U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–630 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

HOMELESS IN AMERICA: EXAMINING 

THE CRISIS AND SOLUTIONS TO 

END HOMELESSNESS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 116–1 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JIM A. HIMES, Connecticut 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

AL LAWSON, Florida 

MICHAEL SAN NICOLAS, Guam 

RASHIDA TLAIB, Michigan 

KATIE PORTER, California 

CINDY AXNE, Iowa 

SEAN CASTEN, Illinois 

AYANNA PRESSLEY, Massachusetts 

BEN MCADAMS, Utah 

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York 

JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina 

MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania 

JESU ́ S ‘‘CHUY’’ GARCIA, Illinois 

SYLVIA GARCIA, Texas 

DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota 

PATRICK MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Ranking Member 

PETER T. KING, New York 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee 

TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana 

ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio 

JOHN ROSE, Tennessee 

BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin 

LANCE GOODEN, Texas 

DENVER RIGGLEMAN, Virginia 

CHARLA OUERTATANI, Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

February 13, 2019 ............................................................................................ 1 

Appendix: 

February 13, 2019 ............................................................................................ 65 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Darley, Carolyn, Speaker Advocate, National Coalition for the Homeless ......... 4 

Lucas, David S., Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute for an Entrepreneurial Society, Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University ......... 6 

Oliva, Ann Marie, Senior Policy Advisor, Corporation for Supportive Housing 

(CSH) ..................................................................................................................... 9 

Roman, Nan, President and CEO, National Alliance to End Homelessness ...... 8 

Rush, Justin T., Public Policy Director, True Colors Fund .................................. 11 

Stewart, Joshua, Director of Policy, National Coalition for Homeless Veterans 

(NCHV) ................................................................................................................. 13 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Lucas, David S. ................................................................................................. 66 

Oliva, Ann Marie .............................................................................................. 71 

Roman, Nan ...................................................................................................... 75 

Rush, Justin T. ................................................................................................. 81 

Stewart, Joshua ................................................................................................ 85 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Statement of Steve PonTell, President & CEO, National Community Renaissance (National CORE) ............................................................................ 97 

Statement of Maria Foscarinis, Founder and Executive Director, National 

Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty .................................................... 102 

Garcia, Hon. Jesu ́ s ‘‘Chuy’’: 

Statement of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless ................................... 108 

Posey, Hon. Bill: 

HUD publication entitled, ‘‘Regulatory Barriers and Affordable Housing,’’ 

dated Spring 2018 ......................................................................................... 112 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to Nan Roman .... 136 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to Joshua Stewart ................................................................................................................... 145 

(1) 

HOMELESS IN AMERICA: EXAMINING 

THE CRISIS AND SOLUTIONS TO 

END HOMELESSNESS 

Wednesday, February 13, 2019 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

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

Members present: Representatives Waters, Maloney, Velazquez, 

Sherman, Clay, Scott, Green, Cleaver, Himes, Foster, Beatty, Heck, 

Vargas, Gottheimer, Gonzalez of Texas, Lawson, San Nicolas, 

Tlaib, Porter, Axne, Casten, Pressley, McAdams, Ocasio-Cortez, 

Wexton, Lynch, Gabbard, Adams, Dean, Garcia of Illinois, Garcia 

of Texas, Phillips; McHenry, Wagner, Posey, Luetkemeyer, 

Huizenga, Duffy, Stivers, Barr, Tipton, Williams, Hill, Emmer, 

Zeldin, Davidson, Budd, Kustoff, Gonzalez of Ohio, Rose, Steil, 

Gooden, and Riggleman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The Committee on Financial Services will 

come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the committee at any time. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Homeless in America: Examining 

the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness.’’ 

I now recognize myself for 3 minutes to give an opening statement. 

Today, this committee convenes for its first hearing of the 116th 

Congress. This hearing is on an extremely important subject: the 

national homelessness crisis. Today, there are over a half million 

people experiencing homelessness nationwide, and nearly 160,000 

of them are children, and nearly 38,000 are veterans whom we 

have failed to support after their service to our Nation. 

The number of people experiencing chronic homelessness nationwide increased between 2017 and 2018. In Los Angeles County, 

there are over 50,000 people experiencing homelessness, nearly 

5,000 of whom are children and over 3,800 of whom are veterans. 

In the richest country in the world, it is simply unacceptable that 

we have people living in the streets. This is a crisis that requires 

action. 

I had my staff look at this committee’s hearing records, and it 

appears that this is the very first time that the Full Committee has 

convened a hearing focused entirely on homelessness. So it is long 

2 

overdue for this committee to turn its attention to this crisis and 

consider proactive solutions to ensure that every American has a 

safe, affordable place to call home. This is a top priority for me as 

chairwoman. 

We need Congress to have the political courage to step up and 

provide the resources and funding necessary to end homelessness. 

And the first step is to put forth proposals to address the problem 

and have a discussion. 

My bill, the Ending Homelessness Act, provides $13.27 billion in 

new funding over 5 years to Federal programs and initiatives to 

prevent homelessness. It includes funding for new units of affordable housing, new vouchers, case management, and technical assistance. 

Today at this hearing, we will hear directly from experts and advocates regarding the continuing challenges in tackling homelessness in America and their recommendations on solutions. 

Before I yield to the ranking member, I would like to just take 

a moment to note the presence of Representative Katie Hill, the 

former executive director of the largest nonprofit in California that 

advocates for people experiencing homelessness. She also served on 

the governing and oversight body for the Los Angeles Continuum 

of Care, overseeing the use of Federal homeless assistance funding, 

and she was instrumental in recent initiatives that will provide 

substantial new State and local funding to address homelessness in 

Los Angeles. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the committee, 

the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, for 4 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. MCHENRY. I want to thank Chairwoman Waters for hosting 

and bringing us together to talk about a really important issue for 

our country, for my home State of North Carolina, and for, I think, 

everyone’s districts represented here on this committee. And so I 

do think it is important that we highlight the need for a more concerted effort to combat homelessness. 

According to the most recent data in 2018 that Chairwoman 

Waters highlighted from HUD, 552,830 of our fellow Americans are 

homeless. Of that, nearly 10,000 are from my home State. Every 

State is touched, every community is touched by this. 

And while this represents a significant decrease since the first 

homelessness count in 2005—that count was 754,000—there is a 

dramatic reduction in homelessness from the initial count. But, 

still, until we solve this problem, one is too many. 

I also want to highlight another subset of that large group: 

194,487. That number represents the total number of people who 

are also unsheltered, meaning they are living in vehicles, tents, 

other makeshift dwellings, and in a variety of different places. 

And so, I am very interested to hear the testimony, not just on 

the problem, but on the solutions, what we can do as Federal policymakers, in concert with State and local officials, to make sure 

that we have a proper response in dealing with this challenge. 

There are also other demographic groups in that: the chronically 

homeless because of alcohol or drug addiction or mental illness; the 

victims of domestic violence who need a safe haven; the veterans 

who are down on their luck after serving our country; working famVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Jul 12, 2019 Jkt 095071 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\HBA044.000 TERRI
3 

ilies who cannot afford to live in the communities where they work; 

and the youth, whether those not living with families or those who 

have recently graduated and are trying to find shelter. 

And so today, I hope that this will be the first of a number of 

robust discussion on this issue where we can review all the programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

and across our government as much as we can to determine if they 

are effective in addressing the homelessness challenge that we face 

across our Nation. 

Additionally, we should explore new initiatives to engage the 

Federal, State, local, nonprofit, and private market shareholders to 

develop holistic approaches that understand the humanity that is 

at risk here, the people and the challenges they face, including 

eliminating State and local barriers to affordable housing and increasing the supply of affordable housing. And where appropriate, 

we should explore how to allow localities the flexibility to tailor 

specific solutions to address concerns that may not fit a Federal 

one-size-fits-all approach. 

I look forward to the testimony and the questions today. And 

with that, I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. 

Duffy, for 1 minute. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is good to see 

you. 

Welcome, panel. I think this is a great hearing. As the chairwoman knows, and Mr. Cleaver knows, we have spent a lot of time 

working on homelessness, specifically rural homelessness. And I 

think we have to have a broader conversation about what programs 

work and what programs don’t work as well and where do we 

streamline resources into the programs that help the most people. 

How much money do we spend to eradicate homelessness? 

And I am proud that this committee has worked well together. 

Maybe not on everything, but on homelessness, we actually did 

work well together. We passed the Family Self-Sufficiency Act. We 

did the Housing Choice Voucher Program. We did a lot of work trying to help those young people who are foster children, who have 

a high propensity of becoming homeless. How do we direct them 

into housing so they don’t start their adult lives off homeless? 

I want to thank Ms. Roman for coming to my district for a homeless and hunger summit. I am grateful for that. The Secretary of 

HUD came to my district as well, and I have an open invitation 

to the chairwoman to also come to my district and discuss rural 

homelessness. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize the gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Maloney, 

for 1 minute. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I want to thank Chairlady Waters so much for 

holding this hearing. We have not had a Full Committee hearing 

on homelessness in many, many years. So I am thrilled that this 

committee is having its very first hearing on this important issue. 

Homelessness is an enormous problem in this country. Nearly 

one in seven people experiencing homelessness live in New York 

4 

City, which I am privileged to represent. And it is a problem that 

demands immediate solutions. Roughly 78,000 people in New York 

City are homeless, yet New York City has one of the lowest rates 

of people who are homeless but are not sheltere; only 5 percent of 

the 78,000 do not have a sheltered home. 

But we need to do far, far more. I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of the chairlady’s Ending Homelessness Act, which 

would provide over $13 billion in programs, the same as an aircraft 

carrier. Let’s get our priorities straight. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I will now recognize Mr. Cleaver from Missouri. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I would like to 

thank you for having this hearing. And I think Mrs. Maloney mentioned the uniqueness of dealing with this issue. But at the same 

time, I appreciate Mr. Duffy’s work with me on the Housing Choice 

Voucher Mobility Demonstration Act. 

Tragically, I think we are precipitously moving toward the notion 

that we can do nothing about homelessness. And if we are going 

to have any discussion about homelessness, it will inevitably lead 

us to the discussion necessarily about affordable housing. 

We are in a crisis on affordable housing. And what I hope everybody understands is that as we remove affordable housing, it leads 

to homelessness. And so we have to deal with that issue if we are 

going to deal with homelessness. And this is a good start. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for this hearing. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

We will now move to our witnesses for today. We welcome the 

testimony of Ms. Carolyn Darley, speaker advocate with the National Coalition for the Homeless; Dr. David Lucas, postdoctoral research fellow with the Institute for an Entrepreneurial Society, 

Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University; Ms. Nan 

Roman, president and CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness; Ms. Ann Marie Oliva, senior policy advisor with the Corporation for Supportive Housing; Mr. Justin Rush, public policy director for the True Colors Fund; and Mr. Joshua Stewart, director 

of policy with the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record. 

Ms. Darley, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral 

presentation of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN DARLEY, SPEAKER ADVOCATE, 

NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 

Ms. DARLEY. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure to be here. I am from the National Coalition for the Homeless. 

My name is Candi Darley. And what we do at the National Coalition for the Homeless, through our speakers bureau, which I am a 

part of, is to tell our stories far and wide, because we break the 

myths and the stereotypes as to what causes homelessness. 

As the gentleman before me said—and I almost nodded my head 

off—affordable housing or the lack of it is the number one cause 

of homelessness. And the stereotype is that the lower classes or the 

uneducated or the mentally ill, we like to call it the ‘‘lazy crazy,’’ 

and drug-addicted, but I beg to ask any one of you all if you might 

5 

know someone who lives in a home and still experiences those 

three things. It is not a problem that only the individuals who are 

homeless experience. And I would like to make that a point quickly. 

My personal story is such that I never saw homelessness in my 

future, and I had preconceived notions as to who and what the 

homeless were, until it happened to me. I happened to become ill 

and then suffer a divorce in almost the blink of an eye. And before 

I knew it, I was at a shelter. I didn’t even know shelters existed. 

And the individuals that I thought that I would meet there, let’s 

just say my expectations were shattered. 

There was a doctor there who had fallen on hard times, and she 

went to work every day at Georgetown Hospital. There was a journalist there from The Washington Post and a few other individuals 

that you would not have expected. Because, see, homelessness does 

not discriminate against anyone. 

I would like to say that the Housing First program is the thing 

that saved me. In Housing First, it is designed for individuals who 

are homeless to get a place that is then subsidized until they can 

do better. Or if they have diagnoses as illnesses or dual diagnoses, 

such as mental illnesses, they get an opportunity to stay there for 

life. 

Now, the thing that I noticed being a recipient of that program 

is that we are viable members of society. Many people go on to help 

work towards advocating for homelessness and poverty in general. 

And it surprised even me. 

I remember speaking to a group of individuals at Villanova University, and a gentleman hearing my story could not contain himself. He said, ‘‘She is just like us.’’ And I don’t know what he expected, but, yes. 

We also shouldn’t forget that with the disasters that are befalling 

our country, these disasters also bear people towards homelessness. 

I believe the statistic is that 10 percent of the individuals who become homeless from fire, flood, or whatever natural disaster, stay 

that way. And we have to do something about that. Because when 

the individuals who make up this country, the middle class, falter, 

this country falters. And we can’t afford that. We really can’t afford 

that. 

So I would like to say something that I have always whenever 

I speak to people: I always believed that the opposite of wealth was 

poverty. It was not until I experienced this myself, that I understand that the opposite of poverty is justice. 

I urge the robust conversation on this topic. I urge it. It is happening to more and more individuals as time goes on. And you 

would be surprised at the individuals that I speak to all over the 

world and all over the country who say the same thing. So if we 

could get a handle on that by starting this conversation, it would 

be great. 

Again, it is my pleasure to be here. I thank you, and I am happy 

to answer any questions during this hearing or afterwards. Thank 

you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Dr. Lucas, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral 

presentation of your testimony. 

6 

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. LUCAS, PH.D., POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOW, INSTITUTE FOR AN ENTREPRENEURIAL 

SOCIETY, WHITMAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, SYRACUSE 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. LUCAS. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

My research focuses on analyzing efforts to end homelessness in 

our Nation, and so I am honored to speak with you on this topic. 

My present testimony cannot address all of the intricacies of this 

very important issue, but I can speak to three considerations based 

on my research and on the available evidence. 

The first point is that we do not yet know how to end homelessness. The second point is that the homeless problem varies widely 

across communities and individuals, reducing the likelihood of a 

universal solution. And the third point is that allowing service providers more flexibility to experiment, paired with the prioritization 

of performance data, will facilitate a more compassionate, more effective, and a truly evidence-based response. 

It is often said that we know what works to end homelessness, 

and the premise of this claim is that we have a sufficient evidence 

base to solve homelessness, specifically via Housing First. It is true 

that there are at least three acceptably rigorous studies that found 

that clients entering Housing First programs had higher rates of 

housing retention; they stayed housed, relative to other shelter programs. 

Importantly, however, these studies have only dealt with individual level outcomes. They tell us what happened to individuals 

or families who enter these programs relative to existing alternatives. But by construction, these studies do not demonstrate 

whether further implementation of the Housing First approach or 

related subsidies would end or even reduce homelessness in the aggregate. That is the important policy question. And actually the answers to this question are somewhat less promising. 

From 2009 to 2018, the Federal Government significantly increased annual homelessness funding to over $6 billion a year in 

2018. This funding helped double the availability of housing subsidy-based programs for the homeless, adding 142,000 permanent 

supportive housing beds and 100,000 rapid rehousing beds nationwide. But over this period, unsheltered homelessness only declined 

by 32,000 people. 

Of course, these numbers don’t tell us what, if any, causal role 

these targeted efforts had in reducing homelessness. Economists, 

including myself, have estimated the effects of Federal homelessness funding and of permanent supportive housing beds on communities nationwide to determine whether they reduce the amount of 

homelessness, and controlling for other factors like housing market 

conditions, unemployment, or climate. 

Kevin Corinth found that communities required at least 10 additional permanent supportive housing beds to reduce homelessness 

by just one person. In my research, I found that Federal homelessness funding over this period had no effect on the prevalence of 

unsheltered homelessness across communities in recent years, deVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Jul 12, 2019 Jkt 095071 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\HBA044.000 TERRI
7 

spite evidence-based practices mostly and increasingly being funded. 

Columbia University’s Brendan O’Flaherty recently summarized 

the state of the literature as follows: ‘‘We don’t know how to end 

homelessness. Not in the aggregate, anyway.’’ 

So why would large increases in housing subsidy-based programs 

like Housing First yield small reductions in homelessness? One answer is that supplying permanent housing subsidies to the shelter 

system tends to increase shelter entries. But another important 

factor is that local conditions influence the nature of homelessness 

in the community and, in turn, the effectiveness of different approaches. 

Unsheltered homelessness, for example, is largely concentrated 

in warmer climates, while sheltered homelessness is more prevalent in colder places. These populations are very different, on average. 

The prevalence of homelessness also varies considerably in communities with similar climates, suggesting the importance of State 

and local policies. For instance, land use regulations reduce the 

availability of affordable housing, and they positively predict homelessness at the local level. Local tenant rules affect the incidence 

of eviction, which is a common precursor to shelter entry. 

On the other hand, strong communities may foster the prevention of homelessness. A recent study found that people with strong 

social ties to family, friends, and religious groups were 60 percent 

less likely to experience homelessness in the first place. Formal 

prevention programs have also been highly successful in New York 

City and Chicago. These examples suggest further solutions that go 

untried and untested in a system that focuses solely on long-term 

housing subsidies like Housing First. 

If it were a settled fact that the Housing First approach were the 

solution to end homelessness, the principal obstacle would be securing enough funding. However, it is unlikely that increasing funding 

for this or any one-size-fits-all approach will achieve that desired 

goal. Since many of the barriers to housing stability are local or individual in nature, this suggests the effectiveness of different programs across communities and across homeless subpopulations. 

I suggest that rather than mandating the proliferation of a single 

topdown approach, we increase organizations’ flexibility to use existing scarce resources toward innovative efforts to alleviate homelessness in their specific communities. We should continue to invest 

in the collection of data on organization and community performance at addressing homelessness and allow these data to inform future funding decisions. Together, this would encourage the discovery of innovative solutions to homelessness that are tailored to 

local conditions and client needs and lead us to a more compassionate and evidence-based response. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lucas can be found on page 66 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you, Dr. Lucas. 

Ms. Roman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral 

presentation of your testimony. 

8 

STATEMENT OF NAN ROMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL 

ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS 

Ms. ROMAN. Thank you so much. And thank you, Chairwoman 

Waters, for convening this hearing. The National Alliance to End 

Homelessness is honored to appear before the committee today. 

Homelessness, as has been stated, is a very serious problem in 

communities all across the country and of all types, urban and 

rural. It is a complicated problem, but it is driven by the gap between rental housing costs and what low-income people earn. It is 

also exacerbated by racism, including in feeder systems such as the 

criminal justice, child welfare, and health systems. 

People often become homeless after a crisis that has economic 

implications, such as a health emergency, eviction, and divorce. 

Support networks, including family and friends, are a buffer 

against homelessness. People often become homeless when they 

lose their support networks because they move or because those 

support networks are simply too underresourced to help them. 

Given the increasing cost of rental housing and the widening gap 

between those costs and what lower-income people earn, we might 

reasonably expect that homelessness would be growing in the Nation. It is the feeder systems into homelessness and people coming 

into homelessness is the reason the number is going up. And, indeed, there is evidence that more people are becoming homeless, 

yet the number of homeless people, people who are homeless at a 

point in time, is not growing, as has been pointed out. It has decreased since 2007 in over half of jurisdictions, including many of 

the jurisdictions of the members of this committee. 

The reason is that we do know what to do to end homelessness, 

which is basically to get people back into housing as quickly as possible and connected to supports in their communities. And communities are getting better and better at doing that by learning from 

each other’s innovations. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach 

like Housing First, which is not a single approach, and low barrier 

shelter and using Federal resources to support those innovative solutions that communities come up with. A good example is the success in cutting veteran homelessness by more than half. 

Good things have happened definitely, but so much remains to 

be done. I want to bring up a few of the issues we see coming. 

As was mentioned, 35 percent of people who are homeless are 

unsheltered, a much higher percentage of adults, single adults. 

This is completely unacceptable in a Nation such as ours. Recent 

data show that unsheltered people are much more likely to be disabled and to stay homeless for long periods of time. While shelter 

is not a solution to homelessness, no one should sleep outside. This 

is a crisis that we do need to address. 

African Americans, Native Americans, and increasingly Hispanic 

and Latinx people are disproportionately homeless. The homeless 

system by itself cannot solve that problem of disproportionality, but 

it shouldn’t add to it by treating people differently on the basis of 

race. 

HUD has incentivized communities to examine their homeless 

systems for disparities and to plan to remediate any disparities 

they find. Many groups, including our own, are helping with that. 

This is critical work that needs to continue. 

9 

People who are housed are not homeless. The faster people get 

into housing, the better they do. And that is basically the simple 

premise of Housing First. It does, however, often take people quite 

a while in housing to solve their problems. Every homeless program in the country does not have to take a Housing First approach, and HUD does not require that they do so. But not to 

house people who are still struggling with mental illness, with substance abuse disorders, and with extremely low wages just means 

returning the most vulnerable people to the streets. 

People who receive assistance do have responsibilities, as do the 

programs that assist them. But Housing First is working to reduce 

homelessness, and we should continue to support it. 

The homeless population is aging fast, and this will generate significant healthcare costs, especially to nursing homes. The committee is urged to consider whether housing support focused on the 

aging homeless population would not only be right but be cost-effective. 

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) has 

done a wonderful job coordinating the 19 Federal agencies that 

help homeless people across the various dimensions of housing, behavioral healthcare, employment, and more. It leverages far more 

impact than its budget of less than $4 million a year. USICH 

should be permanently authorized and adequately funded. 

Finally, several pieces of legislation to address homelessness and/ 

or housing are under consideration by the Congress. The Alliance 

is generally supportive of all the legislation that we have seen and 

particularly points out that the Ending Homelessness Act of 2019 

introduced by Chairwoman Waters proposes a two-scale level of 

funding and addresses the problem across-the-board and seeks to 

end it. 

It would be very important for the committee to advance bills 

that both make fixes and create a vehicle that could make a dent 

in homelessness. We do know what to do. We just need to do more 

of it. 

Thank you so much to the committee for inviting the Alliance to 

testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roman can be found on page 75 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Ms. Oliva, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ANN MARIE OLIVA, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, 

CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING (CSH) 

Ms. OLIVA. Thank you so much. 

My name is Ann Oliva, and I am the senior policy advisor at the 

Corporation for Supportive Housing, or CSH. And I want to thank 

the committee for inviting me to testify today on this incredibly important topic. 

We all know that solving homelessness isn’t easy. Communities 

across the country are struggling to make decisions about how to 

best use their scarce resources and to build the right mix of interventions, from prevention to supportive housing and everything in 

between, so that they can address the specific needs of their communities. Knowing which types and how much to invest in each 

10 

intervention when most communities don’t have enough of any single resource can be incredibly challenging. 

What we know about people experiencing homelessness today 

points to both challenges and solutions. In 2018, we saw increases 

in both unsheltered homelessness and chronic homelessness. And 

a recent study released by the University of Pennsylvania indicates 

that the homeless population, as Nan mentioned, is aging. And 

with an older population comes higher costs. 

People experiencing chronic homelessness are particularly vulnerable due to the length of time that they have lived on the 

streets and the disabling conditions that they face. Research shows 

that supportive housing, which is permanent housing with services 

designed to meet the specific needs of tenants, cost-effectively ends 

chronic homelessness. Costs on average are reduced by 491⁄2 percent when people move from the streets and into supportive housing. 

And although as a Nation we have invested in over 300,000 units 

of supportive housing since 2009, we are not nearly where we need 

to be to address this growing homeless population that is getting 

older and struggles with multiple challenges. Decreased Federal investments in supportive housing have made the situation even 

more difficult for our communities. We must invest more so that 

we can get back to making the progress we know how to make. 

And we need to continue to innovate and create avenues for individuals who are ready to move on from these programs. 

But implementing these move-on strategies is difficult when affordable housing is scarce. Tight housing markets are impacting 

both the number of people experiencing homelessness and the ability for homeless systems to exit people successfully. 

A recent report by the Zillow Group showed that communities 

where people spend more than 32 percent of their income on rent 

can expect a more rapid increase in homelessness. Homelessness is 

also impacting families across our country. In 2018, there were 

more than 180,000 persons in families experiencing homelessness 

on a given night. And for these families, we also know how to end 

their homelessness. 

The Family Options Study concluded that housing subsidies for 

families experiencing homelessness resulted in increased housing 

stability and had other significant benefits in family and child wellbeing. For high need or child welfare-involved families, resources 

like the family unification vouchers can provide the right level of 

subsidy and support to help families become stable. 

For young people experiencing homelessness, we have to continue to support efforts like the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program so that we can build systems responsive to youth 

needs and that provide equal access for young people who are 

disproportionally compromised of youth of color and LGBTQ youth. 

It is clear that homelessness cannot be solved by the homeless 

system alone. CHS works in communities and across systems because life doesn’t happen in silos. People don’t interact with just 

one system. The challenge that local public agencies face requires 

coordinated and smart approaches. This type of cross-system collaboration is also important at the Federal level. The 47 percent 

decrease we saw during my tenure at HUD, in homelessness 

11 

among veterans was not a coincidence. It was the result of hard 

work across agencies and in communities to make sure that we 

were aligned in every way. 

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness was a critical 

partner in this work, and CHS supports the Working Together to 

End Homelessness Act of 2019 which permanently authorizes 

USICH. As a country, we can’t afford to simply implement shortterm fixes or require people experiencing homelessness to be housing ready to qualify for housing. This is why it is so important that 

we continue to support programs that use a Housing First approach. 

Housing First is not housing only. Once the basic need of housing 

is addressed, then services can work with program participants to 

help them achieve their health, sobriety, employment, and personal 

goals. In a Housing First approach, people are treated with dignity 

and respect and are offered the services that they need and want 

to become stable. 

We know that we must both stem the inflow into homelessness 

and increase the outflow out of homelessness by making strategic 

choices like partnering with child welfare and developing solutions 

for justice-involved individuals. We must also recognize that people 

of color are disproportionately impacted by homelessness and work 

to dismantle the structures that lead to these inequities. 

Because the Ending Homelessness Act of 2019 recognizes all of 

this, empowers solutions to homelessness, and commits the Federal 

Government to many of the smart investments I have discussed, 

CHS supports it. 

Thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oliva can be found on page 71 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Rush, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral 

presentation of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JUSTIN T. RUSH, PUBLIC POLICY DIRECTOR, 

TRUE COLORS FUND 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding homelessness in America. 

My name is Justin Rush, and I currently serve as the director 

of public policy at the True Colors Fund, cofounded in 2008 by 

Cyndi Lauper, which works to prevent and end homelessness 

among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning 

LGBTQ youth, seeking to create a world where all young people 

can be their true selves. 

To put our mission into action, the True Colors Fund provides 

training and education opportunities for our communities and service providers, engages Members of Congress, State houses, Federal 

and State agencies, and authentically collaborates with youth who 

have experienced homelessness to provide innovative solutions to 

addressing the youth homelessness crisis. 

Consideration of the issue of homelessness in the United States 

cannot be more timely, particularly as it pertains to our Nation’s 

most impacted. An estimated 4.2 million youth and young adults 

up to age 24 experience homelessness each year in the United 

12 

States. Annually, 1 in 30 youth ages 13 to 17, and 1 in 10 young 

adults ages 18 to 25, endure some form of homelessness. LGBTQ 

youth have a 120 percent increased risk of experiencing homelessness compared to youth who identify as heterosexual and 

cisgender. 

African-American youth are also overrepresented with an 83 percent increased risk of experiencing homelessness over youth of 

other races and ethnicities. Additionally, Latino and Latina youth 

make up 33 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds reporting homelessness, 

with African-American youth, especially young men aged 18 to 25 

who identify as LGBTQ, reporting the highest rates of homelessness. Nearly 1 in 4 African-American young men ages 18 to 25 also 

identified as LGBTQ reported homelessness in the last 12 months. 

According to our service provider report, LGBTQ youth made up 

33 percent of young people accessing homeless services. LGBTQ 

youth of color, particularly transgender youth of color, are more 

likely to experience violent crime, including sexual assault, police 

violence, robbery, and murder. Homelessness makes them even 

more prone to experiencing these traumatic events. 

Additionally, LGBTQ youth of color are more vulnerable to discrimination in education, employment, housing, and are more likely 

to be involved in the criminal justice system. Institutional racism, 

homophobia, and transphobia contributes to pathways into homelessness for these young people, and it stymies their ability to exit 

homelessness. Furthermore, transgender people report high rates 

of discrimination that contribute to their housing instability, which 

also deters them from accessing services with, according to one 

study, nearly a quarter of transgender adults surveyed reporting 

experiencing housing discrimination related to their gender identity. 

We are thankful to the committee for undertaking legislation 

that seeks to address the homelessness crisis within our country. 

Specifically, we support the Ending Homelessness Act of 2019, 

which would amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 

to make significant additional appropriations available for emergency relief grants, rental assistance for households and individuals who are experiencing homelessness, and homelessness outreach and coordination services. The bill also permanently authorizes the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which has been 

integral in coordinating our Nation’s response to the crisis. 

To be certain, preventing and ending homelessness means that 

Congress should ensure equal access to HUD-funded programs by 

providing legal protections based on one’s sexual orientation and 

gender identity and ensuring all Continuum of Care providers receive training for LGBTQ cultural competency and linguistically 

appropriate services for those most impacted by the homelessness 

crisis. 

Preventing and ending youth homelessness means providing targeted programs with few to no programmatic prerequisites for permanent housing with low barrier emissions policies, rapid and 

streamline entry into housing, supportive services that are persistently used to engage tenants to ensure housing stability with all 

tenants having full rights and legal protections, especially 

transgender and gender nonconforming people. Most importantly, it 

13 

means elevating the voices, experiences, and expertise of youth who 

have experienced homelessness and including them in all aspects 

of the planning and implementation process of programs and initiatives designed to prevent and end youth homelessness. 

Congress has laid the groundwork on this issue and should continue its support of these homelessness demonstration programs 

which bring together continuums of care and youth who have formerly experienced homelessness to provide technical assistance and 

capacity building towards implementing local plans to prevent and 

end youth homelessness. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rush can be found on page 81 

of the appendix,] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

And Mr. Stewart, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to give 

an oral presentation of your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JOSHUA STEWART, DIRECTOR OF POLICY, 

NATIONAL COALITION FOR HOMELESS VETERANS (NCHV) 

Mr. STEWART. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and distinguished members of the House Committee on Financial Services, 

my name is Joshua Stewart. I am the director of policy for the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, or NCHV. 

The good news is that since June of 2014, 66 communities and 

3 States have achieved the Federal benchmarks and criteria for 

ending veteran homelessness. This is an achievable goal. We have 

seen the annual point-in-time count across the country of veterans 

experiencing homelessness decrease by 48 percent since 2009. That 

said, with 37,878 veterans experiencing homelessness on a given 

night, we still have much work to do across the Nation. We need 

to maintain our efforts to ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, 

and nonrecurring for veterans and for all Americans. 

We have been making dramatic strides in the last 10 years, and 

there is every indication that we will continue to make progress if 

we don’t lose focus. For Congress, this means ensuring that key 

programs that serve veterans experiencing homelessness are sufficiently funded and receiving sufficient oversight. The latter task is 

being accomplished here today at this hearing, and we thank you 

for examining the wider issue as well as including the veteran population in that examination. 

For the former, we at NCHV do not advocate for the unqualified 

growth of resources for the sake of expanding programs. Rather, we 

base our recommendations on evidence from the field and on national level data. For the Administration, this means keeping the 

issue of veteran homelessness a top priority among the leadership 

of VA so that they may continue to be a strong partner to HUD. 

Furthermore, the Administration should strongly support the 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, or the 

USICH. 

From President Reagan to Secretary Jack Kemp on to the leadership of current Director Matthew Doherty, USICH has been at the 

forefront of strategic planning, effective and efficient resourcing, 

14 

and the sheer hard work of interagency cooperation. It has had a 

long history, but it has never been as effective as it has been over 

the last decade and as it is now. We must not lose the USICH. 

NCHV asks that Congress pass legislation in the 116th Congress 

to make USICH a permanent part of our system. 

Another critical aspect of our work to end veteran homelessness 

is the HUD-VASH program, which pairs a HUD-funded affordable 

housing voucher with VA case management services. Congress has 

been very generous with the creation of new HUD-VASH vouchers 

since 2008 to great effect. 

The simple fact remains, however, that there is still much unmet 

need across the country. A recent survey of NCHV members indicated that 86 percent of our respondent communities still had an 

unmet need for permanent support of housing and a wait list for 

HUD-VASH. As such, NCHV is calling for more investment in the 

HUD-VASH program both on the tenant-based and project-based 

sides, coupled with improvements to case management and a smart 

measured approach to recapture and disbursement of underutilized 

vouchers. 

I would also like to say a few words about an often overlooked 

portion of the veteran population. Veterans who received an other 

than honorable, or OTH, type of discharge from military service are 

in practice, though not in law, usually ruled ineligible for VA 

healthcare or other benefits. This is true even though many studies 

in recent years have shown that a large portion of OTH discharges 

are the result of servicemembers’ behavioral changes due to repeat 

deployments or unaddressed post-traumatic stress. Despite a single 

digit percentage of America’s veterans receiving an OTH discharge, 

they make up 15 percent of the homeless veteran population. 

NCHV strongly supports the Veteran House Act of 2019 before you 

today. 

In communities where the most progress has been made, several 

common themes exist. All of those communities made the mission 

central, prioritized services based on acuity, increased investments 

aligned with Housing First principles, remade their systems, and 

created or leveraged affordable housing. The Ending Homelessness 

Act of 2019 takes those commonalities as the core of the bill’s approach to ending homelessness. NCHV can vouch for their successfulness. 

Perhaps the two most important things that we have learned 

from our work to end veteran homelessness is that it is possible to 

end homelessness in a community, and that it cannot be done without adequate stocks of affordable housing. This bill acknowledges 

both of those realities and, as such, NCHV is proud to support it. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony at today’s 

hearing. We look forward to working with the House Committee on 

Financial Services to ensure that any veteran facing a housing crisis has access to safe, decent, and affordable housing and the supportive services required to maintain it. 

Thank you once again, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stewart can be found on page 85 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

15 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. And I am 

going to direct my first question to Ms. Oliva of the Corporation for 

Supportive Housing. 

Ms. Oliva, the most recent HUD data on homelessness shows 

that we saw an increase in people experiencing chronic homelessness between 2017 and 2018. These are people who have a mental 

illness or disability that has contributed to their inability to remain 

stably housed for an extended period of time. People experiencing 

chronic homelessness make up about a quarter of all people experiencing homelessness in the Los Angeles metro area, including over 

600 children and youth. I am concerned that these families and individuals cannot effectively get access to the support they need 

without intensive case management. 

What do we know about the best strategies for addressing chronic homelessness and the role of social workers? 

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) plays a 

critical role in our Federal strategy to end homelessness. But if 

Congress does not extend its sunset, the authorization for USICH 

will expire at the end of funding year 2020. Last year, I was an 

original cosponsor for a bipartisan bill that would permanently authorize the USICH. 

Can you talk about why the role of USICH is so important and 

how the termination of USICH would affect our efforts to end 

homelessness? 

Ms. OLIVA. Thank you so much for that question. I will start 

with the second part of that question about USICH. This is a point 

that is very close to my heart. I spent 10 years as a career public 

servant at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

most recently as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs, 

before going to the Corporation for Supportive Housing. And I will 

tell you, from my own experience and from the experience of many 

of my colleagues across the Federal Government, that the kind of 

progress that we made between 2010 and when I left in 2017 really 

was contingent on having USICH in the place where they sat. 

I mentioned in my testimony that the 47 percent decrease in 

homelessness among veterans was not a coincidence, because it 

wasn’t. It was the result of hard work and it was the result of— 

and that kind of progress was made in different areas as well. That 

is the one that most people know. But it was the result of alignment. And when we are talking about alignment, we are talking 

about funding alignment, policy alignment, making sure that everybody is sort of marching in the same direction, because if you 

don’t have that within the Federal Government, then you won’t 

have it at the local level as well. 

USICH was incredibly, incredibly important in all of those efforts, and remains incredibly important to make sure, again, that 

folks really understand how to move forward together. 

On the issue of chronic homelessness, I have had the opportunity, since I left HUD, to do some work in Los Angeles for the 

City of Los Angeles. And I agree, chronic homelessness, especially 

unsheltered homelessness within the City of Los Angeles is tough 

to see. 

We know that supportive housing is the solution for ending 

chronic homelessness. Back in 2015, I was briefing the U.S. InterVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Jul 12, 2019 Jkt 095071 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\HBA044.000 TERRI
16 

agency Council staff and members on the point-in-time count. And 

we saw for the first time that chronic homelessness, that what 

progress we had been making was starting to flatten out. And it 

was really pretty directly tied to the kinds of decreases in Federal 

funding for supportive housing. You could see—like after sequestration, you could see that the decreases in Federal funding were 

really having an impact on chronic homelessness. 

So we know that supportive housing is the answer for that population, that there is a lot of evidence behind that. And we need to 

invest more funding in supportive housing for that reason. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished ranking member, 

Mr. McHenry, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Waters. 

Dr. Lucas, thank you for your testimony. Athough homelessness 

is down over the last decade, according to our government statistics, we know that it still affects every community in this country. 

So let’s start with the hardest question to answer, which is what 

do you see as the root causes of homelessness? 

Mr. LUCAS. Well, one of the big challenges and the reasons that 

homelessness is a very complex issue is that there are many different root causes. Housing is a very significant explanation, housing affordability. And the factors that affect that can be local in nature. 

At the individual level, there are many different causes of homelessness, even if, as I mentioned, if you compare people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness who are physically living in 

cars, parks, or places not meant for human habitation, compared 

to those in shelters. If you compare individuals who are on their 

own to families, even men and women, and across race as well, 

there are many different circumstances that are precursors to 

homelessness. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So can homelessness be solved? 

Mr. LUCAS. I think that there is likely not a yes-or-no answer to 

that. I do believe that we have learned a lot about things that work 

better than previous efforts. We have seen evidence that studies 

that compare Housing First approaches for individuals with mental 

illness or disabling conditions do work better at housing retention. 

However, there is limited evidence that those are: one, cost-effective; or two, actually reduce the incidence of substance abuse, at 

least in the studies that we have that actually compare outcomes 

of what would have happened otherwise. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So, the question of cost-effectiveness is not just 

a question of money; it is how you utilize those moneys. 

Mr. LUCAS. Certainly. And while there are some claims that permanent supportive housing solutions save significant costs, actually 

a 2018 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine revealed that actually there is insufficient evidence 

to demonstrate that permanent supportive housing saves 

healthcare costs or is cost-effective relative to existing alternatives. 

And that is likely because the costs vary considerably from community to community. 

17 

Mr. MCHENRY. You mention innovation is a key part of the solution set for homelessness. But you talk about the one-size-fits-all 

approach at the Federal level and how that should fit into this continuum of care, as well as where that Federal coordination fits with 

with State and local efforts. 

So to that point, has the Continuum of Care program been effective? And what recommendations would you give this committee to 

transform this Federal approach? 

Mr. LUCAS. One of the really admirable and valuable things that 

USICH has spearheaded is increasing the collaboration and the 

creation of databases. They are called Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) at the community level. And those allow 

organizations to share information about client shelter entries, 

exits, reentry, et cetera, in ways that we didn’t know before in a 

systematic way. 

With data like that, we now have the opportunity to identify programs and communities that are much more or less effective in the 

actual outcomes that we would like to see. And so further investment in that sort of approach allows us more flexibility in the solutions that are being implemented. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Through data sharing, is it, in essence? And so 

you are tracking folks who are perhaps in repeated homelessness 

cycles or those that are chronically without shelter? 

Mr. LUCAS. That is right, which is a much smaller subset of the 

homeless population. The average shelter stay in 2017 was somewhere on the order of 40 days. So there is a large subset of the 

homeless population for which homelessness is brief and actually 

nonrecurring. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So, in 30 seconds, how do we leverage this Federal taxpayer dollar to get a better outcome? 

Mr. LUCAS. Most of the allocation currently is on the basis of 

need, and there is also explicit, in the bills being discussed, 

prioritization of and earmarking for permanent supportive housing 

and Housing First approach for much of that funding. And rather 

than requiring that and prioritizing that in the notice of funding 

availability through HUD and others, allowing results to drive solutions would be better. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you for your testimony. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Congressman 

Clay, the Chair of our Subcommittee on Housing, Community Development and Insurance, for 5 minutes, 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me also thank 

the witnesses for your testimony today. 

Let me start with Mr. Stewart. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness in the U.S. has declined by nearly 46 percent 

since 2010, with an even greater decline among unsheltered veterans, thanks in large part to increases in funding for veterans experiencing homelessness. More than 600,000 veterans and their 

family members have been permanently housed, rapidly rehoused, 

or prevented from falling into homelessness through HUD’s and 

VA’s homelessness program. 

18 

Can you speak to this progress? And what have we learned from 

fighting veteran homelessness that we should apply to ending all 

homelessness? 

Mr. STEWART. Absolutely, Congressman. Thank you for that 

question. And I promise I am not being flip when I say, ‘‘everything.’’ Everything—every lesson we have learned as we have 

worked to end veteran homelessness can almost be directly applied 

to ending all homelessness in the United States. 

We have learned about funding evidence-based practices. We 

have learned about collaboration at the local level being crucial. 

There was just a question about continuums of care. And I would 

say that the continuums of care—linking CoC programs to VAfunded grant programs in a community is a precursor and a requisite precursor to success in a community. 

So joining forces, sharing the same goal, discussing tactics, having a coordinated entry system on the community level, these are 

all very real tactical things that we have learned that need to be 

replicated across the system to replicate our successes from the veteran space. 

Mr. CLAY. And you think that would work with the chronic 

homelessness too? 

Mr. STEWART. Absolutely, sir. We focused very early on specifically targeting our HUD-VASH vouchers to chronically homeless 

veterans, so it has been proven to work for that population. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response. 

Ms. Oliva, some communities use zoning or they pack the homeless shelters into just one area. Can you share with us some of the 

don’ts or the least successful models that you have seen around 

this country that we should not try to emulate? 

Ms. OLIVA. Thank you for that question. I think that communities that are struggling the most, obviously there are external 

factors that we are all recognizing here. There are affordable housing shortages. There are local land use policy and zoning policies, 

for example, around density or other things that would really impact the ability to increase the supply of affordable housing and 

supportive housing in a community. 

So in communities that I am working in now, the most success 

that we are having is when those things are all sort of packaged 

together. We are talking a lot on this panel about the homeless 

services system. But I would argue that, obviously, homelessness 

cannot be solved by that system alone. So rather than saying what 

the ‘‘don’ts’’ are, I think I can say what the ‘‘dos’’ are. 

And what the ‘‘dos’’ are is you have to look at this as a package 

of policy program data, all of those things together, to really understand how things at the local level interact, how services for people 

who have substance use disorders or who have mental health 

issues interact with the homeless services system or how youth access the homeless services system or can access affordable housing, 

and then wrap that together into really robust policy initiatives 

that help on a variety of fronts, not just on homelessness. 

Mr. CLAY. Sure. 

And, Dr. Lucas, can you share with the committee the best practices that address ending homelessness that have reduced numbers 

in communities around this country? 

19 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for that question. As I have mentioned 

and as has been mentioned, one of the dramatic effects of the policy 

efforts over the last decade has been the expansion of permanent 

supportive housing, much of that adhering to a Housing First approach. 

The estimates of what we have seen at the aggregate level on 

that suggest that it takes 10 additional permanent supportive 

housing beds to reduce homelessness by one person. And if the estimated costs of that are about $20,000, that is about $200,000 per 

person, a total of the current homeless population, $110 billion. So 

we don’t know yet. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for those responses. 

I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I now call on the gentlewoman from Missouri, Mrs. Wagner. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this 

hearing today on the heartbreaking crisis of homelessness, which 

affects every community in America. 

Last year, I was honored to visit Loaves and Fishes, the longest 

operating homeless shelter in St. Louis County. I witnessed firsthand their tremendous work to help those who are experiencing 

economic hardships. Catholic Charities of St. Louis, St. Patrick 

Center, and so many other organizations in the St. Louis area are 

coming alongside disadvantaged and marginalized populations to 

help people get back on their feet. 

I am eager to work with this committee, Madam Chairwoman, 

this year to advance accessible and affordable housing for those 

who need it most in the St. Louis region and across the country. 

I am proud that the Catholic Charities of St. Louis has just been 

selected to participate in a 5-year healthy housing initiative to reduce chronic homelessness and frequent ER visits. This multimillion dollar initiative is being led in collaboration with the St. 

Patrick Center, the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Incarnate Word Foundation, Mercy, DJC Healthcare, and SSM Healthcare. 

Dr. Lucas, I believe that local collaboration like this between hospitals and shelters can complement the goals of the Federal programs. What can policymakers learn from these types of collaborative programs? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for your question. We certainly have 

learned that being able to collaborate not just in the efforts but in 

the sharing of data on what is being done frankly will take a step 

toward identifying what works. And so there have been some investments in developing systemic responses where there are many 

stakeholders at the local level involved, and those are the kinds of 

things that right now only a fraction of resources are being devoted 

to relative to the $6 billion that are already being spent each year 

on this issue. 

Mrs. WAGNER. There are so many of these partners who are, in 

fact, on the front lines, and to share the data, to share the information I think helps all. 

Fighting sex trafficking and providing services for women and 

girls who are trying to piece their lives back together is one of my 

very, very top priorities here in Congress. I am currently working 

20 

on legislation to increase the availability of housing to human trafficking victims. 

Ms. Roman, I know your organization, Ms. Darley, or one or the 

others, have been supportive of legislation to provide housing to 

runaway and homeless youth. Is there space for local housing authorities to partner with antitrafficking service providers to provide 

better assistance to victims of trafficking, and can you discuss how 

we can most effectively provide housing to trafficking victims? Ms. 

Roman? 

Ms. ROMAN. Well, just briefly, and thank you for the question, 

again, I think housing really is the solution to so many of these 

problems, and there is absolutely space for housing authorities to 

be working with organizations that are trying to prevent trafficking, and I think targeting some of the PHA resources more toward the most vulnerable people across-the-board would probably 

improve a lot of outcomes. It is a tremendously important issue, 

though, as you point out. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you. Ms. Darley, do you concur? 

Ms. DARLEY. I would have to agree. Women experiencing homelessness, living in a shelter or out in the open, unfortunately, are 

the most vulnerable individuals, even sometimes more so than children, but children are a part of the trafficking also. So, of course, 

there is room for that. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Ms. Darley. 

Dr. Lucas, you wrote in your testimony that the Federal Government has increased its investments in combatting homelessness in 

recent years, but we unfortunately haven’t seen the results we may 

have expected. Can you briefly discuss local policy decisions that 

are hindering progress and contributing to the homeless crisis 

throughout the country? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for that question. As I mentioned briefly, 

there is a fair amount of rigorous evidence that land use regulations that make it more difficult to expand the supply of housing 

have a very significant effect and are high predictors, very strong 

predictors of rates of homelessness for one. 

Mrs. WAGNER. All right. Thank you. Do you believe that there is 

a one-size-fits-all Federal approach that is outdated and needs to 

be replaced, sir? 

Mr. LUCAS. In many ways, certain inputs, the types of programs 

we do have been prioritized, rather than the outputs that they are 

yielding, so in that sense, yes. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you. I appreciate it. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. I now yield to the gentlelady 

from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and Ranking 

Member McHenry, for holding this really important hearing. I 

would like to ask Ann Marie Oliva a question. In New York City, 

which I have the privilege of representing, we have one of the highest homeless populations in the Nation, but most of our homeless 

population lives in sheltered areas, they have shelter. Only 5 percent is unsheltered. Could you give us specific policies that would 

particularly work in helping the homeless who are in sheltered facilities? 

21 

Ms. OLIVA. Thank you for that question. I do have quite a bit of 

experience looking at New York, looking at their data and their 

policies over the last, I don’t know, 20 years of work that I have 

been doing in this area, and New York City has a high sheltered 

population because they have a very unique local policy or local 

laws around a right to shelter. There are only a handful of communities across the country that have a right to shelter, and New 

York City is one of them. So that is one of the reasons that there 

is a very high sheltered population in New York City. 

But I think that the answers in New York City are similar to the 

answers in other places, and that is really the right mix, understanding your data, understanding the intersections between populations that are using other systems, the mental health system, the 

substance use system, the youth system and the jails, and really 

understanding those intersections and developing the kinds of 

interventions that will work for people in those intersections— 

sometimes it is supportive housing; sometimes it is something 

else—and allowing for innovation in those areas. I think New York 

in particular has a really big opportunity and has a history of 

working in those intersections to understand the needs of people 

who are using all of those different systems. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you, and I thank you for your testimony. 

I would like to ask all of the panelists the same question starting 

with Carolyn Darley and just go down the line. Please answer yes 

or no and/or pass. I want to know, do you think that Congress 

should prioritize addressing the homeless crisis by passing the 

Ending Homelessness Act, which would provide $13 billion to combat homelessness in various programs, and this would be paid for 

by shifting $13 billion that has been allocated for an aircraft carrier or some other similar weapon? Just yes or no or pass. Ms. 

Darley? 

Ms. DARLEY. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Pass. 

Ms. ROMAN. Yes. 

Ms. OLIVA. Yes. 

Mr. RUSH. Yes. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, with the caveat that I don’t care how we pay 

for it. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I was making a point on literature and information that was in our research that showed that some of these weapons cost as much as projected that would end homelessness in our 

country. 

I would like to ask Ms. Oliva again, we see in the research that 

there are many populations that are more affected than others. We 

heard testimony that there has been progress made with veterans. 

Could you comment on what populations are the most in need and 

any ideas of how we could be more helpful to those populations? 

Ms. OLIVA. Thank you for that question. So certainly we need to 

be able to walk and chew gum at the same time and address the 

populations that are really high need across all, so families and individuals, people experiencing chronic homelessness, veterans, and 

youth. I would say right now we are making incredible progress on 

trying to understand and be able to develop innovation around ending youth homelessness. 

22 

You heard from my colleague, Mr. Rush, today about some of the 

work that the True Colors Fund is doing, as well as some of the 

work that the Federal Government is doing on ending youth homelessness for a very vulnerable population of young people who 

started to experience homelessness as children and are now sort of 

in transition. 

I would also say that, again, people who are experiencing chronic 

homelessness and who are living out on the streets are particularly 

vulnerable because they have been outside for so long and they 

have a lot of disabling conditions. So our focus on young people, our 

focus on people who are experiencing chronic homelessness, as well 

as on families, we have to be able to do all of those things at the 

same time. Thank you. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I now yield to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Luetkemeyer, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. This is an 

interesting panel this morning, and I thank you for that. Mr. Stewart, it would seem to me, from the information we have been given 

and the statistics we have been shown, that it seemed like it would 

be making a dent in the veterans homelessness, is that a fair statement? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, absolutely, Congressman. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. And by doing the approach that has been 

done in your area, it would seem to me that would be an approach 

that across-the-board, we need to be taking, would that not be a 

way to start the thought process? 

Mr. STEWART. I think that is also a very fair way to think of it. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Why are we not doing that for the rest of the 

homeless groups? 

Mr. STEWART. I think to a certain extent we are, Congressman, 

respectfully. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Mr. STEWART. The learning that we have done in the veterans 

space, the development of best practices is directly relatable and it 

is often times used, is transferred to other sectors of the homelessness population at the community level all the way up to USICH 

in disseminating those practices. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I saw one of the slides we had up a minute 

ago with regards to veterans, and I think it was, between 2007 to 

2017, there were 31,000 people who became homeless and 30 percent of those were veterans, which is a staggering number. Is that 

number correct? Do you concur with that? 

Mr. STEWART. I didn’t see the slide, Congressman. I do know 

there are 37,878 veterans who are experiencing homelessness on a 

given night this year. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. So there are more veterans who are 

falling into this situation, but yet we are able to get a handle on 

that more or less, is that what you are saying? 

Mr. STEWART. That is always the challenge, Congressman, is 

every year more people present for care, more people fall into 

homelessness. That is true for every population, and I used to say 

that if I could wave a magic wand and solve veteran homelessness, 

23 

I would, but then tomorrow morning, there would be new people 

to serve. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Lucas, you talked a little bit about some 

of the statistics on this, but I serve some of the rural parts of Missouri as well as the suburbs and exurbs of St. Louis, but I have 

lots and lots of—a rural area. Can you give me some numbers or 

describe the situation for rural homelessness, is that a problem, are 

the causes, the situations, the same, different, would you have a 

different approach to those folks than you do for urban individuals, 

can you elaborate on that just a little bit? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for that question. Off the top of my head 

I don’t have the relative share of homeless who are rural as opposed to urban, but there is a sizeable subset of the homeless population living in rural areas, and it is an important subset of that 

population, and in some ways one of the biggest things that is very 

different across those two are the alternative systems that are 

available and the costs of use, for example, other systems in urban 

areas as opposed to rural areas. And so certainly the cost-effectiveness of different solutions and the effectiveness in terms of facilitating housing retention are really— 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. We did have on this panel a gentleman from 

New Mexico, and over 50 percent of his citizens in his district lived 

in mobile homes, lived in very, very rural areas of New Mexico, and 

so housing in rural areas is significantly different than that of 

urban areas, and so I would think you would have to have a little 

bit different approach in that respect, but the situation is different. 

Let me move on. 

Also, Mr. Lucas, in breaking down the statistics of homelessness, 

I know Ms. Darley made the comment a while ago with regards to 

some of the folks that she experienced in some of the shelters who 

were employed, with apparently good jobs, and yet still wound up 

in shelters. Can you tell me the percentage of people who are 

homeless but have jobs, and those who maybe don’t have a job 

right now but, if you gave them the skill set, could go get a job, 

because it would seem to me if we are looking at being able to afford to be able to pay rent or afford to be able to buy a house, you 

are going to have to have a job, or if you are disabled, you have 

to have a check of some kind probably or a subsidy of some sort. 

But for those people who are capable of getting a job and the skill 

sets, what percentage of those people would make up the homeless 

people today? 

Mr. LUCAS. Well, we know that there is some evidence that that 

percentage is increasing in terms of the people entering shelters, 

that there are higher rates of people entering. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I only have 15 seconds left, so one quick 

question. If those folks—I realize a lot of different things can hit 

somebody in that situation, but would a financial management 

course or class or somebody in a social services setting be able to 

help them? 

Mr. LUCAS. Possibly. We don’t know yet. 

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

24 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. We are running 

through a number of very important statistics, but the absolute 

most glaring statistic is this, that we really ought to put on the 

table, and that is, 40 percent of all the homeless men, women, and 

children are African Americans, and they only make up 13 percent 

of the population. 

Now, we can dance around a lot of things, but if we are serious 

about doing something for the homeless and dealing with this, we 

have to pull the covers off of this ugly thing called racism. And so 

I want to ask Ms. Roman, I think you came closest to touching on 

this, and if there are other witnesses who would like to answer, 

and here is why: Many of us on this committee are working with 

Chairwoman Waters on a bill that will bring $13.27 billion to this 

issue. However, if we don’t get under these covers and pull off the 

scab of this racism that it is causing—40 percent, just imagine, if 

40 percent of all the people in this country were homeless, that is 

what I am talking about. 

So, Ms. Roman, could you tell us, because you touched upon it, 

your thoughts on this, what must we in Congress do to deal with 

the racism that is here because it is shameful that 40 percent of 

all the homeless men, women, and children are African American? 

Ms. ROMAN. Of course I wish, and I am sure you wish, that I had 

a simple answer to that question, but if I could just reflect on two 

parts of it, one is, how does it come to be that 40 percent of people 

who are homeless are African American in the first place? The 

homeless system really has very little to do with that. That is the 

feeder systems into homelessness. So all of the things that you all 

are addressing—the disproportionality in the criminal justice system and the disproportionality in the child welfare system are two 

of the biggest feeder systems into homelessness. Housing discrimination. It goes on and on. 

So, those things have to be addressed. They are not going—the 

homeless system can help to address those, but we don’t control 

those things. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Ms. ROMAN. What we control is what is essentially a crisis system, but we have to look at the homeless system to see, are we entering people into the homeless system at the same rate regardless 

of race? 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Ma’am, I only have 1:20 left. I definitely want 

to get to Mr. Stewart because I think there is a direct application 

to this. Mr. Stewart, you talked in your—about two things, coordination and funding, working together and that has been what has 

succeeded with the veterans program, is the fact you are able to 

coordinate with the Federal agencies and apply the money. Can we 

do this with respect to being able to deal with this huge disparity 

among African Americans in homeless? 

Mr. STEWART. I believe so, Congressman. I believe a lot of the 

groundwork has already been laid. A lot of the local-level collaboration that we are talking about that was done in an effort to end 

veteran homelessness serves multiple purposes. 

Mr. SCOTT. How would we be able to apply this big bill that we 

are working on? Because I think we can put some muscle behind 

what Chairwoman Waters is leading the effort on and applying 

25 

some of this money to addressing the racism factor. We are going 

to get $13.27 billion to work on this. 

Mr. STEWART. I think we have to, Congressman. If we are really 

going to solve the issue of homelessness, we have to. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Let me just take 

this moment to say that, despite the fact that you saw the USS 

Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier depicted on the screen, I don’t want 

anyone to go out saying that is where we are going to get the 

money from, that we have targeted that particular aircraft carrier. 

We have not targeted any existing funds. We are looking for the 

government to fund this program without having to target existing 

programs. Thank you very much. 

With that, I will call on the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Huizenga, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and representing part of Gerald Ford’s old congressional district, I do appreciate that, and since it is out floating already, I am not sure we 

can put it up for sale anyway. But Mr. Lucas, I am not a big fan 

of the yes/no question that was thrown at you earlier. You passed 

when you were asked about the $13 billion package that has been 

proposed, and I just wanted to give you 30 seconds to elaborate on 

that. 

Mr. LUCAS. Well, thank you. My take is that additional spending 

in the ways proposed is unlikely to achieve the stated goals of the 

legislation based on the evidence that we have seen at the population level. Despite seeing some decreases in homelessness, the effect of these policy changes on that have been fairly limited to date 

based on the evidence that we have. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. So it is basically effectiveness, right? You are 

questioning how do we effectively use and succinctly use the moneys that are put into the programs? 

Mr. LUCAS. Yes. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Okay. I also want to explore a little bit about the 

influence of local zoning and regulatory structure. Recently, there 

was a joint study by the National Multifamily Housing Council and 

the National Association of Home Builders, and to be clear, my 

family is involved in construction and building, and I have seen 

this firsthand as well, but that study said that approximately 30 

percent of costs associated with building multifamily developments 

was attributed to local zoning and regulatory requirements. And 

Ms. Oliva you had said earlier that it is not just—I think this was 

your quote, not just the homeless services system, but we need a 

package of all these local services, and I just wanted to give you 

an opportunity if you looked at that, you mentioned the zoning and 

what some of those structural barriers might be to having affordable housing being built. 

Ms. OLIVA. Well, the first thing I would say is that there has 

been a decreased Federal investment in affordable housing over the 

last several years. If you look at the Section 202 Program or the 

HOME Program, or other types of programs that the Federal Government has historically used to help spur local investment, and 

that has been a fairly significant decrease over the last couple of 

years. 

26 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Okay. How about the influence of local and State 

regulations? 

Ms. OLIVA. Sure. So I think from the local and State perspective, 

what we are seeing is localities trying to find creative ways to innovate and to merge types of funding like from Medicaid or the— 

Mr. HUIZENGA. So do you believe that there are more barriers or 

fewer barriers that are being put up by local—I am talking specifically about zoning; I am not talking about taking different pools of 

money to address this. 

Ms. OLIVA. I don’t think that is consistent across the entire country. There are communities that are taking a lot of very positive 

steps towards making zoning changes, so that affordable housing 

can be developed. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. My experience has been the opposite, frankly, 

that there have been more barriers put in. Dr. Lucas, do you have 

anything you would like to add on that? 

Mr. LUCAS. No, not at this time. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. Okay. Quickly, Ms. Roman, I would like you to 

address—this has been an issue that has come to this committee’s 

attention previously and we have touched on this—a segment of 

homelessness that I am concerned about which is seeing kids, foster kids who are terming out, and they are not necessarily eligible. 

We know that there is this event horizon that is happening when 

they come of age, yet they may not be able to access some of those 

systems, and I am curious if you could comment on that quickly? 

Ms. ROMAN. Well, I think if they are homeless, they can access 

those systems. There is nothing stopping anybody who is exiting 

foster care from receiving assistance from the homeless systems. 

We would hope for better outcomes from the foster care system 

than to emancipate young people into homelessness. Mr. Rush may 

also—he works on that issue. He may have more thoughts about 

that. 

Mr. HUIZENGA. I have 30 seconds, so I want to also ask what coordination should happen? There was a little discussion about trying to look at the totality of who folks are—and my colleague 

brought up financial planning, but we also maybe have substance 

abuse. We also have mental health services that may be needing 

access. It seems to me we might have some HIPAA issues as you 

are having some coordination, and, you know, I am looking at what 

types of road blocks that we might have structurally that can help 

that, and my time is up, but maybe we can communicate by letter 

afterwards, and I appreciate your time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I want to follow up on what Mr. Scott began to talk about, and 

to some degree Mr. Huizenga just mentioned it, and Ms. Darley, 

Ms. Oliva, and Ms. Roman—and by the way, thank you for your 

willingness to come back over these years that I have been here, 

thank you—and that is homelessness; there are other issues that 

probably can eliminate homelessness. That is somewhat troublesome, and to be completely contemporary, I read this article about 

a guy from Rio Dell, California, Michael Thalheimer I think is his 

27 

name, who was a Federal employee who was quoted in a Los Angeles newspaper saying, ‘‘I am about a week away from homelessness.’’ 

This is a guy who gets up and goes to work every day for the 

United States Federal Government, and because of the shutdown, 

he is moving toward homelessness, and Zillow, which is one of 

those online realtors, estimated that 40,000 mortgages were at 

stake during the government shutdown, 40,000. And so I think it 

makes us feel a lot more comfortable to just think this is some guy 

who just doesn’t want a house and he doesn’t want to work and so 

forth that that, as Ms. Darley mentioned, that those are the homeless folks. So can you guys talk about the issue of housing instability, which I think is one of the primary factors in creating homelessness? And Ms. Darley, you mentioned that whole issue of people having to live with relatives, sleeping on the sofa—I don’t want 

to go there. I would like for you and Ms. Oliva and Ms. Roman to 

talk about the housing instability that precipitates, in many cases, 

homelessness. 

Ms. DARLEY. Thank you for that question. Housing instability 

starts with the very first thing that I mentioned, which is lack of 

affordable housing. I was surprised to find that so many individuals worked or had some sort of income, i.e., Social Security, when 

they were in shelters, and I asked why they could not afford rent. 

They had money, but not enough for rent. Also with gentrification 

happening in so many of our large cities, there is a saying that if 

you see the red bicycles, then you know that your neighborhood is 

going to change. And these neighborhoods which were at one time 

undesirable all of a sudden become hip and people who have 

generationally lived there have to move and find housing elsewhere, if they find housing. So that is something that I found. I 

don’t know if I have answered your question— 

Mr. CLEAVER. Gentrification, clearly— 

Ms. DARLEY. Which was not mentioned. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I was in San Francisco earlier last year, and I was 

with some friends driving, around and we saw a Latino guy walking down the street, And I said, ‘‘You know, this is the first time 

I have seen a Latino.’’ 

And my host said, ‘‘Well, it is going to be very difficult for you 

to see them after 5 or 6 o’clock because the population of African 

Americans in San Francisco is below 3 percent and Latinos is lower 

than that because they can’t afford to live there, so they cross the 

bay.’’ 

Ms. Roman? 

Ms. ROMAN. Well, just to say what you know, which is that poor 

people generally are paying way too much of their income for rent 

because there is not enough affordable housing, so the majority of 

people who earn below 30 percent of area median income are 

spending more than half that income for rent and that causes housing instability and puts them at risk of homelessness. And that is 

because of the gap, the 7 million unit gap in the number of affordable and available units, and that is what you are seeing in San 

Francisco. There are no affordable and available units there. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Ms. Oliva? 

28 

Ms. OLIVA. Yes, paying 30 percent of your income towards rent, 

that number actually plays out in the report that was done by 

Zillow recently that you just mentioned. And I said in my testimony as well that when people spend more than 32 percent of their 

income in rent, then the community sees a more rapid increase in 

homelessness. So there is a very direct correlation as you are saying between housing instability and homelessness. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. The gentleman 

from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 

hosting this hearing, and thank you to our witnesses for your testimony. We all join you in your desire to combat the problem of 

homelessness in America. And when it comes to Federal efforts to 

combat homelessness, Congress and the Executive Branch have 

had a tendency, I believe, to implement a one-size-fits-all policy, because the causes of homelessness are complex and varied. And 

while often carried out with good intentions, this one-size-fits-all 

approach has failed to produce the intended results that we are all 

seeking, which is, of course, less homelessness. 

After working with groups in my district in central and eastern 

Kentucky who are working and doing great work to combat homelessness and really caring for these people who are struggling and 

suffering, I have seen the impact that the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development’s overreliance on the Housing First model 

has had in terms of diminishing the opportunity of creative solutions outside of the Housing First model. These organizations must 

choose to either change their approach and adopt a Housing First 

model, or they lose their HUD funding. And while I understand 

that Housing First may benefit certain portions of the homeless 

population, I am concerned about the lack of flexibility for Federal 

funds. 

Mr. Lucas, my first question is for you. Through Federal bias and 

funding decisions, Housing First has largely displaced other approaches, such as those including transitional housing. Is there sufficient evidence to abandon programs like transitional housing—is 

there sufficient evidence out there to abandon approaches that 

don’t include wraparound services targeting the root causes of 

homelessness such as addiction and lack of work, lack of skills, lack 

of education? Shouldn’t we be looking at programs that target the 

root causes of homelessness as opposed to just saying homelessness 

is the result of a lack of shelter? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for your question. In some ways, the short 

answer is it depends, but as you mentioned, transitional housing 

is a type of shelter in which we have seen massive reductions in 

the total supply over the last 10 years. It is cut in half to about 

100,000 beds of that type now. And in part that is because organizations that are providing shelter services have now faced strong 

pressure to adopt certain types of specifically Housing First-type 

models to increase the likelihood that they can retain funding. And 

for that reason, there is some evidence that transitional housing is 

incredibly costly, but there has only been a small number of studies 

that have actually compared those costs. And it may be that certain transitional housing programs are more effective than others. 

29 

There may be other types that we haven’t thought of yet. There are 

prevention programs that cut off homelessness in the first place before it has occurred that have been very successful: in New York 

City, the Home Base Program; and then in Chicago as well. 

Mr. BARR. Let me jump in and ask another question about Section 8. The Congressional Research Service has looked at the Section 8 housing choice voucher program. They have looked at public 

housing, and what we can identify from the data is that about half 

of the recipients of public housing or housing subsidies, Section 8 

subsidies are disabled or they are elderly, not capable of working, 

and then another half of the recipients of public housing are ablebodied work-capable adults. And if you look at the data further, 

you see that about 20 percent, maybe a little bit more than 20 percent of those are prime age work-capable, able-bodied adults with 

no wage income. 

We have more job openings in America today than there are unemployed Americans. People who are struggling in homelessness or 

who don’t have housing are talented people who could contribute 

their talents in the workforce. What are we doing in terms of combatting homelessness with our HUD programs to require that ablebodied work-capable adults work as a condition of receiving housing benefits? And wouldn’t that be the practical route to escaping 

poverty for those 20 percent of the population that receive housing 

benefits, to require work as a condition of receiving those Section 

8 benefits? Any of you, but, Dr. Lucas, go ahead. 

Mr. LUCAS. I will be quick just in case anyone else wants to say 

anything. The Housing First approach specifically does not require 

anything like that, and there are certain people who face significant barriers to obtaining employment for which that might not be 

the solution, but there are many others where that might be an answer. 

Mr. BARR. My time is expiring, but I would just say that, before 

we spend $13 billion, we should look at more creative solutions like 

that. 

And I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lawson, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAWSON. Thank you, and welcome to the committee. 

Ms. Darley, I want to ask you a question. When I was a boy 

growing up in the country, lightning struck, houses would burn to 

the ground, and I can recall moving with the family 5 times. Was 

I homeless, or was I in transition? 

Ms. DARLEY. Thank you for asking. As far as I know, the definition for homelessness is if you are not on the lease, so maybe you 

were. You have to consider individuals who couch surf and stay 

with friends and family. They are still homeless because they don’t 

have a shelter of their own. So maybe you were, but maybe you 

were also in a community that was able to assist you and help you 

out whereas this happens mostly in cities and the individuals in 

cities, I am sorry, are not as either willing or able to help out others in the same way. 

Mr. LAWSON. Okay. My other question can be to the whole panel. 

With the decrease in HUD funding over the past several years, how 

has the Federal Government, the ability for you all to implement 

30 

housing programs that provide safe and affordable housing options 

for people? Anyone on the panel can answer that. 

Ms. ROMAN. I can start. While there have been some small increases for homeless assistance, the Federal housing budget is obviously insufficient to meet the need, and three out of four people 

who are eligible for assistance are not getting it. 

Mr. LAWSON. Would anyone else care to respond? 

Ms. OLIVA. And in the homeless programs in particular, the focus 

really has been on trying to ensure that the funding that is made 

available from year to year is used as effectively as possible. So I 

think that is something that is incredibly important for folks to recognize for the homeless programs in particular, that using the 

money that they have as effectively as possible is a priority. 

Mr. RUSH. And just to add to that, I would say that the lack of 

resources in funding has led to, I would say, a lack of innovation 

specifically in focusing on particular populations that are disproportionately impacted by experiences of homelessness, and an 

investment moving forward would allow for some of that innovation 

to be able to able to specifically, and thinking about something like 

the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project to be able to focus 

and target strategies towards preventing and ending youth homelessness where they can be applied and most necessary. 

Mr. LAWSON. And, Dr. Lucas, quickly, how do you describe the 

differences between rural homelessness and inner city? 

Mr. LUCAS. So, in cities, there is typically much more—the shelter systems are definitely more interconnected historically, and the 

density of the population certainly has a factor in the nature of 

homelessness in those places. There are also other opportunities in 

terms of employment and the rules for expanding housing supply 

that are maybe much more stringent historically in urban places 

where the costs of expanding the housing supply, especially for 

more affordable housing, can be prohibitive in some ways. 

Mr. LAWSON. Okay. And this is another quick question, and anyone can respond. I run into a lot of people who really don’t have 

to be in a homeless-type situation, but they want to be in it. How 

do you distinguish between those groups? 

Ms. DARLEY. I am going to try to answer that. If you could clarify, are you saying that people are homeless but they don’t have to 

be? 

Mr. LAWSON. Yes. 

Ms. DARLEY. I am going to have to beg to differ as far as that 

is concerned. People do not want to be homeless. As a former RN 

working in an emergency room in George Washington University 

Hospital, I had the opportunity to see individuals come in who 

were homeless and ill and feigning an excuse in the emergency 

room for somewhere to stay, and the answer to that clearly is ‘‘no.’’ 

Mr. LAWSON. Okay. Well, I have seen people who have family resources where they didn’t have to be in there, but they say they 

are homeless because they did not want to be in the situation they 

were in. 

Ms. DARLEY. I have seen that also. 

Mr. LAWSON. Okay. 

Ms. DARLEY. But I would say that would have to do more with 

a mental illness, where a lack in judgment is—they are not thinkVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Jul 12, 2019 Jkt 095071 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\HBA044.000 TERRI
31 

ing clearly because, who would turn down a place to stay? But I 

have seen it many, many times. 

Mr. LAWSON. Okay. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Last year, a report from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development reported that Colorado is one of the States with the 

highest levels of homelessness in America. The findings did highlight that homelessness slightly decreased in the last year, but that 

Colorado’s rural areas are experiencing nationally significant levels 

of homelessness. 

Dr. Lucas, I would like you to speak to a couple of issues here. 

I represent many of the small towns in rural Colorado where affordable housing advocates have suggested the policies that might 

be relatively simple to implement in larger cities like Denver may 

not be practical or even accessible for smaller towns with limited 

resources. At the small-town level, could the lack of resources to be 

able to parse through the applications, proposals for the Federal 

and State resources, be a contributing factor to the nationally significant levels of homelessness in the rural areas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for that question. If I may restate, are 

you asking if it is because of the difficulty of applying for those 

funds, that that is a barrier? 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. I actually don’t know that I can speak maybe even 

the best on this panel relative to others who are actively involved 

in that grant application process. It certainly is my understanding 

that there are collaborative efforts to try to help make this application process a little bit easier so that there is a joint application 

at the CoC community level for most of the targeted homelessness 

assistance. 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes, it is interesting, you know, going through our 

district, we have homeless in very rural areas, but one of those big 

challenges is simply applying for the grants, the applications. You 

simply don’t have the resources, the people to be able to fill them 

out and address really what is a really common concern. 

Dr. Lucas, in your testimony, you did advocate for increasing organizations’ flexibility to use existing scarce resources toward innovative efforts to alleviate homelessness in the communities. Could 

you maybe expand a little bit on some of those innovative solutions 

that you would see to be able to address the homelessness? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. So there are two example of programs 

that I might mention that are sort of in some ways inconsistent 

with a Housing First-prioritized approach and in that sense haven’t 

received funding in that way. One is the Doe Fund in New York 

City. This is a program that has employment as an integral part 

of the rehabilitation process for people who either are leaving incarceration or who have been homeless or who are otherwise struggling. The other is in near Austin, Texas, Community First, which 

is a program that involves basically tiny houses, if you have heard 

of sort of these very small units, in a more community setting actually requires the clients who are becoming or trying to create housVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Jul 12, 2019 Jkt 095071 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\HBA044.000 TERRI
32 

ing stability and achieve that to interact with one another in more 

substantive ways where community engagement is a more effective 

sort of rehabilitation tool that again is not required and not essential in the existing Housing First approach where that is the only 

requirement. 

Mr. TIPTON. And I appreciate that. I had the opportunity to be 

able to go through the Doe Project, and I think it speaks to my colleague Mr. Barr’s point in terms of trying to actually address the 

root problem of being able to get the employment so that people 

can actually afford the housing. 

But when we start talking about the affordable end of housing, 

I come from a unique State with some of the richest communities 

in the country in my district and some of the poorest communities 

in the country that are in my district. 

Under the chairwoman’s proposal to be able to limit tenant rent 

contribution for the Housing Trust Fund to 30 percent of the adjusted income, we have heard some concerns about that. Ms. 

Roman, would this proposal challenge the flexibility of local areas 

to be able to respond to the specific needs of the community and 

potentially challenge the ability of the communities to be able to 

lock in financing for affordable housing projects? 

Ms. ROMAN. I don’t know about the financing side. Obviously, 

there has to be revenue coming in, but I think the 30 percent 

standard of affordability is pretty important to keep families and 

individuals from becoming homeless once they are in housing. If 

they are spending much more on housing, it is very difficult to pay 

for other things like food, healthcare, transportation, and so forth. 

I will just add quickly too that the homeless programs really, except for permanent supportive housing, don’t subsidize people for 

a long time. There are employment programs. People have to work 

to pay the rent. They are not getting long-term rent subsidies from 

homeless programs, so they are work programs. People have to get 

to work to pay their rent. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Guam, Mr. San Nicolas, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I come from a very unique district that has a much smaller population than a lot of my colleagues. One of the things that we find 

is program ineligibility actually is a huge factor in the homeless 

situation that we are dealing with in my district. Does anybody 

have any input on how much of the homelessness we are dealing 

with in this country is as a result of actual program ineligibility, 

and what are some of the recommendations for turning those figures around? 

Ms. OLIVA. Hi, thank you. I actually lived in Inarajan, Guam, for 

a period of time in my life, so I have a little bit of insight into how 

the system works there. And when you say ‘‘program ineligibility,’’ 

are you talking about the homeless programs, or are you talking 

about access to affordable housing? 

Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Just in general, for example, I will encounter 

homeless individuals in my district, and I will say, ‘‘Hey, you have 

a couple of kids here; you qualify for these programs.’’ 

33 

And they will say, ‘‘Oh, I’m sorry; we are no longer eligible for 

those programs.’’ 

And so we are finding that oftentimes when it comes to the child 

homelessness, that is the case where they would have qualified for 

the program, but unfortunately, due to circumstances that happened previously, they are no longer eligible, and that creates the 

homeless circumstances that they are in. 

Ms. OLIVA. I think that there is a variety of things, the local continuum of care can partner with the housing providers in Guam to 

identify again those families or individuals who are sort of crossing 

systems to try and figure out the right intervention for them and 

where they are eligible. I also remember, and it might still be true, 

that there really weren’t enough resources to go around across the 

island, so people who might have been eligible weren’t actually able 

to access some of those resources, as well, just because there wasn’t 

enough funding. 

The other thing that I might suggest is to request some technical 

assistance for the island to make sure that everybody understands 

the current rules and protocols around eligibility because I think 

what I have seen across the country is that sometimes folks are 

saying that people are not eligible, and Dan mentioned this, when 

they, in fact, are eligible. 

Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Does anybody else have anything they want 

to contribute to the ineligibility component of the homeless figures? 

Ms. DARLEY. I wanted to say something from a personal experience with a friend of mine who was also waiting for housing, and 

this young lady found, that, and I found the same thing, that most 

of the services were geared towards people who were suffering with 

addictions. And everyone who is homeless is not an addict, though 

there is a tendency to go that way once the pressure of homelessness comes down upon an individual. But I have seen individuals 

lie or say that they will take a drug in order to qualify for a program that would help them because they weren’t addicted to any 

drug. So I thought that was really unfair and that more programs 

need to look at families and individuals who don’t have that problem along with those who do. Thank you. 

Mr. SAN NICOLAS. Okay. Thank you. 

Another question I had was, Dr. Lucas, you mentioned in your 

remarks creativity as an option for getting more solutions on the 

table, and, Mr. Rush, you also mentioned innovation. I want to 

kind of open it up to the panel, does anybody have any specific regulation or specific rule or specific limitation that could be addressed legislatively that would actually unlock this creativity or 

this innovation that we want to be able to encourage with our service providers? I am sure everybody gets together and sits at the 

table and says, ‘‘Man, if I only I could get to do this, then I would 

be able to solve that.’’ What is holding back some of this creativity 

and innovation? 

Mr. RUSH. I think that to an earlier point and the question of 

what we can do to address the disparities that exist as it pertains 

to homeless, I and my organization are very much advocates of, 

there needs to be additional training for service providers. And this 

is a notion that you see across public health, this idea that when 

someone is coming in to receive service provisions, we need to 

34 

make sure that if they are most impacted, that the service providers are able to provide culturally responsive and linguistically 

appropriate care. And that pertains to LGBTQ individuals. That 

pertains to people of color. So I think that if we could enact anything from a legislative standpoint, it would be some type of requirement that service providers receive additional training around 

cultural competency and linguistically appropriate care. 

Also, when thinking about—I am not sure there is a legislative 

approach to this, but a gender—the equal access and gender identity rule was—I think I am running out of time—was implemented 

in 2016, but I think the actual enforcement of that will get to some 

of the issues around violence as it pertains to transgender individuals. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Williams, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

to the witnesses for being here. In full disclosure, I am a small 

business owner in Texas. I am a capitalist. And Fort Hood, the 

largest military base in America, is in my district. 

Now, a question I have, has anyone here on the committee hired 

a homeless person before? I have. In my 45 years of Main Street 

experience, I have found that homeless individuals have always 

had a positive return on investment, and the people who accepted 

my job offers didn’t want government help. They didn’t want government guarantees. They simply wanted an opportunity and a 

paycheck. 

Dr. Lucas, what is the most effective way to provide employment 

and housing resources to individuals in order to get them back on 

their feet and providing for themselves? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for that question. Certainly, as you mentioned, there are many individuals who are able to make a positive 

contribution from an employment perspective, absolutely, and that 

is something that creates value both for communities and also for 

those individuals, of course, and to facilitate housing stability. And 

so the easier it is for organizations and small businesses, for example, to hire individuals potentially, for example, for a wage that 

is—where that is a profitable thing to do, that aligns the incentives 

of those in need and those looking to hire, as well. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Things like tax cuts, things like training programs and skill training all help, don’t they? 

Mr. LUCAS. It is possible. I haven’t seen the evidence on this. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. When it comes down to it, the best way to solve 

homelessness is to give people a job—we have talked about that— 

and the skills to succeed. We need our Federal housing policy to 

work together with our booming economy to unlock human potential. If we continue to build a strong Main Street America, support 

small businesses, and build wealth through taking risks and reaping rewards it will help immensely, I believe, in solving this problem. The Department of Labor released a report this week that 

said there were 7.3 million job openings in December. So, again, 

Dr. Lucas, what are the major hurdles in connecting the homeless 

population with some of the 7.3 million job openings in this booming economy that we have? 

35 

Mr. LUCAS. One of the challenges for labor markets, just like 

housing markets, is the physical location of those relative to the 

people in need. It certainly is true that, for the homeless population, this is a very localized situation. For example, California 

has 47 percent of the unsheltered homeless population in that 

State alone, and in warmer States there are about two-thirds and 

the 10 warmest States of the unsheltered population. And so sort 

of allowing the market system to be flexible in responding to where 

those needs are greatest and where the opportunities are greatest 

to provide affordable housing, to provide employment, seems like 

something that is not as directly a policy outcome in some ways as 

a functioning society. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Okay. Well, another question, in your testimony 

you state that the Housing First plan is often cited as the way to 

solve homelessness. It sounds as if the Federal Government is trying to centralize this function at the top of the Federal Government 

and stifle innovation. Now, from my experience of 45 years in being 

in business, the government’s one-size-fits-all solutions rarely work 

for complicated problems. So quickly, can you give us an example 

of an alternative solution that you believe should be explored in 

greater detail? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for that question, and as was mentioned, 

there are a range of programs that are funded through this targeted homelessness assistance, so it is not only the Housing First 

programs that have been funded, however, as was also mentioned, 

there is increasingly prioritized funding for organizations that are 

adhering to the Housing First approach that are delivering longterm permanent supportive housing programs. 

And so the opportunity that comes with the availability of data 

at the community level on housing retention and whether programs 

are working is to actually reward that performance rather than reward compliance with the types of shelter that have been shown 

to work in certain particular areas. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Okay. One final question, there are legitimate 

reasons for people who need housing assistance, and there are people with physical and mental health problems. We all know people 

in between jobs who fell on hard times and for many other reasons. 

With that being said, Ms. Oliva, is there a point where we should 

determine that people simply want benefits without having to 

work? 

Ms. OLIVA. There is obviously, as you mentioned, a wide range 

of people who are experiencing homelessness in any given year, 

and the implementation of strategies like coordinated entry help 

communities to determine who can go into what programs or who 

should go into what programs based on their needs. And the most 

expensive types of interventions are really for the folks who are 

most vulnerable. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. 

Tlaib, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TLAIB. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. 

It is interesting, so my son is home from school, you probably 

hear about the weather and snow days, and sometimes I send him 

a link and say, ‘‘I am in committee.’’ And he read one of the—you 

36 

will appreciate this, Madam Chairwoman—slides and said, ‘‘13 billion? Why haven’t we done it yet?’’ 

And I just think that sometimes even a 13-year-old kind of gets 

it and is coming from, the purest of hearts and understanding the 

critical importance of it. 

But, one of the things coming from the nonprofit sector, I worked 

over 10 years, from wraparound services around affordable housing, what low-income housing aims—the definition sometimes even 

on the State level can differ. But it was very clear from those who 

worked for decades on this issue that jobs won’t solve homelessness; housing does. And looking at my district, which is the third 

poorest congressional district in the country, we have seen such a 

hike in the rise of housing costs. You know, a lot of us, you will 

hear many of my colleagues use the words, ‘‘middle class.’’ For us 

it is working families, working class. These are individuals that 

many of us have contact with almost every single day, not realizing 

the person who is at the coffee shop, the person who is at maybe 

the parking garage, the person—those are the individuals who really are at jeopardy of being in the cycle of poverty and leading to 

homelessness. 

When President Trump signed what I call the millionaire welfare 

bill, he weakened the low-income tax credits, which has been the 

primary tool in promoting affordable housing. Do you all agree? 

Okay. Everybody is nodding yes. 

So one of the experts estimates that the millionaire welfare plan 

is leading to a reduction of new affordable housing by 235,000 

homes over the next decade. They said just the pause button of 2 

years did that of saying and reducing, again, the attractiveness of 

low-income housing. And they say that 11 million residents, and 

this is where I think a lot of my residents come in, is most of our 

fellow Americans are rent-burdened right now because they are 

spending more than half—11 million of them are spending half of 

their income on housing for rent. And currently, even with the 

shortage of, I think it is 7.4 million—of affordable homes—7.4 million affordable homes is needed right now. Again, there hasn’t been 

this attractiveness to it because of this millionaire welfare plan. It 

really has shocked kind of the market of the attractiveness. Can 

any of you speak about that and talk about what that has done in 

the last 2 years? 

Ms. ROMAN. It is complicated what the tax bill did to housing. 

But I will say that homeowners are very much advantaged in our 

tax system in terms of the amount and the percentage of them who 

get assistance through the Tax Code versus the amount that we 

spend for renters. 

And we really are not—even if you have the low-income housing 

tax credit, you still have to provide rental assistance for the people 

that we are all here talking about who are at 30 percent of area 

median income and below. 

So anything that affects supply or the cost of capital in addressing the supply of affordable housing is going to result in more people being at risk of homelessness. 

Ms. TLAIB. It was actually President Ronald Reagan who 

passed—did you all know—the low-income tax housing—it is incredible to read that he birthed this approach, this, what I would 

37 

call, win-win in many ways. And, again, it supports what you all 

are trying to do on the front lines of making it attractive to developers, of course, but also creating really safe environments for affordable housing to exist. 

And even to some of my colleagues, having one of the most beautiful, Blackest cities in the country, the City of Detroit, where 70 

percent of my residents currently are paying over 30 percent of 

their income towards rent, there truly is increasingly becoming a 

crisis that is leading to a crisis in education, a crisis in so many 

other areas because we haven’t been able to deal with this homelessness problem in our Nation. 

So I just really want to thank all of you for being here. I know 

I am—time is very limited. 

My brother helps veterans through the Earn and Learn Program. 

Homeless vets come through, and they go through the affordable 

housing in Detroit. It is amazing. And he will go through this program. 

And then my sister, and my colleague would appreciate this, 

helps victims of sexual assault. I am the eldest of 14, so you kind 

of get a lot with my family. But one of the experiences they said 

is, ‘‘housing, Rashida, housing, housing,’’ all the time; they are constantly advocating for— 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. TLAIB. Thank you so much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Davidson, 

is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And thank you to our witnesses. I appreciate your expertise and 

your passion for helping us deal with this critical issue for our 

country and for those affected by homelessness. 

Ms. Roman, in your opening remarks, you mentioned some of the 

racism that has been a part of that. And I am just curious, if you 

look at Federal housing policies going back to the New Deal, certainly in the era of segregation, to what extent have they contributed to homelessness? 

Ms. ROMAN. Oh, definitely, they have contributed to homelessness. And that is why the housing discrimination and why the Fair 

Housing Act is so important today. African Americans are still— 

there is plenty of evidence—being discriminated against in housing. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Thank you for that. And I appreciate the reference. 

Do you feel like all the work to reform those programs that needs 

to be done has been done? 

Ms. ROMAN. No, I don’t feel that all of that has been done. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Do you feel that Congress is likely to solve that 

in a collaborative way in the near future? 

Ms. ROMAN. I have my fingers crossed. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, I do. as well. 

I have been a little discouraged about our problem-solving, and 

so I am working on a bill called The People CARE Act. And it proposes a bipartisan commission, four Republicans, four Democrats. 

They get a year to work together, and they have to come up with 

a proposal that Congress must vote yes or no on. So not just a 

study but really something that would be binding. 

38 

And as I worked with social workers across my county and now 

my congressional district, they were frustrated because when they 

wanted to help people, they were often in the position where they 

were simply administering programs. And they were, frankly, by 

statute sometimes, prevented from doing what they wanted to do, 

which is person-centered, looking holistically at what are the issues 

affecting this. 

And so, Mr. Lucas, when you say there is no clear answer on a 

solution, I would say that each solution might be a little bit different. You really do have to get to know the person. So I think 

it is important that we do this reform, and we enable our local 

caseworkers to understand how to use the programs. 

The other problem is we have 92 means-tested programs. A fair 

number of those are housing programs. I spoke with one of my colleagues, Mr. Cleaver, about this, and his experience in Kansas 

City. Some of them work a little better than others. Some of them 

are easier to get the money spent. And other ones have more rules 

and restrictions. So the goal here would be to empower the commission to recommend, without launching any new programs and also 

without cutting any of the spending, to redesign them so that you 

could make use of the purpose without as many burdens—92 programs, a caseworker looking at a bookshelf of 6-inch binders for 

each of them. 

The other one is some of them come with benefit cliffs, and you 

could redesign those. So I am not confident that we are going to 

be able to get—even one program at a time would take 92 years 

for Congress and a heroic effort. So my hope is that we can find 

people who are willing to collaborate on that. We found great support through Ohio and our job and family services, through all of 

Southwest Ohio’s United Way efforts. 

And the goal here is to use Brookings’ data and do what, in the 

long run, will help people is, yes, a job at a wage above the meanstested line. But homeless people are having a hard time even accessing the assistance programs. I believe passionately that no one 

should be turned away from these programs simply because they 

came in through the wrong door. So it is, I think, vitally important 

we empower caseworkers. 

Have you seen anything like that work, Ms. Roman? 

Ms. ROMAN. Actually, in Columbus, I think historically on the 

homeless side, there has been—it has been a very well-organized 

system that combined sources. 

There is a big challenge—homelessness—the homeless system 

can’t solve this problem all by itself. And the mainstream programs 

that you have referenced have to be part of preventing it and addressing it. And it is very difficult, as witnesses have said, to coordinate those. 

So I think your help in simplifying them so they can be coordinated but are still powerful and effective would be welcome. 

Mr. DAVIDSON. Okay. Thank you. 

And as all of our panel have input, certainly with the housing 

programs, I think we are on to something. 

I do have questions about the idea of simply spending more money. The reality is we are spending $10 billion more—last year, 

we spent about $10 billion more at 3.7 percent unemployment than 

39 

we spent back when we had 10 percent unemployment. I do believe 

that there should be some correlation, where as the economy improves, there would be less need. 

And my time has expired, so I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

I now call on the gentlelady from California, Ms. Porter. She is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PORTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Roman, what research or recommendations do you have on 

how best to site both shelters, rapid rehousing programs, and permanent supportive housing? And what kinds of services should be 

provided in order for these programs to be most effective where Orange County is experiencing—is the second highest homeless rate 

in the country for a city of its size, and we are in the—we are trying to expand our services, and any insights you can provide on 

how best to locate those in terms of sizes of shelters, numbers of 

resources. We are going to put them close to schools, transit, jobs, 

healthcare, all of the above; I would really appreciate your recommendations. 

Ms. ROMAN. Thank you for your question. 

I don’t have a simple answer for that. There is not, I don’t think, 

a lot of, if any, research on siting. I do think that people—that it 

is better to site near transportation and not to separate people. I 

think that is an important thing. 

Bigger shelters. There are some okay bigger shelters, but smaller 

shelters seem to function better. I think one of the one principal 

thing I would—or two principal things about that, shelters should 

be low barrier. We are finding that a lot of the unsheltered homelessness is because people won’t come into shelters because of the 

rules we need to get them in. 

And at the same time, you are planning the shelter entries to 

make that more congenial to people and making the shelter more 

helpful, you have to, at the same time, be planning the exits. So 

a lot of places put too much emphasis on the front door, and none 

on the back door. And we don’t get anywhere with reducing the 

numbers. 

Ms. PORTER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lucas, in your general knowledge as an American, do we 

know how to prevent or stop people from getting breast cancer? 

Mr. LUCAS. Not to my knowledge. 

Ms. PORTER. Me, either. Okay. 

In your general knowledge as an American, do we have treatments that can stop the advance of breast cancer and cure individual people? 

Mr. LUCAS. I believe so. 

Ms. PORTER. Okay. I fail to see how homelessness is different. So 

the research seems clear to me that we know, for any given person 

who is experiencing homelessness, that we know that a Housing 

First permanent supportive housing approach can aid that person 

or that family and put them on a path to more productivity and 

better well-being. It is clear to me that just because we do not 

know how to cure—how to prevent people from obtaining breast 

cancer, we would not say we should not treat those who are suffering. And I fail to see the difference here. 

40 

I take your point to be—and this is not a question, but I take 

your point to be that we cannot prevent the occurrence of homelessness merely through supportive housing. We must expand the 

number of units of affordable housing. And I think that is entirely 

consistent with what the entire panel has been emphasizing today. 

So I would just—my view on this, and I appreciate the witnesses 

and their thoughtful comments, is we must do both. We must fund, 

as we do, research to prevent the incidence of cancer but also treat 

those who are dealing with its hurtful effects. And I see no reason 

to be different as we think about homelessness. 

My question is for Ms. Oliva or Ms. Roman, either one. In Orange County, we are finding that the heaviest service users are 

costing us about $450,000 a year. And that is about 10 percent of 

our population. But if we put those heaviest users into permanent 

supportive housing, the cost goes down to $55,000. So that is a 

nearly $400,000 per person savings. 

When we go to deploy, as I hope we do, a Housing First permanent supportive approach, how can we make sure that as these 

grants and resources go out, that agencies focus on the heaviest 

users who will most benefit the system from getting permanent 

supportive housing? How could we incentivize that? 

Ms. OLIVA. I think there are a few ways to do that. And the first 

is to make sure the folks who need to share data are sharing the 

data at the local level. I know CHS supports a variety of communities around the country to identify frequent users of systems like 

the healthcare system or the jails along with homelessness so that 

they can really identify who those frequent users are and target— 

what I—I mentioned this earlier. The most expensive resource with 

the highest level of services should go to the folks who are most 

vulnerable and have the highest level of needs, so—and you can do 

that through a process that is called coordinated entry. 

Coordinated entry is something that is being implemented across 

the country so that people have a fair and prioritized kind of access 

into the homeless service system and that there is a system to 

identify the needs of any individuals or families coming forward. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. I appreciate you calling this hearing and the insightful testimony that we have heard 

today and the responses to the many questions. 

I am new to the Congress, and I want to thank the distinguished 

panel for taking the time to be here. 

My faith is very important to me, and my faith tells me that the 

homeless, the poor, will always be among us and that I am called 

to lend a helping hand and to take them in. And so that informs 

my view of this issue to a great degree. 

I also look at the Constitution. And as I ran for this office, I often 

quoted to the people in my district that Article I, Section 8, enumerates the powers of this Congress. And when I look to Article I, 

Section 8, I don’t find housing or the homeless as one of the areas 

that the Congress is empowered to deal with. And so then I reach 

the view that probably that is a power and a duty that is left to 

the States and to local governments. 

41 

So that is where I would start with this issue, that I believe I 

am personally called, as I believe we all are, to help the poor and 

to help the homeless. But I am not sure that is a duty of the Federal Government. 

However, having reached that point, I do think that there probably is a role for the Federal Government to play. And so, Dr. 

Lucas, I want to address this to you. 

It seems to me, as I look at one of the graphics that has been 

displayed today, that I see that the rate of homelessness, if the 

data are accurate, is higher in some areas of the countries than 

others. And if I look, I see that the West Coast and some areas of 

the upper East Coast demonstrate higher rates of homelessness. 

And I wonder if you could speak for just a moment to the accuracy 

of that data and whether it informs us in any way about the root 

causes of homelessness. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you for your question. 

The data that you are describing are the annual point-in-time 

counts that are published by HUD each year and since 2005, as 

was mentioned. 

So what these counts do is they count one at a point in time in 

January each year how many people are homeless enumerated both 

in terms of within shelters and then on the street. And that street 

count occurs through volunteers and social workers and police and 

communities coming together to attempt to count. 

So what it tells us is—it does give us a snapshot of at a point 

in time with, over time, increasing accuracy—although there are 

still challenges with that—how many people are experiencing 

homelessness on one night. 

It doesn’t tell us anything about the amount of homelessness, the 

flow of homelessness, if you will, people who are becoming homeless over time. And so those are very two different important parts 

of the data, and both of them vary considerably across communities, as you mentioned, both the prevalence and the rate at which 

people might come to experience homelessness. 

Mr. ROSE. Is there anything in the data or the research that has 

been done that would explain the disparities in the rate of homelessness across the country? 

Mr. LUCAS. We certainly have several papers that have linked 

housing affordability and housing market conditions to the prevalence of homelessness both within California and then nationwide 

in the connections to State use—State land regulations as well. So 

those conditions are there. 

But at the same time, there has also been some recent work trying to understand the uncharacteristic increases in homelessness in 

Los Angeles and New York City, which those communities have 

seen much more homelessness over the last several years whereas—even though homelessness has fallen overall. 

And the best answers of this based on economist Brendan 

O’Flaherty summarized the literature basically saying that we 

don’t actually know all the reasons why some of these communities 

have seen the trends that they have seen despite massive increases 

in expenditure from Federal and local levels in each of those communities to expand the—at least targeted homelessness programs. 

42 

Mr. ROSE. With the time we have remaining—or I have remaining, is there anything in the data collection arena that you might 

suggest that we do to help to explain those differences or to gather 

better data? 

Mr. LUCAS. One of the things that Ms. Roman mentioned is who 

is being served in each program and what the barriers are to being 

served. Certainly, if we have a better understanding of how those 

programs are operating with the specific people and the needs that 

are faced by the individuals being served, we can have a better 

sense of whether or not they are achieving housing retention at 

rates that are consistent with what we might expect for the challenges that those individuals face. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. 

Ocasio-Cortez, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. 

Ms. Darley, I sincerely appreciate how illuminating your testimony was, particularly when you highlighted who was in the shelter system with you. 

Did I hear you correctly when you said that there were doctors, 

and journalists from The Washington Post, in these shelters with 

you? 

Ms. DARLEY. Yes, that is correct. You heard correctly. There were 

other professions. I remember them because it was so unexpected, 

but, yes, the 3-month stay that I had there, definitely. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So there were people who were gainfully 

employed, who were in the system with you? 

Ms. DARLEY. Actually, 75 percent of the homeless population is 

employed, believe it or not. But because shelters are 12-hour systems where you are allowed in for 12 hours and out, they are not 

conducive to work. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. So 75 percent of the people in these shelter 

systems already have a job and they are working? 

Ms. DARLEY. Yes. A job or an income, i.e., Social Security or 

something of the like, yes. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. And so, I think we have identified large 

causal factors, whether it is the racist legacy of our criminal justice 

system, whether it is women who are systematically paid less on 

the dollar than men leaving domestic violence situations that can’t 

afford their own rent, whether it is the great need to invest and 

improve our child welfare system so that we are not emancipating, 

as was stated, children into homelessness, and also the great need 

to acknowledge our Nation’s mental health and overall health crisis, especially as it pertains to our country’s veterans but really to 

citizens overall. 

But one thing that I see is that one big factor that we are seeing 

that contributes to homelessness is just that the math doesn’t add 

up, is that wages are too low and rent is too high, for a very large 

amount of reasons. 

I represent New York City, which is currently experiencing the 

highest rates of homelessness since the Great Depression. And we 

have heard a lot about the demand for housing, but we have not 

heard enough about the supply of housing overall. And one thing 

that I find interesting is that, according to our housing and vaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Jul 12, 2019 Jkt 095071 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\HBA044.000 TERRI
43 

cancy survey, there were 250,000 vacant apartments in New York 

City as of March of 2018—250,000 vacant apartments. And even at 

the highest rates since the Great Depression, 63,000 people experiencing homelessness. So that is four empty apartments for every 

one person experiencing homelessness in one of the most populous 

cities in the world. 

So, when we break that down, we see about 80,000 of them are 

being renovated; 75,000 of them are not even being occupied full 

time. And what we are also seeing is that, due to deregulations in 

our housing market, deregulations in taxes is that a very large 

amount of high-income foreign buyers are taking up a large 

amount of this inventory which is displacing full-time New York 

City residents, American citizens, permanent residents and so on, 

people who are actually living in our community. 

So my question is—and we are seeing also, since 2008, roughly 

30 percent of the condo sales in Manhattan developments have 

gone to purchasers with overseas addresses. So we have local people, our people, who are not housed, and foreign multimillionaires 

or billionaires who are buying their third, fourth, or fifth home. So 

I think this is really a question about priorities and where do we 

prioritize housing people in America as opposed to giving a foreign 

multibillionaire or even an American billionaire their fifth penthouse. 

So my question is to Ms. Oliva. Where are some of the issues 

that you think we—solutions that we can point to in addressing 

that? 

Ms. OLIVA. It is a really important topic because there are cities 

across the country, not just New York, who are—who have a very 

mismatched vacancy—number of vacancies and the types of vacancies that they have in their city. In the District, we are experiencing that right now. The types of vacancies that are available are 

well outside of the affordability range for people who are experiencing homelessness in the city. 

So communities are doing things like trying to figure out how to 

do shared housing so that families or individuals can go in together 

on a two-bedroom unit or a three-bedroom unit and share the cost 

of that housing. 

Other communities are looking at landlord engagement as something that they really have to step up in order to get the number 

of units that they need over time. 

Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ. Thank you very much. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gonzalez, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GONZALEZ OF OHIO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

First, I want to say to my colleagues what an honor it is to be 

serving with you on this committee this Congress, and I look forward to working with you on some of the most pressing problems 

facing our Nation. My commitment to each of you is to be a productive partner who will always work to find common ground in improving the lives of our constituents whom we are so fortunate to 

represent. 

I want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this hearing today. And thank you to our witnesses for their testimony and 

for so diligently answering these hours of questions. 

44 

I believe that every person on this committee, certainly in this 

room and watching on TV across our country, sincerely wants to 

see homelessness end in America. In nearly every community in 

the country, we have people suffering from homelessness while passionate citizens and taxpayers work tirelessly to solve the issue. It 

is not for a lack of empathy or compassion that we have homelessness today. 

Just yesterday, I visited with a constituent in my office who 

shared the story of her roommate’s family who had been driven 

from their home and now have to shack up in the dorm with the 

students. So this is a big problem, and I thank the panel for their 

work in helping resolve this issue. 

As with all big problems, I believe we need to start with a compassionate heart and a sound mind that prioritizes evidence and 

data while addressing root causes as we consider solutions to our 

challenges. 

As I review the legislation before us and I look at the publicly 

available housing data that we are seeing on the screens around 

us, I see some troubling signs. From 2014 to the present day, we 

have increased spending by 15 percent to address homelessness. 

But homelessness has decreased by only around 4 percent in that 

time period. That is, it has actually slightly increased in the last 

few years. 

Additionally, we see, in cities with the highest concentration of 

homelessness, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, that homelessness has increased to truly crisis levels, despite good-faith efforts from all levels of government and additional spending. I believe the evidence is clear that simply throwing more money at the 

problem is not the cure-all that we would probably like to believe. 

The problem is not purely financial. It is structural. It is systemic. 

And much of the work we need to do exists outside the purview of 

this committee. 

My hope is that today’s discussion is the beginning of a much 

deeper conversation that does not start with a prebaked solution 

but that works to identify root causes and impediments that our 

people face as they seek to avoid and alleviate homelessness across 

the various communities that we are so fortunate to represent. 

So, with that, my first question goes to Dr. Lucas. 

Roughly, how much do we spend per year on Federal homelessness programs? And how confident are you that the additional 

funding being discussed today would permanently end homelessness in America? 

Mr. LUCAS. The U.S. targeted homelessness assistance budget 

was $6.1 billion in 2018. And that has basically doubled since 

about 2008 or so when it was in the, sort of, mid—right around $3 

billion a year in spending. 

And then the answer to your question, one of the things that is 

important to remember is that people continue to face challenges 

and may become homeless in the future. And so even ending it for 

those who currently experience it will not be sufficient to end 

homelessness for the rest of our Nation, of course. 

Mr. GONZALEZ OF OHIO. Thank you. 

A 2016 President Obama White House housing development toolkit highlights the impact that local barriers play in reducing housVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:27 Jul 12, 2019 Jkt 095071 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\HBA044.000 TERRI
45 

ing affordability for working families, specifically in New York, Los 

Angeles, and San Francisco. The report goes on to say that HUD’s 

existing project-based and housing choice vouchers could serve 

more families if the per unit cost wasn’t pushed higher and higher 

by rents rising in the face of barriers to new development. That is 

a quote. 

In addition, the city of San Francisco, despite a homeless epidemic, built 17 percent fewer homes last year than the year before. 

The California Department of Housing projects California would 

need to build roughly 180,000 homes per year to keep prices stable. 

They built less than half of that. The LA Times wrote an op-ed in 

May 2018 titled, ‘‘California’s housing crisis reaches from the 

homeless to the middle class—but it is still almost impossible to 

fix.’’ The reason that they cite is because State and local development laws make it incredibly difficult to bring new units online. 

Dr. Lucas, what sort of impact do local zoning barriers and land 

use restrictions have on access to affordable housing? And is it safe 

to assume that a significant portion of the funding within the proposals discussed today would go to States and localities that have 

these more stringent local barriers? 

Mr. LUCAS. To my knowledge, the funding allocations have no relationship or are not influenced by the State of local regulations 

on—toward housing. The point that you have gotten to is, as was 

mentioned earlier, there is a difference between it is worth thinking about the demand for housing but also the supply and the barriers to financing that. 

Mr. GONZALEZ OF OHIO. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlewoman from Massachusetts, 

Ms. Pressley, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I thank all 

of my colleagues for their robust line of questioning. I want to 

thank the chairwoman for her leadership for making this the first 

issue that we are tackling as a Full Committee. It is an issue of 

consequence to all of our districts and certainly to the country. And 

then I thank each of you for the work that you do every day and 

for your expert testimony provided. 

In my faith tradition, we often say, ‘‘There but for the grace of 

God, go I.’’ 

And it seems that increasingly so, certainly in the Massachusetts 

Seventh, the district I represent, and throughout the country, people are an incident, a circumstance away from experiencing homelessness, a fire away, a medical bill away, a paycheck away, certainly exacerbated by this most recent Federal Government shutdown. 

And so it is so important that we—as you have addressed, these 

are not issues that we can tackle with a silo. There is an 

intersectionality and a complexity here that does require a holistic 

and comprehensive response. 

It was mentioned earlier that we are in the midst of a booming 

economy. Although there are more people employed than ever before, most of them are underemployed. So, really, on the precipice 

of dire straits economically in experiencing homelessness. 

Due to the robust line of questioning, a number of my questions 

have already been asked, so I just want to ask a couple of things 

46 

that I didn’t hear, and I hope I didn’t miss when I stepped out of 

the room. So, if you have to be repetitive, I do apologize. 

I wanted to talk about what we are doing to support those who 

aim to successfully reenter into society. In Massachusetts, 30 percent of our chronologically homeless are those who were previously 

incarcerated. In fact, many of them are being released from correctional facilities to shelter. While, at the same time, we know that 

the number one driver of recidivism is unemployment. And so how 

can someone make a positive contribution and pursue employment 

if they do not even have a shelter or a home. 

I know there are some models throughout the country that are 

being explored due to discriminatory housing policies that are often 

barring those who have previously been incarcerated from reuniting with their families, especially if they are in public housing. 

And so I am just curious as to what your thoughts are about how 

to address the needs of this chronically homeless population to ensure that they can get on track to making a positive contribution 

and not have their hands forced. 

I think New York had a model. I am just curious what you think 

about housing specifically for those reentering. 

Ms. ROMAN. Well, in particular, for people who have mental 

health issues or mental health and substance—behavioral health 

disorders, I think targeting people reentering for permanent supportive housing has been a very effective thing. Another dimension 

of that to recognize is that people are often criminalized for their 

homelessness. And then they get a criminal record, and those 

records then stop them from being able to get units and also to get 

jobs. So some way to address the record’s history and so forth I 

think would also be important. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Okay. And then, secondarily, in terms of while 

people are in shelter and ensuring that those spaces are safe, I 

know that Secretary Carson had withdrawn a rule that would have 

required HUD-funded homeless shelters to uphold certain Federal 

protections for LGBTQ individuals. So, what can we do to ensure 

that HUD is upholding its mission to ensure equal access to safe 

and affordable housing? And then my question on training for staff 

in terms of linguistics, cultural competency, sexual orientation, 

gender identify sensitivity, is that something that could be costneutral? 

Mr. RUSH. To answer your initial question, yes, the equal access 

and gender identity rule, which went into effect in 2016, I think 

that there have been some of your colleagues who have made a request to Secretary Carson over at HUD about the enforcement of 

that. There were some resources that were taken down from the 

HUD website, and there has been a lack of guidance around what 

that looks like for creating inclusive spaces. 

We as an organization do a lot of work around making sure that 

gender pronouns are recognized, that intake forms are representative of peoples’ gender identity. 

I think that in regards to training, there are free trainings that 

currently exist, specifically my organization has a true inclusion 

toolkit that addresses how service providers can create more inclusive and safe spaces for LGBTQ individuals. So there are resources 

that exist. 

47 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. PRESSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Rush. 

And thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Duffy, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Welcome again, panel. There are a number of issues that I want 

to get to, including zoning. I want you to talk about programs that 

work and don’t work. I also want to talk about foster children. 

But, first, I know it is not up here right now, but I have to tell 

you, that beautiful Gerald R. Ford looks a lot like freedom to me, 

what defends liberty and freedom and democracy for this country 

and many others in the world. So to say we don’t want to have a 

military to protect that is concerning to me. 

But that is a conversation about money, right? And if I ask the 

panel, would you all say the main theme here is, ‘‘We need more 

money?’’ You are asking for money? Yes? Is that what you are— 

Ms. Roman is saying yes, and no one else is taking me up on that. 

You guys are saying money? I am from Wisconsin. You are talking about cheddar, right? Yes, you want money. 

And so, I looked at Ms. Darley’s story, and I thought it was a 

remarkable story of success, of hardship. I can’t imagine the hardship that you went through when you got that kind of world 

thrown at you, and you made it out. But you are here to tell the 

story of how hard it is, and I appreciate that. 

You think we need more money for these programs, right? 

Ms. DARLEY. Not necessarily. I am not saying that money 

wouldn’t help. But I am a strong advocate for innovation, and that 

is because I get a chance to talk to a lot of the young people around 

this country, and they give me crazy, awesome ideas— 

Mr. DUFFY. I love that. 

Ms. DARLEY. —as to how this could have—some have put into 

their own plan. One young lady did a coat, which turns—she, a 19- 

year-old, designed it for the homeless. It is a coat that turns into 

a backpack that turns into a sleeping bag. So I am just saying innovative thinking and the opportunity to do so— 

Mr. DUFFY. You are speaking my language. 

Ms. DARLEY. —would be the key. 

Mr. DUFFY. I totally agree. 

Mr. Stewart, are you a veteran? 

Mr. STEWART. No, sir, I am not. 

Mr. DUFFY. But you represent a veterans group? 

Mr. STEWART. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUFFY. And do you think we should prioritize veterans over 

other homeless individuals? 

Mr. STEWART. I would say that it has been successful where we 

have done that across the country. 

Mr. DUFFY. So you are saying, yes, we should prioritize veterans? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Would the panel agree with that? 

Yes or no, quickly? 

Ms. OLIVA. I don’t think it is a yes-or-no question. I mentioned 

earlier I think that we need to be able to walk and chew gum at 

the same time. 

48 

Mr. DUFFY. But if we have homelessness and we only have so 

many slots and so much money, should we prioritize the men and 

women who serve this country? Yes? 

Ms. OLIVA. Highly vulnerable men and women who serve this 

country— 

Mr. DUFFY. Should be taken care of? 

Ms. OLIVA. —should be taken care of. 

Mr. DUFFY. So, when we look at our veterans, are they all in 

homes, or do we have homeless veterans right now? 

Mr. STEWART. Our best estimate has that we have 37,878 on a 

given night. 

Mr. DUFFY. Veterans who are homeless? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. So I look at the money side of this. And the point 

I am getting at is we are talking about aircraft carriers, right? 

Let’s not invest any more in liberty, freedom, and democracy, my 

view. But if we were able to take, let’s say, $45 million and plug 

it into a State, could that actually do some good for our veterans 

in a State if we are able to give $45 million for homelessness? 

Mr. STEWART. The history has shown that that has been the 

case, yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. How about $1.3 billion? Would that help? $1.3 billion 

in one State. 

Mr. STEWART. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. So what I am getting at is, do you know how much 

we spend on illegal immigration? 

So why do we prioritize people who don’t come here lawfully 

ahead of our veterans, ahead of people like Ms. Darley who find 

themselves on hard times? 

California alone spent $45 million on legal services for illegal immigrants, and we have homelessness in America. Veterans are 

homeless in America. $1.3 billion, a total cost, for 2 years in California. $1.3 billion, and we said we prioritize homelessness? 

I am all about making sure we have resources to help people out. 

But when we have veterans on the street, why don’t we take the 

Federal, State, and local money and work on homelessness? You 

want cheddar. That is where the money is at, isn’t it? 

Let’s make sure that we don’t have any Americans who sleep 

under bridges. Any veterans who serve this country but sleep on 

the streets, before we give money for all these other programs— 

does anyone disagree with that? Should we put illegal immigrants 

ahead of U.S. citizens or veterans? Does anyone disagree with that? 

We should put our people first, right? 

Who disagrees with that? Mr. Rush, you disagree with that? 

Mr. RUSH. Again, I want to reiterate that I don’t think that this 

is an either/or, and I think that we need— 

Mr. DUFFY. Oh, it is about money, though, Mr. Rush. It is about 

money. 

Mr. RUSH. It is. 

Mr. DUFFY. What happened to resources? And if we are looking 

for resources, why don’t we spend it on our homeless first, our people first? There’s a lot of money there. Let’s use it for the right purposes. 

I yield back. 

49 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

Since we are talking about money, the Chair takes the oppor- tunity to say that the Trump tax plan added $1.5 trillion to the 

debt. And in the last 11 months, we added $1 trillion to the debt. 

Mr. DUFFY. That is because the— 

Chairwoman WATERS. If we are going to talk about money, let’s 

talk about the leadership that— 

Mr. DUFFY. More money comes in the Federal coffers, Madam 

Chairwoman. More money comes in with the tax reform. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlewoman from North Carolina, 

Ms. Adams, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for 

convening this important conversation on eliminating homelessness. It is a serious problem and a serious problem in my district 

in North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, where more than 9,000 

people experience homelessness on a single night. 

I am concerned about the transitional housing services. In my 

district, countless transitional sites that provide necessary supportive services for residents combating addiction, opioid use disorder, and other chemical dependencies have seen significant reductions or outright elimination of funding. 

And just last week, the CEO of the first licensed transitional 

housing facility of its kind in North Carolina, maybe even in the 

country, reached out to my office for assistance. They have been in 

the Charlotte community for decades serving nearly 300 individuals. And they recently found out that HUD will no longer provide 

Federal resources because it is not a permanent housing facility. 

And I am troubled by the shift. 

I want to ask Ms. Oliva and Dr. Lucas, having said that, should 

Congress analyze and reassess HUD’s shift away from providing 

resources for transitional housing in the continuum of care? 

Ms. OLIVA. Thank you for that question. 

And, I would say that a lot of evidence points to, and a lot of 

transitional housing programs operate in ways that are high barrier and that are highly expensive. And with the budget the way 

that it is, especially with the continuum of care program where a 

large percentage of the funding in each year goes to renewal of 

projects that are already existing rather than new projects, it is 

really up to communities to prioritize which projects are most effective, which projects are—should be not necessarily eliminated but 

put lower on the list. And HUD does fund based on a prioritized 

list that is provided by each community. 

But the movement away from transitional housing and towards 

supportive housing and rapid rehousing is really about the evidence and the costs related to those kinds of interventions to ensure that, again, Federal funding is being used in the most effective way possible nationwide. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Briefly, please. I have another question. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. LUCAS. I will just briefly note that—so the closest substitute 

to transitional housing in a sense of being a shorter-term solution 

is rapid rehousing. And in the available evidence that we have, 

there actually isn’t, in terms of housing retention, rapid rehousing. 

50 

There is even less evidence on terms of effectiveness relative to 

permanent supportive, so it is an issue. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

To Mr. Stewart and Ms. Darley, in terms of the importance of 

destigmatizing the issue of homelessness particularly as it relates 

to our veterans, despite the overall reduction of veteran homelessness nationwide, the lack of housing for veterans continue to be a 

major issue in my district in North Carolina which is undergoing 

rapid gentrification. Based on the work that your organization has 

done to provide technical assistance to local providers, what would 

you say are some of the ongoing barriers to achieving an end to 

homelessness among veterans? 

Mr. Stewart? 

Mr. STEWART. Yes. Absolutely, Congresswoman. Thank you for 

the question. 

Just quickly, my brain is still on your stigma comment, and I 

would love to address that. 

One of the things that I think sticks out in the public’s mind 

about the image of the homeless veteran is sort of an older gentleman, usually a Vietnam veteran, on the street with a sign in the 

old BDUs. And while that population exists, that age of population 

exist, it is also important to recognize that newly entering veterans, post-9/11 veterans, are finding themselves at risk and homeless in increasing numbers every year, and a large section of that 

population are women veterans. So that is just something I want 

to put on the record. 

As far as barriers go, there were a number of barriers. Affordable 

housing is an obvious one. The coordination of resources proves to 

be difficult. We had to do a lot of changing and growing as a field, 

even in the VA-funded side of things. We are talking about transitional housing, VA-funded transitional housing called the Grant 

Per Diem Program had some growing pains to go through as well. 

We found a pretty happy medium there now, and it is part—the 

smart limited use, the veteran-centric use of transitional housing 

is part of the Federal benchmarks and criteria. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

I have 15 seconds. Ms. Darley, would you like to add to that? 

Ms. DARLEY. —part of a group that helps homeless veterans. We 

find that PTSD—I have run out of time, but— 

Ms. ADAMS. I apologize. I have cut you off. 

Madam Chairwoman says I am out of time. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Steil, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. STEIL. Thank you. 

I want to start by thanking Chairwoman Waters for calling today’s hearing. Homelessness is a serious problem affecting every 

community in our country. In Wisconsin, by a HUD analysis, we 

have 5,000 people who are homeless. By the Department of Education’s definition, 18,000 youth are homeless. 

But despite the Federal Government’s sustained and significant 

investment, homelessness persists at unacceptable levels. I have 

visited homeless shelters throughout southeast Wisconsin, the 

51 

HALO Center in Racine or the Shalom Center in Kenosha, and I 

have seen firsthand the importance of having a local approach to 

addressing the homelessness problem. 

I had the opportunity to meet a young gentleman at the Shalom 

Center in the City of Kenosha. And he had arrived there, fallen on 

hard times, and had been given the opportunity for a job at an 

Amazon distribution center, a step to get back up on his feet. And 

that local involvement was critical. It was a local solution that was 

one of the driving forces for this individual to get back up on his 

feet, albeit making sure that we have that first step to make sure 

he had that private-public partnership at the Shalom Center to get 

there, in particular. 

Dr. Lucas, some of the proposals that we are discussing here 

today involve a significant increase in money that we would spend 

to address homelessness. We all agree homelessness is a big problem. We should do everything we can to ensure that all Americans 

have a safe place to live. At the same time, we need to spend taxpayer funds wisely getting at the best impact we can for every dollar. I believe there should also be a look at whether existing rules, 

regulations, and practices may cause or exacerbate the problems. 

I heard from my colleague from New York earlier on the particular high cost of housing in New York City. And it would be 

amiss to not look at maybe what some of the local housing policies 

are in certain cities that may be driving those higher costs and 

having a disparate impact on individuals from those communities 

that are subject to their own local control and regulations that may 

be having that negative impact. 

Could you comment on what policies or reforms or new flexibilities may help communities better address this situation? 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. 

Certainly, as you suggested, when we are talking about land use 

regulations, they come in many forms, right? It is not one blanket 

thing. But a lot of it requires what you are allowed to use property 

for. That can include development, but it also could include the 

renovation or the repurposing of existing properties. 

So it was mentioned, in New York City, there is a high rate of 

vacant units. In Syracuse, New York, where I live, there are 1,500 

vacant housing units and a comparable number of people in the 

homeless shelter system, actually. 

And so, questions emerge. What are the opportunities? What are 

the barriers that make it more expensive to expand affordable 

housing which, in some ways, will price out the development of additional units that are of a lower cost? And other regulations about 

what you can and can’t use property for certainly affect that responsiveness of the supply in local communities. 

Mr. STEIL. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Roman, in your testimony you highlight some of the differences between rural and urban homelessness. And my district in 

southeast Wisconsin and the Cities of Janesville and Racine and 

Kenosha, we have cities, and then there are also rural areas in between and across a lot of the State of Wisconsin. 

Do you think the local leaders have the flexibility they need to 

address some of the challenges in particular in rural areas? 

52 

Ms. ROMAN. I would say, actually, while I think the continuum 

of care works very well in urban areas, there are some improvements that could be made in rural areas, that the urban areas 

have the full infrastructure, the sort of soups-to-nuts programs. It 

doesn’t make sense to build something like that in every single 

town. 

And I think there have been several proposals to fix the continuum of care to work better in rural areas, but I think rural 

areas need some more flexibility in terms of resources to probably 

house people a lot faster and kind of skip these long periods in the 

homeless system. There also tends to be a little bit more affordable 

housing in a lot of rural areas. 

Mr. STEIL. Thank you. 

I think it highlights the importance of some of the local control 

and local decisionmaking that is required to address this problem. 

I would like to ask you one more question. You have highlighted 

some of the relationship between homelessness and human trafficking. In southeast Wisconsin, there is an Interstate 94 corridor 

running between Milwaukee and Chicago. Human trafficking is a 

really significant issue in that area. 

Could you just comment, in the seconds that we have, on that 

relationship? 

Ms. ROMAN. Just— 

Mr. STEIL. Maybe we will follow up in— 

Ms. ROMAN. As Ms. Darley has said, not having housing certainly makes people vulnerable to being trafficked. 

Mr. STEIL. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Casten, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

My question is for Ms. Oliva. 

During the recent shutdown, I met with a number of service providers who are at risk of not being able to provide their services 

if the government didn’t reopen. And one of the women I met with 

was the director of a local YMCA that provided both temporary 

housing and the domestic violence hotline. And she described, in 

rather heartbreaking fashion, how they are at an annualized alltime high for incoming calls to their domestic violence hotline, 

which she attributed to the Supreme Court hearings, that that was 

when they saw the last uptick come last July. And she also noted, 

in rather clinical fashion, that the lethality of domestic assault is 

on the rise. 

To put it very bluntly, we don’t get a second chance to help a lot 

of people when they have the courage to stand up the first time. 

And what I am hoping you could comment on in your role in supportive housing is, what more can we do for these communities 

where housing security is inseparable from personal security and 

the house they are in is no longer safe? Is there more we can be 

doing on a Federal front on that front? 

Ms. OLIVA. Right. 

So the most important thing that we do is that, in the definition 

of homelessness, there is a whole category of folks who are survivors of domestic violence, and they have different standards to 

53 

get into programs. For example, they don’t have to provide the 

types of documentation, because usually somebody fleeing a domestic violence situation doesn’t have that documentation with them. 

So ensuring access to a variety of systems is incredibly important. 

We also need to make sure that public housing authorities and 

other affordable housing developers understand, when domestic violence happens within one of their programs or within one of their 

buildings, how to address that situation without further harming 

the survivor of domestic violence. 

And then I would say that the other really important thing to do 

is to ensure that all of the different types of interventions that we 

talked about, shelter, emergency, safe shelter, rapid rehousing, 

supportive housing, are available to survivors of domestic violence 

in different ways and that the services are appropriate for that particular population. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you. 

My next question is for Mr. Rush. 

The University of Chicago recently released a report on youth 

homelessness, I think it was called,‘‘Missed Opportunities,’’ that 

found that the LGBTQ community, particularly young adults, has 

a 120 percent higher risk of reporting homelessness compared with 

youth who identify as heterosexual and cisgender. 

Can you help us understand some of the unique needs of LGBTQ 

youth who are experiencing homelessness, what programs exist, 

and what we can do particularly but not exclusively at a Federal 

level to make sure that we get that community the protection it 

needs? 

Mr. RUSH. Sure. And I actually referenced that report in my initial testimony. 

I think that one thing that it does a really good job of is it 

doesn’t just talk about people being kicked out of their homes because of their LGBTQ. I think that is one part and one facet of it. 

I think LGBTQ individuals, yes, they have to deal with 

transphobia, homophobia, and all of those other things. But when 

we talk about intersectionality, a Black LGBTQ individual or 

Latino or Latina individual has to deal with the intersections of 

race and their being LGBTQ. 

And I think that LGBTQ individuals experience housing instability just like everyone else. They have issues with finding affordable housing, just like everyone else. 

I can’t think of anything specifically on the Federal level as it 

pertains to HUD that implements programs specifically for LGBTQ 

individuals. I do know that there—the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project, which has an approach of leaning on youth who 

have formally experienced homelessness, a lot of individuals in that 

are LGBTQ. They work with continuums of care to be able to come 

up with a strategy to prevent and end youth homelessness in their 

locality, and that does have a plan generally to focus on addressing 

homelessness among LGBTQ individuals. But I do think that there 

needs to be a further investment on the Federal end to target resources just like targeted resources are provided to veterans and 

families, that there needs to be the same for LGBTQ individuals. 

Mr. CASTEN. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you. 

54 

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hill, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. I appreciate you calling this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from this excellent panel. Thanks for your fortitude in sitting still for this long. 

We appreciate your expertise. 

I would like to start by talking a little bit about the robust efforts in Little Rock to combat homelessness. It is very well-coordinated, and it has a robust engagement with both the City and Federal resources and our nonprofits. And, really, in the two terms I 

have served in Congress, I found it very rewarding to see their 

work where they have an active case work in our office. We go and 

find veterans where they are. We have solved so many veteran 

challenges in our homeless shelters. It has been really rewarding 

work in our office. I have four veterans on my constituent team; 

three of them are combat veterans. And they spend time in our 

shelters really helping our vets. They deserve that extra touch. And 

many of them are really lost in the morass of not only homelessness but also the veteran programs that they might be eligible for. 

So I thank my staff for that work. 

And we have been a vigorous advocate for funding. Just in the last 4 years, we have gotten $4 million in grant funding for our 

homeless nonprofits in Little Rock. And they are using that money 

very wisely. And I have been so impressed by—from just really taking care of that emergency transient housing, the person who loses 

their lease, that family in crisis, that—or troubling chronic alcohol 

and drug-addicted population. And then those who are really working their way back to self-sufficiency. All that group works really 

well together, and that is why I invited Ben Carson to Little Rock 

to see this work on the ground and see what is happening. And he 

was really inspired by that work. 

And we have one of our nonprofits, Our House, which Dr. Carson 

really encouraged that they would be a terrific person to lead the 

EnVision Centers in our public housing that has been an initiative 

of HUD. And so I hope to see that move forward. 

But in all the aspects of it, whether it is The Dorcas House, 

Union Rescue Mission, St. Francis House, Jericho Way, Salvation 

Army, Gaines, Lucy’s Place, Women and Children First, all these 

I have been impressed, as a former business person, to see how 

well they work together looking for that gap and filling it to help 

all those suffering from this homelessness. 

I have a couple of questions. One, I heard Mr. Lawson mention 

it; my friend from Wisconsin mentioned this issue of definitions. 

We have all these definitions that are different on homelessness. 

And it has allowed, I think, the Federal Government to make 

claims to ending homelessness, with which I don’t agree. We had 

a celebration with a mayor of Little Rock, went up to an event this 

fall ending veterans homelessness, and I am going: Man, I can take 

you and introduce to some right now that are homeless. 

So how do we get HUD and the VA on the same page about the 

definition of who is homeless? Does anybody want to talk about 

that? 

Ms. Oliva, you worked at HUD, so we have these multiple definitions of homelessness. Is living in a hotel homeless? 

55 

Ms. OLIVA. It depends. 

Mr. HILL. Well, it really doesn’t. If they are in a hotel for longer 

than a month, are they homeless? 

Ms. OLIVA. So I would say that there is—again, there is a need 

because of the resources that are available to prioritize folks that 

are most vulnerable first for the housing resources that are available. 

So I don’t think that HUD and the VA were on the same page 

around—and Mr. Stewart might be able to address this based on 

something more recent. But our work with the VA, our collaborative work with the VA and USICH around veteran homelessness 

in particular was some of the best work that we did inside of the 

Federal Government, as far as I am concerned, because we were on 

the same page. We ensured that we were prioritizing chronically 

homeless veterans for the HUD-VASH program, for example. 

And until no veteran was on the street, then we could start 

working down the list. And homelessness prevention is a part of 

those programs that could work with folks who are in hotels. 

Mr. HILL. Right. And they do great work in that. 

Ms. Roman, talk to me about—for the vouchers that we have in 

Section 8, how do we make sure that they really are clean and safe 

places, that our public housing authorities are really putting those 

vouchers out where they should be? 

Ms. ROMAN. I am not an expert on Section 8, but my understanding is that they do inspections on Section 8 units. And, they 

are supposed to be clean and safe. 

I think in the homeless arena, we don’t always have those kinds 

of inspections, and you do have to be concerned about the quality. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. DEAN. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. And I want to thank 

you, like the others, for your commitment to ending homelessness. 

It is, I think, something in which government has an extraordinarily important role to play. We can do it if we just put our will 

and our resources toward it and if we think in very innovative 

ways. 

I want to thank you, Ms. Darley, also for telling us right up front 

that homelessness doesn’t discriminate, and housing must be first. 

And I am going to use your quote, if you don’t mind, that the opposite of wealth is poverty and the opposite of poverty is justice, because that is what we are here to do. So I am inspired by your 

words, and we can use that to end homelessness. 

Two areas that I wanted to look at have to do with the barriers 

to identifying those who are homeless and actually successfully getting them out of homelessness. I was a State representative in 

Pennsylvania before coming here to Congress. We dealt with homelessness in my district. I worry about the data. I will just say this 

as a statement not as a question, but I do worry about the data. 

I am sure all of you do too. 

We did point-in-time counts in the middle of the night and we 

know that it doesn’t account for everybody. We know there are people who are on a cousin’s couch or sleeping in a car in a parking 

lot where we are not aware, and so many other things. So I worry 

56 

about the data and are we actually capturing the number of people 

who are homeless. And if we can’t fully capture it, how can we ever 

fully solve it? So that is more of a statement. 

The two areas that I wanted to talk about have to do with barriers to helping those who fall into homelessness and they have a 

connection to domestic violence or they have a connection to addiction. In our City of Philadelphia, as I crisscross the City and I am 

racing about, I am so struck and so sometimes paralyzed by the 

number of people who are homeless standing on the street begging 

for a crumb, a dime, a dollar. And that they are in the ravages of 

addiction. 

So I would like to know, what are some of the clear barriers to 

homeless folks who are suffering from the disease of addiction and 

how can we break down those barriers, number one? And then the 

other one, and so I will open this—I am certain Ms. Oliva would 

be one, but others I am certain, Ms. Roman and others, would help 

me. 

We talked about domestic violence, and in 2017, in Pennsylvania, 

117 Pennsylvanians lost their lives to domestic violence: in 2017 

alone. The majority of them were women killed with a firearm. In 

the past 10 years, more than 1,600 Pennsylvanians lost their lives 

as a result of domestic violence. So what are the obstacles for 

women in particular fleeing domestic violence situations? How can 

we serve those victims of domestic violence? 

There is this terrible intersection between domestic violence and 

homicide when there is a weapon present, and how does homelessness actually increase the risk of domestic violence? So I apologize 

for balling all of that together, but maybe I will start with you, Ms. 

Roman. 

Ms. ROMAN. I will just talk about the addiction issue. I would 

just say two things about that. One, we just looked at a bunch of 

data on unsheltered people, people living outside from around the 

country, actually 30,000 records. And one of the big barriers to 

them going in or getting help is because the high barriers in the 

shelter system. So an initial thing is the shelter systems have to 

really be welcoming to people and not screen out people because of 

their substance use. 

And the second thing is that treatment is only available—I think 

the national average is half the time, only in 50 percent of cases 

in which somebody is ready for treatment can they actually access 

treatment. So that is a second piece of that. 

Ms. DEAN. Thank you. 

Ms. OLIVA. And I would agree with both of those things that Nan 

just said, specifically on people with substance use disorders. We 

don’t have enough for outreach and we need the right kind of outreach to get folks into shelter, and we need more recovery housing 

to help folks who have those kinds of substance use disorders. 

On the domestic violence side, technology has made it less safe 

for programs that have physical shelters. Now you can go on 

Google maps and you can identify somebody’s car that is sitting in 

front of a shelter. So the domestic violence, you know, sort of group 

of folks who are working on domestic violence issues nationwide 

really need to implement new technologies and be innovative. They 

also have to really work between the domestic violence system and 

57 

the affordable housing system and the homeless system. And that 

can be done, and it is being worked on. 

Ms. DEAN. I thank you very much. 

And I also want to talk about the problem of qualifying as homeless. In my own county of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, we 

have a system that we call into called, ‘‘Your Way Home.’’ I sat on 

the phone with somebody who was struggling and going to be 

homeless. It was a 60-minute call, and they didn’t qualify because 

their eviction was maybe 2 days away. So I just raise that. Thank 

you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing, and I want to thank you for your leadership on fighting homelessness. 

And now to the witnesses, I want—Ms. Oliva, I want to do a follow-up on a question that Mr. Hill asked a little while ago, and I 

am going to do it as a simple yes-or-no question. Are you aware 

that the Housing and Urban Development definition of homelessness excludes people under the age of 18, while the Department of 

Education does count homeless folks under the age of 18? 

Ms. OLIVA. I don’t believe that is correct. 

Mr. STIVERS. It is true, sorry. It is true. 

Mr. Rush, since you are the only one who has actually mentioned 

youth homelessness, I would like to ask you about something. Just 

yesterday, the Department of Education released a report on youth 

homelessness that showed that homeless youth have actually increased, and, in fact, in 20 States, that homeless youth growth has 

been 10 percent over the last 3 years. So, obviously, schools identify 

these folks because they are at risk, and so there is a good reason 

for them to count them, but the Housing and Urban Development 

definition of homelessness actually excludes those folks from getting shelter. 

Mr. Rush, don’t you think those are among some of the most vulnerable people who could be homeless? 

Mr. RUSH. I do think that they are—there is a risk of experiencing homelessness, and I think that the HUD-funded programs 

may or may not be the best solution to address those problems. 

Mr. STIVERS. But shouldn’t we be counting them? 

Mr. RUSH. I am a believer that additional data is needed, yes, 

specifically as it pertains to most impacted populations, yes. 

Mr. STIVERS. And these are potentially some of the most vulnerable population out there. So I have had a bill for the last three 

Congresses to force Housing and Urban Development to change 

that policy to count homelessness under the age of 18. And it is a 

bipartisan bill. We are continuing to work on it. We worked with 

the chairman on it last cycle. Mrs. Beatty and I are the lead sponsors of that bill. We are going to keep fighting for that, and I hope 

all of you will pay attention to that. And I really appreciate everything all of you are doing, but it is a very important issue to the 

future of our country and to a lot of young folks who are very, very 

vulnerable. 

58 

The second issue that I have been focused on is veteran homelessness. And, Mr. Stewart, I do appreciate that your testimony focused on the other than honorable discharges. As a military veteran myself, these are the folks who are most likely to be homeless. 

They are also most likely to have other conditions that aggravate 

that, whether it is drug addiction, mental health, or physical 

health issues. 

And you talked about a change last year in the 114th Congress 

that allows the VA to serve part of that other than honorable population, but can you describe to us, because my understanding is 

that there are still a bunch of people who are left out who are not 

eligible even under that expansion? 

Mr. STEWART. That is exactly right, Congressman. What the previous bill, PL 114-315, did was make veterans with other than honorable discharges eligible for VA homeless services to include grant 

and per diem supportive services and the like. But it does not include eligibility for HUD-VASH. Your bill and Mrs. Beatty’s bill 

would do such a thing. 

Mr. STIVERS. Correct. 

Mr. STEWART. So it is the same group of people for slightly different services. 

Mr. STIVERS. Great. And I think the goal is to make sure that 

even when somebody had a mistake that ended their service, that 

doesn’t mean they should be sentenced to be homeless for the rest 

of their life. 

Mr. STEWART. That is exactly right, sir. These are veterans, these 

men and women are veterans, and they deserve to not be left behind. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. And I appreciate that. 

Mr. Lucas, you talked a little bit about, with your perspective as 

an economist, what is going on in multifamily housing. And I am 

interested in your thoughts of what is going on with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act with regard to some 

frivolous lawsuits that, frankly, aren’t even causing technical fixes, 

they are just getting money. And is that having any impact on cost 

of housing? Is it ultimately resulting in tenants paying higher rent? 

Is it exacerbating a lot of these conditions? 

Mr. LUCAS. That is something I will have to follow up on with 

you, and I would be happy to do so. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman, again, I really appreciate you holding this 

hearing. Homelessness in America is something we all should care 

about. It is a bipartisan issue, and we want to work with you to 

try to find solutions. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Utah, Mr. McAdams, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCADAMS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And it is great to see those of you with whom I have worked in 

the past, in my previous capacity. But Salt Lake County, like many 

urban areas, has struggled to understand and address homeless 

challenges, and we have made progress in many areas and still 

struggle, like all metro areas struggle, in other areas. 

59 

Our area has largely recovered from the economic hardships 

largely of the Great Recession and other factors, though, like the 

opioid epidemic, have meant that thousands of Utahans live on the 

streets without a safe or a stable place to call home. Many of these 

families with children are homeless youth, and it is unacceptable 

that the only home for a young child sometimes is the family car 

or a homeless shelter, or a teenager is forced to couch surf with 

friends and relatives, many of them aging out of the foster care 

system, while trying to make their way through school or to train 

for a job. 

So when I was the mayor of Salt Lake County, I convened a 

broad group of stakeholders who in one way or another are a part 

of our homeless service system, whether they are government, city, 

county, State, supporters of the homeless services system, the businesses and nonprofits, philanthropic supporters, the medical system, education leaders, homeless services providers. And we 

worked closely with other political leaders, our lieutenant governor, 

our Speaker of the House, Republicans and Democrats working together to try and move forward solutions. 

And for nearly 3 years, we mapped what we called the genome 

of our local homeless services system. We looked at every aspect of 

how, when, where, and with what resources our homeless services 

system interfaced with individuals who were experiencing homelessness and what we might do to help to resolve the situation. And 

that plan we developed through that process identified specific outcomes and indicators by which we would measure the results of 

whether we were making progress towards our goals of minimizing 

homelessness. 

We contracted with mental health providers and transitional 

housing agencies for two pay-for success projects, data-driven and 

evidence-based contracts funded by the private sector who would 

only be repaid if participants in the program achieved success. And 

our coalition, what we were moving to is more of a—rather than 

a one-size-fits-all solution, but more of a tailored, custom-tailored 

approach with wraparound services that we help to lift people out 

of homeless services and identify—I think if you have met one 

homeless person, you have met only one homeless person. Their situations and challenges differ from person to person, and recognizing that we need to meet them where they are and then help 

them to move forward and achieve a greater degree of independence, a greater degree of self-reliance. And those outcomes are 

going to differ from person to person. 

So I guess my question for the witnesses—thank you for the excellent written testimony and your work that I am very familiar 

with over many years. My question would be, and referencing Mr. 

Stewart and your written comments, you said that—and your comments that Housing First never means housing only. In Utah, we 

have experience with Housing First, and I think it has been successful, but we are also seeing that it is not housing only. We need 

other solutions. 

Later in the testimony, you go on to elaborate that the HUD and 

HUD-VASH program utilizes veteran-specific Section 8 vouchers 

coupled with case management. So I guess my question is, how important has the case management piece been of that? What can we 

60 

learn from that that we might extrapolate to other categories of 

homelessness? And then for all of the witnesses, what have we 

learned and what more can we do in the area of wraparound services? 

Mr. STEWART. I think the HUD part and the VASH part are each 

equally crucial. The Housing First approach works wonders when 

you get a person into housing and then wrap those services around 

them, offer them all the services that they may need. Even if they 

don’t take it right away, studies have shown that they will eventually avail themselves of those services and resolve some of the 

issues. 

The case management support through the VA is critical. Making 

sure people meet medical appointments, seeking employment if 

able and willing, qualifying for income supports, broad base of 

issues and a real model for what we could be doing elsewhere. 

Ms. OLIVA. And I think that model is incredibly important, because the VA—and the services don’t have to be in the housing program. The housing subsidy can be by itself, and the services can 

be coming from mainstream resources like Medicaid or the VA or 

other mainstream services. 

Ms. ROMAN. Just briefly, the advantage we have on the veterans’ 

side is we have a partner who delivers the services. HUD is not a 

particularly good service deliverer, so it would be good for the committee to work on finding a strong partner. 

Mr. LUCAS. I would just add one thing— 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Garcia, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARCIA OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. To all of the panelists who are here, thank you so much 

for giving us a much better sense of the homelessness challenge 

that we face as a Nation. 

Most of you emphasize the racial disparities that exist in the 

homeless population across the country, and I want to highlight an 

important segment of this. Latinos, while comprising about 18 percent of the population nationally, comprise about 22 percent of people experiencing homelessness. So—and I think, Ms. Roman, in 

your testimony, if I heard you correctly, you stated that Latinos are 

increasingly experiencing homelessness disproportionately. Can you 

elaborate on what might be driving this new trend that is being 

felt acutely in Latino communities in particular? 

Ms. ROMAN. I will tell you the truth, I am not certain what is 

driving it. The Hispanic and Latinx percentage of homeless people 

has been—it has been disproportionately low in the past, and it is 

something that has changed. I think we always hypothesized that 

people were more willing to share housing, and the situation there 

may have changed. I don’t think we have data on why that is 

changing, that I know of. 

Mr. GARCIA OF ILLINOIS. How might we get a better sense of 

that? What kind of information should we be— 

Ms. ROMAN. I think it would be good to ask HUD to actually look 

into that. It is probably qualitative kind of information we need to 

get and looking at the types of households that are accessing the 

61 

shelter system and so forth. It may have also been that people were 

just averse to using the shelter system, and for some reason that 

is becoming a more common thing. I honestly don’t—it is a great 

question. I wish I knew the answer to it. 

Mr. GARCIA OF ILLINOIS. Okay. Well, thank you for your candor. 

A second question to Ms. Roman, over 64,000 people in Chicago 

are estimated to be doubling up, and there are huge disparities 

among this category of people as well: approximately 55 percent African American; and 33 percent Latino. Can you explain the challenges of the so-called doubling up that community faces and why 

the data is not reflected in some of the HUD estimates that were 

discussed today? 

Ms. ROMAN. The HUD data on homelessness is not perfect. The 

point-in-time count does not look at doubled-up households because 

it would essentially have to do a census, which it can’t do. So in 

the HUD definition, if a household is doubled up but imminently 

the second people have to leave, they are homeless, but they don’t 

necessarily get counted. There are also a lot of doubled-up families 

who are doubled up trying to not be homeless, not to enter the 

shelter system, to stay out of homelessness, and there has to be a 

little bit of a line somewhere there, and exactly where you draw 

it, we might disagree on. But some people are stably housed in 

sharing housing and some people aren’t and really are homeless. 

Mr. GARCIA OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chairwoman, I have in my booklet a report from the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, and I would ask if this can be submitted as a part of the record for the purposes of sharing this with 

people who are following the hearing today. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. GARCIA OF ILLINOIS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Axne, 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. AXNE. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member McHenry, and to our distinguished panel for being here. I appreciate it. 

I would just like to start by mentioning that earlier in this hearing, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Rose, questioned the constitutionality of Congress to assist with housing of the homeless. I 

would state the opposite. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution 

grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, 

and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense 

and general welfare of the United States. By and large it is for 

Congress to determine what constitutes the general welfare, and I 

would say that adequate housing benefits are general welfare. 

So on to my questions here. Earlier in the hearing, Ms. Oliva 

mentioned that there has been decreased Federal investment to address homelessness over the last several years. Further, according 

to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 

2018’s Annual Homeless Assessment Report, homelessness increased for the second year in a row. 

So my question is to you, Dr. Lucas. In your paper, ‘‘The Impact 

of Federal Homelessness Funding on Homelessness,’’ you said on 

page 1, ‘‘I find that funding increases the incidence of total homelessness.’’ This is diametrically opposite to what the data suggests. 

62 

So could you provide us with the evidence you have that supports 

your theory? 

Mr. LUCAS. Sure. So that is actually just a statistical econometric 

finding and not a theory at all. The question that I asked in that 

paper was whether or not we could discern using econometric 

methods from a research standpoint, whether or not communities 

that get more Federal funding through the CoC and ESG grants 

had lower rates of unsheltered homelessness or of total homelessness. And typically, and the result that I found using the methods 

that allow me to identify actually a causal affect rather than just 

a correlation, was that communities that got more funding had 

higher rates of homelessness as counted by the point-in-time 

counts. 

Mrs. AXNE. Can you give me an example of that? 

Mr. LUCAS. A big portion of that result is driven through the 

sheltered population, in part because Federal funding has allowed 

communities to expand their shelter supply. 

Mrs. AXNE. I appreciate that. Would you be able to cite a specific 

example, a city, a location? As you mentioned, you went through 

the formula, and that is what your evidence found. So what would 

be a specific exact location where you saw this happen? 

Mr. LUCAS. Well, New York City is a place that has significant 

Federal and City level funding for the shelter system. It is a bit 

of a unique system, but that is an area that has seen increases 

over time, not just at a single point in time in sheltered homelessness over this period, despite increases in funding on the—over 

time. 

Mrs. AXNE. Okay. So you are suggesting that your theory says 

that the increase in support of helping our homeless population in 

New York has increased the homeless population in New York? 

Mr. LUCAS. What I have—it is not a theory at all, again, it is just 

a finding of a statistical relationship over all communities at a 

given point in time. And certainly, it has been the case that we 

have seen over time in the aggregate at the national level reductions in homelessness, according to our point-in-time counts. But 

the evidence that we have suggests that the role of funding that 

is being targeted to, especially, for example, permanent supportive 

housing units, has had a relatively small effect at reducing those 

homeless population numbers, so there may be other reasons. 

Mrs. AXNE. Okay. You also suggested that local community involvement and support is key, and I obviously would agree that we 

need to have multiple avenues to help us address this issue. And 

I am from Iowa. A lot of people wouldn’t think we have a major 

homeless issue there. I represent one of the biggest metro areas, 

and we actually do. 

I am very involved with our Catholic charities, our Saint Joseph’s 

Family Shelter, our Hope Ministries. I also contribute to those organizations. And we have a very serious issue with our police force 

as well. We are understaffed and they are consistently helping out 

with our homeless population. 

So as much as I would agree that we need to make sure that we 

have a systemic approach to homelessness, how would you address 

those police officers who say that—when you tell them that we 

need to remove aspects of the homeless safety net? 

63 

Mr. LUCAS. I think I would have to get back to you on that question. I thank you for your involvement with this issue. 

Mrs. AXNE. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The Chair wishes to advise Members that Floor votes have been 

called. We do have another hearing at 2 p.m., so I am so pleased 

that we had such robust attendance today. And to all Members 

who did not get the opportunity to ask questions, you will get the 

first priority at the next Full Committee hearing on housing. I 

don’t want you to miss three votes plus a moment of silence. 

So I would like to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. 

We are not going to attempt to hold you over for another hour 

while we go vote these three votes on the Floor. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

I thank you so much. And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:26 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(65) 

A P P E N D I X 

February 13, 2019 

66 


Insert offset folio 1 here 35630.001

Testimony before the 

Committee on Financial Services 1 

U.S. House of Representatives 

by 

David S. Lucas 

Postdoctoral Research Fellow 

Institute for an Entrepreneurial Society 

Whitman School of Management 

Syracuse Universit/ 

February 13, 2019 

Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and members of the 

committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is David Lucas, and I am a 

Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the Institute tor an Entrepreneurial Society in the Whitman 

School of Management at Syracuse University. 

My research focuses on analyzing efforts to end homelessness in our nation, and I am 

honored to speak with you on this topic. My present testimony cannot address all of the 

intricacies of this important issue, but I can speak to three considerations based on my research 

and the available evidence. 

I. We do not yet know how to end homelessness. 

2. The homeless problem varies widely across communities and individuals, reducing the 

likelihood of a universal solution. 

3. Allowing service providers more flexibility for experimentation, paired with the 

prioritization ofperfonnance data, will facilitate a more compassionate, effective, and 

truly evidence-based response. 

1 Prepared for the hearing, "Homeless in America: Examining the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness." 

'The opinions expressed here are my own and should not be attributed to Syracuse University nor to any other 

institution with which I am affiliated. 
67 


Insert offset folio 2 here 35630.002

WE DO NOT YET KNOW HOW TO END HOMELESSNESS 

It is often said that "we know what works" to end homelessness. 3 The premise of this claim is 

that we have a sufficient evidence base to "solve" homelessness-·i.e., via Housing First. 

It is true that at least three acceptably rigorous studies have found that clients entering 

Housing First programs had higher rates of housing retention compared to other shelter 

programs. 4 Importantly, however, these studies only deal with client-level outcomes. They tell us 

what happened to individuals or families in particular programs relative to existing alternatives. 

By construction, these studies do not demonstrate whether further implementation of Housing 

First (or related housing subsidies) would end or even reduce homelessness in the aggregate. 

That is the important policy question, and the answers to this question are far less promising. 

From 2009 to 2018, the federal government significantly increased annual homelessness 

funding, to nearly $6 billion a year. This funding helped to double the availability of housing 

subsidy-based programs for the homeless, adding 142,000 additional permanent supportive 

housing beds and I 00,000 rapid rehousing beds nationwide. However, unsheltered homelessness 

only declined by 32,000 people. 

Of course, this does not tell us what (if any) causal role these targeted efforts had in 

reducing homelessness. Economists. including myself, have estimated the effects of federal 

homelessness funding and of permanent supportive housing on the amount ofhomelcssness in 

3 David S. Lucas, Evidence-based policy as public entrepreneurship, 20 PURUC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 1602-1622 

(2018). 

4 These are the Pathways to Housing program in New York City, the At Home/Chez Soi program in Canada, and the 

multi-city Family Options Study. Sam Tsemberis, Leyla Gulcur & Maria Nakae, Housing first, consumer choice, 

and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis, 94 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 651-

656 (2004); Daniel Gubits eta!., Family options study: Short-term impacts of housing and services interventions/or 

homelessfami/ies, US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT 

AND RESEARCH (20 15); Tim Aubry, Geoffrey Nelson & Sam Tsemberis, Housing First/or People with Severe 

Mental Illness Who are Homeless: A Review of the Research and Findingsji-om the at Home- Chez soi 

Demonstration Project, 60 CAN J PSYCHIATRY 467--474 (2015). 

2 
68 


Insert offset folio 3 here 35630.003

communities nationwide, controlling for other factors like housing market conditions, 

unemployment, and climate. Kevin Corinth found that communities required at least ten 

additional permanent supportive housing beds to reduce homelessness by a single person. 5 In my 

research, I found that federal homelessness funding had no effect on the prevalence of 

unsheltered homelessness across communities in recent years. 6 Columbia University's Brendan 

O'Flaherty recently summarized the state of the literature as follows: "We don't know how to 

end homelessness. Not in the aggregate, anyway." 7 

A SINGLE, UNIVERSAL SOLUTION IS UNLIKELY 

Why would large increases in housing subsidy-based homeless programs (like Housing First) 

yield small reductions in homelessness? One answer is that supplying permanent housing 

subsidies through the shelter system tends to increase shelter entries. 8 But another important 

factor is that local conditions influence the nature of homelessness in a community-and, in turn, 

the effectiveness of different approaches. 

5 This would imply the need for over 5.5 million additional permanent supportive housing beds to end homelessness 

for the 550,000 people who are currently homeless---not including those who may become homeless in the future. 

See Kevin Corinth, The impact (if permanent supportive housing on homeless populations, 35 JOURNAL OF HOUSING 

ECONOMICS 69-84 (2017). Furthermore, the effectiveness is likely to become even smaller as permanent supportive 

housing becomes more prevalent and the remaining homeless tend to be increasingly "hard to house." See David S. 

Lucas, Federal home/essness policy: A robust political economy approach, 30 THE REVIEW OF AUSTRIAN 

ECONOMICS 277-303 (20 17). 6 1 captured funding under the Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Gmnts in 2011,2013, and 2015. I also 

found that federal funding was positively related to rates of sheltered and totals homelessness. See David S. Lucas, 

The Impact of federal homelessnessfimding on home/essness, 84 SOIJTfiERN ECONOMIC JOURNAL 548-576 (2017). 7 Brendan O'Fiaherty, Homelessness Research: A Guide for Economists (and Friends), JOURNAL OF HOUSING 

ECONOMICS, 80 (20 19). 8 Researchers have indicated that shelter "quality" matters significantly for shelter demand. In a well-functioning 

Housing First system, the quality of shelter increases, because shelter entry leads quickly to short or long-term 

housing assistance. See Brendan O'Flaherty, Need and generosity.· how marketsforfree good< equilibrate, 54 

JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS !57-172 (2003); Brendan O'Flaherty & Ting Wu, llomeless shelters for single 

adults: !Vhy does their population change?, 82 SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW 511---550 (2008). 

3 
69 


Insert offset folio 4 here 35630.004

For example, unsheltered homelessness is largely concentrated in communities with 

milder climates, while sheltered homelessness is more prevalent in colder places. 9 These 

populations are very different on average. The prevalence ofhomelessness also varies 

considerably in communities with similar climates, suggesting the importance of state and local 

policy. 10 Local land use regulations reduce the availability of affordable housing and positively 

predict homelessness. 11 Local tenant rules affect the incidence of eviction-a common precursor 

to shelter entry. 12 

On the other hand, strong communities may foster the prevention of homelessness. A 

recent study found that people with strong social ties to relatives, friends, and religious groups 

were 60% less likely to experience homelessness. 13 Formal prevention programs have also been 

highly successful in New York City and Chicago. 14 These examples suggest further solutions 

that go undiscovered (and untested) in a system focused solely an approach like Housing First. 

TOW ARO A MORE COMPASSIONATE ANO EFFECTIVE RESPONSE 

If it were a settled fact that the Housing First approach-or simple housing subsidies-were the 

solution to end homelessness, the principal ohstacle would be securing enough funding. 

'The ten states with the warmest winter temperatures accounted for 67% of the unsheltered homeless population in 

2017. The ten states are Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi. South 

Carolina, and Texas. Based on December, January, and February average temperatures from 1971 to 2000 provided 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 2017 Point in Time counts published by the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1

° Kevin Corinth & David S. Lucas, When warm and cold don't mix: lhe implications of c/imatefor the 

determinants of homelessness, 41 JOURNAL OF HOOSTNG ECONOMICS 45-56 (2018). 11 John M. Quigley & Steven Raphael, Regulation and the l!igh Cost of Housing in California, 95 THE AMERICAN 

ECONOMIC REVJEW 323-328 (2005); Steven Raphael, Housing market regulation and homelessness, How TO HOUSE 

THE HOMELESS 110-140 (2010). 12 Robert Collinson & Davin Reed, The effects of evictions on low-income households, WORKING PAPER, NEW YORK 

UNIVERSITY, WAGNER SCHOOL (2018); Gubits et al., supra note 4. 

" Kevin Corinth & Claire Rossi-de Vries, Social Ties and the Incidence ofllomelessness, 28 HOUSING POLICY 

DEBATE 592-{)08 (2018). 14 Sarena Goodman, Peter Messeri & Brendan O'Fiaherty, 1/omelessness prevention in New York City: On average, 

it works, 31 JOURNAL OF HOUSTNG ECONOMICS 14-34 (2016); William N. Evans, James X. Sullivan & Melanie 

Wallskog, The impact ofhomelessness prevention programs on homelessness, 353 SCIENCE 694--699 (2016). 

4 
70 


Insert offset folio 5 here 35630.005

However, it is unlikely that increasing funding for this, or any one-size-fits-all approach, will 

achieve the desired goal. Many of the barriers to housing stability are local or even individual in 

nature, suggesting the effectiveness of different programs across communities and homeless 

subpopulations. 15 

I suggest an alternative to mandating the proliferation of a single, top-down approach. 

Increase organizations' flexibility to use existing, scarce resources toward innovative efforts to 

alleviate homelessness in their communities. Continue to invest in the collection of data on 

organization and community performance at addressing homelessness. Allow these data to guide 

further evaluation and inform future funding decisions. Better performance data and increased 

program flexibility would encourage the discovery of innovative solutions to homelessness that 

are tailored to local conditions and client needs-leading toward a homelessness infrastructure 

that is more compassionate, effective, and truly evidence-based. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your questions to the best of 

my ability. 

15 Notably, the two main research studies on Housing First's effectiveness at housing retention focus on individuals 

with disabilities or mental illness. Whether their results (and cost-benefit analyses) extend to other subsets of the 

homeless population remains to be seen. See Tsemberis, Gulcur, and Nakac, supra note 4: Aubry, Nelson, and 

Tsemberis, supra note 4. 

5 
71 


Insert offset folio 6 here 35630.006

Testimony of Ann Marie Oliva 

Senior Policy Advisor, CSH 

To the House Committee on Financial Services 

"Homeless in America: Examining the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness" 

February 13, 2019 

Good Morning. My name is Ann Oliva and I am Senior Policy Advisor at the Corporation 

for Supportive Housing (CSH). CSH is a national non-profit organization that works with 

communities to ensure that people experiencing homelessness can access affordable 

housing and services like healthcare that will keep them housed and healthy, and end 

their homelessness once and for all. CSH does this work through training and 

education, policy reform efforts, consulting and lending. 

CSH is honored to participate in today's hearing. Thank you to the Committee for 

inviting me to testify today on a topic that is not only incredibly important, but one that is 

close to my heart both professionally and personally. I have worked in the homeless 

assistance field for more than 20 years, and I am proud to say we have consistently 

striven to learn more, improve our approaches and hold ourselves accountable to the 

people we serve. 

The solutions we implement have evolved to be responsive to emerging research, to 

incorporate more strategic investments, to become human-centered, and to work with 

the systems that often feed into or interact with people experiencing homelessness, 

including affordable housing, child welfare, medical and behavioral health, and the 

justice system. 

Solving homelessness is not easy. Communities across the country are struggling to 

make decisions about how to best use scarce resources, and to build the right mix of 

interventions to address the specific needs of their communities. Knowing which types 

and how much to invest in each intervention from outreach to supportive housing, when 

most communities don't have enough of any single resource, can be challenging. 

What we know about people experiencing homelessness today is alarming. In 2016, for 

the first time since 2010, HUD reported an increase in the number of unsheltered 

persons nationwide. The 2017 and 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Reports show 

a continuation of that increase. We also are seeing an increase in chronic 

homelessness. And maybe most troubling, based on a recent study released by the 

University of Pennsylvania, we know that the homeless population is aging, and with an 

older population come higher costs. 

Hints of an increase in chronic homelessness could be seen as far back as 2015, when 

we began to feel the effects of a decreased federal investment in supportive housing - a 

consequence of forced budget reduction measures like sequestration. 

Today, people experiencing chronic homelessness make up about 16% of the homeless 

population on a given night. This is the only subpopulation of people experiencing 

homelessness nationally where the number of unsheltered persons is greater than the 

Page 1 of4 
72 


Insert offset folio 7 here 35630.007

Testimony of Ann Marie Oliva 

February 13, 2019 

number of sheltered persons. This population is particularly vulnerable due to the 

length of time they have lived on the streets and the disabling conditions they face. 

Extensive research and work in the field show supportive housing - permanent housing 

with services designed to meet the specific needs of tenants- cost-effectively ends 

chronic homelessness and has positive impacts in communities where it is located. 

Costs on average are reduced by 49.5% when we help people get out of homelessness 

and into supportive housing. 

Although as a nation we have invested in over 300,000 units of supportive housing 

since 2009, we are not nearly where we need to be to address the growing homeless 

population that is getting older and struggles with multiple challenges. 

We must invest more into supportive housing and other interventions so we can get 

back to making the progress we know how to make. And we need to continue to both 

improve the quality of our programs and innovate to create avenues for individuals who 

are ready to move on from these programs. But implementing these strategies is difficult 

when affordable housing is scarce. 

Tight housing markets are impacting both the number of people experiencing 

homelessness and the ability for homeless systems to exit people successfully. The real 

estate firm Zillow Group recently reported that communities where people spend more 

than 32 percent of their income on rent can expect a more rapid increase in 

homelessness. Further, the areas that are most vulnerable to circumstances that would 

lead to an increase in the percentage of income going towards rent hold 15 percent of 

the U.S. population- and 47 percent of people experiencing homelessness. 

Homelessness is also seriously impacting families across our country. In 2018 there 

were more than 180,000 persons in families experiencing homelessness on a given 

night. And for these families, we also know how to end their homelessness. 

The Family Options Study concluded that housing subsidies for families experiencing 

homelessness resulted in increased housing stability, and had other significant benefits 

in family and child well-being. For child welfare involved families and other families with 

high levels of need, resources like Family Unification Vouchers can provide the right 

level of subsidy and support to help families become stable, and to thrive in their 

communities. 

For young people experiencing homelessness, we must continue to support efforts like 

the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program so that we can build systems 

responsive to youth needs, and that provide equal access for young people who are 

disproportion ally comprised of youth of color and LGBTQ youth. 

It is clear that homeless ness cannot be solved by the homeless system alone. CSH 

works in communities and across systems like child welfare, mental health and 

substance use treatment, affordable housing and the justice system because life 

doesn't happen in silos. People don't interact with just one system. People 

Page 2 of 4 
73 


Insert offset folio 8 here 35630.008

Testimony of Ann Marie Oliva 

February 13, 2019 

experiencing homelessness and housing instability are complex, and the challenge 

public agencies face require coordinated, smart approaches. 

One community tackling this challenge is Palm Beach County Florida, where the 

behavioral health system conducted a data match with jail and homeless services data, 

and used the results to attract resources from HUD and the philanthropic sector to 

develop a supportive housing initiative for the intersecting population of homeless 

frequent users of the jail and behavioral health services. The effort was led by the 

county's criminal justice coordinating council, rather than the homeless system, and 

illustrates the kind of impact these types of cross-system and sector efforts can make. 

Cross system collaboration is also important on the federal side. During my tenure at 

HUD, the best progress we made was when we worked with our partners in other 

agencies to align resources, policy and data collection. The 47% decrease in 

homelessness among veterans between 2010 and 2016 was not a coincidence- it was 

the result of hard work across government agencies and in communities to make sure 

we were aiming at the same goal, that we were using the same data, implementing 

aligned and complementary policies, and that we had a process to review progress and 

make adjustments regularly. The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) 

was a critical partner in this work, and CSH supports the Working Together to End 

Homelessness Act of 2019, which permanently authorizes USICH. Without USICH 

guiding collaboration and alignment across federal agencies, we run the risk of going 

back to fragmented and inefficient approaches at every level. 

As a country, we cannot afford reverting to bad policy or embracing a business-as-usual 

attitude. I worry that with increases in unsheltered homelessness a sort of "compassion 

fatigue" is prompting some leaders to go back to approaches that failed in the past. In 

particular, we must remain vigilant and not encourage communities to simply implement 

short-term fixes or require people experiencing homelessness to be "housing ready" to 

qualify for housing. 

No one should have to deserve housing. This is why it is so important that we continue 

to support programs that use a housing first approach which means that housing is 

the first intervention provided, without preconditions. 

We know that once the basic need of housing is addressed, services can then work with 

program participants to help them achieve their health, sobriety, employment and 

personal goals. Housing first is not housing only. It does not mean that the health and 

safety of tenants is ignored. What it does mean is that people who are experiencing 

homelessness are treated with dignity and respect, and are offered services that they 

need and want, to help them become stable. 

We know that we must both stem the inflow into homelessness and increase the outflow 

out of homelessness and into permanent housing. That means making strategic 

choices so that youth aging out of foster care are not entering the system, that justiceinvolved persons have work and housing options so they can become stable, and that 

Page 3 of4 
74 


Insert offset folio 9 here 35630.009

Testimony of Ann Marie Oliva 

February 13, 2019 

we are using the resources available in the health system to address health, mental 

health and addiction needs of individuals and families. It also means recognizing that 

people of color are disproportionally impacted by homelessness, and that we must work 

to dismantle the structures that lead to these inequities. 

Because the Ending Homelessness Act of 2019 recognizes all of this, empowers the 

solutions to homelessness, and commits the federal government to many of the smart 

investments I've discussed, CSH supports it. 

We urge this committee to approve strategic action that makes it easier for communities 

to address housing instability and homelessness at the local level, that promotes crosssystem collaboration, and that provides the resources needed to continue the type of 

progress we know can be made towards ending homelessness. 

Thank you for your time today. 

Page 4 of4 
75 


Insert offset folio 10 here 35630.010

Testimony 

of 

Nan Roman 

President and CEO 

National Alliance to End Homelessness 

to the 

House Committee on Financial Services 

"Homeless in America: Examining the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness" 

Hearing: February 13, 2019 

The National Alliance to End Homeless ness (the Alliance) is a nonpartisan, mission-driven organization 

committed to preventing and ending homeless ness in the United States. The Alliance analyzes policy 

and develops pragmatic, cost-effective policy solutions as we work collaboratively with the public, 

private, and nonprofit sectors to build state and local capacity to help homeless individuals and families 

make positive changes in their lives. We provide data and research to policymakers and elected officials 

in order to inform policy debates and educate the public and opinion leaders nationwide. 

The Alliance is honored to be asked to appear before this Committee to discuss where we stand in the 

effort to end homeless ness, what remains to be done, and the role of Congress in achieving the goal. 

An overview of homelessness and its effects on people and communities 

Size of the problem. There are a few sources of nationwide data showing the extent of homelessness. 

While none are perfect, together they provide a clear understanding that too many people in our 

country are experiencing homeless ness, the worst form of housing crisis. An annual point-in-time count 

found that in 2018 over 550,000 people were sleeping each night on the streets or in shelters or 

temporary housing programs designed for homeless people. In the course of a year, 1.4 million people 

use federally-funded homeless assistance programs. 

Patterns of experience. Homelessness is driven by the national shortage of affordable housing. People 

who have very low incomes, a disability, or weak social support networks may be vulnerable to 

homeless ness if they experience an economic or other crisis. The types of crises that can lead to 

vulnerable people becoming homeless include eviction, job loss, injury or illness, and domestic violence, 

among others. 

A substantial majority of people who become homeless do not stay homeless long. They enter 

emergency housing (shelter for example), find a new place to live, exit homelessness and do not return, 

or return only once. A smaller number, often people with chronic disabilities like mental illness or 

substance use disorders, stay homeless longer. The term "chronic homelessness" refers to this group, 

usually single adults but sometimes families. A similarly small number of people enters and exits 

homelessness repeatedly. 

Some racial minorities are significantly over-represented in the homeless population, reflecting not only 

the disproportionality with which they experience poverty, but also racial inequity in feeder systems into 

homelessness including the criminal justice system, the child welfare system, the health care system, 

and others. While African Americans are 13 percent of the US population, 40 percent of people who are 
76 


Insert offset folio 11 here 35630.011

homeless are African American. Native Americans are less than one percent of the US population, yet 

they are almost three percent of the homeless population. Other groups over-represented in the 

homeless population include Hispanic and Latinx people, very young children, people with mental 

illness, transgender people, and those who are young and LGBTQ. 

Effects on people experiencing homelessness. Homeless ness is a dangerous and devastating experience 

for people experiencing it. It leads to worse physical and mental health and early death. People who are 

homeless are much more likely than others to become victims of crime. It creates long-term trauma. 

Particularly for young people, it can lead to depression, failure to attach to the labor market, and labor 

and sex trafficking. It disrupts the education of children, and makes it nearly impossible to secure 

employment. 

Effects on other systems. Homeless ness increases costs and undermines outcomes for health care, 

including behavioral health care housing instability and homeless ness have been linked to increased 

risk of depression and mental illness for adults and children over their lifetimes. People who exit jail or 

prison and become homeless are more likely to recidivate than are people who exit to a home. Not only 

does homelessness impact children's performance in school, that impeded performance can undercut 

overall school performance. Homeless ness among families can make it difficult for child welfare 

systems to reunite children with their parents. Homelessness and lack of housing impedes the ability of 

other human and social services to achieve their goals. 

What works to end homelessness 

Homeless ness is driven by the lack of housing that is affordable to people with very low incomes. As 

long as there is a multi-million-unit shortage of affordable housing, people who are poor will continue to 

experience homelessness. The homeless system is a crisis system. By itself it cannot eliminate the 

shortage of affordable housing or provide everything- education, employment, services, family support, 

treatment, health care, etc. that people need to achieve well-being. What it CAN do is help people 

quickly return to a home and connect them with supports so that they can begin or resume their paths 

to well-being. In that sense homeless assistance is like a hospital emergency room: it can triage people, 

address their immediate crisis, and if emergency aid is not enough, put them in a position to receive 

more appropriate help. 

The number of people who are homeless has gone down in the last ten years because- with the strong 

bipartisan support of Congress and the federal government across numerous Administrationscommunities have gotten better at addressing the crisis of homeless ness and getting people into 

housing and attached to services. More people have been entering the homeless system. But the 

number of people homeless at any given time has gone down because they are being returned to 

housing faster. If Congress were to fund proven crisis response solutions at the scale needed (as it has 

done for veterans through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families [SSVF] and HUD-VASH programs) 

the number of people who are homeless would go down substantially faster. 

The key elements of this homeless system are as follows. 

Outreach. Forty-eight percent of homeless people are unsheltered. They live on the streets, in cars or 

vans, in abandoned buildings, and in other places not meant for human habitation. Outreach programs 

scour communities to find people who are unsheltered and ensure their safety. Increasingly, effective 

2 
77 


Insert offset folio 12 here 35630.012

outreach efforts are those that go beyond this, locate and assess all those unsheltered, and work to get 

them not only into shelter, but sometimes directly into housing. 

Diversion. Increasingly, when people request shelter, staff members work to help them find other, more 

supportive and safe alternatives. This may include returning to the place they lived previously (many 

entries into shelter are precipitated by disagreements with family or roommates and can be resolved 

relatively quickly and safely), sharing housing with a friend, or quickly renting a new apartment. 

Avoiding a shelter stay is better for the people experiencing a crisis, and is cost-effective. 

Low-barrier, supportive, housing-focused shelter. While every shelter does not have to be the same, the 

most successful shelters have removed many of the common barriers to entry. They allow people to 

enter with their possessions, partners, and pets. They reduce the requirements and rules so that people 

have more agency and the environment is not enforcement- and rule-oriented. And they focus on being 

supportive and helping people return to a previous housing situation or find a new one. 

Housing and connection to services. Several housing strategies have excellent outcomes. Permanent 

Supportive Housing (subsidized housing with services) works well for people with chronic health or 

behavioral health problems. Rapid re-housing (short term rental assistance coupled with housing 

navigation and services to help people secure jobs and keep their housing) is effective for many people 

as well. Critical Time Intervention is an evidence-based practice that helps people exiting homelessness 

connect to services and supports in the community. Full rental subsidy such as Section 8 Housing Choice 

Vouchers, if available to everyone, would essentially eliminate homelessness, which as mentioned is a 

housing affordability problem. However, it is not available to everyone. 

Supporting this crisis response is largely the work of targeted homelessness programs: the Continuum of 

Care and the Emergency Solutions Grants at HUD, as well as targeted homelessness programs at the 

Departments of Veterans Affairs, Health and Human Services, and labor. The homeless programs are 

largely effective, but they are not funded to scale. 

Housing to prevent and end homelessness 

The homelessness crisis response system can at best make homelessness a brief experience. To prevent 

people from becoming homeless, a broader commitment to housing that is affordable is necessary. An 

agenda for achieving this has been laid out by the Opportunity Starts at Home campaign, of which the 

Alliance is a founding member. It includes rent subsidies for anyone who needs them; investment in 

building more affordable housing; and short-term crisis assistance for people whose housing stability is 

threatened. 

Recently, there have been legislative proposals to address the shortage of housing that is affordable to 

the lowest income people. The Ending Homelessness Act, discussed below, would provide substantial 

new resources for housing, in addition to its provisions funding homeless services. Other bills introduced 

in the last Congress included substantial increases in rent subsidies, and improvements to federal 

programs that provide for additional development of affordable housing stock. The National Alliance to 

End Homelessness supports those proposals that address the needs of very low-income people. 

Current policy challenges 

3 
78 


Insert offset folio 13 here 35630.013

People who ore unsheltered. As stated, 35 percent of people who are homeless are unsheltered. 

However, nearly half (48 percent) of homeless individuals are unsheltered. While the 

homeless ness experience of unsheltered people is not well understood, there is some 

information emerging on their characteristics in comparison to those of people in shelters. 

Most are male and white. Many have been homeless for longer periods of time than people in 

shelter. They appear to be much more disabled a factor which may have caused their 

homeless ness or resulted from it. They are at least twice as likely to have had contact with 

police or to have been to a hospital emergency room. West Coast cities have a high percentage 

of unsheltered people. Our nation is allowing a lot of extraordinarily vulnerable people to live 

outside. This is a crisis that must be addressed. 

Challenges to the Housing First approach. Fundamentally, the Housing First approach is based 

on the understanding that it makes more sense and works much better to get homeless people 

into a stable home where they can take on challenges such as addiction, poverty and mental 

illness rather than require them to address their vulnerabilities while they are homeless. 

Housing First recognizes that addressing these challenges can take a long time and is a path that 

may include many failures along with its successes. The core principles of Housing First were 

first adopted by the George W. Bush Administration through its commitment to end chronic 

homelessness, and since then Housing First has been a major contributor to reductions in 

homelessness. Its newer iteration, for people whose homelessness is more economic in nature, 

is rapid re-housing, which has already shown that once housed, the majority of people are 

successful at getting jobs and staying housed. 

Every homeless program does not have to take a Housing First approach. However, if none do, 

people who have the most serious disabilities and challenges will end up back on the street- or 

never leave it. Apparently there is discussion within the federal agencies about allowing a 

Housing First approach as people enter programs, but requiring that they demonstrate change 

(presumably sobriety, compliance with mental health services, work) to receive assistance once 

they are in the programs. People who receive assistance do have responsibilities, and homeless 

programs that are successful, as most are, incorporate that responsibility into their work. But 

we must be careful not to return people to homelessness because they are unable to achieve a 

level of progress that is judged to be sufficient. The Housing First approach should be supported 

and continued. 

Racial disproportiona/ity and disparity. African Americans, Native Americans and increasingly 

Hispanic and Latinx people are disproportionately homeless. The homeless system, itself, 

cannot solve all the problems that lead to this disproportionality, but it can work with 

mainstream feeder systems such as criminal justice and child welfare to address it. And the 

homeless system can look at itself to ensure that it does not treat people of different races 

differently, and that its outcomes are the same for everyone. HUD has given communities a way 

to do this by incentivizing them to examine their data for disparities and plan to remediate any 

they find. The Alliance and many other organizations, national and local, are working to assist 

communities to respond, and take the next steps. This critical work must continue. 

Aging. Homeless people are getting older along with the entire US population. As with the rest 

of the population, their aging comes with increased health care costs. However, in this case, 

because homeless ness increases poor health, these costs are exacerbated. Add to this the fact 

that homeless people's physical age is different than their chronological age: in effect they 

4 
79 


Insert offset folio 14 here 35630.014

become "elderly" at age 50, but are not eligible for senior benefits at that age. The number of 

older homeless people is expanding and will do so exponentially over the coming years. The 

homeless programs must adjust accordingly by improving access to health care for older people. 

And policymakers should explore providing housing subsidies to older homeless people. Such 

subsidies would more than pay for themselves in savings from nursing home and other 

expensive health care interventions. 

Definition of homelessness. There has been much discussion and numerous efforts over the past 

years to expand HUD's definition of "homeless" to be the same as the Department of 

Education's much broader definition. The Education definition encompasses people who are 

literally homeless and also those doubled up with others for economic reasons. HUD's 

definition encompasses people who are literally homeless, but only those doubled-up people 

who have to leave imminently, or whose safety is threatened. The majority of people who are 

doubled up for economic reasons (per the Education definition) have a housing affordability 

problem- they double up to AVOID becoming homeless. They need housing assistance, not a 

shelter bed. The Education definition makes sense for the services that the Department 

provides, but not for the shelter and housing help HUD has on offer. The HUD definition should 

not be altered. 

Accessing resources not targeted to homelessness. Much of what homeless people ultimately 

require to achieve well-being is not available through the homeless system, but rather through 

"mainstream" systems such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) for employment 

services, home visiting for parenting support, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Block Grants 

for treatment, and Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers for housing. We urge Congress to seek 

ways to incentivize the various Departments of the federal government to work together more 

productively (as HUD and VA have done for the veteran housing program) to meet the needs of 

vulnerable homeless families, individuals and youth. 

The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). USICH is the only agency at the federal 

level with the sole responsibility of ending homeless ness, and it pursues that goal by 

coordinating the federal agencies behind key strategies and assisting states and localities to 

employ best practices. Its budget (less than $4 million) is a prudent investment to achieve the 

coordination of 19 federal agencies spending over $6 billion to address homelessness. The 

original legislation to establish USICH included a sunset date for the Council. and on-going 

uncertainly about its existence impedes its continued effectiveness. USICH should be 

permanently authorized and adequately funded. 

The Continuum of Care program is essential. HUD's Continuum of Care program provides 

communities with approximately $2 billion a year for their homeless system. It is a competitive 

program that incentivizes communities to achieve outcomes and reduce homeless ness by using 

strategies that work such as rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, Housing First and 

coordination. Strengthening this role is an important consideration for the future and the 

Alliance recommends an appropriation of $3 billion in 2020 for Homeless Assistance, the 

appropriations account that includes the Continuum of Care and the Emergency Solutions Grant 

program, which supports shelter and other important crisis activities. 

5 
80 


Insert offset folio 15 here 35630.015

Proposed legislation 

There are several pieces of legislation that are being considered or discussed in this Committee and that 

would address some of these issues with respect to homelessness. While the bills are at various stages 

and have not yet been introduced, the Alliance's preliminary assessments are below. 

HR_: The Ending Homelessness Act of 2019 introduced by Chairman Waters. This bill would 

provide $13.27 billion for a variety of housing and homelessness activities with the goal of 

ending homeless ness. The Alliance is supportive of this bill. 

Working Together to End Homeless ness Act of 2019. Discussion Draft from Chairman Waters. 

This bill would permanently reauthorize the US Interagency Council on Homelessness. The 

Alliance is supportive of this bill. 

Homes for Our Heroes Act of 2019. Discussion draft from Rep. Peters. This bill would improve 

the HUDNASH program. The Alliance is supportive. 

Veteran Housing Opportunity and Employment Support Extension Act of 2019. This bill would 

require more information on the HUD·VASH program. The Alliance is supportive. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Homeless ness is a complicated problem and homeless people have a variety of needs including for 

health care, employment, treatment, support and more. But the one thing that ends people's 

homelessness is housing. Without housing, no matter what other assistance they may have received, 

people will still be homeless. With housing, no matter what help they may still need, they will not be 

homeless. 

Homeless people should be returned to housing as rapidly as possible and connected to any other 

services they need. Congress should support this to-scale with tailored rental assistance, short term 

crisis services, and connection to longer term supports if needed. It should support enough crisis shelter 

that no one need be unsheltered. Of course this is also the responsibility of local and state jurisdictions 

and federal support should be linked to those governments' use of best practices and their achievement 

of outcomes. In particular, racial disproportionality in the experience of homelessness should be 

addressed by local homeless programs working together to ensure that there are no racial disparities in 

entries into homeless programs, exits from them into housing, or returns to homelessness. 

The Alliance is supportive of the direction of the bills described above and in particular notes the 

intention of Chairman Waters' Ending Homelessness Act to go to scale in solving the problem. Without 

a significant national effort to reduce the seven-million-unit shortage of affordable housing, vulnerable 

residents of our nation will continue to experience homeless ness at great human, social and economic 

cost to them and to society. This need not happen in a country like ours. 

Thank you to the Committee for holding this important hearing and for inviting the National Alliance to 

End Homelessness to contribute to it. 

6 
81 


Insert offset folio 16 here 35630.016

Justin T. Rush, JD 

Public Policy Director 

True Colors Fund 

Before the 

Committee on Financial Services 

United States House of Representatives 

Public Testimony 

"Homeless in America: Examining 

the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness" 
82 


Insert offset folio 17 here 35630.017

Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding Homelessness in America: 

Examin'tng the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness. My name is Justin Rush, and I 

currently serve as the Director of Public Policy at the True Colors Fund, Co-Founded in 2008 

by Cyndi Lauper, which works to prevent and end homelessness among lesbian, gay, 

bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, seeking to create a world 

where all young people can be their true selves. To put our mission into action, the True 

Colors Fund provides training and education opportunities for communities and service 

providers, engages members of congress, state houses, federal and state agencies, and 

authentically collaborates with youth who have experienced homelessness to provide 

innovative solutions to addressing the youth homelessness crisis. 

Consideration of the issue of homelessness in the United States could not be more timely, 

particularly as it pertains to our nation's most impacted. An estimated 4.2 million youth and 

young adults up to age 24 experience homelessness each year in the United States. Annually, 

one in 30 youth ages 13 to 17 and one in 10 young adults ages 18 to 2S endure some form of 

homelessness-' LGBTQ youth have a 120% increased risk of experiencing homelessness 

compared to youth who identify as heterosexual and cisgender. African American youth are 

also overrepresented, with an 83% increased risk of experiencing homelessness over youth of 

other races or ethnicities. Additionally, Latino and Latina youth make up 33% of18- to 

25-year-olds reporting homelessness. African American youth-especially young men aged 

18 to 25--who identify as LGBTQ reported the highest rates of homelessness. Nearly one in 

four African American young men, ages 18 to 25, identifying as LGBTQ reported 

homelessness in the last 12 months2 Such findings are consistent with the disparities that 

have been found among in-school suspensions, incarceration, and foster care placement-" 

According to our service provider report, LGBTQ youth made up 33% of young people 

accessing homeless services4 LGBTQ youth of color-particularly transgender youth of 

1 Morton, M.H., Dworsky, A., & Samuels, G.M. (2017}. Missed opportunities: Youth homelessness in America. National estimates. 

Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. 2 !d., see also Morton, M. H., Samuels, G. M., Dworsky, A., & Patel, S. (2018). Missed opportunities: LGBTQ youth homelessness in 

America. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. 

3 ld. at Missed Opportunities. 

'Choi, SK, Wilson, B.D.M., Shelton, J., & Gates, G. (2015). Serving Our Youth 2015: The Needs and Experiences of lesbian, 

Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth Experiencing Homeless ness. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True 

Colors Fund. 
83 


Insert offset folio 18 here 35630.018

color-are more likely to experience violent crime, including sexual assault, police violence, 

robbery, and murders Homelessness makes them even more prone to experiencing these 

traumatic events. Additionally, LGBTQ youth of color are vulnerable to discrimination in 

education, employment, housing, and more likely to be involved in the criminal justice 

system. Institutional racism, homophobia, and transphobia contributes to pathways into 

homelessness for these young people, and it stymies their ability to exit homelessness6 

Furthermore, transgender people report high rates of discrimination that contribute to their 

housing instability which also deters them from accessing services, with- according to one 

study- nearly a quarter of transgender adults surveyed (N=27,715) reporting experiencing 

housing discrimination related to their gender identity. Providers are also more likely to 

report longer periods of homelessness for the transgender youth they serve7 

We are thankful to the committee for undertaking legislation that seeks to address the 

homelessness crisis within our country. Specifically, we support the Ending Homelessness 

Act of 2019, which would amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to make 

significant additional appropriations available for emergency relief grants, rental assistance 

for households and individuals who are experiencing homelessness, and homelessness 

outreach and coordination services. The bill also permanently authorizes the U.S. Interagency 

Council on Homelessness, which has been integral in coordinating our nation's response to 

homelessness. 

Conclusion 

We have the opportunity today, as a nation, to effectively address and ultimately end 

youth homelessness. Experience has shown that when Congress invests in efficient and 

effective homeless assistance, as it does through CoCs, federal dollars are subsequently 

leveraged to great effect by community leadership and local dollars. As a result of these 

investments, we have seen remarkable nationwide progress toward ending homelessness 

when our efforts are targeted. To be certain: preventing and ending homelessness means 

that Congress should ensure equal access to HUD-funded programs by providing legal 

protections based on one's sexual orientation and gender identity and ensuring that all 

5 National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP). (2016). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected 

Hate Violence in 2016. New York, NY: Emily Waters. 

'Price. C .. Wheeler, C .. Shelton, J., & Maury, M. (Eds.). (2016). At the Intersections.· A collaborative reporl on LGBTQ youth 

homelessness. True Colors Fund and the National LGBTQ Task Force 

7 James, S. E., Herman, J. L, Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender 

Survey, Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality 
84 


Insert offset folio 19 here 35630.019

Continuum of Care providers receive training for LGBTQ culturally competent and 

linguistically appropriate services for those most impacted by the homelessness crisis. 

Preventing and ending youth homelessness means providing targeted programs with few to 

no programmatic prerequisites for permanent housing, with low barrier admission policies, 

rapid and streamlined entry into housing, supportive services that are persistently used to 

engage tenants to ensure housing stability, with all tenants having full rights.and legal 

protections, especially transgender and gender non-conforming people. Most importantly, It 

means elevating the voices, experiences, and expertise of youth who have experienced 

homelessness and including them in all aspects of the planning and implementation process 

of programs and initiatives designed to prevent and end youth homelessness. Chairwoman 

Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and Members of the Committee thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today and I look forward to your questions. 
85 


Insert offset folio 20 here 35630.020

Testimony of the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Financial Services 

"Homelessness in America: Examining the 

Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness" 

February 13,2019 

I ofl2 
86 


Insert offset folio 21 here 35630.021

Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, and distinguished members of the 

House Committee on Financial Services: 

I am Joshua Stewart, the Director of Policy for the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans 

(NCHV). On behalf of our CEO, Board of Directors, and Members across the country, we thank 

you for the opportunity to share our views with you this morning. 

NCHV is the resource and technical assistance center for a national network of community-based 

service providers and local, state and federal agencies that provide emergency, transitional, and 

supportive housing, food, health services, job training and placement assistance, legal aid and 

case management support for hundreds of thousands of homeless, at-risk, and formerly homeless 

veterans each year. We are committed to working with our network and partners across the 

country to end homelessness among veterans. 

The good news is that since June of 2014, 66 communities and three states have achieved the 

federal benchmarks and criteria for ending veteran homelessness. This is an achievable goal. We 

have seen the annual point in time (PIT) count of veterans experiencing homelessness decrease 

by 48 percent since 2009, largely a testament to the dedication and hard work of local service 

providers, PHA's. community partners, and federal staff. While in the abstract this is progress 

toward the goal of ending veteran homelessness, in real terms it is life changing for the veterans 

and families of veterans that were able to access housing and assistance as a result. 

That said, with 37,878 veterans experiencing homelessncss on a given night according to the 

latest PIT count, we still have much work to do across the nation. From NCHV's perspective, 

even one veteran is one too many to be homeless. We need to maintain our efforts to ensure that 

homelessness is rare, brief, and nonrecurring, for veterans and all Americans. Luckily, as this 

testimony will show, we have learned many lessons about what works- and what doesn't work 

from those communities which have reached the goal of an effective end to veteran homelessness. 

Not only are those lessons learned replicable for other communities fighting to end veteran 

homelessness, they are replicable for anyone fighting to end all homelessness in this country. 

2 ofl2 
87 


Insert offset folio 22 here 35630.022

NCHV has long shared the view of most homelessness advocates that our national work to end 

veteran homelessness was the first test-bed of a wider move to end all homelessness in the 

United States. We decided as a nation to focus on a discrete section of the homeless population, 

increase resources, improve services, build community-level systems, involve all levels of 

government, and implement evidence based best practices. The result is a dramatic, historic, and 

unprecedented level of reduction in veteran homclessness. We have proven that there is a 

successful way forward to ending homelessness, and we have learned valuable lessons along the 

way. Though there is much work to be done on the issue of veteran homelessness, we have been 

making dramatic strides in the last ten years and there is every indication that we will continue to 

make progress if we don't lose focus. 

For communities and providers, this means looking at community-level data to identify acuity 

and ensure that service providers across the community have the resources, expertise, and the 

will to partner to meet these needs. Providers must continue to implement evidence-based 

strategies like Housing First that help homeless veterans quickly access permanent housing, 

employment, and any resources they may need for housing stability. We also need to recognize 

that successful implementation of this model also includes access to health and mental health 

care, and wraparound services like benefits assistance and employment and training services to 

ensure that a placement is sustainable. This also means partnering with other providers to create 

a system effective at connecting veterans to the most appropriate resources to meet their 

needs. Housing First never means Housing Only. 

For Congress. this means ensuring that key programs that serve veterans experiencing 

homelessness are sufficiently funded and receiving sufficient oversight. The latter task is being 

accomplished today at this hearing, and we thank you for both examining the wider issue and 

including the veteran subpopulation in the examination. For the former, we at NCHV do not 

advocate for the unqualified growth of resources for the sake of expanding programs. Rather, we 

base our recommendations on evidence from the field and national level data. As such we will 

make a recommendation for increasing the federal investment in the Hou~ing and Urban 

Development-- Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program later in this 

testimony. 

3 ofl2 
88 


Insert offset folio 23 here 35630.023

For the Administration, this means keeping the issue of veteran homelessness a priority among 

the leadership of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), so that they may continue to be a 

strong partner of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as we all work to 

end veteran homelessness. Furthermore, the Administration should strongly support the United 

States Interagency Council on Homelessncss (USICH) which has proven to be an invaluable 

leader and resource for the work to end veteran homelessness, 

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) 

Interagency collaboration has been and continues to be absolutely critical to success, as 

homelessness is a multifaceted and complex problem that differs for each veteran experiencing it. 

One of the best ways we can do that is to ensure the authority for the USICH does not sunset. 

This body must be made permanent. The small professional staff of policy experts and analysts 

at USJCH is directed by a Council comprised of Cabinet Secretaries and agency heads, and their 

work cuts across these agencies and departments. USJCH is the body which brings together 

different agencies with different missions, but which all have potential impacts in the attempt to 

end homelessness; USJCH is able to convene them and set policy priorities and shared objectives 

to actualize the plan to end homelessness. Furthermore, from their unique cross-cutting position, 

USJCH is able to identify and prevent duplication of services that would otherwise waste effort 

and resources. Finally, USICH is focused on cost-effective solutions to ending homelessness 

which drives them to identify and support policies that best economize tax-payer money while 

still achieving superior results in our efforts to end homelessness among veterans and for 

everyone. 

From the early days of the USICH under the direction of President Reagan and Bush, and HIJD 

Secretary Jack Kemp, to the recent leadership of its Director Matthew Doherty, the USICH has 

been at the forefront of strategic planning. effective and efficient rcsourcing, and the sheer hard 

work of interagency cooperation. lt has had a long history, but it has never been as effective as it 

has been in the last decade- and is now. We must not lose the USICH. NCHV asks that 

Congress pass legislation in the ll6'h making USICH a permanent part of our system. The 

4 of 12 
89 


Insert offset folio 24 here 35630.024

legislation before you today cited as the "Working Together to End Homelessness Act of2019" 

would accomplish exactly that goal, and as such NCHV supports it fully. 

Housing and Urban Development- V ctcrans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-V ASH) 

Program: Background 

The outstanding example of interagency collaboration is the HUD-VASH program. It is the only 

federal program specifically designed to end chronic homelessness for veterans and their families. 

The men and women who enroll in the program become eligible for placement in permanent 

housing through the award of veteran-specific I-IUD Section 8 housing vouchers, and receive 

comprehensive VA case management and other supportive services to remain stably housed. 

HUD-VASH has proven to be a successful interagency program, allowing VA to focus resources 

more efficiently by pairing VA-funded case management with a HUD-funded Section 8 voucher 

for the most vulnerable veterans. Right now, more than 85,000 veterans and their families are 

residing in HUD-VASH funded housing. 

The case management they receive is an integral part of the permanent supportive housing 

program. The vast majority of veterans who receive HIJD-V ASH vouchers have serious mental 

illness, substance abuse disorders, physical disabilities, or co-occurring disorders. Veterans 

create individualized "Housing Recovery Plans" with their case managers, focusing on long-term 

recovery and full integration into their communities. These plans involve health care, resolving 

legal and financial issues, and addressing employment needs and other income supports for 

which they may be eligible. 

Veterans who receive H IJD-V ASH vouchers rent privately owned housing and generally 

contribute up to 30% of their income toward rent. VA case managers foster a therapeutic 

relationship with veterans and act as liaisons with landlords, PHAs, and community-based 

service providers. In some instances, these case management services are contracted through 

service providers who have already established relationships with participating veterans. 

5ofl2 
90 


Insert offset folio 25 here 35630.025

When a veteran no longer needs the program's supports or has exceeded its income limits, these 

vouchers become available for the next qualifying veteran. In 2014, 71% of veterans admitted to 

the HUD-V ASH program met chronic homeless criteria and 91% of allocated vouchers resulted 

in permanent housing placement. 

Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-V ASH) 

Program: Priorities and Issues 

While the HUD-VASH program has been overwhelmingly successful and impactful, tbere are a 

number of areas where improvements need to be made. The recommendations below are aimed 

at making HlJD-VASH more effective, efficient, equitable, and accessible. 

Amount of HUD- VASH. and Project-based Vouchers 

First is the basic issue of quantity: Congress has been very generous with the creation of new 

HlJD-V ASH vouchers since 2008, sometimes even running counter to Administration requests. 

NCHV applauds the foresightedness of this move, and thanks Congress for these vouchers on 

behalf of the tens of thousands of veterans who have been housed. The simple fact remains 

however, that there is still much unmet need across the country. A recent survey ofNCHV 

members indicated that 86% of our respondent communities still had an unmet need for 

permanent supportive housing and had a wait-list of veterans for HlJD-VASH. As such, NCHV 

is calling for more investment in the HUD-V ASH program, both on the tenant-based and projectbased sides of the program, coupled with improvements to case management aspects and a smart. 

measured approach to recapture and disbursement of under-utilized vouchers. 

The affordable housing crisis in the US is widespread. It is most acute in urban areas, and in 

particular the coastal regions. The effects of the crisis are compounded in the areas of the country 

with the highest concentration of homeless veterans, specifically the states of California, New 

York, and Florida. In certain areas of the country with extremely low rental housing vacancy 

rates, the ability to locate housing is the single biggest barrier to housing veterans. For many 

communities experiencing this crisis, the only way to find affordable housing in which to place 

formerly homeless veterans is to create it. 

6 of 12 
91 


Insert offset folio 26 here 35630.026

The HUD-VASH program, usually in combination with VA's Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) 

program, has been a successful driver of new affordable housing development since 2008. The 

EUL program allows VA to tum over the costs of operating excess property to a developer who 

in tum tums a vacant building or vacant land into housing for homeless veterans. Project-basing 

a group of vouchers allows a developer to demonstrate guaranteed long-term operating income to 

banks during their search for the capital required to construct or remodel existing buildings into 

multi-family residences. 

FY Ht.JD Requested TtHUD Approptiated Vouchet Equit·alent VA Requested ~1i!Conf\" A Appropriated 

2008. $75.000.000 $75.000.000 -10.000 $5.?18.000 $5.718.000 

:!009 $75,000,000 $75,000.000 -10.000 $8.082.000 :$&.0&2.000 

2010 $75.000.000 $75.000,000 -10.000 S75.J32.000 $7.'i.332.000 

2011 so $50,000.000- -6.900 S'75,3J2.000 $151,069.000 

~012 575.000.000 S75,000JJOO -10,000 $201500.000 5201500,000 

2013 $75,000.000 $75.000.000 ~10.000 $244.602.000 $244.602.000 

2014 $75,000.000 $75,000.000 ~10.000 $278,183.000 S27KIS~.OOO 

2015 $'7:5.000.000 $75.000,000 --10,000 $J73.668.000 $37:3.668.000 

2016 so $60.000.000 -8.000 $373.668.000 $373.668.000 

201"' so $40 000.000 ~5500 $496.099,00 $-l96.099.00 

2018 so TBD TBD $542,893.000 $542.893.000 

Figure 1 Presidential Budget Requests vs Appropriations for lll!D-VASH Program FYOS to FY18 

In order to project-base a group of vouchers, HUD must set-aside a portion of vouchers. These 

vouchers are then allocated to the states who enter into relationships with developers to get them 

online. This process takes much longer than putting a tenant-based voucher into circulation. 

However, the benefits of the creation of affordable housing exclusively for veterans for decades 

to come outweigh the added delay. The last set-aside of vouchers occurred in 2016. A new setaside of 5,000 vouchers is needed to spur the development of affordable housing for veterans 

across the country, in particular in high cost, low vacancy rental markets. 

Newly created vouchers are not the only candidates for project-basing, however. Though never 

yet utilized, the authority exists to recapture unused vouchers andre-provision them to a 

different state. HUD and VA should identify the few areas of the country that have excess 

7 ofl2 
92 


Insert offset folio 27 here 35630.027

vouchers (due to low-cost rental housing, fewer chronically homeless veterans than anticipated, 

or decreased need) and recapture a portion of their unused vouchers. This should be done 

conservatively, and should in no way harm the ability of those communities to effectively carry 

out their own work to end veteran homelessness. Once the vouchers arc recaptured by HUD, 

they too should be project based and redistributed to the communities in desperate need of 

affordable housing. 

"Other Than Honorahle" discharges and JJUD-VASH eligibility 

Veterans who received an ·'Other Than Honorable'' type of discharge from military service (the 

third of five main types, after "Honorable" and "General", but before "Bad Conduct" and 

"Dishonorable") are in practice, though not in law, usually ruled ineligible for VA health or other 

benefits. This is true even though many studies in recent years have shown that a large portion of 

"Other Than Honorable" (or, ··oTH") discharges are the result of service members behavioral 

changes from repeat deployments or unaddressed Post Traumatic Stress (PTS). Even the 

Department of Defense has acknowledged PTS as a vector to OTH discharges, and has directed 

review boards for discharge status upgrades to take it into account. NCHV was proud in the 1141

h 

Congress to champion ultimately successful legislation that ended a two-decades-long regulatory 

issue which was preventing OTH veterans from receiving VA homeless services such as the 

popular Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program or the Grant and Per Diem 

(GPD) program. The reason for our support of that bill (PL 114-315) was simple: despite a 

single-digit percentage of America's veterans receiving OTH discharges, they make up 15% of 

the homeless veteran population nation-wide. In some urban locales the percentage of OTH 

veterans among the homelessness population can rise to nearly 30%. In either case, their 

presence in the homelessncss population is wildly disproportionate. Following the same 

reasoning for our support of PL 114-315, NCHV strongly supports Representative Scott Peters· 

recently introduced legislation to expand HUD-V ASH eligibility to veterans with "Other Than 

Honorable" discharges, cited as the "Veteran Housing Opportunities and Unemployment Support 

Extension (Veteran HOUSE) Act f2019". We have committed as a nation to ending veteran 

homclessness these men and women are veterans, and we must not leave them behind, 

8ofl2 
93 


Insert offset folio 28 here 35630.028

Making Tribal HUD-VASH Permanent 

While the HUD-VASH program has been transformative since its revitalization in 2008, its 

effects on all veterans has not been equitable. Until recently, veterans living on tribal lands were 

not able to access this resource due to different administrative pathways to Tribal Housing 

Authorities. NCHV was proud to support the creation of a pilot program to make "Tribal HUDVASH" a real possibility. The early days of the pilot have exposed and solved many issues, and 

have proved that we can get this critical resource to Native American veterans- who, by the way, 

serve in our military in disproportionately high numbers. Due to these successes, NCHV is 

strongly supportive of making Tribal HUD-VASH a permanent program. We are furthermore 

committed to ensuring that it grows in step with the wider HUD-VASH program going forward. 

A number of bills in the previous Congress would have addressed this issue, and NCHV looks 

forward to working with the Committee in this Congress to ensure that Tribal HUD-V ASH 

remains permanently available to the Native American veterans who deserve to access it. 

Other HUD- VASH Priorities and Issues 

To reiterate, though HUD-VASil is an extraordinarily successful program it docs have room for 

improvement. Some of those areas have been delineated in this testimony already, others which 

deal more with the VA case management side have not. Though these areas of improvement are 

the responsibility of VA, the improvements would have a positive impact on a shared program. 

The proposed reports and studies in the "Homes for Our Heroes Act of 20 19'' get at the core of 

some of these areas of improvement, and as such NCHV supports passage of the bill. Requiring 

reports on issues such as caseload, geographic distribution, and recidivism would allow Congress 

and advocates to better understand the scale of a problem, or to decide that there are in fact no 

problems in those areas. Furthermore, the calls for study in the bill on areas with high housing 

costs can help us identify where the most common and serious roadblocks to the construction of 

new housing for veterans exist, and how to surmount them. 

Recent events have exposed a fault line in the HUD-VASH program; not at the local level where 

PHA's and VA staff work in concert as always, but at the leadership level. Following the 

proposal of a dangerous financial policy by then-Secretary David Shulkin, some VA Medical 

Centers began to draw back from the mission to end veteran homelessness. One concrete effect 

9 ofl2 
94 


Insert offset folio 29 here 35630.029

of this drawback was the rejection of new HUD-VASH vouchers in spite of the need evidenced 

in said communities. Most of these problems have been overcome following intense intervention 

by Members of Congress, the press, and/or national organizations like NCHV. However, these 

types of issue will continue to present themselves going forward, as long as the leadership of 

local VA Medical Centers do not believe that ending veteran homelessness is a priority for the 

leadership at VA's Central Office. To continue the successes of the HUD-VASH partnership, 

and to continue to make progress toward ending veteran homelessncss, VA must be a fully 

committed partner. 

The final issue with HUD-V ASH not yet addressed in this testimony is with landlord 

engagement. Make no mistake, there are best practices which can mitigate this issue- but the 

task of identifying building owners willing to rent to formerly-homeless veterans is a challenging 

one, especially in tight rental markets. We rely on promises by the federal government to 

landlords that federal programs will be there to support a formerly-homeless veteran and a 

landlord if the landlord agrees to accept a HUD-VASH voucher. One of those promises is that 

HUD will be there to pay for the housing. The whole relationship between landlords, veterans, 

and program staff is predicated on trust that the promises will be honored. The recent 

government shutdown approached as closely as ever to the possibility ofHUD not being to 

honor its rental assistance payments in a timely manner. That has scared landlords across the 

country. Long shutdowns, and their impacts on HUD's perceived ability to honor those promises, 

drastically erode trust. The federal government has some serious work to do to build that trust 

back up, or we will have even more trouble identifying landlords willing to help. Whether that 

work be advanced appropriations to prevent shutdowns impacting programs, an administration 

driven trust building program of landlord engagement, or some other initiative- we must not 

allow lapses in appropriations to endanger the lives of veterans who receive rental assistance 

through HUD. 

10ofl2 
95 


Insert offset folio 30 here 35630.030

The "Ending Homelessness Act of 2019" 

Chairwoman Waters' bill, the "Ending Homelessness Act of20J9" takes several of the lessons 

that we as a field have learned from the work on veteran homelessness, and expands them to 

apply to the task of ending all homelessncss in America. The critical importance of affordable 

housing creation, the pressing need for more rental assistance, and the crucial step of building 

community capacity through technical assistance are all lessons learned through years of success 

in addressing veteran homelessncss. 

In communities where the most progress is made such as those that have met the federal 

benchmarks to an effective end to veteran homelessness- several common themes exist. All 

those communities made the mission central, prioritized services based on acuity, increased 

investments, aligned with Housing First principles, re-made their systems (often with help from 

technical assistance providers), and created or leveraged affordable housing. This Ending 

Homelessness Act takes these commonalities as the core of the bill's approach to ending 

homelessness. NCI·IV can vouch for their successfulness. 

One of the greatest remaining hurdles to ending veteran homelessness all across the country, as 

has been mentioned repeatedly in this testimony, is the lack of affordable housing in this country. 

Whether it has been the difficulty in finding affordable units for HUD-VASH recipients, the near 

impossibility in some communities of finding "regular" Section 8 vouchers for veterans who 

have graduated out of HUD-V ASH case management, the generalized pressure on homelessness 

that a lack of affordable housing creates, or the need to create affordable housing stock, the 

common theme of this testimony and of the work is that affordable housing is both the magic 

wand and the missing piece. The kind oflarge investments proposed in this bill would allow 

communities across the country to finally build affordable housing stock that is desperately 

needed. In the absence of this bill, there is no large-scale help coming for these communitiesthey will continue to have a critical piece missing from their homelessness response system. As 

such, veterans who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness in those communities will continue 

to suffer. 

11 ofl2 
96 


Insert offset folio 31 here 35630.031

If we have learned anything from our work to end veteran homelessness, it is two things: l) 

ending homelessness in a community is possible, and 2) it can't be done without adequate stocks 

of affordable housing. This bill acknowledges both of those realities, and as such NCJ.-IV is proud 

to support it. 

In Summation 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony at today's hearing. It is a privilege to 

work with the House Committee on Financial Services to ensure that every veteran facing a 

housing crisis has access to safe, decent, and affordable housing paired with the support services 

needed to remain there. 

Joshua L. Stewart 

Director of Policy 

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans 

1730 M Street, NW Suite 705 

Washington, DC 20003 

202-546-1969 

12 ofl2 
97 


Insert offset folio 32 here 35630.032

Written Statement for the Record 

Submitted By 

Steve PonT ell 

President & Chief Executive Officer 

National Community Renaissance (National CORE) 

Before the 

Financial Services Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hearing on: 

HOMELESSNESS IN AMERICA: 

EXAMINING THE CRISIS AND 

SOLUTIONS TO END HOMELESSNESS 

February 13, 2019 

Washington, DC 

9121 Haven Avenue_ HanchoCueamong-a,CA91730 
98 


Insert offset folio 33 here 35630.033

National Community Renaissance (National CORE) is pleased to submit this written 

statement for the record for today's hearing on homelessness in America. National CORE 

commends Chairwoman Waters and the Committee for making the important issue ofhomelessness 

one of the first hearings convened by the Committee in the 116'h Congress. The witnesses are 

experts in what has been a longstanding federal commitment to reducing homelessness and the bills 

highlighted at this hearing merit serious consideration. 

We would like to share with the Committee our organization's experiences, which we 

believe provide useful lessons about the importance of quality affordable housing coupled with 

services for residents. In particular, we believe it is critical for Congress to recognize the 

interrelationships between homelessness and poor health. 

National CORE is one of the nation's largest and most effective non-profit affordable 

housing developers, with a 25-year track record in community revitalization. Headquartered in 

Southern California, with a strong presence in Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, National CORE 

produces quality affordable housing and provides a wide range of supportive services for residents. 

Nationwide, National CORE has 84 developments, with 8,475 units of affordable housing, serving 

approximately 28,000 residents. Projects include mixed-income and mixed-use models. 

Our organization has been particularly innovative when it comes to partnerships that 

demonstrate the benefits and cost savings of linking affordable housing with supportive services 

onsite for residents. Our properties serve working families, seniors, the disabled, and individuals 

and families at-risk ofhomelessness. By providing affordable housing and onsite social services, 

National CORE is positioned to positively impact special needs populations, including the 

homeless and persons and families at-risk of homelessness. In addition to health and wellness, 

National CORE provides a range of family self-sufficiency services, including financial literacy, 

asset-building tools, and pathways to homeownership for its residents. 

More Federal Funding is Needed for Affordable Housing Production 

Study after study concludes that the supply of affordable housing is not keeping pace with 

the need. The problems ofhomelessness simply can't be adequately addressed without additional 

funding for new construction of affordable housing units and new project-based housing assistance. 

For these reasons, National CORE strongly supports the key provisions from the "Ending 

Homelessness Act of 2019," which authorize $2.5 billion a year in total new funding eaclt of the 

next five years for a combination of permanellf supportive lwusingfor the homeless, the Housing 

Trust Fund, and special purpose vouchers. 

Stable Housing Improves Health 

As the Committee considers solutions to homelessness, it is important to recognize the 

importance of housing to an individual's health. Numerous studies show that safe and affordable 

housing is a social determinant of health. When individuals are adequately housed, they live 

healthier lifestyles, and in turn, health care costs are reduced. Statistics show that homeless 

individuals do not get regular health checks and only go to the hospital once they are critically ill. 

According to a research summary by the Center for Housing Policy, stable, long-term 

housing increases one's sense of control over one's environment and greatly reduces negative 

health outcomes related to prolonged stress. When housing is affordable, it frees up family 

resources for nutritious food and health care. Well-constructed housing can also reduce exposure 

to environmental risks, including lead poisoning, asthma, and accidental injury. Neighborhood 

conditions also matter, as safety impacts the likelihood of exercise such as walking or running, 

usage of drugs and alcohol, and exposure to traumatic events that can increase daily stress levels. 
99 


Insert offset folio 34 here 35630.034

For individuals with chronic conditions, housing plays a crucial role in determining the 

direction of their health trajectory. At the most basic level, healing requires a secure place to rest, 

to store medications, to attend to personal hygiene, and to enable nurses to deliver care. 

Therefore, we strongly support the section in the "Ending Homelessness Act of 1019" 

authorizing $20 million in technical assistance to integrate and coordinate HUD McKinneyVento homeless program funding with health care funded by federal programs, in collaboration 

with the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

National CORE's Experience 

National CORE has created an innovative model that combines safe, stable housing with 

supportive health and social services, which has led to positive outcomes for thousands of residents. 

This approach begins with quality, affordable housing, which serves as the foundation, and is 

augmented by supportive services tailored to the needs of the residents in that housing. 

A good example of this is Marv's Place the first permanent supportive housing development 

in the City of Pasadena for formerly homeless families, which provides a safe haven for families to 

begin rebuilding their lives. Union Station Homeless Services has an office onsite to provide case 

management, career development, money management classes, mental health services, substance 

abuse services and health care. Marv's Place also received first of its kind funding from First Five 

LA to set aside seven units for families with children under five. 

National CORE has also established strategic partnerships with health care systems, 

insurance providers, and educational institutions which recognize that housing is a determinant of 

health and are willing to invest dollars to better serve their community. By doing so, National CORE 

is able to help carry out innovative models for health care delivery. 

For example, National CORE recently established a partnership with the Inland Empire 

Health Plan (IEHP) to set aside 15 housing units in a new seniors community in Rancho Cucamonga, 

CA. IEHP is a nonprofit Medi-Cal and Medicare health plan headquartered in Rancho Cucamonga, 

that provides comprehensive managed health care coverage to more than 1.2 million residents in San 

Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Separately, as part of the master-planned Arrowhead Grove Neighborhood Revitalization, in 

the City of San Bernardino, CA, National CORE has worked with community leaders and residents 

to pass a Specific Plan to establish a "complete community" which incorporated health as one of the 

five goals. Upon completion, the development will replace an aging 252-unit public housing 

complex - in desperate need for repair -- with a 38-acre, mixed-income community with 

approximately 400-units of affordable and market-rate housing. 

Based on the success of the first two phases, Dignity Health, one of the largest health systems 

in the U.S., recently offered a $1.2 million bridge loan to help move the next phases forward. The 

commitment followed $20 million in funding from the California Strategic Growth Council through 

their Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, demonstrating that with clear 

priorities and collaboration, developments such as Arrowhead Grove can attract new resources and 

deliver investments that are in alignment with community priorities and support community health. 
100 


Insert offset folio 35 here 35630.035

Reducing Homelessness By Dedicating Federal Health Care Funding to Housing 

These and many other National CORE developments show how health care dollars can close 

the gap in funding needed to build affordable housing, how affordable housing can improve health 

outcomes, and how the integration of housing and services can reduce health care expenditures. 

However, this approach is not replicable on a large scale without new sources of federal 

funding. It is time for federal policies to more fully recognize that quality housing is a key component 

of health and that more flexible use of federal health care dollars can both reduce homelessness and 

reduce health care expenditures. 

Los Angeles County, California has carried out a program that demonstrates such savings. The 

Housing for Health program has housed and provided health care for more than 3,400 people since 

it launched in 2012. According to a recent study, public spending was reduced, which was attributed 

to understanding the connection between homelessness and health. For every dollar invested, the 

County saved $1.20 in health care and other social services, according to the study. Participants' 

inpatient days dropped 76 percent and emergency room visits dropped 67 percent. Public service 

costs declined by nearly 60 percent, from an average of$38, 146, per person, per year, before housing, 

to $15,358, after. Even after accounting for program costs, the county saved 20 percent. 

In the case of Los Angeles County, this irmovative approach to saving health care costs by 

providing housing and services to persons at-risk of homelessness only works financially because 

Los Angeles County is a closed system. Since the County reaps the direct benefit of health care 

savings arising investing in affordable housing, it is a good investment. Affordable housing owners 

and service providers do not realize these same savings, and therefore do not have the same financial 

incentives or access to funds to carry out this approach. 

Federal agencies and states can better coordinate between low-income housing programs and 

federal health programs, including Medicaid. For exan1ple, while there is some flexibility in 

Medicaid in terms of using funding to pay for supportive services in coordination with low-income 

housing developments, and the use of funds for housing rental assistance, such options are currently 

underutilized in spite of the evidence that demonstrates the efficacy of such an approach. 

It has long been established that alternatives to nursing homes can save Medicaid costs. The 

same can be true for Medicaid funds used for rental assistance and services for the homeless and 

those at risk of homelessness a class that has a pattern of more extensively using emergency and 

other high-cost health care services. A study by the American Hospital Association (AHA) provides 

evidence supporting such an approach. AHA found that when homeless individuals were provided 

with stable housing, their health choices improved, and overall healthcare costs declined. 

Specifically, they observed a 33 percent reduction in emergency room visits, a 42 percent reduction 

in days spent in nursing homes, and Medicaid expenditures declined by 12 percent. 

Significant opportunities exist to expand resources for affordable housing units and for services 

to residents living in such units- while at the same time reducing health care costs (and improving 

health care) for those same residents. In particular, in the same way that Medicaid funds have for 

decades been used to help seniors to age in care thereby reducing Medicaid costs otherwise spent 

on nursing homes - innovative approaches to using federal health care funds to provide housing 

assistance and related services to the homeless and those at risk of homeless should be pursued. 

Medicaid is beginning to approve waivers to allow states to take advantage of waivers to use 

Medicaid funds to carry out this strategy of reducing health care costs through investments in 

connection with affordable housing rental housing. Examples include: 
101 


Insert offset folio 36 here 35630.036

California allows for pilot/demonstration projects to provide wrap-around services and 

support for housing for homeless and very low-income individuals in order to control 

runaway health care costs of at-risk families and individuals (but does not allow funds to 

be used for affordable housing construction or rental assistance). 

• New York and Ohio have implemented waivers that allow Medicaid funds on a limited 

basis to be directly utilized for housing for such target populations. 

• Arizona has launched an initiative to house residents diagnosed with severe mental illness 

(SMI), which uses a type of voucher program (but does not permit the use of Medicaid 

funds). 

HHS Secretary Azar recently acknowledged that public reimbursement for housing costs is 

under consideration as a part of forthcoming proposals from CMS. We urge lite Committee to 

encourage and help expedite and implement such proposals. 

Supportive Services Are Critical in Reducing Homelessness 

We are also pleased to see that $100 million is authorized in the "Ending Homelessness Act of 

2019" for grants to provide outreach and to coordinate services for persons and households who are 

homeless or formerly homeless, and to provide supportive services to other targeted populations, 

such as seniors, the disabled, children, and teens. 

For more than 20 years, a cornerstone of HUD McKinney Vento homeless strategies and 

programs has been to support permanent supportive housing, through programs such as the Shelter 

Care Plus program. Providing site based, affordable housing for the homeless facilitates the 

provision of a wide range of services to help individuals address the underlying problems that can 

contribute to homelessness (such as mental health and alcohol and drug addiction problems) and to 

provide other services in the areas of employment and education to help facilitate self-sufficiency. 

The track record of this 20-year effort shows that this approach is extremely successfuL 

Unfortunately, this approach is generally not used and funding for this is not generally available 

for the vast majority of HOD-assisted atiordable housing units. Grants are provided for such housing 

services through HUD programs such as $35 million a year for HUD ROSS service coordinator 

grants and $75 million a year for HUD Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS). However, these programs 

have limited funding and arc generally limited to assisting residents in public housing. Therefore, 

we suggest expanding the availability of the use ofHUD ROSS grants and Family Self-Sufficiency 

grants to other types of subsidized affordable housing, suclt as tax credit properties. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the Committee's focus on the important topic of combating homelessness. 

The connection between stable housing and healthy living is undeniable. National CORE would be 

pleased to work with the Committee to redirect federal health funding to focus resources on providing 

stable, affordable housing. 
102 


Insert offset folio 37 here 35630.037

Statement of Maria Foscarinis, Esq. 

Founder and Executive Director 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Financial Services 

Homelessness in America: 

Examining the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness 

February 13,2019 
103 


Insert offset folio 38 here 35630.038

Introduction 

Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member McHenry, members of the committee: On behalf of the 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, (the "Law Center'') thank you for the 

opportunity to submit written testimony on the critical issue ofhomelessness in America. The 

Law Center appreciates the efforts of the members of this committee to combat this ongoing and 

expanding crisis. 

The Law Center is the only national organization dedicated solely to using the power of the law 

to end and prevent homelessness. We believe that housing is a basic human right that must be 

secured for all, and that homelessness in a country with the resources of the United States is a 

travesty. We work for the day when safe, decent, affordable housing will be a right enjoyed by 

all. 

I have worked towards this vision since the 1980s, when homelessness was first becoming a 

national issue. As a young lawyer in private practice at a major corporate law firm, I took a pro 

bono case representing homeless families in a class action suit. Inspired by the impact the law 

can make in the lives of vulnerable people, I left the firm to advocate for a national response to 

the emerging crisis. I played an instrumental role in drafting and securing passage of the original 

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, now known as the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act ("McKinney-Vento Act"), the first and still only major federal 

legislation to address homelessness in America. I founded the Law Center in 1989 to build on 

and enforce that landmark law. 

Since its founding, the Law Center has worked to strengthen the McKinney-Vento Act, enforce 

its provisions, and secure enactment of additional legal protections and resources. Based in 

Washington D.C., we work with local-level advocates, service providers, and government 

agencies across the country, including Los Angeles and North Carolina. Partnering with pro 

bono attorneys, we bring high-impact litigation, lead and support federal, state and local 

advocacy campaigns, and educate providers, advocates and the public. Our work creates homes 

and communities for families, children, veterans, the elderly, and disabled individuals 

experiencing homelessness using surplus government property; improves access to housing for 

domestic violence survivors and their children; secures education rights for children 

experiencing homelessness; and protects human rights and dignity by challenging laws that 

prevent people experiencing homelessness from voting and punish them for their homelessness. 

Congress Must Fulfill its Promise to End and Prevent Homelessness 

With the passage of the McKinney-Vento Act, Congress recognized its responsibility to protect 

our country's most vulnerable populations and the benefits that the reduction of poverty and 

homelessness bring to American society. But the McKinney-Vento Act was intended to be only a 

2 
104 


Insert offset folio 39 here 35630.039

first, emergency step in the federal response to homelessness; it was not intended to be the only 

response. Indeed, it was part of a larger legislative proposal that included measures to prevent 

and end homelessness. And while the McKinney-Vento Act has been enhanced significantly 

since 1987, those longer-term, broader measures were never enacted-and as a result the 

homelessness crisis has not ended and, indeed, has recently worsened. The fact that this crisis has 

escalated to its current levels demonstrates and reflects significant failings of federal, state, and 

local policy. 

Close to 1.4 million school children were homeless during the 2016-2017 school year, a number 

which has gone persistently upward, despite the end of the recession-and almost 2.5 million 

children overall-! in 30-were homeless in 2013. 1 Reports of homeless encampments grew 

1,342% between 2007 and 2017, again persistently trending upward despite the end of the 

recession. 2 And according to the Department of Housing & Urban Development, which itself 

admits this number is an undercount, on a single night in the United States, 553,000 individuals 

were sleeping in shelters, transitional housing, and in outdoor locations not meant for human 

habitation. Of that total number, approximately one-third were in the latter category: they were 

without any indoor shelter .. 3 The number of those unsheltered had increased since the previous 

year, and this point, combined with the fact that there were only 286,000 beds available on the 

same night, demonstrates the need for the federal government to act immediately to ensure at a 

minimum that each and every people in our country have access to safe, affordable, and decent 

housing. 4 

Addressing homelessness also means addressing the structural discrimination in our laws and 

policies. African Americans made up approximately 40 percent of those counted by HUD in 

2018, as compared to 13 percent of the entire population, and Native Americans also experience 

homelessness at double their percent of the national population. 5 It is quite clear that 

homelessness and poverty are not just stand-alone issues--they are an amalgamation of 

intersectional civil and human rights and economic issues that demand the attention of Congress. 

One study showed that African-American youth under the age of five were 29 times were more 

likely to end up in homeless shelters than their white counterparts. 6 Equitable solutions to 

homelessness must ensure that the appropriate resources reach these extremely vulnerable 

populations. 

1 National Center for Homeless Education, National Overview (2018), 

!illJl.;ilm:ofiles.nche.seiservices.corn!ConsolidatedStateProfile.aspx; American Institutes for Research, AMERICA's 

YOUNGEST OUTCASTS: A REPORT CARD ON CHILD HOMELESSNESS, 6 (20 14), ]illp,s:l/www.air.org/resource/americasYQJ!.fl&t?~t-.Q!.l.tcasts-report-card-child-homelessness. 

2 National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, TENT CITY USA: TifE GROWTH OF AMERICA'S 

HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS AND HOW COMMUNITIES ARE RESPONDING (2017), 

https://www.nlchp.org/Tent Citv USA 2017. 

'U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, THE 2018 ANNUAL HOMELESS ASSESSMENT 

REPORT (AHAR) TO CONGRESS Part 1: POINT IN TIME ESTIMATES OF HOMELESSNESS, 

https://www. hudexchange.info/resources/ documents/20 18-AHAR -Part -I , pdf. 4fd 

'Jd 

6 Culhane, D. & Metraux, S. Population Research and Policy Review (1999) 18:219. 

https://doi.org/10. I 023/A:l006187611323 

3 
105 


Insert offset folio 40 here 35630.040

In order to solve the homelessness crisis in the United States, we must look for solutions that 

address safe, decent, affordable housing as a human right, not a charitable benevolence subject to 

the whims of appropriations. Currently, the U.S. has a shortage of 7.4 million affordable and 

available rental homes for extremely-low-income (ELI) renter households, resulting in only 35 

affordable and available units for every I 00 ELI renter households. 7 The trend is worsening: 

close to 90% of new apartment buildings constructed in 2017 and the first half of 2018 were 

luxury buildings. 8 And of those ELI households that could find housing, more than 70 percent 

paid more than half their income on housing and utilities, leaving little for necessities such as 

food, medicine, transportation, or childcare, and putting them one missed paycheck or financial 

emergency away from homelessness. 9 The time has long since come to adopt President Franklin 

Delano Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights" to ensure the economic and social security of every 

American. 

In addition to being denied the right to housing, people experiencing homelessness face unjust 

criminalization of basic human activities such as sleeping, resting, self-sheltering, and asking for 

help, which only exacerbates the challenges they face. . The Law Center has found that 

communities increased these punitive ordinances by double- and triple-number percentages from 

2006 to 2016. 10 The criminalization of homelessness does not help break the cycle of poverty. 

Instead, these policies perpetuate the crisis of homelessness and poverty by further burdening 

homeless families and individuals with fines, fees and jail time, and the collateral consequences 

of a criminal record, and saddling communities with expensive and unnecessary law enforcement 

and penal costs. Studies show that providing housing actually costs one-half to one-third of 

constantly cycling homeless persons through the criminal justice system and emergency rooms. 11 

Instead of looking to punish those taking care of their basic survival needs, we should instead 

focus on a housing-first solution that ensures a stable living environment for those experiencing 

homelessness. 

Measures Congress Can Implement to Solve the Crisis 

In order to combat the crisis of homelessness, Congress must take concrete action that prioritizes 

and implements the human right to safe, decent affordable housing. Any legislative approach 

must also account for the decriminalization of basic human activities. Combining these two areas 

of public policy would provide for a holistic and legislatively responsible response to this crisis. 

Our top policy recommendations to end and prevent homelessness and affirm housing as a 

human right include: 

7 National Low Income Housing Coalition, THE GAP: A SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOMES (March 2017), 

https:/ In! ihc.orglsitesl defaultlfi les/Gap· Report_ 20 17 .pdf 

'Nadia Balint, 8 Out of 10 New Apartment Buildings Were High-End in 2017. Trend Continues in 2018, Rent Cafe 

Blog (Sept. 21, 20 18), https:llwww rentcafe.com/bloglrental-market/luxury-apartments/8-out-of-1 0-new-apartmentbuildings-were-high-end-in-20 17 -trend-carries-on-into-20 181. 9 /d. 

10 National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, HOUSING NOT HANDCUFFS: ENDING THE 

CRJMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS IN U.S. CITIES (2016), https://www.nlchp.org/documents/HousingNot-Handcuffs. 

11 See, id. 

4 
106 


Insert offset folio 41 here 35630.041

Stopping the cycle of poverty by proscribing legislation that criminalizes basic human 

activities of those experiencing homelessnesso Congress should use its funding authority to prevent state and local jurisdictions 

receiving federal funds from adopting and enforcing harmful laws that criminalize 

homelessness, such as those: 

Restricting the First Amendment rights of those soliciting for assistance in 

public places 

Denying the right of individuals to sleep in their vehicles 

Preventing individuals from resting in public places 

o Federal funding should incentivize state and local governments to protect the 

rights of those experiencing homelessness and promote constructive, housingbased solutions instead of punitive laws and policies. 

• Preventing homelessness by strengthening housing and other rights for people at risk --

o Congress should use its authority (including its funding authority) to prevent 

discrimination in housing based on source of income, housing status, or status as a 

victim of domestic violence, and on the basis of criminal, eviction, or credit 

history unrelated to an individual's current and future ability to abide by 

reasonable terms of tenancy 

o Congress should use its authority (including its funding authority) to ensure 

tenants in poverty are not evicted without just cause, and guarantee and 

incentivize states and local governments to provide counsel for tenants in poverty 

who are facing eviction 

o Congress must ensure that domestic abuse survivors are not forced to choose 

between homelessness and abuse by reauthorizing and strengthening the Violence 

Against Women Act, in particular the housing section of that Act 

o Congress should require that institutions and systems of care receiving federal 

funding ensure that persons in their custody are discharged into affordable 

housing, instead of being released without any supports and resources. 

o Congress should protect homeless children and youth by strengthening their 

education rights under Title VII of the McKinney-Vento Act, including fully 

funding it, and requiring closer coordination between state and local education 

and housing agencies. 

• Ending the crisis ofhomelessness by affirming the fundamental human right to housing 

through increases in access to and availability of affordable housinga Congress should fund housing vouchers sufficiently so that all who are eligible 

receive them 

o Congress should raise the federal minimum wage and index it to actual housing 

costs to ensure that working people are able to afford housing 

o Congress should index Supplemental Security Income and Social Security 

Disability Insurance payments to local housing costs so that those who are 

disabled can afford housing 

5 
107 


Insert offset folio 42 here 35630.042

o Congress should ensure that a sufficient supply of housing affordable to 

extremely impoverished households exists, specifically by providing sufficient 

funding for the National Housing Trust Fund and through Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credits 

o Congress should strengthen Title V of the McKinney-Vento Act to make more 

vacant federal properties available to homeless service providers at no cost 

The Ending Homelessness Act 

The Law Center applauds the leadership of Chairwoman Waters in introducing the Ending 

Homelessness Act and supports her intention to reintroduce it in the current Congress. The Law 

Center supports the legislation and stands ready to work with Chairwoman Waters and the 

Committee to secure its passage as a critical step towards ending and preventing homelessness in 

America. 

Conclusion 

Congress has recognized that the federal government has a "'clear responsibility and ... existing 

capacity to meet the basic needs of all the homeless." 12 For more than 30 years, the McKinneyVento Act has been a standing commitment by Congress to allocate resources and supports to 

those experiencing homelessness and poverty. But it is long past time for Congress to take the 

needed next steps to address this ongoing crisis in the United States. 

We welcome the opportunity to serve as a resource for and to continue working with the House 

Committee on Finance Services. Thank you for allowing us to submit this statement. 

12 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987,42 U.S.C. §1130l(a)(6) (2010). 

6 
108 


Insert offset folio 43 here 35630.043

50% of home!ess families that were served 

friends or family either prior to 

2016) 
109 


Insert offset folio 44 here 35630.044
110 


Insert offset folio 45 here 35630.045

The definition of homelessness for the purposes of thls estimate is as follows; 

For purposes of this Act. the term "homeless" or "homeless individual" includes~ 

(1) an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and nighttime residence; and 

(2) an individual who has a nighttime 

(A) a 

to 

(1) those are 

similar reason; are living motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping 

adequate accommodations; are living in emergency or transitional 
111 


Insert offset folio 46 here 35630.046

an increase in 

and resulting recession. They 

head of household or their spouse or partner. these 

refined definition, ACS data could be used to estimate those who met the definition 

however, is that the ACS does not explicitly ask if members of the household are 

or economic Therefore, our designed to who was 

living a doubled~up situation. Because we not know for certain, when the data 

"" '"''';uc>u>, we erred on the side of not including someone as homeless, which resulted in a conservative 

estimate. 

members or non-relatives in a household who are not 

partners of the head of household and the household is 

We created a number of exclusions that we thought would not typicaHy be viewed as a homeless situation: 

adult children living with parents who often move back home for reasons other than economic 

• Relatives of the head of household who were over 65 who often live with family due to health reasons 

• Grandchildren living with grandparents for whom the grandparent claims responsibility for basic needs 

• Roommates, lodgers, and people in institutions or group 

We did indude adult children living with 

if they were 

but if they were under the age 

(more than two people 

1ntrom1atron system that is 

Develq,ment (HUD) 

data for 

a service provider. 

We also obtained data that showed whether any of the above households had lived with friends or family at any 

time during the calendar year that they were served in the shelter system. 

oouorea-up individuals from the ACS 

had been sheltered but also 

avoid duplication. The data includes 

HMIS.Wedid 
112 


Insert offset folio 47 here 35630.047
113 


Insert offset folio 48 here 35630.048

Regulatory Barriers and Affordable 

Housing: Problems and Solutions 

Speaking to the policy advisory 

hoard of the Joint Cemer for 

I Jmising Studies of I [arvard University, 

I IUD Secretary Ben Carson under~ 

scored "how vitally importan! il is to 

burdened- spending more than 

one-third of household in com{" on 

housing t•xpenses- and that ll million 

of tbose households are severely cost 

burdened -spending more than onehalf of household income 011 h1msing 

expt•nses.l Afl(lrdability is a function 

of botl1 income and housing costs, and 

the relative importance of each fan or 

varies by location and markcL ~ RcccntJy, 

important gains have been made in 

employment and wages, but these in~ 

cn•ases have been modest and in many 

markets have not kept up with increasing 

housing cost-..~ A~ Secretary Carson 

emphasi?t'd in his speech, one aspect 

of the problem is an inadequate supply 

of new affOrdah!(' hOtk~ing. Ht' St1ggcsted 

that, among other respons('S, BUD 

should "identify and incentivize the 

tearing down of local regulations that 

s('rve as impediments to developing 

affordable how;ing stock," includiug 

"fo]11t<1f·dau~ buildi1lgcodes. tiJnt'-Consmning approval processt.·s, restrictive or 

cxdus.ionmy z1ming ordinmJces, unnecessary fees or taxes, and excessive land 

development standard5 [that] can all 

contribute to higher housing costs .... •H 

Although affordahi!ity ('halleng('S 

in some areas of the country result 

primarily from low incomes and poverty. in other areas, par!ku!arly thosewith strong job and population growth, 

a constrained housing supply generatL>s 

affordability challenges. In the Iauer 

locations, regulatory baniers such as 

A carriage house umt is a type of accessory dwelling unit that allows multiple residences to share the same tot 

HIGHLIGHTS 

• Research points to local zoning and 

regulations, lengthy permitting pro~ 

cesses, and "not in my backyard" 

opposition as primary causes of 

restricted housing supply and rising 

housing prices. 

• An insufficient supply of affordable 

housing contributes to homeless· 

ness, housing cost burdens, and 

reduced economic growth. 

• Local communities in the United 

States have struggled to combat 

regulatory barriers, but state and 

local governments can adopt several promising approaches that can 

reduce barriers and increase the 

supply of affordable housing. 

density limitations, height restJictinns, 

parking requirement-., lengthy permitting: and approval proces..'!eS, and "not in 

my backyard" {NIMBY) opposidon are 

the plimary reasons for hou,,.ing supply 

restrictions anrl increased housing 
114 


Insert offset folio 49 here 35630.049

- Rache!ie Levitt, Director of Research Utilization Divisipri 

costs. Local governments can pursue> 

various strategies and policy responses 

to address these harriers, and state governments can encourage and empower 

local governments to do so. 

The History and Purposes 

of Zoning 

bmd use zoning is the division of land 

into areas in which certain activities 

authority for zoning comes from state 

governments rathe-r than the federal 

government, and this authority is 

typically pa<;scd on to local municipal 

governmcnts. In some "home rule" 

states, local governing bodies havf' 

wide latitude to innovate and implement land use policies, whereas other 

states require state-enabling legislation 

that specifically sanctions the policies 

aYailable to the loc,llity.() 

Rt:>g11lation of building construction 

and certain u~es of private propeny to 

protect the public welfare da!e back 

to the late 19th century, as concerns 

rose about living conditions 

ing cities. For example, in the 

at least two U.S. cities- Chicago 

and Washington, DC- passed laws 

restricting building heights. "Modern 

10ning practices- di:ninguished 

by the categorization of land ust' as 

residential, commercial, or ind11strial 

and the physical separation of those 

uses -emerged in the- carly 20th 

century. A 1916 NL-wYork CityordiJJance 

is generally considered to be the fiNt 

comprehensive toning law. 7 Hirt calls 

the period of 1910 to 1930 a turning 

poi1H during which "the tJnited States 

changed from a place where the public 

control of private land and real-estate 

property cousisted only of rudimentary nuisance and building laws to a 

plat.:e where pranices related to priv<~te 

land, proptTty, and construction were 

suqject to tight puhlic supt>n1sion in 

hundrt'ds of municipalities around the 

<"Otmtq:."8 She argues that hcahh and 

safety, welfare, convenience, prosperity, racial and class prejudices, and tht' 

protection of property values- especially thost> of single·fa.mily homes 

-all contributed to the emergence 

of zoning practices. 9 The 

Court affirmed the 

zoning authority in 

Ambler. 10 Initially, most .wning w<~.s 

hierarchicaL with residential use at 

the top of tlw hierarchy and industrial usc at tltc bottom, meaning that 

residences could he built in industrial 
115 


Insert offset folio 50 here 35630.050

Overly restrictive land use regulations prevent communities from building housing at the density needed to promote at!ordab1hty 

or commercial zones. but industrial 

or commercial bHildings could not 

be built in rt•sidential zones. Jn the 

middle of d1e 20th centmy, flat zoning, 

in which buildings of any type could 

he built only in zones of the same type, 

became more common, and the zones 

themsdves became larget-.H A prolit'era~ 

tion of regulations in the 1970s began 

to restrict the elasticity of the housing 

supply and place upward pressure on 

df'velopment costs. 12 Throughout the 

20th century, wning and other regulations have given preferential treawlenl 

10 s.ingle~family clet.'1ched homes, which 

are typically the most expensive type of 

housing. says Brookings fellow Jenny 

Schuet-t. Thi..; preferente 

substantial obstacle 

density needed for mor<' affordable 

housing. ~ {ll(ked, compared with the 

rest of the world. the Cnited States is 

unique in iL<; proportion of residential 

land designated fix single-family detached homes and in the size of homes 

and lots. 11 

Costs of Regulatory 

Barriers and NIMBYism 

Evidence supports the ('Onteution 

that TOning and land use regulations 

increa~ hou<>ing prices (see "Exploring 

the Currem St:ate of Knowledge on rhe 

Impact of Regulations on Housing 

Supply,~ p. 11 ). Although re~earchers 

Joseph Gyourko and Raven \1olloy nott' 

that "it is challenging to identify the 

effects of regulation." they find that most 

studies, including their ovm, support !.he 

coudusion that "regulation appears to 

raise bomt> prices. r(;'duce ("Onstruction, 

[and] reduce the elasticity of hous· 

ing: supply .... ~ Over the past several 

decades, housing prices have increased 

even though construction costs have 

rcmahwd relatively flaL This relation· 

ship poinL<; to land prices as the driver 

behind rising housing prices. Geo· 

graphic limitations can constrain the 

<>up ply of land; in many cases, however. 

restrictions on land use and density 

cause an intr<'ase in land prices, which 

lead 10 a tonstr.ained supply of housing 

and, in turn, higher housing prices.H> 

Resean:h suggests that more highly 

regulated jurisdictions tend to have 

higher housing prices, with regulation« 
116 


Insert offset folio 51 here 35630.051

development or 

making: while making: 

the homing that is built more expensivc.17 Pa1da Munger, director of indu~try 

re~earch and aoaly.~is for the National 

Apartment A%ociat.ion. finds a strong 

correlation, for example, betv·:eeJJ the 

severity of a city's barriers to apartment construction and the percentage 

of households spending at least 3.') 

percent of their income on rent. Js A 

study by the National As:';ociation of 

J lome Builders estimates that government regulations account for nearly 

a quarter of the price of a hom<', with 

approximately 1.5 percent ofthe- price 

attribuiable to land t& regulations and 

10 pncent to n·g:ulations that apply 

after a builder has acquired land.l\1 

A study of California development 

finds that each additional land use 

re-gulation reduces reside11tial penniL~ 

by an average of 4 percenl, affecting 

both single-family and multifamily 

developmetlt.~~~ 

catt•goriLes reguhuinns th,tt can lead to 

higher hou~ing costs, such as those that 

limit density, impose design standards, 

or shift cost burdens onto developers. 22 

Land use and zoning regulations may 

i11clude explicit density restrictions; 

requiremenL~ for parking, setbarks, and 

side yards: minimum lot sizes: height 

limil~; and open space requirements 

that limit the amount of housing that 

can be built, either through caps or 

by assigning sp<Ke that could be used 

for housing to other uses. Builders 

typically w,lnt to maximize the munber of units in a given tra('t of land; 

limitations reduce the profitability of 

dew•lopment, which may discourage 

devt'lopm(~n! in certain area<> and result 

in fewer units built or higher rents 

for the units that are constructed.~~ 

Jurisdi<:tiom with a preference for 

si1lgle-family detached housing 1nay 

not even have zones that allow multii~uni!y housing.?{ ln other cases, large 

Research suggests that more highly regulated jurisdictions tend to have higher 

housing prices, with regulations discouraging 

new development or making it less dense. 

Regulations. Loc.al land use rehrulations minimum lot siu requirements in 

have accumulated in municipalities' certain zones severely restrict density, 

code and statut<· books over tnany 

decades. Although governments originally adopted each regulation f()r some 

nltionale or purpo~e. those nttionales 

may not apply to present conditions.21 

In most cases. regulations are implemented to provirle some benefit to 

regulations are 

accepted as neressary and nonne!,<otlable, others exist in a gray area of tension 

between their public benefit and public 

cost~ their nega.tive impact on affordabilit~: Localities must weigh these cosl~ 

and bendits, which in some cases may 

cffcctiw:ly excluding alTordabk housing. Researrh suggest~ that minimum 

lot size regulations have a particularly 

strong dkct on limiting supply and 

increasing prices.~" Required parking 

ran be both expen.~ive to construct 

(co.~ting up to thousands of dollars 

per surface spot or tens of thousands 

per lUHJerground spot) and take up 

land that could othenvise he used for 

greater housing densit('6 Developers 

attempting to meet minimum parking 

requiremenL<; for high-density dt~ve!­

opment often incur hight'r costs to 

nmstnKt stn1cttnTd parking, particularly if it is built underground. These 

added costs likely r<"sult in higher 

housing price\.27 

Local regulations may indude restdctive design guidelines and dwelling 

unit mix requirements. Localities may 

also have rules that prohibit accesSOI)' dwelling uniL~ or smaller units 

that would otherwise expand affordable residential options. Zoning that 

excludes manufactured housing 

also mntribuh'S to affon-tability challenges, because manu£'lct-ured hott-;ing 

potentially offers a more affordable 

altemativt' to !raditionally built housing 

without compromising htlllding salt-ty 

and quality. ~ 

In addition, regulations such as flat 

impact fees shift cost burdens onto 

developt'rs. 29 Impact and other ft-es 

incrt'ase overall development costs 

and may influenn: builders' d('cisions 

about where, how mu<:h. and at what 

price point to build.*' 

Permitting and Approvals. Beyond meeting tlle standards and requirements of 

local land use regulations, developers 

must go through pennitting:, review, and 

approval processes that can increase 

dew:Jopment costs. In addition to the 

hard cost~ for the permit~ themselves. 

pennit~ may also lead to additional soft 

costs resulting from delays and uncerlalntyY Some of these processes also 

include fomms fnr community input, 

which open developments to potential 

opposition. Abt Associates report~ that 

in some cases, approvals can take years, 

while builders inntr G:ll'l)'ing costs such 

as interest payment~. In addition to being 

lengthy. these processes can be complex 

and confusing, and they Ci'\n differ 

widely from jurisdiction to jt1risdiction 

-a particular problem f()r builders v.<ho 

work in many diffcrcnr areas and haw· 

to learn the requirement<> for ear h. Even 

within a singlejuri~lktion, the permitting p!D('es.~ may require interacting \\~th 

several public agencies.~2 

NIMBYism. Nl:VfBY opposition ran 

take many forms, including public 

pressure on elected officials. such as 

members of a city council, who may 

have authority over funding applirations 

or other approvals that devdopers need 
117 


Insert offset folio 52 here 35630.052

mtlnity input. (;OJnmutlity opposition 

can thwart pn:jecl,, redun· a project's 

density, or cause dt'iay~ that create uncertainty and add costs for developers 

who oft<'ll have little fmanci;tl nexihilily33 fi.;chel t>Xplains that a residential 

Land use regulations and KIMBYism 

not only i11crease the costs of imlividual development<; but can also incur 

broader social and t>conomic cost.;. A 

rcstrktcd supply of affOrdahk housing 

increa<;t:s the nt1mher ofn)st-hurdt'nt~d 

households and contributes lO homeCommunity opposition can thwart projects, 

reduce a project's density, or cause delays 

that create uncertainty and add costs for developers who often have little financial flexibility. 

zon<· might allow construction of single-family homes and duplexes "a<; of 

right" or without requiting a review and 

approval, wherea<; multibmily housing in 

the same 7one might require a special 

exception hy the zoning board that is 

presumed to be granted if certain crit('-

ria are meL But, Fischel continues, "one 

of the specific criteria is often that the 

use not ath·ersely affect the 'character 

of the neighborhood; which often invites 

I .and use mles are laq;;ely determined. 

ctirectly or indirectly. by existing 

homeowners desiring to keep their 

pmpenyvalues high, and tht" potential 

hcncfidaries of looser rcstrictinos do 

not (yet) live or vote in thosejurisdictions.3:' Strong l'\L\1BY opposition in 

places of opportunity may have the 

ow·r.all dkn of reducing the amoum 

of newly constructed a!Tordable housing built in these area .... % Developers 

want community involvement, says 

~funger. but community opposition 

can dismpt the timing of complicated 

and planning processes. 

resulliug in higher development costs and higher rents. 7 

Developer~ teml to me formal or informal public inforrnation sessions to try 

to address <ommtmity concerns and 

le~snt>ss and housing inst'nuity, which 

in turn affect residents' health, education. and t:mploymenl. among other 

things. A <ka1th of affordable housing options, particularly in markets 

experiencing population growth, can 

also displace existing residents as a 

tight housing supply with few affordable altemati\·es pushes rent"> higher. 

Exclusionary zoning and 1'\IMIWlsm 

also kl'e'p affordable housing out of 

places of opportunity, r<'Stricting the 

potential bent>fits for Iow~income 

households that would ultimately 

bene/it the economy and socie1y as 

a whole. Evidence also suggests that 

such restrictions Sltppn'ss N'Onomi,· 

growth. RtM:'drch by Chang-Tai Hskh 

and Enrico Moreni models the costs to 

aggregate U.S. ec-onomic growlh from 

the misallocation oflahorcaused by 

housing supply restrictions in centcrs 

of productivity. They find that from 

1964 to 2009. consttaints on the supply 

of new housing rednc-{'d <·conomk 

growth by more than 50 percent.:19 A!~ 

though Glaeser and Gyourko estimate 

a smaller impact on economic growth, 

they nen!rtheless find that land tk"C rcsttictions ~ignifkamly lower national outpuL ro 

Local Strategies and 

Policy Responses 

Local jurisdictions can address zoning and regulations, permitting and 

approval proCe!'>Ses, and 1'\IMBYlsm 

through \~dlious polkies and strategies, 

including general approaches a.~ well 

as responses that target specific barriers. As a start, says Lisa Sturtevant, 

senior \isiting fellow at the Ctbau Land 

ln.>;titute's (UU's) 'Terwilliger Center 

for Housing, local communities ran 

review their existing policies, many 

of whkh were written decades ago, 

to ensure that they ~till apply under 

current conditions. She cites parking 

ratios a" au example of regulations that 

may reflect dated assumptions about 

automobill:' use in places that have 

slnce expanded public tr.tn.>;it options 

or where resident~ have ditferent needs 

and preferences for how they use c.ars:U 

A systematic review may rt"vt>almany 

requirements that should be revised 

or repeakd to better reflect a community's currt>nt housing needs. 

Another geneml approach that com~ 

munities can take is to establish 

by-right development, mcaning that 

proposed development<> that meet zoning requirements are administntively 

approve-d without public hearings or 

local legislative approval. This policy 

could be tied to other desirable goals 

such as encouraging transit-oriented 

dt'velopment or increasing afford· 

ability. Similarly, adopting fonn-hased 

codes can reduce :t\1MBY opposition by 

"putting the aq.,rument up front," say:'> 

Sturtevant A locality can invite subst.'lntial 

community input in;o code requirements. adopt those requirement<>, and 

subsequently allow buildings that meet 

those standards to proceed without 

additional revicvvs s11bject to community 

input.'2 Loca!iries can also coordinate 

all of the public hearings required for 

the various permits and approvals of 

a single development so that they are 

held together.'11 

I .ocal government." ('an also addrt'SS 

sp(·cific regulatory harriers. Reducing 

minimum parking reqt1irements. for 

example, c-an free up land for development, permit gr!:"ater density, and redtKe 

<kvelopment costs. The- drawback, 

and likely associated push back from 
118 


Insert offset folio 53 here 35630.053

residcnL~. is that reducing the number 

of parking spaces may inconvenience 

residents with cars and incrca_<;c traffic 

congestion. Parking reductions. howevet~ 

can be t<.u~eted to situ;uions in which the 

negative dlixts will be minimized. The 

city of Seattle. for exampl<', reduces 

minimum parking requirements by up 

to !lO percent !Or developmf'lltS in mnltif~tmily zones that are \\~thin 1,320 ft"et of 

a street with frequent transit service.+-~ 

Localities can also ~treamline or expedite permitting processes. In some 

cases, governmenL'> can offer faster 

approvals as an incentive to develop 

pr~ject<; that meet desirable goab such 

as inneasing affordahility. Tlw city of 

San Diego, {()r example, <"xpedites permitting for pn~jecL~ meeting speciflcd 

standards of sustainability or a.ifordability. The program aho allows certain 

de-Yiations from stattdard rt"gulatiotts. 

Developers do pay additional fees to 

participate in the program; however, 

the city waives those extra fees for 

pn~ects that arc- toO pnc<'nt a!Tordable. ln addition to the 1\>es, dt·velopers 

participating in the program must be 

prepared for several reviews and applit:atiom; up front.~" Communitit>s SlKh 

as Denver, (',olor.-~do: Let'sburg, Virginia; and Goodyear, Ariwna, have set up 

one--stop administration of pennitting 

to consolidate and strNmline processes 

to dw hend'it of devdopers. Short of a 

one-stop system. localities nm ptoactivdy improve interagencycCKlrd.ination 

among an the- entitks re-sponsible- for 

pennittingwithin ajurisdiction.4ti 

Orlando, Florida, offers nnml":rous 

incentives for dewlopers of affordable housing and for <kvelopers who 

make in-lieu contributions to the 

city's trust fund for low~ and very 

low-income housing. Developers 

meeting these nite1ia may be eligible 

for f<'deral or state funds, reduce-d 

or waived impact f('es, density Ixmlt<;es, 

alternative development standards, 

and expedited permittillg. Each 

nf these incentives can potentially 

reduce dt"velopment costs or, in 

COflstruct!On of Folsom & D<lre Apartments, which houses 130 low-income individuals, mduding those wi!h a history of home!essness, benefited Jrom reduced parking 

reqwrements 
119 


Insert offset folio 54 here 35630.054

Some it.msdictions have relaxed parking requirements for housing located near po,!blic transit. 

the case of a density bonus, increase 

the revenue and profitability of a 

development. 47 

:/_,oning and ref,>Lilatioos can be !oos('ned 

to allow multifamily housing, manufactured housing, honws with footprinl<> 

that arc si~:,'llificanlly smaller than average, acces!.ory dwelling units (ADUs), 

and garage or basement rental unil<>, all 

of which can expand affordahle hotL'>ing 

The CaliiOmia state kgi-;lature 

the supply of affordable housing (sec 

"States Reduce Regulatory Banicrs fOr 

Affordable Housing;' p.l6). 

Cotr<~ge homing, modestly sized homes 

on smaller lots that are either m<-·d as 

innl! dt•velopmcnt or dnstercd wi1h 

other cottage homes around a common area, can increase the density of 

single-family detached housing.1R A 

handh1l of cities such as Kirkland and 

Lakewood in \"lashington haw adopted 

cod('s or ordinances to allow cottage 

than 36 feet widt> on which dewlopers can build homes with preapproved 

"permit-ready" plans. This approach 

combines :wning mles that encourage 

density with a streamlined approval 

process to provide a dual incentive to 

huildersY 

Some cities have implenlt'nted indnsionary wning (IZ), requiring developments 

of a certain size to include- unil<> with 

affonlability resu·ktions, typically in 

exchange for density bonuses. In some 

instances. as in the Odando case men· 

tioned above, dt-vdoptTS can pay in-lieu 

fees (tn support affordable housing 

construction) or build affordable 

unit~ ollSite. Research shov.'S that these 

be dfecth:e in creating 

units while avoid in!-{ s-ome 
120 


Insert offset folio 55 here 35630.055

regulations. 1lw report's authors view 

number of affordable unit<;Y Some the stat<:'s authority over land usc 

oitksargucthatiZisultimatelycounter- policies and their resources for 

productive. Calder, for example, <lJt,rtles 

that, as with other land use regulations, 

IZ requirements weaken economic 

incentives for dt'vdopmentf'~ One study 

that <'omparesjurisdictions with IZ to 

those without condudt>S that IZ increases The ULI report offers Hvc specific, 

the prices of single-fim!ly hwnes and complementary strategies that states 

reduces their average size, but it also can pursue to reduce barriers to an 

increases multifamily construction.~5 

Another study, however, finds no 

than 

Finally, states can authorize localities to 

combat or moderate NIMBY oppositjon 

to new devdopment.u' 

\\'hen states adopt zoning parameters 

or requirements that preempt those 

of local governments, they can help 

facilitate development that may he 

unpopular with existing residents 

but that nhimatdy henefit.s the state 

and local economiesY St..'1tes cau also 

statistically significant adverse dft'ct 

on holl';ing supply in market'> "'ith IZ.'"' 

:\nting that it is difficult to genf"ralize 

the many studies of IZ in particular 

locations at particular times, Sturtevant 

nmdttdes that "the most highly reg"arded 

empirical evidt>nce sug:gt>sl" that indu~ 

sioniH)' housing programs tan produce 

States can support local communities by 

providing technical assistance and financial 

incentives to implement zoning frameworks 

that encourage denser development. 

a.lfordable housing and do not lead to 

~igniOcant declines in overall housing 

production or to inne<L<>eS in markeH:<lte 

prices." 57 She says that the effenivt"-

ness ofiZ ultimately is detem1ined by 

local conditions and implNnentation.'>i! 

Williams suggests that, in particular. 

localities need fi~'XihiJity to a1~just {0 

changing market conditions. ~ Local 

governments can evaluate the u-adeoffs 

of such policies to determine whether 

they result in a net benefit. 

A Role for States 

States have authority over zoning, 

which they typically grant to local 

goven1ing bodies. States. however, can 

set parameters and encourage ce>nain 

practict'S. Hratt and Vladeck note three 

categories of state' interventions to 

adrlre.~s land use and .wning policies 

that n.:cludc affordable housing: a 

statewide affordable housing goal that 

applies to all jurisdictions, a fair-share 

mandate that allocates affordable 

according to need, and a 

requirement that local 

expanded housing supply. First, states 

can require l(Kal and regional housing ncecl" assessment'> that could prompt 

communities to be more thoughtful 

about land use policies.r'2 Sturtevant 

says that <ombining: planning: for housing with that for schools and other 

servin.·s may help localities b<·ttcr understand and address housing needs.', 

&cond, ~>tales can support local cmnnmnities by providing technical assistance 

and financial im·entives to implement 

t.oning framework" that enconrage 

denser development. Thin.!, they can 

rednce regulatory barriers and stre<mllinc 

~woc(~sses that increase development 

t·osts. Fourth, states can empower 

localities to align their own resources 

to create incentives for dt'velopment, 

which 

state g<I\'e local jurisdictions the power 

to exempt devt>lopers that build multifamily housing from property taxe~ for 

8 to 12 years when they meet ctTtain 

criteria. For to get thf' 

hendit fm property must 

allocate 20 percent of its uniL" to lo-w-. 

or moderate-income residents. As of 

coonlinaH· state--local and inte,jurisdictioual requirements to streamline 

pwcesses and reduce paperwork fi:)f 

deve!opers.''8 Developers may have 

to prepare applications and meet 

requirements for multiple jurisdictions 

(for example, at the sta!t' level and 

the local level) with different standards instead of a simpler, unifom1 

fr<tmework.M 

Conclusion 

Evidence suggests that rt>gnlatory banicrs and NI\1BY opposition <m: :.igniilcant 

factors in affordable housing ('hatlenges, 

particularly in market~ v.cith strong job 

and fX)pnlation growth.llott<;ing supply 

restrictions contribute to high rates of 

housing cost burdens, homelessncss, 

displacemetlt, and l!otL~itlg instability. 

Broader implications include spatia! mismatch of housing and jobs that depress 

e('(momic output and growth and exdude low-income households from areas 

ofopp01tunity. Generally, local mmmunities in the t:nited States have stn1ggled 

to fmnbat rcgulatOJ)' harrier~ df('{'tivciy< 

However, ~tare and local governments 

can take numerotL'> approaches to ~hape 

zoning and regulation in a way that 

increases the homing supply and driw.'S 
121 


Insert offset folio 56 here 35630.056

10 

do,vn prices to better rncct the housing .~ lm~'"''""""~ hJcnn~ .'kht,.·v 

needs of their rommunitit>s. EM 

llomingl.;:md>t.J.!)<' R<"<ll"l);ln!hci'.:.;non·~Lug.<'"<l 

\klro,; 1\"\1..' FttHEMil Ct·n!t'i~ 3. Zit 

'G•rsoll 

'· flw lan<·r gwupil!~ o>mmonh· >dern·d to~' "Dillon\ 

rllk" Haws. Som .. A Hut 2014. 7.a~ed m the L'SA· The 

On~""·' tmd lmp1ttalu:nl5 <>{ Amrn(<l1l /.<11!d·F<e lltgr<lntum. 

lthacd. :\e"' VorL Comdll"mn•r;;it\ Pr<>-&>. 31 

"Jhn.34-5 

'!hid .. l3~ 

"t:yourkoandMoUoy.l289.1: .. '9$ 

''lbid .. 1297 

'' D.;m~! R. Mandelker. 2016. "/oning f'.arri~cs ((> MmH!· 

fa< !U1ft! Hommg." rt.- l!rb"'' f.tW'}<> 1R2. 2~3-t 

'"lntcr.i<"""'ithf\•ula\hong•·•.22FehJ>Mf")'20lil 

" Paul £nna!h. n.d. "I low GJvnmm·m 1«-gul.;!]()ll Affen' dw l'n<~ of.\:\~"' ! I nnw." l\ational >\W><:13l1on 

ofHom~f\t!!lder,, 1 

"'l!lt<",.''""'"'ithL><aSrurte,·ant 

"lnJcn·i(owMthl' .. mlaMung<>r. 

"'~~ll}andT•gh~ 

"'Glaese•·andGwmko.;'.. 

'' hue,.'e"withl.haSrun""'·am 

"L,.,, A. Sturh;\·~nt. 2(116. •.<;,·p.n.,ting Fa<t hom Fiction 

"'n~'i;:n Eff~n;,., lnd"'i""J!")' Hm"in;: !'engram, .. " 

("A:tll<"t fnrlfoll«ngl'oHq .. l 

'"lb!d.,7 

"lnw,...,i~w"~'h l ;,,, Srune,ant 

"lt>ld.,l5-(\ 

"'lhtd .. 20 
122 


Insert offset folio 57 here 35630.057

Exploring the Current State of 

Knowledge on the Impact of 

Regulations on Housing Supply 

Although local and state housing regulations are usually passed 

w:ith good inwntions, they often serve 

as barriers instead, impeding the 

development and availability of af· 

fordable housing with011t providing 

residents with a commensurate health 

and or safCty benefit. Many of these 

regulations prolong the completion 

of new construction and n·habilitation and exacerbate the high housing: 

co-;L<; that burden residents of certain 

communities. This article will review 

early researth on the cost ofre1:,'1.1latory 

harriers, diS("uss how this research ha..:; 

evolved since the Great Recession and 

the ensuing housing crisis, and offer 

recommendations for further inquiry. 

Environmental requirements and 

otht~r regulations, including those that 

respect and preserve historical and 

cultuntl tradition, are necessary. Signilkant regulatory trends over the past 

I 0 years, however, have exacerbated an 

already serious affordability problem. 

Both anecdotal and empirical research 

indicate that in the suburbs, NIMBYism 

(Kot in \1y Back Yard, or resistance to 

unwanted development in one's own 

neighborhood) may have worsened; 

many suburb~ haw enacted restrictions 

on affordable housing: devdopment. 

employed cxdusionary z.oning, in1posed 

restrictive subdivision controls, and 

established con1plex review processes 

ami requirement" for permit approm!s. 

These harrins can effectively exclude 

rental and affordable housing developmellts from a community. In addition, 

some environme11tal protection regu· 

lations have increased in complexit)~ 

larg~:Holzoning!imitsorpreventslhedeveklpmerJtoiaflordablehousing. 

HIGHLIGHTS 

• Researchers have developed analytical 

tools to test the effect of regulations on 

housing costs and have found that the 

stricter the regulatory environment is, 

the greater its impact on the cost 

of housing. 

• Density requirements limit housing 

options for low- and moderate-income 

families seeking quality housing in 

high-cost markets. 

• Researchers can determine both 

costs and benefits of land use regulations and make empirical distinctions 

between necessary regulations that 

enhance public health and safety but 

increase cost, and regulations that are 

burdensome without offering commensurate public benefits. 

creating new mitigation requirement<>, 

lengthy approv<~.l processes, and added 

consultant expenses that raise development cost~ and restrict development 

opportunities. Schill argued that 

11 
123 


Insert offset folio 58 here 35630.058

12 

tive at promoting the health and safety 

of communir:y residents versus those 

that respond to demand for additional 

dt>veloprnent beyond what is necessary 

to maintain a high quality of life for 

those residents. He examined changes 

in the median sales price of new resi~ 

dential housing starts oYer time and 

f{mnd that from 1990 to 2002, the cost 

of new development rose hy 52 percent, 

driven in part by the cosL'> associated with 

restrictions on design and huilding type. 1 

A growing number of communities 

have introduced poorly conceived 

growth management and growth 

containment strategit."s without also 

implementing policies to ensure a 

st.~ble supply ofland to accommodate 

community growth. C'.ommunities are 

also increasingly imposing impact fees 

that are intended to cover the upfront 

infrastructure cost" of development; in 

some cases, these k--es have exc~?ederl 

the actual costs generated by growth 

and have had a regressive impact. 

Urban harriers suth as slow and 

burdensome pen:nitting and approwl 

systems, obsolete building codes, and 

difficulties associated with in fill 

development are also significant 

impediments to the development of 

affordable housing in cities. For ex~ 

ample, Quigley and Raphael created 

an analytic tool to test the effect of 

regulations on housing cmts. Applying the hedonic pricing method to 

(::alif(Jmia housing msts between 1~190 

and 2000, they found that the more 

percent for rental units.2 

Regulations also restrin the supply of 

housing: by depressiBg housing sta1·L~. 

Quigley and Raphael found evidence 

that land liSt' nmtrols such <l~ minimum 

boundaries are all 

with high-(_·ost 

evidence suggests that many com~ 

munilies, particularly those in grmdng 

suburbs, are engaging in pracl.ices lhat 

limit the construction of high-df'nsity 

multifamily housing. particularly affordable rental housing. These practkes may 

persist even when high-density hou.~ing 

is legally permitted in the community 

and demand for such hou1.ing exists. 

Indeed, residents of growing subur~ 

ban communities are demonstrating 

strong demand for low-density housing. 

Renowned economist Ed Glaeser and 

his colleagues' seminal work involved 

an analysis ofland use re'st6nions on 

rental housing mpply in New York Cit)~ 

Boston. San Francisco, and Washing~ 

ton, D.C., benveen 1980 and 2000. They 

hypothesized that competition among 

builders to respond to consumer 

preferences for certain housing options 

drives down development costs in theabsence of regulations. The aq,,nunent 

is that the home building industry 

exerts conskkn1b!e influence on the 

decision making pnKess, as elected 

officials often take nws from huild<'rs 

who are attn ned to the preferetKes 

ofwllers who put them in offia. H 

voter5 are unhappy with a d('vdopmcm 

plan that docs not rdlcct these preferences, they can and often do "votr with 

their ket." As such, decisionmakers 

respond by finding 

a balance between 

preferences and 

use regulations that address larger 

community health and safety needs 

while reducing the development cost 

burden and negative ~pil!over dkct~. 

TI1e researchers rely on Amelicm I lousing Survey (AliS) data 10 es1imate the 

marginal value of available land 

and compare it with 

indicates that height restrictions on 

buildings, imposed to 

crowding and 

familit's in search of quality housing 

in these hig:h-priced markel<;., 4 

Although nmltifirnily rental housing is 

not automatically or exclusively affordablt.', it makes up a substantial portion 

of the nation's affordable housing 

stock. AilS data indicate that growing 

many of these communities 

have a substantial amount ofland zoned 

fOr multifamily housing development. 

F.mpirica! evidence, however, suggests 

that these communities are engaging 

in practices that severely restrict the 

development of high-density multifamily housing clt•spite the cxiqeuce of 

<t~-of:right zoning lav.'S that penn it its 

developnwnt. 

In addition to these regulatory trends 

are extensive regulatory barriers, including high infrd.sUucture cosL~, restrictive 

and obsolete local building practices, 

bureaucratic inertia, exclusionary 

zoning practices, protracted project 

n·views, and excessive property taxes 

and fees as well as public opposition 

to afforrlahk housing. These hani('fS 

significantly raise development cost.:;; 

prevent the d(·vf'lopment of affordable 

housing in areas ·with high job growth. 

forcing lower-income households to live 

far fromjoh opportunitie<>: and limit 

available market-rate and affordable 

hmt<;.ing optiom, induding higher-density 

housing, multifamily rental housing. accessory units, and manufanured homes.:; 

Several researchers have mea,.ured the 

Regulatory Index, an analytical tool 

to quantify the impact of regulations 

on the amount of housing built and 

the cost of housing. The researchers created a national survey of more 

than 2,500 municipalities across the 

responsible for increased country to understand variations in 

costs. Their .:ondusion confirms 

demity re(jnirements limit the available 

choices fOr low- and moderate-income development process. From the data, 
124 


Insert offset folio 59 here 35630.059

Slow arid burdensome perm<tting processes add to housing developmelli costs. 

to estimate 

over time for state and local governeffecL<> of the local, regional, and state 

regulatory environment on hou,.,ing 

df'vdopnwm has be("ll used by research("rs nationwide.' 

Dalton and Zahd develope-d a fixedalso result<•d in negative 

externalities, induding the unequal 

distribution of public services and 

incre<t-~ed housing cosl~. that adversely 

affect !ow-income f:amilie:.. The findings themsdws are not smprising, but 

they confirm and quantify a well-known 

Outmivctificd obscrv.Hi1m: that large-lot 

1.oning and va1ious site dev("loprnent 

requirements limit 01· prevent the 

development of alTmdablc housing.s 

These reqttiremeiJIS, therefore, can 

hanna community's ability to provide 

moder<~tt'"income residents with broad 

access to homeowner-;hip and rental 

opportunities. 

effects model that accoums for the Current Research on 

!eristics and lot size requiremenL<; in 

San Frandsco and the greater Bo;;ton 

area from l9R7 to 2006 found that 

polkymakers implememed most:ronRegulatory Barriers to 

Housing Affordability !'vtore recently, scholars have attempted 

ing regulations in response to political tions by examining: market trends in 

pressure to kee-p t.>.xes low and to meet 300 large cities before and after the 

the communities' demands fOr public Great ReC"ession. Holding all else 

constant, they found that wn·ernmenl5 impose mor(" regulation ou kss 

developahlt: land, resuiLing in higher 

housing prices aft('r the n·cession.9 1 Iiiher and Rohcn.-1'\icoud con finned 1ha! 

land use re~trktions increase the cost 

of housing, e~pecially in high-demand 

markets. 1\) 

On the positive sid{', Furman noted 

that housing starts have recently 

increa,.ed and existing housing has 

appreciated in value, which ha..<> generated wealth fOr middle-income families. 

Land use restrictions, however, have 

not only continued unabated but h:we 

also become more expansive. 11 

The evidence is clear that land use 

regulations disproportionately affect 

low- and moderate-income families by 

limiting housing options and dri\'ing 

up housing costs. 12 And, as Gyourko and 

Molloy pointed out, most researchers 

agree that the costs of regulations are 

quantifiable. 13 llowever, more studies 

arc needed to f'mpirica!ly measure 

the eilkiency and public bendlts of 

regulations. RJ:affirming this point, 

13 
125 


Insert offset folio 60 here 35630.060

14 

for quality neighborhood.;; v.1th access 

to good schools, job opportunitit•s, 

and attractive community amenities. 11 

Even th011gh post-recession hotiS<:'hold 

incomes have improved as low- and 

semiskilled workers take <tdvantage 

of employment opportunities, the 

price out 

to pressure from upper-middJe ... income 

household~ to preserve or increase 

home WJ.iues. 

The Cnited States continut>s to grapple 

with 1ising inequaliry in housing. Lens 

and Yfonkkonen examined the regulatory environment of the 95 largest 

t: .S. cides and found that the numbt-r 

of local approvals for new residential 

developnwnt is highly cone!att>c! with 

income segre!fJ.tion. ln addition, they 

found that only specific types of land 

regulations, most prominently, density 

requirt>ments, result in high levels o{ 

income segregation. They argued 

that local governments require more 

assistance from swte govennnenl~ w 

addrt:'ss increasing int>fjllities resulting 

from fragmentation and burdensome 

bureaucratic requirements that slow 

down the permit approval proces.s.~'' 

Recommendations for 

Further Inquiry 

With the rising demand for quality, 

alfordable housing choices, regulatory 

reform has re<·merged as a prominent 

issue at the fedeml, state, and local levels. A~ states and municipalities grapple 

with the challenges involved in meeting this demand, researcht:Ts should 

respond by advancing evidence-based 

rt'search on regulatory harriers. 

Researchers could, for example, continue to d<'velop measures of the degree 

and intensity of the effecL'\ of regulaupdate existing mea<>ures as needed. 

Researchers are also documenting 

local and state rt'gulatory praniccs to 

help understand how the regulatory 

em ironment affects the supply das.ticity 

of housing. Til is research could eventually be compiled into a data repository 

that could he u~ed to create indices or 

for furthe-r investigation. 

Re-searchers should also make empirical 

distinctions between necessary regulations 

that enhance public health and safety 

but may increase the cost ofhou~ing 

and regulations versus those that are 

simply unnecessary nr burdensome. 

Mon." evidence is needed to determine 

both the costs and benefit<> of land use 

restrictions on housinf{ developmt>nt. 

Higherdensityforsingle-fam•lyhousingcanbeachievedthroughreducectsetback.~equ,rementsorzero!otHnedevetopment. 
126 


Insert offset folio 61 here 35630.061

!\.-1ort: research is needed to quantify 

the impact of minimum-parking requin•ments on housing developmeiit. 

fkcda and Washington. for example, 

suggested that minimum-parking regulations themselves, rather than the 

public dc1nand for addititmal 

~paces, are associated with 

cost of housing in urhan 

fn addition, ample evidence t·onfirms 

that the permitting process is often 

slow and burdensome.17 Resea1chers 

should cominue to rt'view procedural 

practices, such as the use of spedal 

permit~ rather than the as-of-right permitting process, that may impede the 

developm<'nt of affordable homing. 

Studies on tht• availahility of h1st-track 

pennitting are also needed for a richer 

analysis of impacts. To understand 

how n•rtain tw:s of regulation<; affect 

development decisions. researchers 

should (·ompare the ways that resi-

([(•ntial n·gulations and commercial 

and industrial regulations affect land 

\'<lltlt'S and housing outcomes. Planning 

decisions that will greatly aftCct a community's fi.Jlure buill environment could he 

driven, in part, by policpnakers· inabillty 

to anticipate the community's needs. 

Finally, studies are needed to examine 

incentive-ba~ed strategies employed at 

the state kvel to .~trengthen local aod 

regional capacity to respond 

tory challenges to hou~in~. 

Stunevam, and Harper's review of 

ment can kad to greaterenviromnenta! 

quality and social equity as well as create 

more housing choices for American 

f~unilics. 

111e cvidt·nc-e demonstrates that a posi· 

live relationship exists between land tt.<ie 

regulation:. and the cost of America's 

State and local land use 

part of tile review process for housing 

deve!opnlent projeLts, representing a 

signifkant investrnent of resources and 

time by applicants, who must respond 

to these r<'quirements, aud by tlle public 

agencies who administer the reviews. 

To ensure that \o(·al and stat& policit's 

significantly reduce the re.gulatory cost 

barriers associated with land and site 

development standards, policymakers 

would have to focus on the most significallt land use ('Ontruls identified by 

researchers: excessive zoning regula~ 

tions and house si1e requirements. 

Researdwrs who commit to further 

investigation of the cosL<; and potential 

benefit'> of regulations would be making 

a critical conlribution to evidence-based 

!'('Search on alfoniahlc homing: policy. 'EM 

H)AU!,'W.L 

"Mi<harl C.!.<'<" and f>aaw> Monl:lon~n. Wl6 "Th> St<icr 

allow for enhanced '!hid 

reYiews of housing 

needs, evaluation of state housing 

requirements that align with local 

and regional goals, and examination 

of how states can offer communities 

technical advice and assist~wc-e, for 

Conclusion 

fictwt-en 2000 and 2030, the United 

and other commercial and industrial 

building- two .. thirds the amount built 

"!l<'dJ.,>mJW.»hingwn.l-1 

,. L~;lk Btaumt('lfL ~0!6 -JnnNw<l t'w <>fWood. Re· 

"Sttwlton W>lh~>n>, Lisa Swnn·ant. and RoM" marie 

consNw uou. R.uhr1: tlw' !nund ~1idenn· that l.md ll,up<'r. ~'017 "\h in M1·1\a< I! yard· ll<m &.~"'' md J..:>e.1l 

uw ><-gubnons ·· pnmanl) 1ubdi\1<ion n:quJr~noems 

<uch a< mirmnum l<>< ""'' ~. <lr<w~ f><>th th<' d,·dine in 

~"'""""';"" ;t..<f(s.,d\h~<iwm ho""".!l;'"'"'htoul{h 

the nnrl·ZOD{b. Edw;;.rd L (;[,"''~' .ual BrvceA. Watd "'AnhmC ;>,'ekrrn. 2001. -IOI<<!rd al\~" Metropol" 

IlH· Opp<>ri!HlH;· w Rdn,ld Amrnra,' 7 

15 
127 


Insert offset folio 62 here 35630.062

States Reduce Regulatory Barriers 

for Affordable Housing 

z Although lhe authority to regulate 

land use is ddegated primarily 

1969 Massachusetts enacted the Comprehensive Pem1it aud Zoning Appeal 

Law (Chapter 40B), which encourages 

all cities to set asidt'- at least 10 percent 

of tht'ir housing units as affoniahlc. 

The law reduces harrier-s to affordable 

housing produrtion by granting local 

zoning boards of appeal (ZBAs} the 

authority to approve housing developmcllls if20 to 25 pl'rcent of the units 

remain affordable for a period of .:lO 

years to houst"holds with innnnes at or 

b-elow HO percent of the area median 

income (AMI).' As Rachel Heller, chief 

('Xccutive officer at the Clti7ens' Housing and Planning As-sociation, noted, 

the Jaw support~ mixed-income housing and the production of multifamily 

rental housing_f, 

16 

to local govennnent:., states have the 

constitutional autlwrity to reduce or 

Jemove regulation~ that drive up homing cost~. ofiCr financial and technical 

support for local communities to zone 

for affordable hou"-ing, and empower 

municipalities to u<;e their own reso11rccs 

to create incentives fOr development. 

States can also help arldre&<; community 

opposition to new housing devdoprnt'nt<> 

and encourage regular assessments of 

housing nee<l~ at the local Jevel. 1 This 

<ll1ick discus.<:es efforts hv M-assachmt'tts 

and Calif()mia to streamline pennilting 

processes and ease restrictive zoning 

laws that hinder the development of 

affordable housing. More than any other 

state, Massadmseu.~ h<t~ taken steps to 

supersede local development decisions 

and overcome neighborhood resistance to produce affordable homing.~ 

devdopers to secure multiple penn its, 

allow by-right development, and 

increa<;e densitr (_:alifomia demonstrates 

that 

aff(Hdability in areas close to public 

transit and promote the construction 

unit<; (ADCs) in 

Overcoming Regulatory 

Barriers in Massachusetts 

In the !ate l~l60s, \1assachusetts recognized the 1wed to simplify approval 

permit~ for affordhousing and limit exdmiooary 

zoning practict·s hindering the prodtKtion of affordable housing in the 

suburbs, which are typically zoned for 

single-f.>mily residences. 1 To this eml, in 

Chapter 40B also simplifies tlw petmitting process for developers by allowing 

them to apply to a single authority: 

the local ZBA. Qualified developers 

can appeal denials of housing pen nits 

to the state Housing Appeals Committee when less than I 0 percent of 

the housing stock in a municipality is 

alfordahk. 7 Once a municipality me-ets 

the 

right 

compreJ-wnsive permits under Chapter 

40R. In this case, developers can still 

apply for a p<-·nnit, but they omnot ap--

peal the decision.~ 

&~veral years later, M<l-"-'iachuseus took 

zoning practices that kept housing out 

of reach for the state's most vulnerable residenl~- In 2004, Massachusetts 

adopted the Smart Growth Zoning 

Overlay District Act (Chapter 40R), a 

program of its kind.q According to I Idler, 

the main goal ofChaptn 40R was to 

HIGHLIGHTS 

• Massachusetts spurred the production of affordable housing with its 

Comprehensive Permitting and Zon· 

ing Appeal Law and Smart Growth 

Zoning Overlay District Act, which 

streamline approval processes for 

local affordable housing permits and 

allow by--right development in smart 

growth locations, respectively. 

• California's parking reduction law 

allows developers to construct fewer 

parking spaces for affordable housing 

developments located within a half· 

mile of transit. 

• California's planning and zoning laws 

require local governments to adopt or· 

dinances tor accessory dwelling units 

to increase the supply of affordable 

housing in areas occupied predoml· 

nantly by single-family homes. 

while also preserving open spaces.~ 10 

Chaptt>r 40R eliminates the need for 

multiple pennits by making compact, 

mixed-use developments allowable by 

right in smart growth locations. 11 The 

legislation seL~ minimum densities for 

developable land at8 units per acre 

zoned for single-family honws, 12 

unit<> per acre zoned fOr twcr- or thn:·efamily buildings, and 20 units per acre 

wned for multifamily housing:. ~ Housing pr(~jecL~ with l2 or more units in 

a smart growth disuict must make at 

least 20 percent of the unlts affordable 

TO those earning up 10 RO percent of 

AMI and maintain this standard for 

30 years. ~ In addition, 2016 revisions to 

Chapter 40R incorpor.lte starter home 

districts of at least 4 units 

wi!h 20 percent or more to 

households earning up to 100 percent 

of AMI.H The law requires that Chapter 

40R districts be in ~highly suitable" 

areas with public transit, concentr.1ted 

devdopment, and amenities. 15 The 

st~lle allocates (knsity bonus paynwnts 

and production bonuses ha~ed on 

the number ofhou~ing units that will 

be producNi, with the Smart Growth 

I lousing Trust Fund as the funding 

source-. 16 
128 


Insert offset folio 63 here 35630.063

A Chapter 40R pn~j("Ct typically begins with a public hearing to gather 

community input on a developer's 

proposal. Municipalities hav('> three 

years to adopt a Chapter 40R district 

ordinance through a two-thirds majority vote by the local council. The 

Mate ·s Department of Housing and 

Community De-velopment (DHCD) can 

also request dat;l. frorn local municipalities for annual progress reports that 

explain trends in affordable housing 

production and projens awaiting approvaL The- law's "claw-back" provision 

requires the community to repay inct>ntives to the DHCD, which returns them 

w the tnt~t fund, if bousiug construction ha~ not begun within three years 

ofappnwal. 17 

Achieving Positive 

Outcomes 

Helin nntes that Chapter 10B has 

been the most successful tool in MassachusetL~ to reduce the state\ dire 

affordable housing shortage, pr(){htcing more than 70,000 homes by forcing 

communities to think about how to 

meet the 10 percemgoal. ~·nH"pnlgram 

has produced far more affordable 

housing outside of major cities than 

would haw~ tx·cn developed \\ithout it.l'' 

A~ of Septemb(•r 2017, 6.::; communities reached the I0 p('rn•nt goal and 

se\·eral more are continuing to make 

progress, with ~m communities between 

8 and 9.99 percent and an additional 

S5 communities at 6 percent or higher. 

Ac:cording to I Idler, "7!) percent of 

the state's population lives in nmnicipalities that arc above fi pt'rcent, and 

less than I percent of residents. live in 

the 42 smaller nlmmunities that have 

:tero subsidized hmL~ing."?O Chapter 40R 

continues to build on these successful 

trends. Currently, 37 municipalities have approved 42 smart growth 

distrins under Chap!er 40R. Of these 

municipalities, seven have expanded 

their original district<>.~ 1 The success 

of Chapter 40B- most notably for 

establishing an appeals process at 

the state level for aJfordahlc housing 

developments- has made it a model 

for other sUites such as Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, and Illinois that are 

working to alleviate barriers to affordable housing production.O!Z 

Under Chapter 40R, cities receiVe financial incentives for constructing affordable hous1ng developments in smart growth diStrict;; such as Alias Loits in Chelsea, Massachusetts. 

17 
129 


Insert offset folio 64 here 35630.064

18 

Mitigating Challenges Resident opposition to alfordable 

housing: dcvdopmf'nt in the form of 

"not in my backyard" senthnenL<> is a 

significant harrier for comrmmirics 

trying: to satisfy the requirements of 

Chapter 40B. Common arguments are 

!hal affordable housing will itKlTase 

cent thresholdY 

school ro~ts, traHic congestion, noise, Tension can aho arise when compollution, and crime. Communities 

may also fear that Chapter 40R housing: developments will cause property 

vahws to decline. Through ar<"hival 

rt>search, sitt' \1siL'>, and semi~trurtured 

stak('hokkr iuter\kws at four Chaptt>r 

40R honsing dew·lnpments, D('Gf."!Hl\'<t 

et al. detennine-d that these concenlS 

were "unr<:'alized" and "ovt>rstated." 

l'\egotiation benveen municipalities 

nmnities have not yet reached the 10 

staw encom-:1ge'> communities to create 

a hotL~ing production plan that identifi{'S 

housing needs and strategies f;x fnture 

development. Communities that can 

show progress on implementing: the 

plan have more leverage to approve or 

disapprove a planning proposal. l Idler 

indicated that following through with 

in 1he housing proplan can make conununities 

appeal-proof if they can show they have 

planned made 

Despite cffons to expedite th{· pcnnitting proces_~ and adopt local ordinances, 

approval can be time consuming. One 

study that collectt>d permit data from 

J 44 towns between I ~N9 and 2005 

found that ZBA approval took about 

10 months, and the time needed to 

receive a building pennit for a Chapter 

40R pr~jen was about 2 ycars from 

the date the developer submitted 
130 


Insert offset folio 65 here 35630.065

tile application.'-1

' Achieving consensus 

through the local two-thirds vote <·an 

also delay the appnmt.l or 40R pmjecL<>P 

\1oreover, the state capital budget cur· 

rent!y funds the Smart Growth Housing 

Trust Fund, hut one constraint is that 

municipalities can spend the funds only 

on capital improvements rather than at 

their discretion.2<l The voluntary nat11re 

of(:hapter40Ral'><) require~ communities 

to he moth·ated 10 develop affordable 

housing.~~! 

Recent Progress In 2017, Governor Charlie Raker 

announced the Housing Choice Initiative Program to grant municipalities 

additional incentives and technical 

assistance with tht> goal of constructing 

135,000 new housing units by 2025. 

Along with the 1 lousing Choke Initiative Program, the state kgislature is 

considc1ing a complement.'lry piece of 

legislation, House Bill 4075, An Act 

to Promote Housing Choices. which 

Parking costs are 

bundled with the 

cost of development, 

and additional parking drives up overall 

development costs, 

which can translate 

into higher housing 

costs per unit for residential properties. 

allows municipalities to reduce restrictive 

70ning through a simple m<9ority vote 

rather than the current superm<Yority 

two-thirds vote. The bill 

increased density, Chapte; 

40R smart growth zoning districts, and 

reduced parking requirenwllts. Com· 

munities that do so can receive Housing 

Choice Designation, which mak1•s them 

digiblc for financial hcnef1ts?.1 Two additional bills addressing zoning baniers 

to housing prodt~etiotl are cu1Tenlly 

under considt.•nnion by the slate 

legi<>lature. I louse Bill673, An ACl Rdati\'e to Housing Production, requires 

communities to 1nne for multihtmily 

housing in smart growth locatious and 

to allow, by right, AD Us and clusters 

or sing!f'-Etmily homes that prescn·e 

surrounding open spaces.31 House Bill 

2420. An Act Building for the Future of 

th<· Commonwealth. rd(mns the state's 

planning, zoning, and permitting laws 

to expand housing choice in smart 

growth locations. 32 

Flexible Zoning Laws 

in California 

In California, the supply of afTordahlc 

housing is not keeping pace v.·hh population growthY Sina 1969, California 

has required local muniripalities to 

create a general plan ew~t)' f1vc or cight 

years that idC""ntifies current and future 

housing needs based on the state's projections for household t,>rowth.:\4 t:nlike 

population pn~jections, which look at 

the number of individuals, household 

grov>th prC?jenions account fix changes 

in household si1.e, which make them 

more useful for identifying housing 

needs:X• Although Califomia's Regional 

Housing Needs Allocation process 

encourages local allocation of housthe 

housing stock- not emmgh to accommodate the increa."o<' in the nmnber of 

households (544,000).'7 

California has enacted several laws 

to addres__o:; its shortage of atfordabk 

housing. In 

parking reduction law, which 

developers seeking a density bonus 

to re-quest lower minimum parking 

requirem<'nts contingent on constmct~ 

ing affordable housing near transit.:\!\ 

~t't>a Rang, direnor of the Council of 

In fill Builders and lead advocatc for 

the law, explained that the pn~ens she 

propt1sed typirally required regulatory 

and "parking made sense 

t·specially if it wa.~ an iniill 

pr<~ect dose to transit.~"' 

A~ a (·osponsor of California's parking reduction law, TransForm -a 

Bay Area transportation nonprofit 

organization -has suppoiWd policy 

discussious through its publidy acres.. 

sib!e Green TRIP Parking Database. 

which oiiCrs information such as renLtl 

cost._, building (·haractcristics, atlOrdability, and parking occupancy. 10 A 2015 

(~reenTRIP analysis found that at 68 

affordable housing dc\·elopmcnl'> in 

tlw Bay Area, 31 percent of the 9.387 

total parking spaces were empty at 

the average construction cost per space was 

$24,000 for abowground parking and 

$34,000 fo:r undefbrround parking. 41 An 

underground space in San Francisco 

cosL~ about $50,000.42 Parking costs are 

bundled \\ith the cost of development, 

and additional parking drives up ovenll 

development cost~, which can trrtnslate 

homing fix seniors, people with special 

needs, and low~income houst~holds, 

who may be less likely to drive.~o, 

TI·le mini.~terial approval en1bedded 

in the parking reduction law bypasse" 

the need for planning •onnnissions to 

weigh in on local decisions, whidl can 

stall pn~jects. For devdoptTS constructing housing v.ithin a half-milc of public 

transportation, the parking reduction 

law sets tlw minimum parking require· 

ment at O.!'i spaces per unit for ~enior 

housing and 0.3 spaces unit for 

special needs housing. parking 

law encourage~ market-rate developments to prO\'ide affordable housing 

by requiring 0.5 spaces per bedroom 

for mixed-iucome housing \\ith up to 

20 percent of units for !ow-income 

19 
131 


Insert offset folio 66 here 35630.066

20 

households or 11 percent for very 

low-income households."" Cltrrently, 

California still requin;s two parking 

spaces per unit for a two-bedroom 

apartment, and municipalities have 

the freedom to increase this mtio, hut 

if devdopers want 10 build affordable 

housing near tmnsit, this law allows 

them to construct fewer parking 

span~s. The parking legislation speeds 

up tlw pn~ject appru•ral process and 

has helped cities reach their affordable 

housing goals. 47 

Facilitating the Production 

of Accessory Dwelling Units California also sees the potential fOr 

ADlJs to accommodate future population growth. AD Us are an innovative 

way to increase affordable housing supply in high amenity areas that 

are occupied primarily by single-fiunily 

homes, which make up 56A percent 

of California's total housing stock. 18 

An ADC i!> a secondary dwelling unit 

sometimes referred to as a "granny flat" 

or ~in-law suite." (See };-pffltnre Ma/!rn, 

Summer 2017.) ADCs can be small 

studios or one-bedroom units in a 

detached. attached, or convened space 

within the main house such ll~ a g-.1rage, 

first floor, or hasemcnt.w Constructing an ADC is <'heaper ($156,000 on 

average) than a single unit of affordable housing in a nt'w developmellt, 

averaf.,ring S332,000 statewide, $591,000 

in San Francisco, and $372.000 in Los 

Angeles.'~1 The accessory units prmide 

multipurpose, flexibk housiog arrdngem<'nt<; such as short-tt-nn r<'ntals, 

art studios, and housing for extended 

ihle housing "allows th<' neighborhood 

Effective January 2017, California 

enaned planning and zoning laws 

requiring local government~ to adopt 

ADU ordinan('es_:,~ These laws reduce 

regulations to facilitate !lw development of AD Us in numerom; ways. such 

as {']iminating setback n·qnirements 

for garage ~.:onversions, mility connection ft-es, and parking r<='quiremen!s 

for ADUs in a histmic distlict, a halfmile from transit, or near a car shar"' 

area. State laws aho require AD Us to 

be located ou loL<; zoned for single- or 

multifamily use. Detarhcd ADUs can be 

no larger than I ,200 square feeL ADC 

requests in compliance can become 

pennittcd within 120 days of receipt 

of application, without the need for a 

public hearing.~:' 

From 2015 to 2017, Los Angt'les saw 

the laq~estjump in ADC applications 

of any California city, from 90 in 2015 

to 1,980 in 2017. Jn addition, the number of applications in San Francisco 

was approximately 14 times larger in 

2017 than in 2015, while Oakland saw 

about 8 times more applications during 

the same period.M Cun·ently, more than 

100 cities in California have t>nancd 

Residents at Gish Family Apar1ments in San JoSil, California, are close to light ra1l transit, which reduces traffiC congestroo and the need for parking. 
132 


Insert offset folio 67 here 35630.067

ADUs. such as thiS one in Mento Park, California, can Increase the supply of affordable housu>g while also providing fmancial benefits to homeowners. 

ADO ordinances."'· Because many cities 

had already implenwtlted ordinances 

before !ht~ new legislation, it is unclear 

wh('ther the jump in permits can be 

attributt:'d to the new state legislation 

city reforms. The bigand tenants."6 

ofunpennitted Ant:s.57 Roughly 50,{X)() 

unpemlitf('d accessory uuil'> are in Los 

convert garAges or construct new cottages.'''1 Cost remains the biggest barrii"'r 

ddE'rl)' residents, whose incomes in 

retirement may be too !ow to qualify 

for a mongage. Traditional h<mks and 

credit unions are still dt"veloping loan 

financing tools for ADl's, but these 

financing mechanism:. tend to favor 

high-income, high-equity households. 

:vlmtitorilll{ attrl evaluation also remains 

,1 challenge at the ~tate k\'el; dties are 

required to report tht> number of housing unit;; ronstmrted, but ADUs han· 

not been part of that count.'"1 

New Reforms 

In September 2017, C>lifomia ,1dopted 

sweeping housing legislation that, 

among other actions. provides incenstreamline processes for approving 

local prt:jects.f'1 Senate Ritl 831 builds on 

transit options. however broad, withi11 

their kx:al ordinances, but tht:' latest hill 

eliminates this ambiguity by defining 

public transit as ~a locu.ion. including, 

but not Jimited to, a bus stop or train 

:.tation, where tlw public may acn·ss 

run on fixed routes, and <U e available 

to the- public.Hh2 In addition. Assemhly 

Bi112890 amt'nds existing ADU Jaws by 

propo~ing a Mate-mandated program to 

limit the land use restrictions that local 

municipalitit'S can impose on ADlis.n.t 

Realizing Change 

Efforts in 1\hs-;achuscu.s and Californi-a ck·monstrate that state anions to 

reduce rt'gulatOI)' banit'rs can fadlitate 

the development of affordable hom~ 

ing at the locallevt'L [n Massachuseus, 

Chapter ·lOB set the groundwork to 

spur the growth of affordable housing 

production, and decades late1~ Chapter 

10R became the added inct'ntive to 

help communities meet the 10 percent 

21 
133 


Insert offset folio 68 here 35630.068

22 

goal for allOrd.tble housing unit~!>~ By 

revising parking regulations, California 

is helping de\·elopers and chit'S build 

affordable, higher-density housing ncar 

transit.r,o California also demonstrates 

that AD Us can st>rve multiple purpose-s 

by helping homeowners generate additional income while ftlling the aifoniahk 

These Jaws can serve as 

other states looking to 

expand afl(mlahk housing by reducing: 

n·gulatory barriers, and they grant resident<; more of w!mt they desire- housing 

in affordable and v.ctlkabk cormnunitic<;; 

near transit and anwnitiesY' lM 

"lhod. 1&20 

'lbid. 11; ln!en;~·wwi!l> Meea Kang. R l'ehru~n2011< 

"Tlw Ccnnal Court of!hf' Cnmmr>n"<'.>lth of .\J.~; 

'-KhU"'!ls.Chap!<'! .)0R;KJ.•lu.2lfi 

"GeJ!n,tl CotoH nf!h<' Cnonmnmvc~hh uf~l<t\M<hu· 

'''m, "Ch.lpl<:'l ·10R Snoan Gmw1h Zoning .md 1 !uu<-

•ng:l'mdunwn .. 

'"1hid 

R<"al F.-r~w. 6. f\, 

"',\k~andra De(;enrwa, B>f'mbn <:..wxlwin, Shan-

"K.-..rl<,247 

" lnt~~'~W"' "~th R,,~hel Heller. 

lewfop~on ll<m,ngCho>ce !rnoi<u•w. :lDJanuan 

j>re""'lra<r 

" C<.mnn<lm<e~hh nfM,>s..,ehrtseu.s. 2017. An :lcJ Rdnlh•r 

20June. 

"'C.mnmonwNl<h of\fa,sad!H\e!ls 2017. Au Arl Bwld· 

!h<:F\J!!H<'nf<heCummonwe~l!h 112·120." 

"Jona!hml W<W!Od, J.Ul Milchke, Sh~nnon !'dnquin. 

ll~md\\h<r><l<l 2011\ -.'\Too1KttooCio<><'f".ah· 

fmnia\Hou<mg(;Jp::\.SM>I!irmtl<mn•'h~2025: 

M< Kmwv (~lvbJilmUtutc, ~ 

"Will!,.,,,~,~~. 7 

''"""'"" 

"Don~ld C. Shnup 1999. "Th<''Ii'oubk "ith Minimum 

" off,·e of Sen.uor Hub Wk(l('w>ll 2018. -.:,u 831 f<>n 

ShK•!." d<J<umenr pnnide-d by 1\.~ren Ch~ppk 

\1{'V.Mohli.an·nChappk 

ri.'f!m!See!lm>6"85221uf.!he(;,.,.,.,-,,W11/(f~l<-.l!rh11mf' 

/P{/mdl';e, 5<•na~e !\ill ;>.;n f\:ll,2(ll720IRRq( ~<·s­

>O<m(1}>nuarrJ 

"'lnter.•o<'"''"'h lbdwl Hdl~r 

''' lnten1<'Wwith ~le~J li.ang: 
134 


Insert offset folio 69 here 35630.069
135 


Insert offset folio 70 here 35630.070
136 


Insert offset folio 71 here 35630.071

FSC Hearing: "Homeless in America: Examining the Crisis and Solutions to End Homelessness" 

Wednesday, February 13,2019 at !O:OOam in 2128 Rayburn 

Rep. Posey Statement and Questions 

• Madame Chair, thank you and the Ranking Member for 

holding this hearing. 

• Homelessness has proven to be a stubborn and massive 

problem throughout our nation. 

• I've devoted personal time to organizations like Family 

Promise, and worked on homeless problems through my 

church. 

• Last year we held a hearing on Congressman Stivers' bill, 

the Homeless Children and Youth Act, which I 

cosponsored, to change the definition ofhomelessness to be 

consistent with the Department of Education's definition. 

• A brave former homeless mother who was helped by 

Family Promise now works on homelessness issues herself 

and testified in support of Congressman Stivers' bill. 

• Housing programs are part of our safety net, and I support 

preserving them and making them more effective. 

• We face a shortage of affordable rental housing in this 

country. Researchers are helping us understand why 

affordable rental housing has not kept pace since the end of 

the Great Recession. 

1 
137 


Insert offset folio 72 here 35630.072

• There is near universal agreement that one of the biggest 

obstacles to affordable rental housing is local zoning 

regulations that restrict land use adversely to the 

development of rental units. 

• There are local variations in these restrictions, but research 

says that relaxing these restrictions can do much to expand 

the supply of rental housing and lower its cost. 

• The action to remove regulatory zoning restrictions is 

usually the responsibility of local governments. However, 

HUD Secretary Ben Carson has suggested the federal 

government, through HUD, should "identify and 

incentivize the tearing down of local regulations that serve 

as impediments to developing affordable housing stock." 

• 

• I hope to hear some of our witnesses address the regulatory 

constraints on housing supply. 

• Of course, the other aspect that researchers point out is the 

need for rental assistance for low income families. That 

assistance is an important part of our safety net. I want to 

assure that we're providing adequate help. I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses and thank them for being here. 

2 
138 


Insert offset folio 73 here 35630.073

Question 1: Some housing activists believe that our current 

emphasis on Housing First tends to ignore the reality that 

homelessness is a complex problem that often results from deep 

problems like addiction, mental health, and unemployment or 

other factors limiting income. They believe that the emphasis 

on Housing First means that service providers who emphasize a 

full spectrum of services to get at this more complex nature of 

homelessness are penalized in competing for funds to help the 

homeless. Would the panelists please address this idea? Are 

our policies giving enough emphasis to the broader problems 

underlying homelessness? 

Response 1: Homelessness is indeed a complex problem. 

However, the one thing that all homeless people have in 

common - the thing that defines them as homeless - is that they 

lack a home. If they have a home, they are not homeless. 

Housing First is not a one-size-fits all approach, nor does it in 

any way imply that people do not need services. Housing First 

is a flexible approach to getting people into housing as quickly 

as possible and then connected to treatment, services and 

supports. Having a stable place to live enhances, and is indeed 

a precursor to, people's ability to succeed in services and to 

their well-being. Housing First is very flexible as to how people 

are linked to housing, and common approaches include helping 

people return to their families, providing short-term Rapid ReHousing rental assistance, and providing permanent supportive 

housing to those with disabilities. These are all models that 

emerged from local innovation, were proven effective and were 

eventually adopted at the national level. 

3 
139 


Insert offset folio 74 here 35630.074

It is true that many people who experience homelessness need 

more than housing to achieve well-being. People who need a 

full spectrum of services should receive them, and from proven 

effective service providers. We have seen many local programs 

adjust what they do and become far more effective by first 

focusing services on helping families and individuals get back 

into housing, and then using that housing as a base for further 

services and support. Services are more effective when 

recipients have the stability of a home, and can concentrate on 

next steps like employment, sobriety, and their children's 

performance in school, rather than worrying about where they 

will eventually live. 

Question 2: Mr. Stewart, something in your testimony stood 

out with respect to our nation's housing shortage. You said, "It 

is most acute in urban areas, and in particular the coastal 

regions. The effects of the crisis are compounded in the areas of 

the country with the highest concentration of homeless veterans, 

specifically the states of California, New York, and Florida." Of 

course, I'm concerned that we have this disproportionate impact 

in Florida, my home state. I have two questions. First, why is 

the shortage more acute in Florida than in many other places? 

And the other question, "Do our housing programs need any 

adjustments to deal more effectively with these regional 

disparities?" 

Question 3: Homelessness among veterans is a particularly sad 

reality. But, it's also apparent from the record that we are 

having a great deal more success in reducing homelessness 

among veterans than other groups. Mr. Stewart talks some 

about the reasons, and we're all aware that HUD and the VA 

4 
140 


Insert offset folio 75 here 35630.075

really do work hard to coordinate solutions to the broader and 

underlying causes ofhomelessness. For the witnesses other than 

Mr. Stewart, I'd like to hear your proposals for how we should 

modifY our housing programs to take advantage of the lessons 

learned from the VA and HUD partnership. Finally, ifMr. 

Stewart could add anything to that, I would appreciate hearing 

those ideas, too. 

Response 3: The primary reason that progress has been made 

on reducing homelessness among veterans is that Congress has 

significantly increased the resources available to end their 

homelessness. Targeted per capita federal homelessness 

funding is six times as much per homeless veterans as it is per 

homeless non-veteran. Because of this generous level of 

funding, veteran homelessness has been cut in half 

In addition, VA is increasingly using evidence-based practices 

for homeless veterans and is shifting resources from less 

effective to more effective approaches. It should be noted that 

one of the approaches to which VA is committed is Housing 

First, and the use of Housing First has been a significant part of 

the Department's success in reducing veteran homelessness 

through the HUD-VASH and Supportive Services to Veteran 

Families programs. 

In light of this, I have three suggestions on improving the 

performance of other housing programs. The first is to fund 

them to scale. The second is to use evidence-based practices 

such as Housing First. And the third is to get federal agencies 

to work together so that HUD can address people's housing 

5 
141 


Insert offset folio 76 here 35630.076

needs and other agencies can provide the services people need 

(as VA does in the HUD-VA Supportive Housing program. 

Question 4: Mr. Stewart, I'm sure you know that the VA's 

Grant and Per Diem Program provides essential support to 

homeless veterans across the nation. Last August, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs announced $200 million in 

grants to community services organizations that work to move 

our veterans out of homelessness. These funds will support 

13,000 transitional housing beds in Fiscal Year 2019. This 

program is so important because it draws on the strengths of 

private service organization to take care of veterans in their own 

communities. I'm a co-sponsor of H.R. 95, The Veterans 

Family Act, which recognizes we can and should do more under 

this program by increasing per diem payments to provide 50% 

of the base per diem for each child of an eligible veteran. A 

veteran should not have to choose between participating in a 

pathway out of homelessness and keeping his or her family 

together. Mr. Stewart, do you and your organization support the 

Veterans Family Act? 

Question 5: Ms. Roman, I note that you oppose changing the 

HUD definition ofhomelessness to conform to the definition 

used by the Department of Education. Can you explain in a 

little more detail why you believe it wouldn't be a good idea to 

make HUD assistance available to those who may be sheltered 

but are less than fully and individually housed - like those living 

with others or who are living in motels? There seems to be a 

disparity there that some of us tried to address through 

legislation in the last Congress. 

6 
142 


Insert offset folio 77 here 35630.077

Response 5: Families that are not "fully or individually 

housed" DO need our help and the help of HUD. The help they 

need is housing assistance through programs like Section 8 and 

public housing. Both the homeless programs and the rental 

assistance programs at HUD are oversubscribed, but the 

housing programs are designed and funded (at 15 times the size 

of the homeless programs) to serve people with unstable housing 

and rent burdens. 

With respect to the definition, specifically, there are people who 

are doubled up and who have to leave their residence 

imminently. HUD defines them as homeless. There are many, 

many more people millions in fact-- who are doubled up and 

who may be trying to avoid homelessness. These are the 

families that would become the responsibility of the 

homelessness system if the definition were to change. But they 

do not need homelessness assistance - they need housing 

assistance. 

It is certainly difficult to know exactly where to draw the line 

between a family that is homeless and one that is not, but it is a 

necessary policy decision. After considerable bipartisan 

deliberation during the reauthorization of the HEARTH Act, 

Congress determined that families that are doubled up but must 

leave where they live within 14 days are homeless, and those 

that can stay longer are not. This was the compromise reached 

after literally years of negotiation, and communities have 

generally found it to work well to ensure families that are 

literally homeless are helped (and even so, over 16,000 people 

in families are unsheltered every night). 

7 
143 


Insert offset folio 78 here 35630.078

As to families that are poor and "not fully or individually 

housed, " the Alliance encourages Congress to increase the 

supply of rental assistance so that these families can afford to 

pay the rent on their own apartmenst and avoid becoming 

homeless. 

The Education Department's homeless program does an entirely 

different job than the HUD homeless program. Its goal is to 

make sure every child can stay in their home school. For that 

task, casting a wider net is appropriate. 

Question 6: In my opening remarks, I noted that HUD 

Secretary Ben Carson suggested the federal government acting 

through HUD should "identify and incentivize the tearing down 

of local regulations that serve as impediments to developing 

affordable housing stock." It's a concern that a rental housing 

supply that expands too slowly, can really undo rental assistance 

and ultimately bid up rents and transfer assistance increases into 

land rents. That can set up a cycle where we make little 

progress - assistance payments go up and without supply 

responding, a lot of the assistance goes into increased rents. 

Increasing supply through the market is a very attractive 

alternative to ease homelessness. Can our witnesses provide any 

recommendations for how we can do what the Secretary 

suggested? 

Response 6: We agree that local regulations frequently drive up 

the cost of rental housing and impede the development of 

affordable housing. The ability of communities to stop 

affordable housing projects through NIMBY (Not In My Back 

8 
144 


Insert offset folio 79 here 35630.079

Yard) strategies is an example. Unreasonable parking space 

requirements, lengthy approval processes, and inefficient zoning 

are others. There have been suggestions that sought-after HUD 

resources such as the Community Development Block Grant or 

even non-HUD resources such as federal transportation dollars 

be linked to the reduction of local impediments to affordable 

housing development. While the Alliance is not an expert on 

housing development, this seems like a possible avenue for 

reducing costly local regulations. 

9 
145 


Insert offset folio 80 here 35630.080

~ _, 

l!.N \I St.. '\W Suite 7115 

\Ya,hinghln, UC 21Hl36 

:!!lZ-546-196'> i !WO-YET-HELP 

\\.0h\i1c '"""'''v.nchv.oq~ Email: infw·tt~ndavAorg 

Response from Joshua Stewart, NCHV Director of Policy, to questions from Representative Posey 

1. It's important to note that Housing First as a philosophy and set of practices requires the fuil 

spectrum of services to be effective. It is not merely the idea of placing a veteran into permanent 

housing as rapidly as possible though that is a critical element- it is also the provision of 

services once a veteran is housed. The Housing First model merely requires the moving around of 

the order of those steps. At NCHV we like to say "Housing First" is not "Housing Only". The full 

spectrum of services remains a crucial element to any successful housing program or wider 

continuum of care. All VA homeless programs have a strong case management element to them; 

our permanent supportive housing program (l!UD-V ASH) is built around the idea, and our Rapid 

Rehousing program (SSVF) likewise has a strong requirement for case management services. The 

difference between these programs is the level of acuity of the veteran being served. Each 

program has a place in a system of care, and each has a target population of veterans who need a 

given level of care. One la~t note on the VA 's transitional housing program (GPD), which has 

gone through a reorientation to Housing First principles over the last 5+ years: the program which 

theoreticaily would have been "penalized in competing for funds" has never received a funding 

cut, and in fact has seen increased appropriations almost every year since the move towards 

Housing First began. It remains a critical part of community's response system for homelessness 

among veterans. 

2. I apologize for not being clear in my remarks Congressman Posey- by including Florida in my 

list I was referring not necessarily to a more acute housing crisis in your State, but rather to the 

high number of homeless veterans in Florida. This density of our population exacerbates the 

nature of the national affordable housing crisis, from which Florida is not immune. In fact, in 

2018, our annual Point in Time count indicates that there are 2,543 homeless veterans in the State 

of Florida on a given night- making it the State with the second largest population of homeless 

veterans after California. 

As for the second part of your question, regarding adjustments to housing programs which would 

deal more effectively with regional disparities, the answer is clear. The HUD-V ASH program has 

the ability to permanently house formerly-homeless veterans in every state of the nation. By 

project-basing these vouchers, it allows communities to build blocks of new affordable housing 

for the explicit use of formerly-homeless veterans. The authority to project-base these vouchers 

already exists, and in fact was done as recently as 2016. It is time however, for a new round of 

project-basing. NCHV is calling for 5,000 vouchers to be project-based either new vouchers 

created by Congress, or existing vouchers that can be recaptured and redisbursed. 

Mission: The Naliona/ Coalilion for Homeless Veterans will end homelessness among veterans 

by shaping public policy, promoting collaboration. and building the capacity a,( service providers. 
146 


Insert offset folio 81 here 35630.081

3. The lessons learned from ending veteran homelessness are directly applicable to ending all 

homelessness- both the practices and policies that we learned worked. but also those that we 

learned were ineffective. What worked that is applicable? By name lists, coordinated entry, and 

balanced spectrums of services tailored to different subpopulations. I would encourage all 

providers to look to the best practices in these areas from the veteran-side and replicate them as 

best as possible. 

4. NCHV fully supports the idea, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. For veterans 

experiencing homelessness with their families, the choice to enter shelter or other services (such 

as GPO) is often made impossible because to do so they must be separated from their children. 

By offering per diem payments to GPO providers who care for the dependents of veterans 

experiencing homelessness, we can alleviate this problem. However, at 50% of the per diem rate, 

we would merely be rewarding those few providers who already do this work- and not 

incentivizing others to offer those services, and therefore not expanding the amount of services 

available to these veterans and their families. It is expensive to modify the existing physical 

structure of programs to provide the safety and security necessary to house families and children. 

50% of per diem is not enough to incentivize programs to invest in these changes, but I 00% of 

per diem would. To that end, NCHV supports S. 91, the ''Creating a Reliable Environment for 

Veterans' Dependents Act of2019" in the Senate, which shares the goal but achieves it by 

offering 100% of the per diem rate. NCHV strongly recommends that Congress as a whole takes 

up this issue in the 116'\ and uses the language contained inS. 91 as the final bill which it passes. 

5. The homelessness response system in this country is already heavily overburdened and 

underfunded. Wait lists for affordable housing vouchers nationwide are years long or even closed 

to new applicants, shelters are at capacity, and fnnding for temporary financial assistance often 

runs out before a fiscal year is over. This is the status quo of onr system as it tries to end the 

homelessness of people who meet the existing definition of homelessness. These are people who 

have nowhere else to go but shelter, or have been living on the streets for years, or else have 

multiple barriers to stable permanent housing. Expanding the pool of eligible applicants without 

vastly increasing funding would lead to even longer waits for a~sistance and worse targeting of 

resources. At this time, NCHV cannot recommend expanding the definition of homelessness. 

6. First, NCHV wholeheartedly agrees with you that increasing the supply of affordable housing is 

absolutely critical. The lack of it impacts every aspect of the homeless system, from inflow to 

long-tenn housing stability. It is the missing piece. Without expanding the supply of affordable 

housing we will be unable to make the kind of progress we all want. The local regulations the 

Secretary has referred to are outside of my expertise, but I can identify plenty offederal-level 

impediments. The largest currently is a recent IRS decision which is blocking affordable housing 

for veterans. IRS has informally interpreted how the "General Purpose Use" criteria are applied to 

private activity bonds; the upshot is that IRS has interpreted that these bonds can no longer be 

used for veteran housing projects. This has not been an issue in the past, and private activity 

bonds have long been relied upon as an important source of funding for the construction of 

veteran housing projects. This serious impediment needs to he addressed as soon as possible to 

allow these honsing projects to go forward . 

............. ~---···--·--·---c;;--~~ 

A1ission: The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans will end homelessness among veterans 

by shaping public policy, promoting collaboration, and building the capacity of service providers. 

0