Senator REED. You have paid your time. 

Senator ALLARD. Thanks for your time and showing up here. I 

know it is not always easy to break away from your daily routines 

to be here, but your participation is very valuable, and we appreciate your taking the time to be with us. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BERNARDI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MANGANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Reed. 

Ms. DORFMAN. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. If the second panel would please come forward. 

I would like to welcome the second panel, and we will start with 

you, Mr. Berg, and then go right down the line until we hit Dr. 

Culhane. You will have the privilege of wrapping things up. 

Mr. Berg, you are on. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE R. BERG

VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS AND POLICY,

NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. 

Good afternoon. I am Steve Berg. I am the Vice President for 

Programs and Policy with the National Alliance to End Homelessness. I would first like to thank you for holding this important 

hearing, for inviting us to testify and for introducing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. 

I would like to start by saying that this is a particularly exciting 

time to be working on the issue of homelessness. Over the past few 

years, people at every level are beginning to see homelessness as 

a problem with a straightforward solution and that undertaking 

that solution is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing to 

do. 

We are at the point where in the past year, a small number of 

communities that have been leaders at reforming their approach to 

15

homelessness are beginning to see quantifiable results in the form 

of fewer homeless people. Hundreds of other communities are now 

working hard to replicate that success and to end homelessness. 

We regard the introduction of this bill as an important step toward 

that goal, newly awarded we are proud to support the bill. 

To a very large extent, this bill codifies the practices that have 

evolved in the HUD Continuum of Care. Given the positive record 

of the Continuum of Care, that is completely appropriate. The most 

important and far reaching change that this bill would make is to 

give to communities that are ready to accept it the responsibility 

and the authority to direct their local efforts more strongly toward 

an outcome-based approach that holds the promise of ending homelessness. Now, this kind of strong leadership at the local level is 

one of the key elements in communities that have had positive results. 

The bill codifies some important specific provisions that provide 

for balancing good results. It ensures that some attention will be 

paid to people with severe disabilities, many of whom tend to remain homeless for the longest periods of time. Fortunately, the answer for this population is well known. It is supportive housing, 

with its strong record of cost-effectiveness and positive results for 

people. 

The bill would require that 30 percent of the funding nationwide 

be used for permanent housing for people with disabilities. That is 

something that has been in appropriations bills for the last 8 years. 

It has tended to give balance to the program and achieve good results. 

The bill makes important changes involving family homelessness. 

For a number of the communities that have had these quantifiable 

results, it has been reductions in homelessness among families 

with children that have driven those results. The stakes are huge, 

because the trauma of homelessness can affect children for years 

afterward. The bill would provide incentives to develop housing 

stock for families. It would encourage rental assistance. It would 

reward communities that quickly rehouse homeless families, and it 

would provide more money for prevention. These are all things that 

experience has taught us will be useful in reducing homelessness 

among families with children. 

Now, there are some issues that I believe are going to require 

continued consultation to attempt to resolve. We will need to continue to work on how to deal with communities that may not have 

the capacity to immediately undertake all the activities that collaborative applicants are expected to carry out under this bill. We 

will need to spend time working out the right approach to matching, since it is the experience of some providers that a cash match 

might cause inefficiencies and hurt communities that need the help 

the most. 

The extent to which HUD would be involved in funding services 

as opposed to housing remains controversial, and we will need to 

seek the input of people working in communities to see if the approach in this bill is an approach that would promote or hamper 

program effectiveness. I am personally confident that consensus on 

these issues, which are somewhat esoteric and technical, can be 

achieved and that we will be able to move forward. 

16

Finally, I would like to note that there are other areas of Federal 

policy beyond the structure of the HUD homelessness programs 

that have a huge role in determining whether we will be successful. 

A strong Interagency Council on Homelessness has proved to be 

crucial in moving us forward. Increased resources and good incentives in other Departments such as HHS, Labor, and VA are critical, and I would specifically like to note the Services for Ending 

Long Term Homelessness Act, Senator DeWine’s bill, which, of 

course, Senator Reed is the chief Democratic sponsor and which 

would provide a much needed funding stream out of HHS to match 

up with the HUD funds on chronic homelessness. 

Finally, it is important to have strong programs to address the 

larger needs for housing for the most vulnerable Americans with 

the lowest incomes. The strong targeting that is in the affordable 

housing fund in the House version of the GSE bill would be an important step in this direction. It is of incalculable importance to retain the good features of the Section 8 voucher program, including 

targeting to the people who need it the most and in general to have 

strong support for HUD programs. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee once again for its consideration of our testimony and offer to answer any questions either 

now or at any point in the future. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Gould. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GOULD

NATIONAL PRESIDENT, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 

Mr. GOULD. Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, thank you 

for inviting me to testify this afternoon, and thank you for the leadership that you are providing on this vital challenge. My name is 

Charles Gould. I serve as the National President for Volunteers of 

America. I have submitted a written statement for the record, and 

I would like to summarize that. 

Volunteers of America is a national, nonprofit, faith-based organization that is dedicated to helping those in need to rebuild their 

lives and reach their full potential. For 110 years now, since 1896, 

our ministry of service has supported and empowered America’s 

most vulnerable groups, including homeless individuals and families. Our interventions both prevent and end homelessness in 

urban and in rural communities across the country. Last year, we 

provided assistance to about 80,000 homeless children, youth, and 

adults. 

As a homeless service provider, my comments and recommendations today reflect the views of our staff from around the country, 

people who are on the ground every day working to end homelessness. Volunteers of America believes that by consolidating current 

programs, by broadening the lists of eligible activities, by focusing 

on homelessness prevention and by expanding the population to 

whom housing and services can be provided, reauthorization of 

HUD’s homeless assistance programs will allow local communities 

to take full advantage of the best practices that have been developed over the past 20 years. 

Since 1987, we have learned three key lessons about homelessness in America: First, McKinney-Vento programs are not a substitute for mainstream housing and social service programs or sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:49 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\39712.TXT SBANK4 PsN: KEVIN
17

tems of care; second, family homelessness has significantly increased; and third, both permanent and transitional housing can be 

effective tools to end homelessness. 

Each of these lessons has significant policy implications in the 

context of the McKinney-Vento reauthorization bill before the Subcommittee, and my written statement details all of our recommendations, but I would like to focus on three in particular. 

First, we know that McKinney-Vento programs cannot end homelessness without ensuring that homeless persons are able to access 

the far greater resources that are available in mainstream housing 

and social service programs. 

So we must increase the percentage of McKinney-Vento funds 

being spent on homeless prevention and ensure that mainstream 

programs do not discharge people into homelessness. Intervening to 

end homelessness is considerably more expensive than ensuring 

that we prevent it, and preventing homelessness must be our primary social objective, so no individual or family spends time on the 

street or in emergency shelter. 

Second, recognizing that family homelessness continues to increase, any reauthorization of McKinney-Vento programs must 

allow local communities the flexibility necessary to assist all homeless populations. In this regard, Volunteers of America supports 

provisions of Senate bill 1801 that permit funds to be spent on permanent housing for nondisabled homeless families. We ask, however, that this Committee take additional measures, such as ensuring that the HUD definition of who is homeless includes persons 

who are doubled up or living in hotels or motels due to the lack 

of adequate alternative housing and requiring that the HUD definition of chronic homelessness include families. 

And finally, since we now understand that both permanent and 

transitional housing are effective at ending homelessness, we ask 

the Committee to provide incentives for both of these interventions 

so that every American community may plan to end homelessness 

and receive targeted funding to assist local individuals and families 

who are most in need. Thank you again for inviting me to testify, 

and I look forward to answering any questions. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. Love. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LOVE

PRESIDENT AND CEO, COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS

OF HOUSTON-HARRIS COUNTY, INC. 

Mr. LOVE. Thank you. 

Good afternoon. My name is Anthony Love. I am the President 

and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston-Harris 

County. Thank you for inviting the Coalition for the Homeless to 

testify in support of the reauthorization and amending of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 

The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston-Harris County, known 

as the Coalition, is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission 

is to educate and advocate for the needs of persons who are homeless through support and the coordination of services. Founded in 

1982 at the request of then City of Houston Mayor Katherine 

Whitmayer and then-Harris County Judge John Lindsay, the CoaliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:49 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\39712.TXT SBANK4 PsN: KEVIN
18

tion was formed to support those entities that provide direct support to people that are homeless through advocacy, education, collaboration, and community partnerships. 

The Coalition currently serves as the lead coordinator for the 

local Continuum of Care system. We serve in this role through the 

support and partnership with the City of Houston and Harris 

County. This collaborative was developed in 1992, and the foundation of this process is based on two principal concepts: Implementation and evaluation. Under the guidance and coordinating efforts of 

the Collaborative Continuum of Care Approach, Houston-Harris 

County’s strategy became a model that HUD used to encourage 

other jurisdictions to develop. 

Last year, our local Continuum of Care provided funding for 27 

agencies, representing 62 programs and/or projects that spanned 

the spectrum of outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing, 

and, of course, permanent supportive housing. 

In Houston-Harris County prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, 

there were 12,000 to 14,000 men, women, and children without a 

place to call home on any given night. Last year, approximately 

34,000 individuals accessed homeless services in our community. 

All of these services represent McKinney-funded agencies that 

function as the existing system to exit homelessness in HoustonHarris County. 

Since 1992, McKinney-Vento homeless assistance funding has 

been the major source of funding for the majority of homeless service agencies in Houston and Harris County. This funding has provided housing, employment, and other essential services to tens of 

thousands of individuals who have experienced homelessness in our 

community. 

McKinney-Vento for years has served as the impetus for collaboration and community solutions to ending homelessness. McKinney-Vento has enabled many communities to leverage millions of 

dollars in private funding and investment while also providing 

housing opportunities to thousands of low-income Americans who 

otherwise might not be able to afford housing of any sort. 

On the other hand, the current bill being considered would enhance the Act’s ability to serve more people who are at risk of 

being homeless, realize that any reduction in HUD service dollars 

will not take place until adequate alternative funding is provided 

and expand who qualifies as chronically homeless. 

The Coalition supports this bill, especially the following three 

items: Provision of funding for preventing homelessness. By allowing communities to use up to 5 percent of their grant funding to 

prevent homelessness, a huge barrier to ending homelessness is 

significantly reduced. This provision truly provides a means of closing the front door to homelessness. The Continuum is incomplete 

without prevention as part of the collaborative process to create a 

seamless system of service. 

Involvement of more Federal agencies: One agency should not be 

expected to do it all or bear the burden of ending homelessness in 

our country. This measure ensures that multiple Federal agencies 

are involved in the provision of housing, health care, human services, employment, and other services as necessary and appropriate. 

19

Adjusting the role of the Interagency Council on Homelessness 

provides a nationally coordinated effort to complement local and 

State efforts. It also makes the issue of homelessness a national 

priority and serves as encouragement to local communities that 

this issue will remain important nationally. 

A broader definition of chronically homeless: The current definition of chronically homeless is restrictive and disallows much needed services to individuals and families, who also demand much 

from the current homeless assistance system. This new definition 

is more inclusive than the current definition, because it includes 

families who have an adult head of household with a disabling condition and people who are homeless other than only those who are 

sleeping in an emergency homeless shelter or in a place not meant 

for human habitation. This definition provides a more accurate picture of the individuals and families that are served by these community agencies every day. 

Again, the Coalition supports this legislation. However, we are 

concerned about the 25 percent match requirement and its possible 

effect on smaller nonprofits and their ability to apply for these 

funds. We are not opposed to this provision, but we are uneasy 

about the possible consequences and wonder aloud what type of 

barrier does this requirement create for smaller agencies that perform at a high level but with a smaller budget? 

Once again, I thank you for your invitation and this opportunity 

to speak on behalf of the Coalition. The Coalition supports your efforts to reauthorize and amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the critical resources it will provide to communities in their efforts to end homelessness. 

Senator ALLARD. Dr. Culhane. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS PATRICK CULHANE, PH.D.

PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY AND PSYCHOLOGY,

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. CULHANE. Thank you, Chairman Allard, Ranking Member 

Reed, and Members of the Subcommittee for the invitation to come 

here today. 

Like the others, I want to commend you for your leadership in 

bringing this bill up, bringing some consolidation to these programs 

and codifying, as people have said, some of the best practices and 

knowledge that have developed over the years. 

I am going to speak to a few of the provisions in the bill that 

I support and a couple of the concerns that I may have, and then, 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

The permanent housing setaside for the chronically homeless, of 

course, is something that I feel that research strongly supports. 

There has been a lot of research to show that a significant percentage of the shelter beds, more than half of them in the single adult 

population, are being used by people who are chronically homeless. 

They are effectively living in the shelter system, and they bounce 

around between jails, hospitals, and other very expensive systems 

of care at great cost, and research has shown that placing people 

in permanent supportive housing actually reduces their use of 

those services and saves money. So the setaside, I think, makes 

ample sense with regard to the single adult population. 

20

I did have a couple of concerns about the specifics in that area. 

One was that the language did not at present include a disability 

requirement among the single adults. Nearly all of the chronically 

homeless adults do have a disability, but I think we would want 

to be careful not to incentivize long stays in shelters as the sole 

means of accessing this rather limited resource. 

A second concern I have is about the inclusion of families in the 

category of chronically homeless. I go in greater detail in my written testimony on this, but to my knowledge of the research literature families are not considered within the category of chronically homeless people. While there are families who experience 

long shelter stays, and that is a problem that deserves to be addressed, they really have not been considered within the whole theory and research about the population who, without shelters or permanent supportive housing, would be living and even dying on our 

streets. 

Now, I think as a matter of principle, what we should be working 

toward is that no family should stay in a shelter long enough to 

qualify as chronically homeless. The fact that families are staying 

in shelters or transitional housing for up to a year is the problem, 

and that is what we need to address. I think that Ms. Dorfman 

from Hennepin County, who was on the last panel and described 

the work of that county and all that they are doing with the Rapid 

Exit programs and prevention, this is the direction to go. 

Recent research we have done shows that those long stay fami- lies in shelters are using about $22,000 each in shelter resources. 

That is the equivalent of 3 years of a Section 8 vouchers in the City 

of Philadelphia. So you can either get 270 days of shelter, 9 

months, or you can get 3 years of housing for that same resource. 

So, I think it makes a lot of sense for us to be thinking about taking the resources that are going into long stays in shelters and into 

transitional housing and focusing on the Rapid Exit component. 

And I think that the evidence supports the fact that indeed, for 

families who linger in shelters, it only works to their detriment. 

If indeed there is going to be permanent supportive housing that 

is targeted for families, I would suggest that you recommend that 

the transitional housing stock is converted to that purpose, because 

right now, those transitional housing units are not targeted to special needs populations, and they do not have a demonstrable benefit for those families. We do not see in the literature that there 

is a benefit to longer stays in transitional housing as opposed to 

being in housing in the community. 

Another point is that I think that including families in the set 

aside could potentially dilute the intent of the bill, which is to codify what we have learned about targeting the chronic homeless initiatives for single adults. 

Another provision that I very much support is all the accountability measures in the bill, particularly the support for the homeless management information systems. We know that data and research has been critical to informing decisionmaking at the local 

level, and having these data systems is going to be the most important thing going forward. 

Many of the people coming into the homeless system are coming 

from other places, whether it is jails, prisons, or hospitals, and the 

21

only way we can put that fact on the radar screens of these other 

agencies is by having data which is tracking that and which we can 

show to these other entities, ‘‘Hey, you are not only having an impact on homelessness, but also these people end back up in your 

institutions if we do not do something about this.’’ So really, I think 

it is critical in terms of the whole prevention agenda to have that 

kind of information infrastructure. 

Last, I just want to credit the 10-year planning processes that 

have been started and the way that the Interagency Council on 

Homelessness has really galvanized communities and changed the 

nature of the discussion about homelessness in this country. 

Finally, I am just a little concerned, I want to note, about the 

local planning boards described in the bill. One of the things I 

think we have learned from the Continuum of Care is that local 

government really needs to have a majority say in how these decisions are made, because they control all the policy levers; they control most of the resources in these communities; and only they have 

the public authority and accountability, I think, that can be driving 

consistency with the Federal agenda. 

Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you all for your testimony. 

My first question is both to you, Mr. Berg and Mr. Gould. What 

is your opinion on the matter of a required setaside of Federal 

funding for permanent housing? We have heard from Dr. Culhane 

on that matter, and then, while you are answering the question, 

kind of share with us what you think might be an appropriate level 

for a setaside. 

Mr. Berg. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you. 

We have found over the last 8 years that the 30 percent setaside 

that has been included in appropriations bills has provided a balanced approach. It has directed new resources to practices; really 

driven a lot of the serious progress in a number of communities 

about that. And the bill, of course, retains that requirement, so 

that is the level we would support. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Gould. 

Mr. GOULD. We also support the 30 percent setaside. Volunteers 

of America provides a great deal of permanent housing, and we 

think that the 30 percent level is an appropriate balance as well. 

However, we also find that transitional housing is a very important 

program to provide, and the bill would go further in providing additional incentives for permanent housing. 

We would prefer to see those same sorts of incentives provided 

for transitional housing to really balance out those needs. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Love, I have a different question for you. 

Please share with us your opinion of the requirement for State and 

local matching funds. Under a consolidated approach, what do you 

believe would be a reasonable matching fund? 

Mr. LOVE. Thank you; I do agree with the idea of having a 

matching fund, because that demonstrates the local level of investment in ending this condition of homelessness. I think an appropriate level would be 20 percent as opposed to 25 percent. 

22

In HUD’s supportive services, there is a 20 percent requirement, 

and I know in our community, that level of match has been a lot 

easier to attain than the 25 percent level. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay; and then, on to you, Professor Culhane: 

Based on your research, what are the common elements among 

successful approaches toward ending homelessness? 

Mr. CULHANE. Well, of course, common to all of those would be 

having some kind of housing, and usually, that is in the form of 

some kind of subsidized housing. That is a common component. 

And for people who need supportive services in order to maintain 

that housing, that is also a critical ingredient. But I think, yes, 

that is pretty much it. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. I have a question for all of you. 

Now, we have heard a great deal about collaborative approaches 

and how that can approach, you know, promote coordination within 

the city. I believe also, it is important to have some coordination 

between jurisdictions, from neighbor city to another city down the 

road. And let me give you an example: One city has an excellent 

program; another one does not. Then, you know, you have a migration of homelessness from one part of the country to another. 

How much coordination currently happens between jurisdictions, 

and what can be done to promote greater coordination, and we will 

start with you, Mr. Berg, and just go right down the line if you 

want to respond. 

Mr. BERG. I think current practice, it very much varies. As you 

know, the current HUD program allows jurisdictions to come together to apply for the HUD programs. In many places, cities and 

counties, several cities in a county along with the county will apply 

for funding. Rhode Island, of course, the whole State applies as one 

entity. Other places, it is very much individualized, and each little 

town has its own Continuum of Care. 

I agree. I think the importance of consolidation of cooperation 

and collaboration across governments, between levels of governments, is very important. I think HUD has tried to encourage 

places to form larger Continuums just because they tend to get a 

little better results in terms of the score they get on their results, 

but I think there is probably some more that could be done there. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Gould. 

Mr. GOULD. I would simply support that as well. Anything you 

can do to incent larger Continuums or that kind of collaboration, 

we would certainly support. I think it is very much across the 

board in a community by community experience. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Love. 

Mr. LOVE. I would also support that, and at the same time, I 

think when you have smaller communities that are surrounding a 

larger community, it is critically important for that smaller community to maintain their sense of identity and not feel that—I will 

give you an example. There are smaller communities around Houston. They seem to feel that Houston should be the sole source or 

the sole provider of coordinating services for individuals that are 

homeless. If they decided, as smaller communities, to take that 

mantle, they feel that they would draw people who are homeless 

to their communities. 

23

So a great deal of education would first and foremost have to 

take place, and then, I think increased incentives for those smaller 

communities to want to participate in that form of a collaboration 

would be necessary. 

Senator ALLARD. Dr. Culhane. 

Mr. CULHANE. Yes, I would only add that I think that the 10-

year planning processes which have unfolded around the country 

have probably done more than anything to share information and 

collaboration across these regions. I think, in fact, there are some 

areas of the country where there are regional 10-year plans. And 

the State interagency councils on homelessness that have also 

emerged I think also have a role to play, where they can do the 

kind of information sharing and the kind of brokering of relationships among these localities. 

Senator ALLARD. Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, thank you not only for your excellent but also succinct testimony. I appreciate that very much and thank you also for the dedication over many years to this issue of homelessness. 

Mr. Berg, could you just comment briefly on how the proposed 

legislation would help underserved homeless populations? 

Mr. BERG. Well, I think it provides incentives. It provides incentives to communities that I think are doing the most outreach and 

dealing with the problem. I mean, the current system does this a 

lot. I think this bill moves a little further in terms of rewarding 

communities that have a very comprehensive approach, including 

addressing all aspects. 

I think the underserved populations include the people who have 

lived on the streets for years and years; there is definitely a push 

there. One of the things I would mention is that we have to make 

some more progress in the area of homelessness in rural areas, and 

I think by opening up the process a little bit, this bill does that, 

but we are definitely going to have some work to do there. I think 

we are starting to see some progress. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gould, you made a very good point, I think, in your testimony about the homelessness programs do not operate in a vacuum. If we do not support CDBG and Section 8, we are going to 

have a real difficult problem, and you might elaborate on that, if 

you could. 

Mr. GOULD. Well, it is a real concern that we not create a system 

here that requires that people be discharged from those programs 

into homelessness in order to access these funds. This bill would 

do a great deal of good. But if we focus too much at one end and 

force people to really become chronically homeless before we help 

them, we really are going to increase the cost on the other end, and 

that is a very real concern for us in this bill. 

Senator REED. Good. 

And Mr. Love, you have had extensive experience over 10 or 

more years in dealing with homelessness issues, and you actually 

run the Houston Continuum of Care, I think, through your office. 

Mr. LOVE. Yes. 

24

Senator REED. And I will ask you the same question I asked the 

Secretary, how codifying this Continuum of Care, we presume, in 

the legislation, will be very helpful from your perspective. 

Mr. LOVE. Yes. 

Senator REED. What do you hope will happen? 

Mr. LOVE. Absolutely. In particular, certain provisions within the 

legislation that the Continuum has not been able to access; in particular, the prevention measure. Usually, prevention funds came 

from ESG, which kind of sat outside of the Continuum of Care. By 

making it a part of it, when you look at the Continuum of Care 

chart, all of it functioned based upon the person actually becoming 

homeless and then going through the system. Adding this prevention measure, in my opinion, expands the Continuum of Care and 

creates a real system in terms of addressing the issues of homelessness. 

Senator REED. I think we have heard from everyone that the prevention issue might be one of the key aspects of this new legislative 

approach if we can codify it and support it with real resources. 

And Dr. Culhane, again, thank you for your extensive academic 

expertise on this issue and your presence here today. Part of the 

legislation we are proposing would have a collaborative applicant 

panel and would serve under our bill to look at some of these proposals, and I wondered if you have any comments about the composition of that. I think you referred to it before about making sure 

that there is a heavy government presence, and might you elaborate? 

Mr. CULHANE. Yes, I think one of the things that we learned 

from the Continuum of Care process in a number of the communities that I have had the opportunity to work in is that local government has been frustrated that they have not always had a significant enough decisionmaking power on those local Continuums, 

so even though they may control most of the policy levers, and they 

may spend most of the money on emergency shelter. In a place like 

Philadelphia, for example, they pay for the entire shelter bill or in 

New York City, they pay the entire shelter bill. But yet, they do 

not control the Continuum of Care process. 

Now, I am not saying that partnership and collaboration is not 

valuable. We need the input of the provider community, the advocate community, et cetera, but only local government really has the 

authority, really has the resources, has the policy levers to pull all 

of this together to meet a specific, set of policy objectives. 

And so, I would encourage you to think about making sure that 

there was some kind of majority composition of those boards that 

was local government. 

Senator REED. Mr. Love, since you are right there in the middle 

of it all, your comments on this issue. 

Mr. LOVE. Yes, in Houston, in particular, we serve as the lead 

agency, but it is a collaborative process, and the collaboration is 

made up of the Coalition for the Homeless as the lead agency; representatives from the City of Houston and representatives from 

Harris County, and we operate as that collaborative, meaning that 

there has to be two votes before anything is done or any initiatives 

are moved forward. 

25

One of the reasons that the Coalition was made as the lead agency because of the flexibility and the lack of bureaucracy entailed 

within a 501(c)(3). 

Senator REED. So essentially, how your operation works, you 

have three voters. 

Mr. LOVE. Yes. 

Senator REED. The county, the city, and the Coalition. 

Mr. LOVE. And the Coalition. 

Senator REED. You are the lead agency; you develop the ideas, 

but if they both dislike it, then, you cannot do anything. 

Mr. LOVE. Absolutely. 

Senator REED. Good. 

Mr. Berg, Mr. Gould, any comments on this issue? 

Mr. BERG. I would agree. This is done different ways in different 

places, but when we look at the places that are really having success, they all have a very strong role by the public sector, for the 

reasons that Dr. Culhane spelled out. We need to ensure that the 

process will work in a community where the public sector is not 

particularly interested, and there are those communities. That is 

the only caveat to that. 

Senator REED. Good point. 

Mr. GOULD. And just that the collaborative effort among the nonprofit organizations I think is also an essential component to that 

that really brings a lot of value to it. 

Senator REED. Indeed. 

Mr. Chairman, do you have another round? 

Senator ALLARD. Do you want to do another round? 

Senator REED. It is up to you. I think we have——

Senator ALLARD. I think we have pretty well covered everything 

that we need to. I think you have all given us very good testimony. 

You have given us good responses to the questions, and I hate to 

tie your day up any more than what we already have. I think 

maybe if you had any flights later on today, you may have already 

missed them; I do not know. If you have not, we want to give you 

an opportunity to catch them. 

And so, I just remind you again that the record is going to stay 

open for 10 days. There might be some questions that Members on 

the Committee or from the Committee itself will submit to you, and 

if you would expedite responding to those questions and get your 

answers back in 10 days, we would appreciate that very much. 

And so, with that, we will go ahead and adjourn the hearing, and 

thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements, response to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] 

26

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY A. BERNARDI

DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

MARCH 30, 2006

Introduction 

Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here to discuss the proposed consolidation of 

HUD’s 3 competitive Homeless Assistance Grant programs into a single program 

aimed at alleviating homelessness in this country. Consolidation would provide: (1) 

more flexibility to localities; (2) grant-making responsibility with local decisionmaking bodies; (3) funds for prevention of homelessness; and (4) dramatic reduction 

in the time required to distribute funds to grantees. The proposal would also further 

the Administration’s goal to end chronic homelessness. 

HUD has been providing funding for homeless programs since 1987. Through its 

programs, HUD has awarded billions of dollars to communities across the country. 

Approximately 5,000 projects each year receive funds to alleviate homelessness in 

their communities. 

In 1994, HUD developed the Continuum of Care planning and grant process, 

which calls for communities to develop local plans for solving homelessness. It is a 

community-led effort that involves a diverse group of organizations, including State 

and local government, public housing agencies, nonprofit providers, foundations, and 

homeless and formerly homeless persons. The Continuum identifies the community’s 

housing and service needs, as well as the existing inventory to address those needs. 

The Continuum then assesses remaining needs and determines how to best address 

them, proposing an overall plan and specific project requests for HUD funding. 

Since 1994, the Continuums have proven to be effective as a coordinating body for 

fighting homelessness; among the reasons for their effectiveness are the broad-based 

partnerships they have forged at the local level. 

The Continuum of Care program is made up of three programs: Supportive Housing Program; the Shelter Plus Care Program; and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation 

Single Room Occupancy Dwellings for Homeless Individuals, or SRO. Senators Reed 

and Allard have introduced a bill that would affirm the role of local planning entities, bring HUD’s three competitive programs into one program, and provide for 

even more local decisionmaking authority and flexibility. I want to recognize the two 

Senators for their longstanding commitment to alleviating homelessness. I also want 

to acknowledge their hard work in developing this very worthwhile proposal. Their 

bill would greatly simplify how HUD’s resources could be used to effectively and efficiently solve homelessness. 

I also want to thank Congressman Rick Renzi who has introduced the Administration’s bill. Our bill is similar in many ways to the legislation introduced by Senators Reed and Allard. For example, both bills would decentralize the Federal role 

in selection of applications for funding and speed up the award process. Currently, 

staff at HUD headquarters reviews nearly 6,000 individual project applications each 

year. This is one of the largest and most intensive grant competitions in the Federal 

Government. It takes the Department nearly 6 months to review the applications; 

once selections are made, 3–6 additional months are needed to finalize the nearly 

5,000 awarded contracts. Both bills would greatly simplify this process by reviewing 

an overall application from each community and then having the communities 

award local projects for funding. Rather than taking up to a year to review and execute contracts, the proposals would reduce the timeframe to a few months. This 

would result in the timely obligation of funds and assistance to those who literally 

have no place to live. 

The bills would also greatly simplify the match requirements. Currently, one of 

the programs, the Supportive Housing Program, has, by statute, a 100 percent 

match requirement for capital costs such as acquisition and rehabilitation, a 25 percent match for operating costs, a 20 percent match for supportive services and no 

match requirement for leasing. Both bills would establish a single match requirement of 25 percent for all activities. 

HUD’s Continuum of Care programs maintain a unique and comprehensive public-private partnership for ending homelessness. The programs work within broad 

national goals. We have established through the Continuum concept a resource-driven planning and allocation system, with emphasis on local decisionmaking processes. The Continuum also provides a focus on performance as a key element of local 

planning outcomes. The proposed consolidation starts with all of these strengths and 

expands on them, by decentralizing Federal processes and moving community planning to the local level. This way, decisionmakers can more effectively work to solve 

homelessness and end chronic homelessness in their communities. 

27

Unique and Comprehensive Program 

The Continuum of Care is a unique and comprehensive public-private partnership. It calls for all stakeholders within a community to be involved in shaping solutions to homelessness. They identify the needs, assess existing resources, and 

prioritize projects needing funding. State and local government officials, nonprofit 

homeless providers including faith-based and other community organizations, foundations, businesses, hospitals, law enforcement, schools, and homeless and formerly 

homeless persons are all part of the Continuum of Care. Over 3,700 jurisdictions 

participate in the Continuum of Care process, representing over 92 percent of the 

U.S. population. The skills, abilities, and resources of each stakeholder are maximized and leveraged to make a visible difference within their community. Both bills 

would codify this concept, which was created by HUD through administrative 

means. 

A significant enhancement in these bills would add prevention as an eligible funding activity. Prevention is a key part of solving homelessness, and is an important 

element in both bills. The proposed legislation would allow projects to spend HUD 

funds on prevention activities, such as utility payments or rental assistance, for persons at risk of becoming homeless. This way, HUD can help keep people in their 

homes and prevent people from actually becoming homeless. Not only would this reduce additional, unnecessary costs on a city’s homeless system, but it would improve 

continuity of housing for individuals and families, improving their ability to function 

as productive members of society. 

In HUD’s current competitive grant programs, applicants must explain and document their efforts to prevent homelessness. By allowing the Continuum programs 

to fund homelessness prevention, both bills would place greater emphasis on its importance. 

Targeting Most In-Need Populations 

In addition to preventing homelessness for those at risk, HUD’s homeless programs are addressing another portion of the population: The chronically homeless. 

These are the hardest-to-serve individuals; they have been in and out of homeless 

shelters and on the street for long periods of time. In 2002, the Administration set 

a goal of ending chronic homelessness for this population. Through the Continuum 

of Care grants, HUD funds have been working to effectively achieve this goal. 

In fact, while representing just 10 to 20 percent of the homeless population, they 

consume up to 50 percent of emergency resources in a city. Instead of having these 

individuals cycling through the various public systems and using these emergency 

resources, this Administration has focused on providing permanent housing as a 

way to improve cost effectiveness for the community and quality of life for the individual. In fact, $365 million, or 30 percent of HUD competitive homeless assistance 

funds, were awarded to projects targeting the chronically homeless in 2005. 

While this Administration has not shied away from serving this difficult population, it has also not forgotten about the needs of homeless families with children. 

In fact, 70 percent of funds awarded this past year went to projects that targeted 

persons who were not chronically homeless, especially homeless families. 

A Results-Oriented System 

The Continuum of Care approach is also a resource-driven planning and allocation 

system. Prior to the Continuum of Care, individual local projects independently applied in separate HUD competitions for a particular homeless assistance program. 

This previous approach did not promote local coordination or strategic planning. The 

Continuum of Care requires thoughtful, strategic planning across a community so 

that the needs are identified and prioritized. The community then chooses from a 

menu of existing HUD homeless resources, including the Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, and the Section 8 SRO programs. 

Moreover, the Continuum of Care ensures that the community links its efforts to 

other plans and funding sources. For instance, Continuums are scored on whether 

they are part of HUD’s resource-driven Consolidated Planning process. This helps 

ensure linkages and resources from other parts of HUD such as the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, the Emergency Shelter Grants, and the Housing 

Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Programs. The Continuum also encourages active linkages with existing jurisdictional 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness. 

The consolidation bills would enhance the existing resource-driven and allocation 

system of the Continuum of Care by providing a modest amount for administrative 

costs, including strategic planning and monitoring. The bills would also provide a 

more efficient resource-driven system by consolidating and greatly simplifying the 

various homeless assistance programs into a single program. 

28

A Performance-Based System 

The Continuum of Care approach is performance based. The application contains 

a performance section that represents 30 percent of the score in the annual Continuum of Care competition. The core of this performance section is the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicators by which Congress assesses HUD 

for the area of homelessness. Our GPRA goal is to end chronic homelessness and 

help families and individuals move to permanent housing. The specific indicators 

with which we measure a community’s progress in achieving this goal include: The 

percent of homeless clients who move to permanent housing; the percent of clients 

in permanent housing who remain stably housed; and the percent of homeless clients we serve who become employed. In addition, creating permanent housing units 

has been another important aspect of achieving this goal. Finally, we measure the 

extent to which the Congressional directive to implement and use a Homeless Management Information System is achieved in each community. By connecting HUD’s 

performance with that of our grantees and ultimately homeless clients we are seeing 

success. HUD’s GPRA efforts have been touted by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) as exemplary for other Federal programs to emulate. HUD’s Continuum of 

Care programs were recently rated ‘‘Effective’’ when assessed by the Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). That rating underscores the efficacy 

of the Continuum of Care approach. 

Key Differences 

While the two bills are similar in the overall design and a number of specific 

areas, there are also some differences between the bills. For example, the Administration bill:

• Ensures broader participation in the Continuum of Care Board (that is, greater 

participation by nongovernmental entities); • Assures greater accountability in the expenditure of funds for homelessness by 

each Continuum of Care by requiring each Continuum to be a legal entity; • Focuses more on chronically homeless persons living on the streets; • Provides for renewal of all types of projects, including transitional housing; • Provides greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed to solve homelessness; • Provides greater flexibility in using program funds to prevent homelessness; and • Better targets its permanent housing resources for those who are most vulnerable: 

The disabled.

Overall, consolidating the three Continuum of Care programs and codifying it in 

statute would allow far greater flexibility, which will enable improved performance 

and effectiveness of HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grant programs. Thank you very 

much for inviting me to be here. I am looking forward to more discussions on this 

issue that is so critical to the future of our nation. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP F. MANGANO

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS

MARCH 30, 2006

Chairman Allard, Senator Reed, and distinguished Members of the Committee, I 

appreciate the commitment you are expressing to homelessness in today’s hearing. 

I appreciate the work of Senators Reed and Allard to bring this bill before the 

Subcommittee, knowing its long development and thoughtful integration of the experience of the last 19 years. The inclusive process that Committee staff employed in 

creating the bill is appreciated. The input from stakeholders across the country in 

and out of government assured that the bill represented a broad constituency. 

I am pleased to endorse the Administration’s proposal to consolidate the Homeless 

Assistance competitive grants at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to more effectively assist individuals and families in leaving homelessness and 

moving to permanent housing and self-sufficiency. Consolidation of these programs 

would also give localities more decisionmaking power over their funds and provide 

a greater focus on prevention of homelessness. 

I have been the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness since March 2002. The Council is an independent Federal entity with a mission 

to coordinate the Federal response to homelessness and to create a national partnership at every level of government to reduce and end homelessness in the Nation and 

forward the Administration’s goal of ending chronic homelessness. Since revitalization by the President in March 2002, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness 

29

(USICH) has fostered interagency, intergovernmental, and intercommunity partnerships in the creation of an unprecedented national partnership focused on homelessness. Over the past 3 years, the Council has worked with Governors to create State 

Interagency Councils on Homelessness to mirror the work we are doing in Washington in the Federal Council. These State Councils make State resources more 

available and accessible. Fifty-three Governors are now partnered in the creation of 

such Councils. 

There are 20 Federal agencies which make up the Council membership, meeting 

regularly in Washington and 53 State level Councils, but the frontlines of homelessness are in local communities. Building on the 10-year planning process set in motion by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the Council has been active for 

the past 3 years through its Regional Coordinators and the encouragement of HUD 

through its Continuum of Care grants to foster local 10-Year Plans to End Chronic 

Homelessness. Two hundred twelve localities are now committed with the full support of their Mayors and County Executives to ending chronic homelessness. As part 

of the partnership, the Council has provided technical assistance to cities to ensure 

results in their communities in ending chronic homelessness. 

These local planning processes have created unprecedented local partnerships 

that have brought together the nonprofit sector, business sector, faith and community-based organizations, in results oriented business plans to achieve the outcome 

of reducing and ending chronic homelessness. 

Introduction 

Having been involved in the response to the problem of homelessness for a quarter century now, I want to first express my appreciation and solidarity with those 

who have been on the frontline of response, in the forefront of local efforts. 

A decade before the McKinney Act came into existence, countless faith and community-based nonprofit groups, as well as the philanthropic and business community joined by concerned citizens provided extraordinary and heroic work to our 

homeless neighbors. Unfortunately, the need and numbers grew despite these efforts. 

McKinney-Vento Importance 

In 1987, the passage of the McKinney Act contributed a range of new resources 

and restored morale to the work that local groups were doing to assist those who 

had fallen into homelessness. 

I was Director of Homeless Services in the City of Cambridge that summer in 

1987, and I can assure you that all across that city, the State, and the Nation there 

was relief that reinforcements and resources had arrived. 

Thankfully, over the last two decades the McKinney-Vento programs at a range 

of Federal agencies have supplemented other public and private resources all across 

the Nation. Without that Federal funding there is little question that homelessness 

would be even more pervasive than it is now. 

In the nearly 20 years since then, the McKinney-Vento programs have been an 

important source of resources for our local and national responses. 

The Role of Federal Agencies 

Much credit must go to the important role that HUD and a number of other Federal agencies has had in prioritizing homeless people and focusing both targeted 

homeless funds and mainstream funding to assist in the national effort. HUD, along 

with other Federal agencies, has been central in the national quest to reduce and 

end homelessness by funding vital research, direct services, employment resources, 

and permanent housing, Through HUD’s Continuum of Care grant process, local 

Continuum of Care boards—in nearly every locality across the country—receive 

funds to help end the problem of homelessness in their communities. 

Through collaborations and initiatives by Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Labor, Department of Education, General Services Administration, Department of Justice, and the Social Security Administration significant investments over the last several years have made a difference for our most vulnerable and disabled citizens. 

Increased Federal Investment 

In the past 5 years, targeted Federal resources have increased to record levels 

each year, including the President’s proposed budget for 2007 which includes an increase to bring total targeted Federal funding to a record level of over $4.1 billion. 

That increase includes the Samaritan Initiative at HUD which targets $200 million to help those who are chronically homeless—those who are on the streets and 

long term in our shelters. Samaritan is an important resource to continue efforts 

30

to spur the Administration’s goal to reduce and end chronic homelessness, now a 

national initiative supported by Governors, Mayors, County Executives, nonprofit 

providers, and private sector partners all across the Nation. 

If the President’s proposed funding level for 2007 is approved, there will have 

been nearly a tenfold increase in targeted resources for homelessness since the 

McKinney Act first passed in 1987. In fact, just in the past 4 years, McKinney Act 

programs have increased more than 20 percent. Overall targeted homeless funds 

have increased by over 30 percent during that time. 

Homelessness remains a significant problem across the United States. Researchers tell us that on any given night, there are between 600,000 and 800,000 Americans who are homeless. A recent USA Today article indicated over 700,000 on that 

night. In the course of a year, researchers tell us that more than 2 million of our 

neighbors experience homelessness. 

Increased resources and increased numbers are a frustrating reminder that, while 

new funding is important, new ideas are just as important. We cannot simply take 

the new resources and expend them in the status quo. 

Twenty Years of Experience and Learning 

We have learned a great deal to inform policy and investment over the past 20 

years and those insights need to inform any changes to McKinney-Vento. 

Here are a few of those insights: 

1. No one level of government, no one element of the private sector can get the job 

done alone. We need to be partnered in every facet of the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. And the entire community must be partnered from the jurisdictional 

CEO—whether Mayor, County Executive, or city manager—to those nonprofit providers who are on the frontlines to business, academia, philanthropy, advocates, formerly and currently homeless people, to each level of government, all partnered together as stakeholders on this issue. 

2. Federal resources must be invested in the result of ending people’s homelessness.

Resources should be aimed at creating opportunities for individuals and families to 

rebuild their lives by funding case management, employment services, benefits coordination, and permanent housing. 

Public and private sector partners have also joined us in moving beyond managing 

the crisis to reducing and ending homelessness. The National Governors Association, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, National Association of 

Counties, United Way, the International Downtown Business Association, National 

Alliance to End Homelessness, The National Alliance of the Mentally Ill, and others 

are partnered with us nationally. And they have committed to join with us in beginning that effort to end the homelessness of those who are the most disabled and 

most vulnerable, people experiencing chronic homelessness. 

3. Federal resources should be invested according to what works. Investments 

should be data and research driven, performance based, and results oriented. 

4. People experiencing chronic homelessness are expensive. Research tells us that, 

while they number only between 10 and 20 percent of the homeless individual population, they consume half of all emergency shelter resources. And recently through 

research conducted in local communities across the country, we are learning that 

chronic homelessness is costly in expensive mainstream health and law enforcement 

systems. Funding of housing, treatment and services and planning for these individuals must be coordinated across all sectors in local communities. 

5. 10-Year Plans to End Chronic Homelessness encouraged by the Council bring 

the entire community together in a stakeholder informed planning process focused on 

results. When those strategies are business plans driven by the political will of the 

local jurisdictional leaders, change happens, results are quantifiable. 

HUD has encouraged its local Continuums of Care to partner in jurisdictional 10-

Year Plans. These plans not only ensure that all levels of government are partners 

in the community-based strategies and include resources from a variety of Federal 

agencies, they importantly provide a place for all stakeholders—from the Chamber 

of Commerce to downtown business associations, law enforcement, hospital administrators, providers, librarians, and all others who are concerned and impacted. 

6. Perhaps most importantly, jurisdictional plans are creating inclusive local partnerships that are achieving results and leveraging resources. Two hundred eleven 

communities are now partnered with the Council through their Mayors and County 

Executives. Jurisdictionally led planning infused with local political, social, and civic 

will are achieving visible and measurable outcomes in implementing their 10-Year 

Plans. 

In a 40 city survey conducted by the Council, jurisdictional plans and our increase 

in Federal resources have leveraged more than $2 billion in State, local, and private 

funds in the past 3 years. 

31

7. We know that permanent supportive housing works for vulnerable and disabled 

populations. When McKinney-Vento was first passed, this technology developed in 

the mental health system of response was not in common use. Today, communities 

across the country are targeting this technology to those experiencing chronic homelessness and achieving 80–85 percent retention rates on average. And another technology borrowed from the mental health system, Assertive Community Treatment 

Teams, known as ACT, is making a significant difference on the streets, engaging 

those who were thought to be intractably homeless there and providing the clinical 

and multidisciplinary strategies to end their street homelessness and support them 

in housing. A consumer-centric response rooted in opportunities for housing, services, benefits, and employment is working. 

8. We now understand the priority that needs to be placed on prevention. For too 

long we bailed the leaking boat of homelessness, some moved out, more moved in. 

Again, research helped us understand that, without prevention strategies, especially focused on effective discharge planning protocols from mainstream systems of 

care and incarceration and services, our intervention efforts would not create the 

results we expect. 

9. Employment must be part of the strategy to reduce dependency and increase selfsufficiency.

10. Research and innovation investments have shaped initiatives that are evidencebased and produce results. Both have been essential in advancing policy in this Administration.

Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento and Consolidation of HUD’s Homeless

Assistance Grants 

The Administration’s proposal as well as the Bill introduced by Senator Reed 

would reauthorize McKinney-Vento and consolidate HUD’s competitive Homeless 

Assistance Grants. Both of these proposals would provide: (1) more flexibility to localities, (2) grant-making responsibility to local boards, (3) provide a significant 

amount of funds for prevention of homelessness, (4) continued support for the creation of permanent housing opportunities, and (5) dramatically reduce the time required to distribute funds to grantees. The Administration’s bill would also further 

the goal of ending chronic homelessness. 

The proposals to consolidate the Homeless Assistance Grant programs would address the needs identified by the lessons learned over the past 20 years. 

1. An increased focus on prevention activities including the development of discharge planning protocols, research, and innovations will forward the national objectives on homelessness. Prevention stops the human tragedy before it begins and is 

less costly than homelessness. 

2. The focus on permanent housing and the targeting by HUD and the Congress 

is the right direction to reduce and end homelessness. Prioritizing McKinney resources to create and access permanent supportive housing makes sense. 

3. Cost benefit analyses continue to demonstrate that housing and supportive 

service solutions for chronic homelessness may be less expensive than this population randomly ricocheting through the homeless system and expensive mainstream health and law enforcement systems. 

4. Coordination at the local level of all relevant local government, nonprofit, and 

private sector players is key to making Continuum of Care funding and 10-year jurisdictional plans successful. 

5. Coordination of Federal investments ensures that each agency initiative is supporting a national strategy. Cooperation of Federal agencies ensures that such investments are monitored for evidence based results. 

Conclusion 

Across the Nation, localities in partnership with all stakeholders, public and private, have been reenergized on the issue of ending homelessness in their communities. The mind set across our country has changed in the past few years. The creation of State Interagency Councils on Homelessness and jurisdictional 10-Year 

Plans have stimulated this new sense and provided a nexus point for their joint impact. The commitments of Federal agencies to new initiatives and new investments 

have provided inspiration. HUD’s partnerships in the field, especially through the 

Continuum of Care, have offered resources and coordination among providers. The 

Continuum of Care process would be strengthened by consolidation of programs 

with an even greater focus on local collaborations and prevention of homelessness. 

There is now a national intent to end the disgrace of homelessness beginning with 

chronic homelessness, visible on our streets and in our shelters. We have much 

work to do, but we are better prepared and equipped than ever before. 

32

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAIL DORFMAN

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN

MARCH 30, 2006

Chairman Allard, Senator Reed, and Members of the Committee, I am Gail 

Dorfman, County Commissioner from Hennepin County, Minnesota, and the City of 

Minneapolis. I am honored to address the Committee this afternoon on the reauthorization of McKinney-Vento and the consolidation of HUD programs for the 

homeless. I first want to remember former Minnesota Congressman Bruce Vento, 

who throughout his life of public service was dedicated to improving the lives of people experiencing homelessness. Congressman Vento left us too soon, but left behind 

a legacy of working effectively on behalf of America’s homeless, a legacy that will 

not be forgotten. 

I applaud you, Mr. Chair and Senator Reed, for introducing the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2005. Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento is 

critical if we are to change the paradigm from managing homelessness to ending 

homelessness in our communities. Yesterday, we began an intensive 100 day effort 

to develop a Blueprint for Ending Homelessness in Minneapolis and Hennepin 

County. Mr. Mangano joined us as leaders from the public and private sectors, nonprofit and philanthropic communities and the homeless came together to commit to 

ending homelessness over the next 10 years. In partnership with the Federal Government and our State government, we will be successful, and we will do it before 

the 10 years is up. 

In Hennepin County, we well remember what it was like before McKinney-Vento. 

Our shelters were overflowing and we were vouchering families into more than 100 

hotel and motel rooms across the Twin Cities every night. Our average shelter stays 

were three times what they are today and an alarming number of families were cycling in and out of shelter on a regular basis. McKinney-Vento has helped to dramatically improve upon this situation by supporting results-oriented programs. Additionally, through our partnership with the Federal Government, we have been 

able to leverage significant amounts of local dollars—$12.4 million in 2005 alone. 

Together, we have ended homelessness for thousands of men, women, children, and 

unaccompanied youth. 

Over the past two decades we have learned a great deal in Hennepin County 

about what does and does not work to end homelessness. We no longer look to shelters as the solution. Instead, we focus on preventing people from becoming homeless 

whenever possible and rapidly rehousing them if they do. It costs 10 times more to 

house and resettle a homeless family than to prevent them from losing their housing in the first place. Through the support of McKinney-Vento funds, we have established one of the best family homeless prevention models in the country. In Hennepin County, we work hard to keep people in the housing they have. We have 

learned that prevention is the best and most cost-effective way to end homelessness. 

When families do become homeless, we work with them through our Rapid Exit 

program to quickly place and support them in permanent housing. Rapid Exit is a 

supportive services program funded by HUD and is listed on HUD’s website as a 

national best practice for its excellent results and low cost. Through Rapid Exit, 

Hennepin County contracts with highly effective community-based organizations to 

support both clients and landlords, providing housing stabilization assistance while 

maximizing mainstream resources. They provide on-going case management to help 

clients resolve personal issues that are barriers to housing while also building on 

the strengths of their clients. As one provider told me, ‘‘Most homeless people are 

survivors! They have the innate strength to be successful and we encourage them 

to use that strength.’’ The case managers also assist landlords in resolving issues 

that place the client’s housing in jeopardy, cosign leases, and provide financial and 

legal assistance. Providers serving as intermediaries with private landlords are the 

single most effective way to recruit and maintain landlords willing to rent to highbarrier tenants. 

Our 2005 results far exceeded expectations. During this 1 year period, 588 families and 48 chronically homeless adults were placed into housing by Rapid Exit. Of 

the 588 families, 94 percent remained out of shelter for at least 12 months. Of the 

48 chronically homeless, 79 percent remained out of shelter for at least 6 months. 

Additionally, 30 percent of the families and 60 percent of the individuals increased 

their incomes during the first 6 months in their new housing. 

Through the expansion of our prevention efforts and the Rapid Exit program, we 

have also seen dramatic reductions in the average length of stays in our family shelters and the number of parents and children sheltered per year. Between the years 

of 2000 and 2003, we saw a 47 percent decrease in length of shelter stays for famiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:49 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39712.TXT SBANK4 PsN: KEVIN
33

lies, a 42 percent decrease in the number of parents and children sheltered, and a 

70 percent decrease in the number of shelter beds purchased per year. These kinds 

of results highlight the importance of innovative, results-oriented practices and our 

on-going partnership with the Federal Government through McKinney-Vento. 

The numbers are good, but the personal stories are the best, like the single mom 

from Illinois who fled from an abusive relationship with her four children and came 

to our county shelter. She struggled with finding work, caring for her children, and 

getting them to school on-time. Our Rapid Exit worker helped locate a job and an 

apartment she could afford. Now 10 years later, she owns her own modest home, 

two of the children have graduated high school and are attending college, and she 

still calls her case manager every 6 months to proudly report on her success. 

The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act will bring us another step 

forward in our quest to end homelessness and provide stable housing for every 

member of our community. We support the consolidation of McKinney-Vento programs, the noncompetitive renewal of rent/operating subsidies for permanent housing, the 30 percent permanent set aside for individuals and families with disabilities, and the recognition of the critical importance of prevention. We are, however, 

concerned with the proposal to curtail certain services after 3 years. It is critical 

that services that directly support housing placement, coordination with private 

landlords, and housing stabilization remain intact. Our Rapid Exit program depends 

on McKinney-Vento to ensure our continued success—and this, our most effective 

McKinney-Vento program, would be at risk of termination. Last, we support increased flexibility within McKinney-Vento funding streams. The more creative we 

can be at the local level, the more likely we will be able to end homelessness for 

people in our communities. 

We know what works to end homelessness in our communities. Prevention, Rapid 

Exit, and supportive housing are key ingredients to keeping people in housing rather than in shelters and on the streets. Reauthorization of McKinney-Vento is critical 

to our success. I am confident that we will end homelessness in Hennepin County 

by continuing our strong local, State, and Federal partnership. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. BERG

VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS AND POLICY,

NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS

MARCH 30, 2006

The National Alliance to End Homelessness would like to thank Chairman Allard 

and Senator Reed for holding this hearing, for inviting us to testify, and for introducing S. 1801, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act. We are looking forward to continuing our cooperative work with this Subcommittee. 

We are beginning to change the terms of the conversation about homelessness in 

the United States. Since the summer of 2000, when the National Alliance to End 

Homelessness made public its Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, many people 

around the country who for years had viewed homelessness as endemic are beginning to see that it is a problem with a solution. Over 220 cities, counties, and States 

have publicly committed the energy to adopt local and State plans to end homelessness. Congress and the Administration have established goals of solving important 

pieces of this problem. Major national media outlets have covered the issue, stressing the solution-oriented approaches that communities have adopted. And a small 

number of leading communities, those that over several years have carried out 

commonsensical reforms to their approach, are showing quantifiable declines in the 

number of homeless people, even while the numbers go up in most places. 

In this context of change and opportunity, we will discuss the most important lessons we have learned about homelessness in recent years, the kinds of responses 

that lead to solutions, and the importance of this bill in moving to the next level 

of progress. 

What We have Learned about Homelessness 

Over the past 20 years of concerted efforts to address homelessness, and particularly over the past 5 years as we have worked to change our approach to the issue, 

we have improved our understanding and programmatic know-how. The following 

are our most important insights. 

HUD McKinney-Vento programs are effective and useful. Often when Congress 

sets out to reauthorize a program, it is because of a perception that something is 

broken. That is not the case here. As they have evolved over the past decade under 

34

both Republican and Democratic leadership, the HUD homelessness programs are 

effective tools in helping communities. In reauthorizing the programs, Congress, instead of fixing a broken system, is in a position to take an already strong program 

and jumpstart a new phase of development, looking toward using these programs 

to drive a widespread effort to solve the problem of homelessness. 

Managing homelessness and taking care of homeless people is essential. Homelessness is damaging to people and communities. It must be regarded as an emergency 

situation that requires a strong response. The basic survival needs of homeless people must continue to be met. 

At the same time, we now have the know-how to do more, to end homelessness—

it is a problem with a solution. The solution to this expensive and dispiriting problem is more apparent. It involves four elements: Outcome-based planning using reliable data; preventing at-risk people from becoming homeless; more quickly moving 

homeless people back in to housing; and making some progress on housing affordability, incomes and the availability of support services to all low-income people. 

We are now at the point where a small number of leading communities have put 

these principles into action over the course of several years, and have achieved excellent outcomes in the form of reductions in homelessness. In Columbus, OH, family homelessness declined 53 percent between 1997 and 2004. In Hennepin County, 

MN (including Minneapolis), family homelessness declined by 43 percent between 

2000 and 2004. In San Francisco, chronic homelessness declined by 28 percent from 

2002 to 2005. In Westchester County, NY, family homelessness declined by 60 percent in 2 years. And in New York City, the number of homeless children declined 

by 19 percent in 1 year. As more cities develop reliable data systems tracking the 

number of homeless people, we expect to find similar results elsewhere. 

Solutions require aggressive steps by local communities, and Federal leadership in 

providing resources and incentives. Communities that have made the most progress 

have had strong leadership on the issue from elected officials, in order to develop 

a community-wide commitment to solving this problem. These communities have responded to Federal funding opportunities and incentives to use their funding in new 

ways. To bring these solutions to scale around the country, this national leadership 

is indispensable. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness has played an indispensable part in coordinating the Federal role and building strong collaborations 

between the Federal and other levels of government. 

The solution is about getting people housed as quickly as possible and keeping 

them housed. ‘‘Housing First’’ has become a watchword for many of the reforms. 

Many homeless people have problems, some of them extremely severe. Yet, in nearly 

all cases, the problems are better solved after people are provided with housing, 

whether they be stabilizing a mental illness, conquering an addiction, improving 

earning power, or strengthening family relationships. Trying to solve these problems 

for people while they are homeless is extremely difficult. 

Interestingly, Housing First is responsive to the expressed desires of homeless 

people. When asked in a major Federal survey what would be most helpful to them, 

the most common responses by far from homeless people were help finding housing, 

and help finding a job so they could afford housing. 

The homeless system cannot do it by itself. Mainstream systems and indeed the entire community need to make it their project. Collaboration is key. The homeless system does not have the ability by itself to prevent people from becoming homeless 

on a large scale. Fortunately, by far the majority of people who become homeless 

are eligible for help from extensive systems of care directed toward low-income people in general. In fact, many who become homeless were previously residents of government-funded institutions—hospitals for people with mental illness, child welfare, 

and foster care agencies, jails and prisons. This provides the opportunity for government to do a better job of ensuring stable housing. 

The homeless services system also does not have the capacity to provide large 

quantities of new housing, at the scale necessary to end homelessness. The small 

amount of permanent housing that the homeless system can afford to fund must be 

directed toward those least likely to be housed in any other manner. Meanwhile, 

market-based approaches and mainstream housing programs must be used more aggressively and targeted toward those least able to afford housing without intervention. 

Homeless people are a diverse group and there need to be interventions appropriate 

to all. This is especially the case regarding how much supportive services are needed 

to get and keep people housed. The stereotype of a homeless person who lives on the 

streets year after year at the mercy of severe mental illness often combined with 

addiction is only too accurate for many people. Supportive housing, discussed below, 

is crucial for people who fit this pattern, and has excellent results. On the other 

hand, most people who experience homelessness have problems that are largely ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:49 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39712.TXT SBANK4 PsN: KEVIN
35

nomic in nature, combined with thin social supports. The help they need to achieve 

housing stability is relatively modest—communities have had very good results with 

programs that build relationships with local landlords, help people fix credit problems, and perhaps provide a small amount of financial help for security deposit and 

initial rent, with referral to mainstream programs that help with employment stability. 

The hardest to serve often do not get served. For most of the time the HUD McKinney-Vento programs have been in effect, a certain portion of the funding was explicitly directed by the Federal Government to permanent housing for homeless people 

with disabilities. The exception was a 5-year period in the late 1990’s, when HUD 

developed the ‘‘Continuum of Care’’ model allowing communities to exercise more 

centralized control over what projects would be funded. The Continuum of Care improved the system in many ways; but during this short period, spending on permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities fell precipitously. While it is unclear why this occurred, the possibilities include the difficulty of carrying out supportive housing projects, particular the difficulties siting permanent housing for people with mental illness, a well-documented phenomenon. The bipartisan enactment 

by Congress of a floor of 30 percent on spending for permanent housing brought the 

system back into balance. 

The Right Models are Proven Cost-Effective Interventions that Work 

Leading communities are already answering the question of the right kinds of 

models that flow from these lessons. The following describes the most effective approaches. 

Supportive Housing. ‘‘Supportive housing’’ is a generic term describing housing 

where the rent is subsidized, and where treatment and support services are provided to those who live in the housing. This kind of housing can include everything 

from large apartment buildings dedicated to this use, to scattered site programs 

where rent subsidies are paid to for-profit landlords and visiting teams provide services and treatment. 

This model is particularly designed for homeless people with the most severe 

problems, including mental illness and addiction. Careful research has demonstrated that such housing can be provided to homeless people with mental illness 

at virtually no cost to the taxpayer, because people who leave the streets in favor 

of supportive housing reduce sharply their use of expensive emergency services such 

as psychiatric emergency hospitals and detoxification facilities, as well as jails and 

shelters. 

The proven success of permanent supportive housing has driven the campaign to 

end chronic (long-term) homelessness. The research on homelessness and housing 

for people with mental illness has provided strong incentives to State mental health 

systems to prevent homelessness among their clientele. A push to rehouse those who 

are already homeless can reduce the incidence of homelessness among people with 

severe mental illnesses to minimal levels. 

Emerging conclusions on families. Approximately half a million families with children become homeless in the United States each year, and a similar number leave 

homelessness each year and reenter housing. But at any given time approximately 

100,000 families are homeless, staying in shelters, ‘‘welfare hotels,’’ cars, abandoned 

buildings and outside. Because of the greater numbers and the wider range of circumstances, a scenario for ending family homelessness has been more difficult to 

develop than has a solution for chronic homelessness. Thanks to the leadership of 

communities like Minneapolis, Columbus, and New York, however, the scenario is 

becoming increasingly clear. 

Because of high rates of entry into and exit from the homeless system among families, prevention is especially important. Successful prevention programs involve outreach to find families that are on the brink of homelessness; work with landlords 

and short-term financial assistance to stave off evictions; and social and employment services to stabilize circumstances and improve incomes and the ability to pay 

rent. Some communities target these resources to neighborhoods from which homeless families most often arrive in the shelter system. In New York City, shelter 

entry data is fed back to prevention programs to help tailor outreach and services 

to the kinds of families that are being missed. 

Housing First is a key element for progress on ending homelessness for families. 

It involves developing close working relations with landlords, combined with financial assistance so that homeless families can be quickly placed into housing. The 

vast majority of families that experience homelessness are facing problems of an 

economic nature—they are those with the lowest incomes, and probably those that 

lack strong social support networks. Interventions that focus on these barriers are 

the most effective. 

36

Services after placement in housing are another piece of the puzzle for families. 

Services must be evaluated based on their impact on housing stability. Intensive 

employment services are used in the most successful communities, so that families 

can afford rent. The ability to intervene if there are landlord-tenant problems is effective. 

Finally, data and planning are essential in communities that are succeeding at 

ending family homelessness. Data systems identify cost-effective solutions, help finetune interventions, and allow a focus on performance. 

Recognizing different issues in rural areas. There are significant problems of 

homelessness in rural areas. While the basic approaches of prevention and rapid rehousing apply in rural areas, they will take different forms. Few rural communities 

will be able to support programs dedicated exclusively to addressing homelessness—

many will rely on structures that address poverty or development more generally. 

Market-based approaches to housing the lowest-income people will be particularly 

important. 

System-level outcome orientation. The most important reforms are taking place at 

the level of local systems. Leaders have put into place outcome-based systems that 

reward individual programs for achieving the best results. A key intervention has 

been a system of matching individual homeless people and families to programs that 

provide a level of support services that is appropriate—enough to overcome barriers 

to housing stability, while not so much as to hamper cost-effectiveness or delay exit 

from the homeless system. 

This Bill is a Positive Reaction to this Know-How 

The approach to McKinney-Vento reauthorization that is adopted by the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act would have a positive impact. 

The existing program combines the best aspects of a block grant and a competitive 

program, and the bill improves both parts. As noted recently by the Office of Management and Budget, the HUD homelessness programs combine the best aspects of 

a block grant and a competitive program. This bill would improve both aspects. 

The bill simplifies the system by consolidating three programs. It provides communities with more flexibility. It gives communities the resources and authority to 

move their homeless system in the direction it needs to go in order to get better 

results. 

At the same time, the bill makes the overall program more outcome-oriented. It 

provides financial rewards to communities that work most effectively and achieve 

the best results. 

The bill provides the necessary incentives to meet the needs of the hardest to serve.

The bill retains the approach adopted through the appropriations process for the 

past 8 years, requiring that 30 percent of appropriated funds nationwide be used 

for permanent housing for people with disabilities. This is a balanced approach that 

ensures that the most severely disabled homeless people will secure what they need, 

while leaving substantial resources for other parts of the homeless population. 

The bill includes an appropriate balance between getting people housed and meeting emergency needs. As has been HUD’s practice in recent years, the bill allows 

15 percent of appropriated funds to the Emergency Shelter Grants program; and allows the use of bonuses to communities that develop permanent housing. For the 

first time, the bill allows program funds to be used for permanent housing for homeless people without disabilities. 

The bill includes strong incentives for collaboration and involvement of mainstream funding. The criteria for competitive awards includes the ability to involve 

mainstream systems in planning and coordination, and to leverage mainstream dollars as part of the homelessness system. This approach, already used by HUD in 

its administration of the current programs, has a great impact on improving the 

quality of the system. 

The bill allows additional investment in prevention. It retains prevention as an 

eligible activity for the Emergency Shelter Grants program, while allowing a small 

portion of the competitive grant programs to also be used for prevention. It is extremely important nonetheless to avoid encouraging communities to see preventing 

homelessness as the exclusive responsibility of homelessness programs, rather than 

mainstream programs. 

There are Issues that will Require Further Exploration 

Does the capacity exist at the local level to undertake the planning, evaluation, and 

other functions? Is the funding for those activities appropriate? The bill increases the 

expectations places on those entities that run the local homeless systems, and provides additional administrative funding. Consultation with local communities should 

37

1See Appendix for a summary description of Volunteers homeless programs in States represented by Members of the Subcommittee. 

focus on whether capacity exists for immediate implementation of these expectations, and whether the amount of administrative funding is sufficient. 

Does the bill have appropriate expectations regarding leveraging other resources?

Matching requirement in the current system are a hodgepodge of different requirements. The bill simplifies this system with a uniform requirement of a 25 percent 

cash match for each program operator. The important thing is to ensure that clients 

have access to mainstream services. It is less important that the cash to pay for 

those services pass through the bank account of the entity operating the HUD-funded program. There has been support in Congress for a provision allowing the value 

of in-kind services to count toward a match requirement where there is a memorandum of understanding with the entity providing the services. Solutions such as 

this should be explored. 

Does the bill take the right approach to the need for capital, housing operating 

funding, and services including rehousing services? The provision of the bill limiting 

program funding of support services after 3 years has proven to be controversial, 

especially in light of growing understanding of how support services stabilize housing for homeless people. The percentage of HUD homeless funding going toward 

support services has declined since earlier versions of this bill were introduced. 

Meanwhile, there have been no new Federal initiatives to provide new funding for 

support services for homeless people. Revisiting these provisions may be appropriate. 

It is important to note that a bipartisan bill, the Services to End Long-Term 

Homelessness Act, has been introduced. This bill would partially solve the problem 

of insufficient resources for support services for homeless people, by creating a funding stream from the Department of Health and Human Services that would match 

up well with the HUD services that are the subject of this bill. The National Alliance to End Homelessness strongly supports SELHA. 

Conclusion 

The National Alliance to End Homelessness is proud to support the Community 

Partnership to End Homelessness Act. We look forward to continued debate to allow 

all affected interests to be heard. We believe that such a consensus-oriented approach can produce a final product that would move our collective efforts on homelessness forward, while attracting support from a wide range of interests. A real opportunity exists to make progress. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. GOULD

NATIONAL PRESIDENT, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA

MARCH 30, 2006

Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify this afternoon. My name is Charles W. Gould, 

and I serve as the National President of Volunteers of America. 

Volunteers of America is a national, nonprofit, faith-based organization that is 

dedicated to helping those in need rebuild their lives and reach their full potential. 

Through thousands of human service programs, including housing and healthcare, 

Volunteers of America helps nearly 2 million people in over 400 communities. Since 

1896, our ministry of service has supported and empowered America’s most vulnerable groups, including at-risk youth, the frail elderly, men and women returning 

from prison, homeless individuals and families, people with disabilities, and those 

recovering from addictions. Our work touches the mind, body, heart—and ultimately 

the spirit—of those we serve, integrating our deep compassion with highly effective 

programs and services. 

In the context of today’s hearing, our interventions both prevent and end homelessness, in urban and rural communities across the country. Last year, we provided 

assistance to over 80,000 homeless children, youth, and adults. We are working to 

end homelessness in almost every State represented by a Senator on this Subcommittee—and on the full Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.1

As the only representative of a homeless service provider testifying today, my 

comments and recommendations reflect the views of our staff from around the country—the people who are on the ground, every day, working to end homelessness. I 

will begin with lessons learned in the 20 years since the passage of the McKinneyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:49 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39712.TXT SBANK4 PsN: KEVIN
38

Vento Act, and from those lessons will draw a series of recommendations for how 

to most effectively reform the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) homeless programs. We have a significant opportunity before us—

the opportunity to closely reexamine every portion of the McKinney-Vento programs, 

and of the Federal, State, and local partnership to prevent and end homelessness. 

We should take advantage of that opportunity. 

McKinney-Vento’s housing programs have not been reauthorized since 1994. Since 

that time, Volunteers of America has significantly broadened our understanding of 

how to provide cost-effective housing and supportive service interventions to prevent 

and end homelessness for all populations. Based on this understanding, the time is 

right for a complete reauthorization and streamlining of HUD’s McKinney-Vento 

programs. By consolidating current programs, broadening the list of eligible activities, focusing on homelessness prevention and expanding the population to whom 

housing and services can be provided, reauthorization will allow local communities 

to take full advantage of the best practices developed over the past 20 years. 

Reauthorization will also ensure that Congress makes important decisions about 

the structure and emphasis of Federal homeless programs. Over the past 12 years, 

lack of input from Congress has led to HUD making significant policy changes 

through the annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process. Volunteers of 

America has not always been comfortable with this approach, which has often appeared to be ‘‘legislation by NOFA.’’ Making abrupt policy changes in a February 

or March NOFA, with applications due in May, does not allow communities the certainty and consistency they need to implement long-term plans to end homelessness. 

Twenty Years of McKinney-Vento—Lessons Learned 

I want to highlight three important lessons that Volunteers of America has 

learned in the 20-year period since McKinney-Vento was first passed: (1) McKinneyVento programs are no substitute for ‘‘mainstream’’ housing and social service programs or systems of care; (2) Family homelessness has significantly increased; and 

(3) Both permanent and transitional housing can be effective tools to end homelessness. I will follow my discussion of these ‘‘lessons learned’’ with Volunteers of America’s policy recommendations for S. 1801—the reauthorization bill that is currently 

before this Subcommittee. 

McKinney-Vento Programs are no Substitute for ‘‘Mainstream’’ Housing and

Social Service Programs or Systems of Care 

Americans are homeless for many reasons. However, over the past 20 years it has 

become clear to Volunteers of America that many people become homeless due to 

the failure of Federal and State ‘‘mainstream’’ programs or systems of care to meet 

their needs. These ‘‘mainstream’’ programs and systems can be defined as interventions designed to assist all low-income Americans—not just persons experiencing 

homelessness. 

In recent years, we have discovered just how these programs can contribute directly to homelessness. Here are some examples. When funding for Section 8 and 

other affordable housing programs is reduced, and affordability requirements on 

other housing units are allowed to expire, individuals and families will not find alternative affordable housing in their communities, and many will become homeless. 

When eligible low-income persons are incorrectly denied Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) ‘‘welfare’’ or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability 

benefits, they lose their ability to afford housing, and many will become homeless. 

When people are discharged from mental health or substance abuse treatment facilities, jails, prisons, or foster care, and no provisions are made to ensure that they 

receive appropriate housing and healthcare, many of them will become homeless. 

And when people cannot access mental health or substance abuse treatment, they 

lose jobs and other social supports. Many of these people will become homeless. 

Unfortunately, none of these statements are hypothetical. Over the past 20 years, 

we have repeatedly seen funding cuts for affordable housing programs, incorrect denials of eligibility for public assistance, lack of discharge planning, and inability to 

access community based services—and these failures of ‘‘mainstream’’ programs 

have directly resulted in homelessness. 

Ensuring access to public benefits and treatment, and ensuring adequate discharge planning, is costly and complicated—there is no question about it. However, 

the moral and economic cost of not doing so is far greater. Intervening to end homelessness is considerably more expensive than ensuring that we prevent it, and preventing homelessness must be our primary social objective—so no individual or family spends time on the street or in emergency shelter. 

39

Family Homelessness has Significantly Increased 

When the McKinney-Vento Act was first passed, homelessness was viewed mainly 

as an urban issue—a problem of people, mainly single individuals, living on the 

streets. And as all of us who live here in Washington, DC know, we do not have 

to go more than a block or two away from the Dirksen building to see that street 

homelessness continues to exist. There is no question that we must do a better job 

of ending homelessness for people who live outdoors. 

But what we have seen over the last 20 years is that there is another face of 

homelessness—both in cities around the country, and in suburban and rural areas. 

Much of this population consists of homeless families with young children. We now 

know that each year, over one million children are homeless. Homeless children lag 

behind their housed peers in almost every significant indicator of child well-being, 

including early childhood development, educational performance, health, and well 

being. As a result, many of these children are likely to grow up to be the next generation of low income, poorly housed, and homeless adults. We must reform HUD’s 

homeless programs to take better care of our Nation’s homeless families, while continuing to seek an end to street homelessness. 

Many of these families enter emergency shelters, and eventually receive transitional housing or other assistance. However, too many homeless families remain on 

the margins. In rural areas and many suburbs, emergency shelters may not exist 

or may be full. In urban areas where shelters do exist, parents often do not want 

to subject their children to overcrowded congregate living facilities. These families 

are doubled up with friends or family, or living in short term inexpensive hotels or 

motels. Nobody would choose to live in these hotels or motels—whole families must 

coexist in one room, with no cooking facilities, no access to public transportation, 

and no place for children to play. Families move back and forth between these settings, making it almost impossible to keep children in school. Make no mistake 

about it—these living situations are involuntary, and these families are homeless. 

HUD’s homeless programs must assist them. 

Both Permanent and Transitional Housing can be Effective Tools to End

Homelessness 

In 1987, many people believed that homelessness could be ended by providing 

emergency shelter that would allow people to ‘‘get back on their feet.’’ Today, Volunteers of America understands that this generalization does not apply to most homeless populations. 

There is no question that 10 to 15 percent of homeless persons have severe disabilities, due to physical, mental, and substance use impairments. Both single 

adults and families with children can be found among this population. Many members of this group have spent significant time living on the streets or in emergency 

shelters, and under today’s terminology are identified as ‘‘long-term’’ or ‘‘chronically’’ 

homeless. The ‘‘chronic’’ homeless population needs permanent supportive housing—

a combination of housing and intensive services where individuals and families are 

not time limited, and can remain for as long as they need to. 

Volunteers of America is a major provider of permanent supportive housing. And 

in response to the Federal initiative to end ‘‘chronic’’ homelessness, we are working 

to produce more—in partnership with groups like the Corporation for Supportive 

Housing. This initiative must continue. However, permanent supportive housing addresses the needs of no more than 15 percent of the homeless population. Volunteers 

of America is equally committed to intervening on behalf of the other 85 percent 

of homeless Americans, and our reauthorization recommendations will detail ways 

in which HUD’s homeless programs can be realigned to best serve this large and 

ever growing group. 

Although some members of every homeless sub-population will need permanent 

supportive housing with intensive services, a large group will not. Many single 

homeless adults and homeless families with children fall into this category. Still 

others are runaway youth, or youth aging out of foster care. It is easy to say that 

all these individuals and families need is access to ‘‘affordable housing’’—although 

such housing does not exist in most communities. And indeed, in some cases, this 

is accurate. 

Volunteers of America is a leading provider of quality affordable housing, and we 

have made affordable housing development and preservation our top organizational 

priority. We urge the Banking Committee to help us make good on this commitment, by supporting the creation of an ‘‘Affordable Housing Fund’’ through the GSE 

reform bill—S. 200. By helping Volunteers of America and other nonprofits provide 

new units of affordable housing, passing this legislation would result in a decrease 

in homelessness. 

40

But many of these homeless individuals and families can benefit from a shorterterm intervention that comes with supportive services. That intervention, in most 

cases, is transitional housing. Transitional housing is limited to 2 years, and focuses 

on providing individuals and families with the support they need to become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Administration and many advocacy organizations have been critical of transitional housing, asserting that it amounts to 

managing homelessness—not ending it. This assertion could not be more incorrect. 

Transitional housing, in fact, is an extremely successful and cost-effective way to 

provide individuals and families with the helping hand they need to obtain stable 

permanent housing through the private market or through mainstream HUD subsidized housing programs. Given the limited funds available to homeless assistance 

programs, reducing the role of transitional housing in ending homelessness is unwise. 

It is important to understand that transitional housing has significantly evolved 

since 1987. Years ago, transitional housing meant congregate living without as 

many supportive services as are provided today. Individuals or families with different needs were put into the same programs. As a result, many people ended a 

2-year housing placement having no more ability to secure permanent housing than 

they did upon program entry. 

Now, however, ‘‘best practice’’ transitional housing looks different. If housing is 

provided at a single site, it is usually in the form of individual apartments, with 

their own living and cooking facilities. And transitional housing providers have specialized services interventions for different populations—families fleeing domestic violence, families with a parent who is returning from incarceration or from mental 

health or substance use treatment, homeless veterans needing job training, or youth 

who have either run away from unstable family situations or aged out of foster care. 

In many cases, transitional housing is provided in scattered site apartments 

where tenants remain permanently housed without McKinney-Vento funded subsidies after 2 years—a model called ‘‘transition in place.’’ This model is successful 

at ending homelessness, and when rental subsidies move to a new individual or 

family at least every 2 years (often much more frequently), it is cost effective for 

HUD by allowing limited funding to benefit more people. A consolidated homeless 

program must incentivize this efficient housing intervention. 

Volunteers of America Policy Proposals for S. 1801—The Community

Partnership To End Homelessness Act of 2005

I wish to thank Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and other Members of 

the Subcommittee for the hard work they have put into the drafting of S. 1801—

the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2005. Volunteers of America believes that S. 1801 provides a strong framework for the reauthorization discussion that we have engaged in over the past several years, and continue to engage 

in today. The following policy proposals are indicative of our strong support for particular provisions of S. 1801, while also offering recommendations for significant improvements to the bill. 

Support Cost Effective Homelessness Prevention Initiatives 

Volunteers of America strongly supports the provisions of S. 1801 relating to 

homelessness prevention. The first of two provisions would continue to allow up to 

5 percent of Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) (distributed to States and localities) 

to be used for homelessness prevention by providing short-term rental assistance to 

avoid evictions. The second provision would allow 5 percent of CHAP funds to be 

spent on a broader array of prevention activities—including eviction prevention, relocation assistance for people being discharged from public institutions, assistance 

in reunifying homeless youth with their families, and aid to help reconnect homeless 

children in the child welfare system with their parents and guardians. 

Homelessness prevention is both better for people and financially less costly than 

allowing individuals and families to live on the streets or in emergency shelter—

we are pleased to see that this understanding has been adopted in the drafting of 

S. 1801. 

Prevent Discharges into Homelessness 

HUD funded permanent housing has long served applicants coming from the 

streets, emergency shelter, transitional housing, and treatment programs or other 

institutions. However, in the 2005 NOFA HUD announced that future permanent 

housing renewal projects would only be able to accept residents coming from transitional housing if they originally came from emergency shelter or from the streets. 

This prevents permanent supportive housing projects from housing individuals who 

may have become homeless after being discharged from jails, prisons, alcohol or 

drug treatment programs, or other public institutions. In order to receive permanent 

41

housing assistance, people leaving these settings would first have to suffer the indignity of becoming homeless, by living on the streets or in an emergency shelter—

even if a permanent housing bed was immediately available. 

Volunteers of America believes that this policy change is unwise—particularly 

since HUD has recently released an exploratory study on homeless prevention which 

found that one of the most effective strategies was ‘‘supportive services coupled with 

permanent housing, particularly when coupled with effective discharge from institutions.’’ We know that reentry housing prevents homelessness—HUD should encourage it, not disfavor it. 

In addition, this HUD policy weakens community control over who can be assisted 

through local homeless programs. Since local service providers and advocates best 

understand who is homeless and in need of assistance in their cities and towns, a 

policy that ties their hands contributes to inefficient use of scarce homeless program 

resources. 

Provide Service Providers with the Flexibility Needed to Assist All Homeless

Populations 

In keeping with our strong support for keeping homeless individuals and families 

from ever having to live on the streets or enter emergency homeless shelters, Volunteers of America has long believed that McKinney-Vento’s definition of who is homeless should be expanded to include people who are living in doubled up situations, 

or in hotels or motels, solely due to the lack of adequate alternative housing. We 

support this change by virtue of what our local office staff from around the country 

tell us. They report that their Continuums of Care would like to provide assistance 

to individuals and families living in these precarious situations—before they are 

forced onto the streets or into a shelter. However, under the current definition of 

homelessness, they must wait. S. 1801, as currently drafted, does not address this 

issue. 

It is important to realize that living doubled up or in a hotel or motel is not a 

safe or stable situation, where an individual or family might choose to remain for 

lengthy periods of time. Instead, doubled up families often bounce between the 

homes of various friends and relatives—never staying in one place for more than 

a month or two—before they wear out their welcome and are forced to move on. This 

highly mobile and unstable lifestyle is particularly difficult for children—it leads directly to poor educational achievement and behavioral problems. Expansion of the 

definition of homelessness would allow communities who have large numbers of 

these highly mobile families to provide them with the assistance necessary to enter 

stable housing. 

Include Homeless Families in the Definition of ‘‘Chronic’’ Homelessness 

HUD’s current definition of ‘‘chronic’’ homelessness permits only single individuals 

to be considered under that category. This definition, however, does not appear in 

McKinney-Vento—it was created by the Administration. Volunteers of America 

strongly urges Congress to codify an amended definition. Such an amendment would 

expand the definition of ‘‘chronic’’ homelessness to include families where either the 

head of household or a child in the household is disabled. 

As currently worded, S. 1801 would only include families with disabled heads of 

household. Volunteers of America supports this language, as does almost every 

homeless advocacy or service organization. When an adult meets the criteria for 

being ‘‘chronically’’ homeless, why should that person not be able to receive permanent housing assistance, simply because they are living with one or more minor children. If anything, the presence of a child in the household creates an additional reason to provide that family with permanent housing. 

Volunteers of America would also go slightly farther, to include families where the 

disabled individual is a child. Like other families who have been homeless repeatedly or for one lengthy stretch, these families need long-term housing and supports. 

We should give communities the flexibility to provide them with permanent housing, 

if the need for such housing can be demonstrated. 

Incentivize Successful Permanent and Transitional Housing 

Volunteers of America believes that HUD homeless programs should incentivize 

a range of housing interventions that are successful at ending homelessness. Currently, HUD has administratively chosen to provide significant incentives for the development of permanent housing through McKinney-Vento. The permanent housing 

‘‘bonus’’ essentially diverts all new funding for the homeless programs into a bonus 

for communities who develop permanent housing for ‘‘chronic’’ homeless individuals. 

We support S. 1801’s continued incentives for permanent housing, which maintain 

the current bonus, while adding a bonus for permanent housing to assist non disabled homeless families. However, Volunteers of America would add an additional 

42

activity that is eligible for bonus money—cost effective transitional housing targeted 

to particularly vulnerable populations. These populations could include families 

leaving domestic violence situations, parents reuniting with children leaving foster 

care, or families with extremely young children. In addition—Volunteers of America 

believes that receipt of bonus money in a community, for a particular type of housing, must be conditioned on the community’s ability to demonstrate, through their 

required gaps and needs analysis, that there is a need for such housing. 

These changes will balance the current bonus structure, where permanent supportive housing for single ‘‘chronic’’ homeless individuals is the only eligible activity. 

Because every community can use additional homeless program funding, this structure pressures communities that do not have a significant ‘‘chronic’’ homeless population to ‘‘write to the grant’’ and devise projects to serve that population, simply 

to get bonus money. It would be a far more effective use of Federal funds to provide 

bonus money that meets demonstrated local needs. 

Ensure Continued Access to Supportive Services 

It is well established that ending homelessness requires a combination of housing 

and supportive services. This is why in 1987 McKinney-Vento authorized HUD to 

fund services, and why HUD has consistently done so. In recent years, HUD has 

undertaken significant efforts to fund more housing, and fewer services. Provisions 

contained in S. 1801 would go too far in continuing this trend. 

S. 1801 would allow the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to make a determination, 3 years after enactment, that certain Federal mainstream services programs (such as the Substance Abuse and/or Mental Health Block Grants) were receiving additional funds. If that determination occurred, the HUD Secretary would 

have discretion to stop funding supportive services not directly tied to maintaining 

housing—potentially to include mental health and substance abuse services. Volunteers of America does not believe that this is a wise policy. 

As I referenced earlier, mainstream programs do not serve homeless persons well. 

So additional funding for these programs does not mean that additional funds will 

go to homeless persons. Therefore, it is inappropriate to condition homeless program 

funding for services on how mainstream programs are funded. 

Volunteers of America would prefer to see HUD and HHS work together to determine an efficient way for HHS to fund additional supportive services for homeless 

programs. This solution would require additional resources, but would best achieve 

the goal of having HUD—the Federal Government’s housing agency—fund more 

housing. We regret that HUD and HHS have yet to reach agreement on this matter, 

and hope that the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) will be able 

to facilitate an accord. 

Require Coordinated Federal, State, and Local Planning to End All Homelessness 

Over the past 4 years, the USICH has strongly encouraged State and local governments to create plans to end ‘‘chronic’’ homelessness in 10 years. And in the just 

released HUD NOFA, Continuums of Care must coordinate their plans with these 

State and local plans if they want to receive the maximum number of points for 

strategic planning. 

Volunteers of America supports the idea of planning to end homelessness. We believe, however, that this planning must start with the creation of a Federal strategic 

plan to end homelessness—not just ‘‘chronic’’ homelessness but all homelessness. We 

are pleased that the development of such a plan, by the USICH is required under 

S. 1801. 

Similarly, we believe that it is a mistake for the USICH to insist that State and 

local plans focus only on ‘‘chronic’’ homelessness. If all levels of government are 

going to engage in planning around the issue of homelessness, then the resulting 

plans should focus on ending homelessness altogether—with specific strategies for 

‘‘chronic’’ homelessness, family homelessness, and youth homelessness, or homelessness among any other subpopulation found in that State or locality. 

This would allow State and local plans to be in alignment with the gaps and 

needs analysis that each Continuum of Care is required to prepare every year, and 

would alter the current inequitable system—under which communities with little to 

no ‘‘chronic’’ homelessness are still forced to plan for ending it, even as they receive 

little credit for demonstrating a need to assist other homeless populations and putting together a comprehensive strategy to meet that need. Volunteers of America 

strongly supports the provision in S. 1801 that would instruct the USICH to encourage these broader State and local plans to end all homelessness. 

We would also note that plans to end homelessness are only as good as the resources available to implement them. So while we are pleased that many local plans 

are succeeding in encouraging State, local, and private investment, we believe that 

43

the Federal Government must set an example by providing adequate funding for 

McKinney-Vento programs and ‘‘mainstream’’ housing and supportive services programs. 

Consolidate HUD’s Homeless Assistance Programs 

I will not devote significant time to this recommendation, as it appears to have 

nearly unanimous support—both in Congress and among service providers and 

other homelessness advocates. But, in brief, HUD now operates three competitive 

homeless assistance programs—Shelter Plus Care (SPC), which provides permanent 

housing for individuals with disabilities and families where the head of household 

has a disability—Supportive Housing Program (SHP), which provides both transitional and permanent housing, as well as supportive services—and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, which provides funds to nonprofits. Nonprofits then combine 

these resources with Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) or some other source 

of housing production dollars, and rehabilitate buildings to be used as Single Room 

Occupancy (SRO) housing. 

Since both SPC and SHP have five sub-programs, program consolidation would 

take a total of 11 programs and turn them into one program—the Community 

Homeless Assistance Program (CHAP). This single program would have a lengthy 

list of eligible activities, allowing funds to be used for all current activities, and several new ones—including permanent housing for homeless families without a disabled head of household. Volunteers of America strongly supports this initiative, as 

proposed in S. 1801. 

Include Administrative Provisions to Help Service Providers 

I want to conclude by offering our strong support for several administrative 

changes to McKinney-Vento. S. 1801 as currently drafted requires a 25 percent cash 

match for almost all housing and supportive services programs funded through 

McKinney. As service providers, we would prefer that there be no match requirement. However, we understand the importance of having a match, in order to most 

efficiently leverage funds. But in order to make the match requirement less onerous, 

we recommend that a service provider be allowed to satisfy it either with cash or 

in-kind resources. In-kind contributions such as mental health, substance abuse, or 

other supportive services are of equal value to cash, and are often significantly easier to obtain. 

We also recommend that, as S. 1801 mandates, HUD be required to create a formal appeals process for communities who believe that the scoring of their NOFA 

applications was incorrect. Mistakes do happen, and there should be a formal process in place to correct them. The current system does not specify any appeal procedure, which means that appeals are made on an ad hoc basis, and there are no specified standards for evaluating them. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LOVE

PRESIDENT/CEO, COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS OF HOUSTON/HARRIS COUNTY, INC.

MARCH 30, 2006

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/

Harris County to testify in support of the reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act. 

The Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, known as the Coalition, 

is a private, nonprofit organization whose mission is to educate and advocate for the 

needs of persons who are homeless through support and the coordination of services. 

Founded in 1982, at the request of then-City of Houston Mayor Katherine Whitmire 

and then Harris County Judge Jon Lindsey, the Coalition was formed to support 

those entities that provide direct support to people that are homeless through advocacy, education, collaboration, and community partnerships. 

The Coalition currently serves as the lead coordinator for the local Continuum of 

Care system. We serve in this role through the support and partnership with the 

City of Houston and Harris County. This ‘‘Collaborative’’ was developed in 1992. The 

foundation of this process is based on two principle concepts, implementation and 

evaluation. Under the guidance and coordinating efforts of the Collaborative Continuum of Care approach, Houston/Harris County’s strategy became a model that 

HUD used to encourage other jurisdictions to develop. Last year, our local Continuum of Care provided funding for 27 agencies representing 62 programs/projects 

44

that span the spectrum of outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing and, of 

course, permanent housing. 

In Houston/Harris County, prior to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, there were 

12,000–14,000 men, women, and children without a place to call home on any given 

night. Last year, approximately 34,000 individuals accessed homeless services in our 

community. All of these services represent McKinney funded agencies that function 

as the existing system to exit homelessness in Houston/Harris County. Since 1992, 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Funding has been the major source of funding for the majority of homeless service agencies in Houston/Harris County. This 

funding has provided housing, employment, and other essential services to tens of 

thousands of individuals who have experienced homelessness in our community. 

McKinney-Vento for years has served as the impetus for collaboration and community solutions to ending homelessness. McKinney-Vento has enabled many communities to leverage millions of dollars in private funding and investment while also 

providing housing opportunities to thousands of low-income Americans who otherwise may not be able to afford housing of any sorts. On the other hand, the current 

bill being considered, would enhance the Acts’ ability to serve more people who are 

at risk of being homeless, realize that any reduction in HUD service dollars will not 

take place until adequate alternative funding is provided and expand who qualifies 

as chronically homeless. 

The Coalition supports this bill in its entirety, especially the following three 

items: 

Provision of Funding for Preventing Homelessness: By allowing communities to 

use up to 5 percent of their grant funding to prevent homelessness, a huge barrier 

to ending homelessness is significantly reduced. This provision truly provides a 

means of ‘‘closing the front door’’ to homelessness. A continuum is incomplete without prevention as a part of the Collaborative process to create a seamless system 

of service. 

Involvement of More Federal Agencies: One agency should not be expected to do 

it all or bear the burden of ending homelessness in our country. This measure ensures that multiple Federal agencies are involved in the provision of housing, 

healthcare, human services, employment, and other services as necessary and appropriate. Adjusting the role of the Interagency Council on Homelessness provides 

a nationally coordinated effort to complement local and State efforts. It also makes 

the issue of homelessness a national priority and serves as encouragement to local 

communities that this issue will remain important nationally. 

Broader Definition of Chronically Homeless: The current definition of chronically 

homeless is restrictive and disallows much needed services to individuals and families who also demand much from the current homeless assistance system. This new 

definition is more inclusive than the current definition because it includes families 

who have an adult head of household with a disabling condition, and people who 

are homeless other than only those that are sleeping in an emergency homeless 

shelter or in a place not meant for human habitation. This definition provides a 

more accurate picture of the individuals and families that are served by these community agencies every day. 

Again, the Coalition supports this legislation; however we are concerned about the 

25 percent match requirement and its possible effect on smaller non profits and 

their ability to apply for these funds. We are not opposed to this provision, but we 

are uneasy about the possible consequences and wonder aloud, what type of barrier 

does this requirement create for smaller agencies that perform at a high level with 

a smaller budget? 

Once again, I thank you for your invitation and this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Coalition. The Coalition supports your efforts to reauthorize the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the critical resources it will provide to communities in their efforts to end homelessness. 

—————

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS PATRICK CULHANE, Ph.D.

PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY AND PSYCHOLOGY,

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARCH 30, 2006

Chairman Allard, Ranking Member Reed, and distinguished Members of the Committee, the Committee is to be commended for the proposed bill reauthorizing of the 

McKinney-Vento Act. As you are aware, tremendous strides have been made in recent years, through both the appropriations process and HUD’s competition in oriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:49 Jan 09, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\39712.TXT SBANK4 PsN: KEVIN
45

enting the McKinney-Vento programs toward meeting the goal of reducing homelessness through the creation of permanent housing opportunities. Many thoughtful 

changes have been made to these programs which have collectively moved communities away from mere expansions in providing services to people in a state of homelessness, and toward a goal of reducing the number of people who experience homelessness. The bill under consideration is a significant milestone in meeting the nation’s obligations to the poorest and neediest among us. 

I am particularly supportive of the bill’s codifying into law the emphasis of using 

the McKinney-Vento programs to advance efforts to end chronic homelessness 

among single adults with disabilities. Research on the dynamics of homelessness 

among single adults has consistently shown that people experiencing chronic homelessness are costly users of emergency shelter, and costly users of acute care systems in health, public safety, and corrections. While adults who become chronically 

homeless may represent only 15 percent of adult shelter users over time, research 

indicates that they occupy more than half of the emergency shelter beds for adults 

in our cities, and account for a substantial majority of the people who live—and in 

some cases die—on our streets and in other public spaces. 

Research has further shown that investments in supportive housing targeted to 

this population in many cases can be fully offset by the reduced use of shelters, hospitals, emergency rooms, and jails. In the face of such evidence, it is difficult to justify a policy that spends so many resources essentially maintaining people in a state 

of homelessness, when those same resources can be leveraged for a solution to their 

plight. The bill’s provision for setting aside 30 percent of the McKinney-Vento resources for permanent housing programs for people who are chronically homeless 

makes moral and economic sense in light of these data, and the Committee is to 

be commended for requiring that communities continue to target significant Federal 

resources for this purpose. 

I have just a couple of concerns with the nature of the targeting suggested in the 

bill. The bill should include a requirement that adults who are chronically homeless 

also have to have a disability in order to qualify for the set-aside resources. Previous 

Federal efforts in this area, including priorities established through the appropriations process and HUD’s competition, have included a disability eligibility criterion 

for homeless adults. This targeting is based on the fact that the evidence of costeffectiveness is strongest for people with disabilities, and because research suggests 

that nearly all adults who experience chronic homelessness also have a disability. 

Without this further criterion, the bill could unintentionally encourage lengthy shelter stays alone as a means of accessing this limited housing benefit. 

My second concern centers on the inclusion of ‘‘chronically’’ homeless families in 

the eligible population for permanent supportive housing funded through this legislation. I am not aware of a research literature on family homelessness that supports 

the designation of ‘‘chronicity’’ among homeless families. Indeed, there are families 

who are homeless for long periods of time, and that is an issue deserving of redress. 

But it is not at all clear that long-term homelessness among families is best understood through a theoretical framework that was primarily intended to characterize 

a population of single adults who are so disabled and disenfranchised that—were 

it not for emergency shelter or supportive housing programs—they would live and 

even die on the streets. Without a doubt there are families among the homeless who 

have special needs, and who have disabled members, but segmenting this population 

from the larger population of homeless and near-homeless families, as is done in the 

proposed bill, could have unintended and long-term negative consequences, for both 

homeless families and the chronic homeless adult population. 

Research on family homelessness has not found that homeless families in general 

are significantly different from other poor families. This is not surprising, given that 

we now know that homelessness among families is fairly common—10 percent of 

poor children will experience homelessness each year, with a rate that is certainly 

much higher (perhaps twice as high) among families from disadvantage minorities, 

such as African-Americans. The extent of family homelessness, and its disruptive 

impact on children and their educations—irrespective of whether they are from a 

family with a disabled family member—cries out for a broader and more substantive 

policy solution than can be found within the very limited resource represented by 

the 30 percent set-aside of McKinney-Vento spending. 

Research has found that homeless families nearly universally respond positively 

to the receipt of rental assistance. Despite the many challenges a given family may 

face, nearly all homeless families end their homelessness, and do not recur into 

homelessness with the support of rental assistance. Current research in which I am 

engaged indicates that long-stay families reside in shelters for an average of 9 

months, at a cost of approximately $22,000 per family in Philadelphia. The same 

resource that provides 9 months in a shelter could provide those same families with 

46

the equivalent of 3 years of Federal housing assistance through the Section 8 program. Even the majority of families who’s average stay in shelters is less than 2 

months consume nearly $4,000 in emergency shelter resources, resources that could 

be much better spent providing families with an expedited exit out of homelessness 

and into housing. 

In many small and even quite substantial program and policy experiments around 

the country, communities are exploring the value of such ‘‘Housing First’’ programs 

as an alternative to shelter among homeless families (as well as singles). These programs embody the principle that no family should be chronically homeless, and, indeed, no family should be homeless for more than a brief period of time (that is 30 

days). To the extent that this Committee can do so, it should seek to encourage communities to explore how they can use these current resources, as well as their TANF 

programs and other Federal and local resources, to relocate families presenting as 

homeless as soon as possible, either through emergency relocation grants, or transitional rental assistance. 

The subsegment of families who need additional support services to maintain 

their housing, could and should receive those support services from mainstream 

child welfare and behavioral health systems. To the extent that permanent supportive housing is identified as necessary to prevent recurrent or long-term homelessness among some families, communities should be encouraged to convert their 

existing transitional housing programs—most of which are currently not targeted to 

families with special needs—to this purpose. In their current untargeted form, transitional housing programs have not provided a demonstrated benefit associated with 

their lengthy stays and high costs. In many communities, those units represent a 

significant resource that could be put to this purpose. And for those families in need 

of more sustained rental assistance without services, it is imperative that our Federal housing programs expand to meet that need. 

The 30 percent set aside is not going to be sufficient for accomplishing any of 

these goals. Moreover, without any strict limits on the use of this set aside for families, we may well undermine the primary consensus principle that this legislation 

seeks to codify—the reduction of chronic homelessness among single adults through 

the targeting of permanent supportive housing resources. 

The proposed bill also makes some significant progress in codifying into law some 

mechanisms for accountability that had been lacking in previous legislation for 

homeless programs. The provisions for supporting Homeless Services Management 

Information Systems, or HMIS, promises to give local communities, as well as 

States and the Federal Government, increased information to make informed policy 

decisions. Sound data collection can yield important information for governments 

and other planning bodies as they attempt to steer their systems toward reducing 

homelessness, either through housing placement or prevention. 

As the bill acknowledges, in addition to ending chronic homelessness, preventing 

future homelessness is going to be a critical objective to achieving the goal of reduced homelessness. Research suggests that as many as half of the single adults 

entering public shelters have recently exited other public systems of care. The HMIS 

data can be used to hold these mainstream systems accountable for the number of 

people they are sending to homelessness, and who in turn get sent back to these 

institutions. As long as we operate without data, this revolving door is invisible to 

these institutions, who choose to recognize the problem only when it appears inside 

their corridors. This is true whether it is acute hospitalization, detoxification, or correctional systems. HMIS can and should hold a mirror to these systems so that they 

can measure and reduce the traffic through these revolving doors. Doing so will require that local and State governments use their data effectively. The McKinneyVento legislation could encourage States and localities to engage in systematic data 

analysis to identify how institutional discharges are contributing to homelessness, 

and, in turn, resulting in further reinstitutionalization and homelessness. 

In further support of such collaborations, I encourage the bill’s support of the 10-

year plans to end homelessness that have become commonplace around the country. 

Many of these plans are the result of new and potentially powerful collaborations 

among local and State governments, as well as service providers and less traditional 

stakeholders in these communities. These partnerships are essential to advancing 

a local agenda, and for leveraging the multiagency and multisectoral resources that 

will be necessary to develop and support housing, as well as programs for prevention and diversion from shelter. These partnerships are a reflection of the collaboration that has also been embodied in the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, 

which has brought together many Federal partners for this purpose and brought 

new resources from other Federal programs to this population. Indeed, it is to the 

credit of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness that the current national 

conversation has changed, and has now focused a variety of agencies at all levels 

47

of government on the objective of reducing and ultimately ending homelessness in 

our country. 

If the bill could learn from our previous experience with the Continuum of Care, 

it would be to assure that local governments have a majority position in the local 

planning boards called for in the legislation. Local governments control most of the 

policy levers that are required to develop and support housing, and to deliver social 

services and prevention. Only government has the legal authority and the public accountability that is necessary to achieve public aims. Therefore, local governments 

should be assured through their representation on local planning boards that their 

efforts can work in a common direction with the intended use of Federal and State 

resources. 

Much progress has been made on behalf of people who are homeless or threatened 

with homelessness. However, the problem remains a stubborn fixture in our communities. Federal resources can and should help in redirecting homelessness policies 

away from maintaining or even enhancing a makeshift private welfare system. Instead, our goal should be to strengthen the capacity of our social welfare system to 

protect people from homelessness in the first instance, and to prevent unnecessarily 

long shelter stays in the second. Chronic street homelessness should be addressed 

directly with housing programs that provide a solution to homelessness. This bill, 

properly modified, can make substantial progress in committing our Nation to these 

goals, and in pushing us even further in expanding access to housing and services 

that will truly prevent homelessness and away from the institutionalization of this 

unacceptable and unnecessary social ill. 

Thank you. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

48

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY

FROM ROY A. BERNARDI 

In your testimony, you stated that, while our bill (S. 1801) and 

the proposed HUD bill are similar, the bills differ in some respects. 

Please specify provisions in the HUD bill and provisions in S. 1801 

that support your assertion that the HUD bill provides the following:

Q.1.a. A greater focus on chronic homelessness;

A.1.a. The Administration’s bill would continue to define chronic 

homelessness to include disabled individuals who are often literally 

living on the streets. The Administration’s bill, unlike S. 1801, 

would not expand the definition of chronic homelessness by including disabled families with children, most of whom are housed in 

shelters. Given limited resources, HUD wants to help ensure those 

who literally have no roof over their heads can access housing.

Q.1.b. Greater flexibility for the kinds of services needed to solve 

homelessness;

A.1.b. The Administration’s bill permits funding of supportive services and does not include the 3-year phase out provisions that are 

outlined in S. 1801. Under the Administration’s bill, communities 

are afforded the opportunity to fund the supportive services that 

are needed in their specific communities. This concept allows for 

local decisionmaking and greater flexibility by communities.

Q.1.c. Greater flexibility in using program funds to prevent homelessness (particularly in light of the bonus funding under the Samaritan Initiative); and

A.1.c. S. 1801 and the Administration’s bill both address prevention; however, the Administration’s bill provides more flexibility because it would allow up to 10 percent of program funds to be spent 

on prevention activities and S. 1801 allows up to 5 percent.

Q.1.d. Better targets its permanent housing resources for the disabled.

A.1.d. The Administration’s bill would continue to target housing 

resources to disabled individuals and families. S. 1801 would allow 

these scarce resources to also and for the first time be accessed by 

nondisabled families.

Q.2. The Administration’s bill and S. 1801 would consolidate several competitive grant programs in order to maximize the impact 

of Federal dollars by eliminating duplication, reducing administrative burdens and the accompanying costs, and maximizing flexibility. As each program is targeted to a specific need, how do we 

best ensure that none of the target populations’ needs is overwhelmed by the others?

A.2. The Administration’s bill and S. 1801 allow communities to assess their various local needs and then decide which projects to 

fund. This will help ensure that each community will be able to address their respective needs. 

49

RESPONSE TO A WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR REED

FROM PHILIP F. MANGANO 

Q.1. Among the community of homelessness assistance providers, 

some have raised concerns about the provision that allows HUD to 

phase out certain services, like healthcare, over a 3-year period, 

with responsibility for these services going to other agencies. Others argue that the transfer of responsibility for these services to 

other agencies is necessary to make the best use of resources available to combat homelessness. What steps will be necessary, both at 

the Federal and the local level, to facilitate this transition?

A.1. The Administration’s proposal (H.R. 5041) to consolidate its 

HUD homeless assistance programs and to codify the Continuum 

of Care concept would not phase out supportive services. The Administration’s proposal would continue to provide communities 

with maximum local flexibility to confront the local housing and 

service needs of homeless persons. The referenced phase-out provision is contained in S. 1801. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SHELBY

FROM DENNIS P. CULHANE 

Q.1. Among the community of homelessness assistance providers, 

some have raised concerns. What steps will be necessary, both at 

the Federal and the local level, to facilitate this transition? Would 

S. 1801 strengthen or weaken the ability of community to provide 

supportive services to the homeless?

A.1. At the Federal level, the Heath Care for the Homeless (HCFH) 

program should be directed to provide health services in place of 

those that will be defunded under the HUD program. Ideally, 

HCFH will be provided with the additional funds to do so. Alternatively, local providers should access local health departments 

and/or Medicaid and/or Medicaid HMO’s to provide clinical services 

in place of the defunded services. 

S. 1801 will require communities to find alternative sources of 

funding for some supportive services, but it will also continue many 

of the supportive services that HUD has determined are not likely 

to be provided by other public agencies (that is case management). 

This strategy makes sense from the perspective of maximizing the 

utility of HUD’s resources. If communities do not identify alternative sources of funding for the defunded services, this will results 

in fewer services at those sites.

Q.2. As you know, some controversy has surrounded the definition 

of homelessness. What is your impression of the definition of homelessness included in our bill?

A.2. My opinion is that the definition of homelessness in S. 1801 is 

sufficient. Efforts to broaden the definition beyond literal homelessness could have unintended negative consequences. First, people 

who are not literally homeless and who are ill-housed—a group 

that is far larger than the literal homeless—could consume many 

of the resources intended for the literal homeless, to their detriment. Second, from a targeting and accountability perspective, 

our ability to measure homelessness and the impact of targeted 

programs on reducing homelessness would be greatly compromised, 

as the broader population of poorly housed persons, including those 

50

doubled up, is very difficult to measure. Finally, I would note that 

there is some variability in Federal definitions that seems to fit the 

specific intent of those various Federal programs, and that variability makes sense.

Q.3. In balancing the needs of the chronically homeless population 

and the needs of those who are temporarily homeless, how could 

we best address the goals of ending chronic homelessness, while 

addressing the needs of the temporarily homeless?

A.3. The temporary homeless should continue to have access to 

emergency assistance, in the form of emergency shelters. However, 

the temporarily homeless would also benefit from a broader array 

of emergency assistance than shelter alone. I would encourage the 

Committee to consider ways in which it can support emergency relocation grants and other rehousing strategies that would expedite 

persons’ exits from homelessness.

51


mar30-1.eps
52


mar30-2.eps
53


mar30-3.eps
54


mar30-4.eps
55


mar30-5.eps
56


mar30-6.eps
57


mar30-7.eps
58


mar30-8.eps
59


mar30-9.eps
60


mar30-10.eps
61


mar30-11.eps
62


mar30-12.eps
63


mar30-13.eps
64


mar30-14.eps
65


mar30-15.eps
66


mar30-16.eps
67


mar30-17.eps
68


mar30-19.eps
69


mar30-20.eps
70


mar30-21.eps
71


mar30-22.eps
72


mar30-23.eps
73


mar30-24.eps
74


mar30-25.eps
75


mar30-26.eps
76


mar30-27.eps
77


mar30-28.eps
78


mar30-29.eps
79


mar30-30.eps
80


mar30-31.eps
81


mar30-32.eps
82


mar30-33.eps
83


mar30-34.eps
84


mar30-35.eps
85


mar30-36.eps
86


mar30-37.eps
87


mar30-38.eps
88


mar30-39.eps
89


mar30-40.eps
90


mar30-41.eps
91


mar30-42.eps
92


mar30-43.eps
93


mar30-44.eps
94


mar30-45.eps
95


mar30-46.eps
96


mar30-47.eps
97


mar30-48.eps
98


mar30-49.eps
99


mar30-50.eps
100


mar30-51.eps
101


mar30-52.eps
102


mar30-53.eps
103


mar30-54.eps
104


mar30-55.eps
105


mar30-56.eps
106


mar30-57.eps
107


mar30-58.eps
108


mar30-59.eps
109


mar30-60.eps
110


mar30-61.eps
111


mar30-62.eps
112


mar30-63.eps
113


mar30-64.eps
114


mar30-65.eps
115


mar30-66.eps
116


mar30-67.eps
117


mar30-68.eps
118


mar30-69.eps
119


mar30-70.eps
120


mar30-71.eps
121


mar30-72.eps
122


mar30-73.eps
123


mar30-74.eps
124


mar30-75.eps