U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

31–473 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 

OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 6, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 115–97 

( 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

ALEXANDER X. MOONEY, West Virginia 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee 

CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York 

TREY HOLLINGSWORTH, Indiana 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida, Vice Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

TED BUDD, North Carolina 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

RUBEN KIHUEN, Nevada 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 6, 2018 ...................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

June 6, 2018 ...................................................................................................... 27 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2018 

Berg, Steve, Vice President for Programs and Policy, National Alliance to 

End Homelessness ............................................................................................... 6 

Duffield, Barbara, Executive Director, SchoolHouse Connection ........................ 4 

Lilley, Kat, Deputy Executive Director, Family Promise of Colorado Springs ... 8 

Rounsville, Millie, Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Wisconsin Community 

Services Agency .................................................................................................... 9 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Berg, Steve ........................................................................................................ 28 

Duffield, Barbara .............................................................................................. 32 

Lilley, Kat ......................................................................................................... 57 

Rounsville, Millie .............................................................................................. 66 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Rothfus, Hon. Keith: 

Written statement from HEARTH .................................................................. 72 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 

OF H.R. 1511, THE HOMELESS 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT OF 2017 

Wednesday, June 6, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sean P. Duffy [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Duffy, Posey, Luetkemeyer, Stivers, 

Hultgren, Rothfus, Trott, Hensarling, and Cleaver. 

Also present: Representatives Green and Moore. 

Chairman DUFFY. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Legislative Review of H.R. 1511, the 

Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017,’’ though it is 2018. 

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

the subcommittee at any time. 

Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the Chair for inclusion 

in the record. 

Without objection, members of the full committee who are not 

members of this subcommittee may participate in today’s hearing 

for the purpose of making an opening statement and questioning 

our witnesses. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 3 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

First, I want to thank our witnesses for participating in today’s 

hearing on homelessness. 

A few weeks ago, members of this committee convened for an 

overall review of homelessness in America. I thought it was a great 

hearing. Witnesses discussed how homelessness looks different in 

urban areas versus rural areas. We heard how the Point-in-Time, 

or PIT, is utilized by HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development) to provide a snapshot of homelessness levels from 

one year to the next. 

We are here today to dive a little deeper into the definition of 

homelessness. More specifically, we will look to uncover how HUD’s 

definition is creating barriers in impacting our Federal Government’s ability to keep our families out of poverty. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
2 

As I read our witnesses’ statements today, it became apparent on 

two different issues. First, the PIT numbers that HUD uses to give 

us a picture of homelessness year over year seems to be a misrepresentation of the entire or complete picture. Why doesn’t it 

paint a whole picture? I think that is going to be the question that 

all of you are going to throw our way in your testimony today and 

by way of the questions we are going to ask you. 

I expect to hear that you are going to talk about certain homeless 

populations that go uncounted because they live in tents in the 

woods or they couch-surf or simply don’t want to admit their family 

is homeless for fear of losing their children. The last thing we want 

to have is people that hide from the reality of their living situation 

because of the potential the Federal or State Government might 

take away their kids. 

All of these reasons are familiar because of the same reasons you 

don’t choose—or we don’t see homelessness in our rural communities, and it is a problem. And I think taking a deeper dive on this 

issue to make sure we can expose and shed light on it is critical 

and key. 

The most jarring fact in today’s testimony is HUD’s definition of 

homelessness doesn’t match the definition used by other Federal 

agencies. We have seen this in several Government programs. We 

tend to amend the law by passing various bills over the years, and 

the Federal Government ends up with different definitions for the 

same subject matter, which obviously creates complication and confusion. We need to make sure that the definition of homelessness 

is uniform throughout all of our Federal programs. 

As a father of eight—one that is 18 and one that is 2 and everywhere in between—I was touched by the testimony of one of our 

witnesses who discussed how she had gone through to support her 

six children while trying to navigate the definition of homelessness. 

It is a testimony and a statement of strength. 

I believe her story, along with the testimony of others, will shine 

a light on why we need to address HUD’s definition of homelessness to make sure we are doing all we can to improve the plight 

of our impoverished families. 

And I do want to thank you all for being here today. I am looking 

forward to this hearing. 

And I want to now recognize the gentleman from Missouri, the 

Ranking Member, for 3 minutes. And if he wants more, I will give 

him more. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank those of you who have come to provide us with some information that we will need in trying to deal with this issue. 

The hearing today is a legislative hearing focused on H.R. 1511, 

the Homeless Children and Youth Act of 2017. This bill would expand the definition of homelessness to include more children who 

lack stable homes. Currently, homelessness under HUD is defined 

under the parameters of the HEARTH Act, which defines a homeless person as someone who lacks a fixed nighttime residence. The 

definition is targeted to help those in greatest need. 

H.R. 1511 would also make several restrictions on HUD, including limiting HUD’s ability to set national housing priorities or 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
3 

incentivize Continuum of Care (COC) programs to use housing 

models that rely on evidence-based practices. 

The Housing and Insurance Subcommittee recently held a quite 

necessary and appropriate hearing on the state of homelessness in 

the country. And though the overall homelessness rate has, in fact, 

been decreasing—and that is always good news, yet homelessness 

remains an issue of critical concern, one that should remain a priority for our committee. 

According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, on a 

single night, an estimated 184,661 people in families, or 57,971 

family households, were identified as homeless, and almost 17,000 

people and families were living on the street in a car or in another 

place not meant for human habitation. It is estimated that there 

are 550,000 homeless people in the United States. 

But here is the rub, as it relates to this legislation. Due to Federal funding limitations, hundreds of homeless individuals and 

families are unable to access resources, and waiting lists for services are already far too long. Only a fraction of children who would 

fall under HUD’s current definition of homeless are able to be 

served by HUD. 

Expanding the definition of homelessness, though well-intentioned—and I support the effort, but this expansion could add millions of people to already strained waiting lists. Without providing 

additional funding, this proposal could make it even more difficult 

for children already on waiting lists to receive help from housing. 

Housing our Nation’s children should be at the forefront of our 

national priorities. This shouldn’t be a fleeting conversation but 

one both sides of the aisle should commit to. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, the author 

of 1511, the subject of today’s hearing, Mr. Stivers, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate you 

holding this hearing on our bipartisan bill, H.R. 1511, the Homeless Children and Youth Act. 

First, I want to thank each of the witnesses for joining us today. 

While we may not all agree on everything, I certainly admire your 

dedication to combating homelessness, all of you. 

This hearing, I think, will highlight the discrepancies between 

the definition of homelessness used by different Federal agencies 

and different programs. 

Most Americans would consider Housing and Urban Development to be the flagship agency in the effort to prevent homelessness. Consequently, they might be surprised to learn that it uses 

the most restrictive definition of homelessness, one that denies vulnerable children who are couch-surfing or living off the generosity 

of family and friends or children who are living day to day out of 

motels—those folks are denied the definition of homelessness because of how their homelessness is being served. Let me be clear: 

These children are homeless, and they deserve our help. 

But data from Head Start and the National Center for Homelessness Education indicate that the problem is getting worse, with 1.3 

million children experiencing homelessness from 2015 to 2016, a 

3.5-percent increase. But if you search for these kinds of kids in 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
4 

HUD’s homelessness statistics, you won’t find them, because they 

are not included in the definition. 

I understand the point of the Ranking Member about resources. 

But if we can’t get the number right, we can’t know what the resources need to be. I am fully supportive of getting more resources, 

but we have to get the count right. 

I think my bill would bring visibility to these children, give our 

communities more flexibility so they could choose how to address 

this growing problem, and give policymakers the information they 

need to get the resources that we need to combat homelessness. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your time. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing. And I look forward to the information coming out. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back, and I appreciate 

his work on this important issue. 

I now want to welcome our panel of witnesses. 

First, we have Ms. Barbara Duffield, Executive Director of 

SchoolHouse Connection; second witness, Mr. Steve Berg, Vice 

President of Programs and Policy at the National Alliance to End 

Homelessness, who has been a great partner on this issue. 

Thank you. 

Our third witness is Kat Lilley, Deputy Executive Director of 

Family Promise of Colorado Springs. 

Welcome. 

And, finally, our fourth witness is Ms. Millie Rounsville, CEO of 

the Northwest Wisconsin Community Services Agency, based out of 

the great city and the great State of Superior, Wisconsin. 

Welcome. 

The witnesses will in a moment be recognized for 5 minutes to 

give an oral presentation of their written testimony. Without objection, the witnesses’ written statements will be made part of the 

record following their oral remarks. 

Once the witnesses have finished presenting their testimony, 

each member of the subcommittee will have 5 minutes within 

which to ask the panel questions. 

I would just note that on your table you have three lights. Green 

obviously means go, yellow means you have a minute left, and red 

means your time is up. We will try to be cognizant of our time. You 

also, please, try to be cognizant of the 5-minute limit as well. 

Your microphones are sensitive. Make sure they are on and you 

are speaking directly into them. 

With that, Ms. Duffield, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an 

oral presentation of your written testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA DUFFIELD 

Ms. DUFFIELD. Good morning, Chairman Duffy, Ranking Member 

Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony today. 

I worked at the Intersection of Homelessness and Education for 

nearly 25 years, and I have witnessed many improvements over 

that time. But HUD’s definition of homelessness and its national 

priorities have created real barriers to helping homeless children 

and youth. As a result, we are perpetuating homelessness. We are 

guaranteeing that homelessness will continue indefinitely. The 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
5 

Homeless Children and Youth Act will help ensure that today’s 

homeless children and youth do not become tomorrow’s homeless 

adults. 

Let me put this debate in context. I worked with a student who 

stayed in a house with 11 adults and 4 children because her mother was mentally ill and kicked her out. All the adults in the house 

used cocaine. Many of them worked in the strip club. The student 

provided childcare in exchange for a roof over her head. But she 

said this was better than other situations she had been in because 

‘‘a lot of guys wanted to get something out of you.’’ She was in high 

school. 

As this committee knows, Federal agencies do use different definitions of homelessness. And with few exceptions, in practice, the 

HUD definition only includes people living in shelters or outdoors. 

Under HUD’s definition, the student I described is not homeless. 

In contrast, the definition used by the Department of Education 

and other Federal agencies includes children and youth who are 

staying in motels or are staying temporarily with others due to loss 

of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason. 

This definition reflects reality. Schools are present in every community, even those without shelters, even those where shelters are 

full. So, contrary to the picture painted by HUD, school numbers 

have increased by 34 percent since the end of the recession, now 

totaling 1.3 million homeless students. Head Start homeless numbers have nearly doubled. 

And new research shows that child homelessness often leads to 

youth homelessness and then to adult homelessness, where children of homeless adults may start this life again. HUD’s definition 

contributes to this damaging cycle by preventing some of the most 

vulnerable homeless children and youth from accessing services. 

Also, it keeps them invisible, which limits both public and private 

action. 

Make no mistake, the children and youth who meet Education’s 

definition are every bit as vulnerable as those who meet HUD’s 

definition. And my written testimony documents the same poor 

academic, health, and mental health outcomes of all homeless students regardless of where they sleep. 

It also shows how frequently families and youth move between 

Education homeless and HUD homeless. In fact, when I described 

this debate to a remarkable young woman who stayed in all sorts 

of homeless situations, her response to me was, ‘‘The open sky 

never made me bleed.’’ 

Yet homeless children and youth who don’t meet HUD’s definition are barred from even being assessed. The Homeless Children 

and Youth Act would allow children and youth whose homelessness 

has been verified by one of eight Federal programs to be assessed 

for services rather than basing their eligibility very simplistically 

on where they happen to find a place to sleep. 

Just last week, we tried to assist a young couple with a toddler 

who are expecting their second child. They are staying in a toxic 

household with other people. They will be kicked out in a month. 

They have nowhere to go. But Coordinated Entry in their community said they weren’t in a place from which they could get evicted, 

so they are not eligible for prevention assistance. And they don’t 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
6 

meet HUD’s definition of homelessness, so they aren’t eligible for 

homeless assistance. But under the Homeless Children and Youth 

Act, an early Head Start program could verify the family’s homelessness and they could be assessed. So the trajectory of four lives, 

including their unborn child, could change for the better. 

But beyond definitions, HUD has deprived communities of the 

flexibility that they need by creating strong national incentives for 

housing models in certain populations. They don’t meet all communities’ needs. The high school student I worked with, she couldn’t 

benefit from Rapid Re-Housing. She is too young to sign a lease. 

Rapid Re-Housing is failing many families who become homeless 

again, but they don’t show up in HUD’s metrics. Meanwhile, program models that have been successful in helping families leave 

homelessness and sustain their housing have been defunded. 

The Homeless Children and Youth Act would remedy this onesize-fits-all approach with scoring that is primarily based on the 

extent to which projects meet priorities in a local plan and are costeffective to the local plan. In this way, it allows communities to respond flexibly to new challenges and opportunities. 

Please know that the Homeless Children and Youth Act has 

broad support from organizations that work directly with homeless 

children and youth. And we ask you to enact it so that homelessness will cease to rob millions of children, youth, and adults of 

their full human potential. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Duffield can be found on page 32 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Duffield. 

Mr. Berg, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE BERG 

Mr. BERG. All right. Thank you, Chairman Duffy and members 

of this subcommittee and the committee. 

I want to start by saying we at the National Alliance to End 

Homelessness and I personally have worked with this committee 

for many, many years on this very difficult issue, and I thank you 

all for your devotion to dealing with it and to finding things that 

are really going to work. 

I would especially like to address Congressman Stivers. We literally 15 years ago identified Columbus, Ohio, as one of the places 

that leads the country in a new approach to homelessness that 

could actually start getting results, really based on going beyond 

just funding a bunch of individual programs and empowering a 

community-wide system that would look at data, look at what really works, make decisions about how to allocate scarce resources 

and get results. And Columbus has continued to do that. 

We work very closely with people at a community shelter board 

who oversee this process in Columbus. They, I know, regard you as 

an ally in this work. And even though we disagree on this particular bill, we can work through that, but we also regard you as 

an ally in this. And I thank you for your work on this. 

This is a crucial time on the issue of homelessness, as all of you 

may be aware. But as the HEARTH Act has become fully implemented and has—and the good practices both that are incentivized 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
7 

by the HEARTH Act and that are incentivized by, say, the homeless programs in the veterans world, communities are finding that 

they are getting better and better results. The kind of results that 

Columbus was getting 15 years ago are now more common in communities, in terms of people who are on the streets quickly being 

housed. 

At the same time, because of where we are in the short-term 

business cycles and longer-term issues of housing, the problem of 

affordable housing in the country is getting far, far worse, so that 

one effect of that is that people are pouring into the homelessness 

system. So, even as communities of care to do better, they are dealing with more and more people in their community who are falling 

into that system. This is a time we need to be doing our very best 

work. And we need support from everybody in Congress to do that. 

This particular bill, the concerns we at the Alliance have about 

this bill are mainly around eligibility rules for the Continuum of 

Care. The Continuum of Care is the primary homeless program at 

HUD. It accounts for 4 percent of HUD spending, so it is a small 

program. It has, however, a very important role to play. As it was 

overhauled by the HEARTH Act in a bipartisan manner, it has become what is driving communities—through the competitive grant 

process, driving communities to get better results and to focus on 

the people who have the most severe and immediate problems. 

Much of what the HEARTH Act did was to make changes in who 

is eligible for the program, the definition of homelessness, but particularly as it relates to who is eligible. People who are in housing, 

who are sleeping in an apartment or a house, but who are in immediate danger because the house they are sleeping in is a drug den, 

because they are victims of domestic violence, because they are 

dealing with all kinds of truly dangerous situations, those are all 

eligible for the Continuum of Care right now. You don’t need to 

change anything to make them eligible. You need to change the 

funding levels in order to have enough money to actually address 

the whole problem, but the eligibility rules don’t need to change. 

The problem with this bill’s large expansion of the definition is 

that it will, at best, overwhelm systems that communities have for 

determining how to allocate the scarce resources of the homeless 

programs, and, at worst, it will mean that the worst-off people, the 

people in the gravest immediate danger, will have a harder time 

getting help because they will be out-competed for the resources by 

people who have a little more stable situation, living with relatives 

or friends or family. 

The work that HUD has done on this has been very responsive 

to what Congress has told HUD to do. And the report language 

from this committee, from the Appropriations Committee over 

many years has been very clear that HUD needs to find out what 

kind of interventions are doing the best work, are getting the best 

results, and then make sure communities are using the money for 

those. This bill moves in exactly the opposite direction, and that is 

the other concern besides the eligibility rules. 

So I am happy to answer questions about this. I can come and 

see you in your office if you have other questions. But thank you 

again. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
8 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berg can be found on page 28 of 

the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Lilley for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAT LILLEY 

Ms. LILLEY. I would like to thank the committee for allowing me 

to come here and speak today. It truly is an honor to be able to 

be here. 

In my written testimony, I highlighted my personal story with 

you all. I didn’t do that lightly. It is hard to relive the time that 

I experienced homelessness with my six children. I did it because 

I think you really needed to understand the vulnerability that exists prior to meeting the definition of HUD homelessness. 

I highlighted for you what my family and I went through months 

leading up to homelessness, weeks leading up to homelessness, and 

the day that I finally hit the threshold for the HUD definition of 

homelessness. 

What I can tell you is that, had any of the other avenues that 

I pursued for my family for housing prior to entering shelter come 

through, I would not be sitting here today. I would not be working 

in the homeless industry. I would not be successful. 

And I can tell you that because, while Mr. Berg is well-informed 

on policy, he is not on the ground level. He is not seeing what these 

families are living in. I reached out to situations that I knew were 

dangerous for my family, looking for four walls to keep us out of 

a shelter. I reached out to a biological family member who had a 

registered sex offender living in their home, begging for a floor to 

sleep on. Had they told me yes, I would have been there in a heartbeat, because I believed and I know that there are families in all 

of our communities that believe dealing with the dangers we know 

is safer than dealing with the dangers that are unknown in the 

shelter system. 

In my work now, providing care to families and children who are 

experiencing homelessness, I am out in the community. I am an active member of our COC, and because I have six children, I am active in a number of school systems. I see the vulnerability in our 

community. I know that we have families who are living in situations that are dire. 

Just 3 weeks ago, I was in a motel room with a family of five 

who had been living there for 4 months. I sat down on the bed, and 

it was wet. It is what the motel had for them. There were lice, 

there were cockroaches, there were bugs. The 3-year-old showed me 

her little bed on the floor. She had what she called a nest. There 

were blankets, there was a pillow, and there were bugs. It was a 

horrendous situation. 

While we were sitting there and we were talking, there was a 

banging on the door. It was a neighbor in the motel room. He was 

upset that last night the baby had been crying and was going to 

go talk to management to see if they could be put out of the motel 

although they had paid for this week. 

These are not situations children should be living in. These are 

not safe situations. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
9 

And contrary to what Mr. Berg tells you, this family is not eligible for COC services. If we do a VI-SPDAT, or a Vulnerability 

Index, on this family, they are going to be told, ‘‘You have one recourse. We may offer you one service. We can rapidly re-house you 

or assist you with prevention.’’ This family is not suitable. Their 

vulnerability does not meet a successful outcome for us to put them 

in a place that they can’t afford and say, ‘‘We are going to provide 

you with limited assistance, limited services, and we are not going 

to address the vulnerability that brought you here.’’ We are setting 

them up to fail. 

This is happening nationally. Family Promises across the Nation 

in 43 States can give you hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of 

stories where this is true. 

The biggest pushback to the bill is that it is going to overwhelm 

the system or that it is a funding issue. This isn’t a funding issue. 

This is an issue that, while we are saying Continuum of Cares are 

prioritizing the most dire situations, they are excluding some of the 

most vulnerable and dire situations. 

We are not asking to bump chronic homeless people down on the 

list. We are not asking to bump people without shelter down on the 

list. We are asking you to include individuals who are truly being 

victimized because of their situations on the list. We are asking you 

to prioritize them the same way you prioritize the people who don’t 

have shelter at this time. 

Honestly, my vulnerability was lower when I was in shelter than 

it would have been had I been doubled up or in a motel. And we 

are just asking that you consider that issue and move forward with 

this. 

Our PIT counts are inaccurate. Because they are inaccurate and 

because we are continuing to leave families invisible, we don’t 

know the trends that are going on in family and youth homelessness. We can’t say that family homelessness is going down just by 

sticking our head in the sand and not counting individuals that are 

truly vulnerable and homeless. 

I thank you for this time, and I am open to questions at the end 

of this. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lilley can be found on page 57 

of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Lilley. 

Ms. Rounsville, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MILLIE ROUNSVILLE 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. Thank you, Mr. Duffy and Mr. Cleaver, for the 

opportunity to come here and speak. This is a conversation we have 

on a local level, so I am happy to be able to be here in front of a 

larger audience and to see that a lot of the things that I am seeing 

locally are also agreeing with Ms. Lilley’s community. 

I am the Director of Northwest Community Services Agency. We 

are what is called a community action program. We have been providing services to low- and moderate-income throughout our fivecounty service area for the last—over 50 years now. Being as we 

are community action, we do prioritize vulnerable populations, lowincome populations, and, unfortunately, for our service area, homelessness is a large part of that world. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
10 

On the local level, as homeless service providers, we work well 

together. We work with our school districts, we work with our local 

units of Government, our Head Start agency, our faith-based partners. And we truly pull together a toolkit to try to accommodate 

those needs. 

From a geologic perspective, my service area covers 8,000 square 

miles. In that 8,000 square miles, we only have 90,000 people. We 

probably have more trees than we do population. Our agency has 

served as the lead in terms of the HUD world, the ESG (Emergency Solutions Grants) world, those sort of things. And it predominantly has to do with capacity and the requirements that come 

with receipt of those Federal funds. 

We in the city of Superior are fortunate that we have three shelter facilities. We have a homeless men’s shelter that is operated by 

our organization. We have a family shelter that is operated by one 

of our faith-based partners. And then we have a domestic violence 

shelter. In Ashland, which is 70 miles away, we also have a domestic violence shelter. 

But that is it. Throughout the rest of our service area, we are 

relying on hotel vouchers to try to prevent individuals from sleeping in their cars, sleeping in the campsites. It is cold. It is 40 

below. Anybody that we can get sheltered on our Point-in-Time 

counts, we bring our faith-based partners, they issue hotels. 

The reason I bring this up is related to some of the Point-in-Time 

data that has been discussed—is a lot of our homelessness numbers 

and the homeless needs going up and down are based on those PIT 

numbers, and they are also based on the HMIS data. And for our 

service area, to try to go out and cover that 8,000-square-mile area 

between 11 at night and 6 in the morning, finding people that are 

living in campsites, we have two reservations that we need to 

cover, those numbers aren’t truly accurate in terms of what our 

community looks like on a given night. 

In terms of the homeless information database, which is a requirement with HUD, our organization, along with our family shelter, are the only two organizations that are entering data into that 

system. So if we were looking at, from a community level, what the 

homeless needs are in northwest Wisconsin and the number is 

going up and down, it is not reflective of 50 percent of our shelters 

because they are domestic violence, it is not reflective of our faithbased partners that are providing services, and as we have discussed earlier, it doesn’t include the number of homeless identified 

through our school districts and our Head Start agencies. 

One of the things that this bill would allow would be local flexibility. In our service area, our needs are similar in terms of the 

families, people that are being placed in foster care, the families 

that are doubled up because there is no shelter availability. 

The Continuum of Care process, while it is important and it does 

fund a variety of services in our country, I believe, looks very different in our part of the country than it may in some other parts 

of the country. 

I provide a lot of written testimony, so I am trying to focus my 

oral on things that may be a better use of your time. 

But in the State of Wisconsin, we have 72 counties. HUD recognizes four Continuum of Cares. So our bigger cities—Racine; Dane, 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
11 

which is Madison; and Milwaukee—HUD designates those as their 

own Continuum of Care. Our northern five counties is what is 

called the Balance of State Continuum of Care. So, on the ground 

level, there are 21 local groups: Myself representing my 5 counties; 

Duana Bremer that was here a few weeks ago representing her 

service area. But we compromise what is the Balance of State Continuum of Care. 

So, as this process started many years ago—I have been involved 

in this process for 21 years—the Continuum of Care was designed 

to meet homeless needs. There was a pro rata need that was established by counties. We started a lot of supportive services-only programs, transitional housing programs, things that are identified locally as a need. 

As this evolution in time has changed, the only new programs 

that communities are able to apply for is permanent supportive 

housing. And, in our case, we don’t have enough chronically homeless meeting that definition in our rural areas. And what has been 

happening in reality is we have had larger cities that are having 

more services available for chronic homeless, which is great—that 

is their need; people are being housed—but what we are doing is 

we are continually taking away services from our rural communities, and we have less services available to meet the needs of the 

families that we are working with. 

So I do see I am over time. I will pause there. I will be available 

for questions. 

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

66 of the Appendix.] 

Chairman DUFFY. Thank you, Ms. Rounsville. 

And I want to thank the panel for their testimony. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes. 

Just a brief note. I am sorry, I—we defend the bureaucracy, we 

defend the status quo and argue for more money. I don’t think that 

answer actually works. You can argue for more money. I get that. 

But also say, is the system actually working? Are we actually effective with the dollars that we use? Because with $21 trillion in debt, 

it is fair to come back and say, ‘‘I need more, because I am using 

the dollars that you have given me really well right now,’’ but if 

we can’t look at how we are actually using today’s dollars, how do 

we come back and ask for more? 

And I think that is the point of this conversation. How are we 

using our current dollars? Let’s use them well. And if there is more 

that is needed, let’s fight for more money to help those who have 

fallen into homelessness. 

Ms. Rounsville, as you might know, I was the D.A. in Ashland 

County, which covers your area, and have dealt with the women’s 

shelter, and it is a great facility. 

But you made a comment about how money might flow into the 

Dane County area, Madison, and maybe a little less up north in 

the rural part. And is that because you have been so effective in 

addressing homelessness and they haven’t been effective in Dane 

County, or is something else happening in how money is distributed? 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. I would be happy to cover that. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
12 

It is actually multifold. So, in our rural areas, we don’t have 

United Way dollars. We don’t have entitlement communities. We 

are piecemealing packages together. 

One of our largest funding sources for the shelter side, such as 

New Day that you referenced, is the ESG money through the State. 

Based on one of their formula allocations, the dollars are divided 

up throughout the State of Wisconsin based on things such as your 

homeless counts. 

As I referenced earlier, when people aren’t using HMIS, the 

numbers go down. As the numbers go down, I am issuing less hotel 

vouchers. I am the one entering into HMIS. Thus, next year we 

have a lower allocation, we have less resources. 

On the Continuum of Care side, it is that 69 counties that are 

submitting an application. So it is all 69 counties looking at in 

terms of competing nationally to bring resources into our State following HUD’s priorities, getting the extra points on the application 

to keep serving homeless throughout that 69-county area. 

The needs of us in northern Wisconsin, while they are important, 

we don’t have a high population of chronic homeless. One of HUD’s 

priority areas is serving chronic homeless. And there are pockets 

throughout the State that do have a need to serve chronic homeless. So those resources are coming into our State and enhancing 

services in those areas, but we are no longer able to apply for transitional housing, which works well. And then we lost a transitional 

housing program this last round, so we are only going to have one 

COC-funded project left in our service area. 

But that is what is happening, is, as they are prioritizing specific 

populations, the more urban areas that have that population are 

able to access those dollars, as opposed to we don’t have an opportunity to apply for a transitional housing program, which would 

better meet our needs. 

Our Rapid Re-Housing that we fund with the ESG and the State 

dollars, we have people that come up on our priority list, but if you 

are in a town like Ashland and you have something on your background or you have been evicted by one of the property owners, nobody is going to give you a lease. It wouldn’t matter if you had dollars available. 

Chairman DUFFY. Just quickly, the Point-in-Time counts, are 

those accurate? Do you— 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. No. 

Chairman DUFFY. —think they get—they don’t. And does that affect your funding? 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. Well, HUD says you have to cover your geographic footprint. Does anybody here think they could cover 8,000 

square miles in 7 hours? I mean—and especially in the wintertime. 

We have two-lane roads. We have no cell phone service. We have 

national forests. It is not an easy— 

Chairman DUFFY. It is impossible. 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. —feat to get try to get that. 

Chairman DUFFY. Yes. It is impossible. And, right, you don’t get 

an accurate count. And then, obviously, the dollars don’t necessary 

flow. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
13 

To the panel, is there a correlation between child homelessness 

and adult homelessness? Does that correlation actually exist? The 

panel agrees with that? 

Doesn’t it make sense, then, especially when you have kids or 

young adults, the youth, that we try to address that problem early 

on and say, let’s help these kids get into housing so they are not 

pulling resources in their adulthood from others, they are actually 

self-sufficient, let’s start them off on the right path? 

Ms. Lilley, does that make sense to you? 

Ms. LILLEY. It absolutely makes sense to me. 

I understand that we want to serve the most vulnerable, and I 

feel like, as a Nation, we are overlooking that the most vulnerable 

are the individuals that are experiencing homelessness that we 

can’t see. They are not the people sleeping on the street. It is the 

youth that are being traumatized by the experiences— 

Chairman DUFFY. I am sorry. The story that you tell about the 

kids in the hotel room, or your own story, who is more vulnerable 

than kids going through this process from their teen years into 

adulthood? Who is more vulnerable than that? 

I have a—and my time is up. As I have asked you all to be respectful of the red dot, I am too. So, with that, I am going to recognize Mr. Cleaver for 5 minutes. We will do a second round. Mr. 

Cleaver for 5 minutes, the Ranking Member. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is an important issue. And I want to reiterate something 

that Mr. Berg said earlier, and that is that I would prefer to believe—and I think I am actually correct—that there probably is not 

any person in here who is anti-help homeless individuals. 

I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for taking the lead in 

this. It is always a very emotional issue with me. My wife and I 

had a homeless kid show up on our doorstep. And it had something 

to do with the NBA, one of the players. I won’t go into it here. But 

he moved into our home, and because he went to school with our 

twin boys, all three of them went off to college together on basketball scholarships. 

And then I think it was May 11, Flight 592, ValuJet went down 

in the Everglades, and Jerrold was on that flight. I saw what he 

went through as a homeless kid, 15 years old—and I mean homeless. I don’t mean—he wasn’t staying with his grandmother or 

chose not to stay with his uncle. I mean with nothing, his clothing 

on his back. 

And so this is something that is very, very meaningful to me. 

And I want to express, in no small way, my appreciation for the 

Chairman for putting this on the docket and for Mr. Stivers and 

the people on the Democratic side who are working with him. I 

think it is the gentlewoman from Ohio who is also part of this bill. 

And so, for me, this is a worrisome issue. It is not easy to resolve, and we are going to have to struggle with it. It is not a question of whether or not these erratically housed families and youth 

deserve housing assistance. That is just not the issue. The issue, 

for me, is whether or not they should skip the line, ahead of other 

families and youth with other problems. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
14 

I don’t know if we will ever have enough money to resolve this 

issue. But we will never handle homelessness until we envision a 

Nation without homelessness and try to go there. 

So this legislation is not perfect, but I think the whole effort in 

Congress—and this is what I think all of us forget—is that we are 

hopefully moving toward perfection. Nothing is perfect. We are 

moving in that direction. So I appreciate it. 

So if someone could address the issue I raised about whether or 

not putting people ahead in the line is something that we can figure out how to get around. I would love to have everybody in here 

supporting the same piece of legislation. 

Mr. BERG. Well, if I could start, I think it is extremely important 

to have clear goals and clear ideas about what kind of things the 

Continuum of Care is funding that get the best results and then 

really focus on getting the people who can benefit from that into 

those programs. 

At the same time, the Continuum of Care, as I said at the start, 

it is 4 percent of HUD’s budget—4. There are a lot of other things 

that go into communities’ responses to this issue, including other 

HUD funding, funding from other Federal agencies, lots of philanthropic funding. So there is a range of things that different people 

need, and it is possible to set up a system that provides people with 

what they need while still understanding that this one program, 

this one 4 percent, needs to be reserved for people who are in immediate danger. 

Because I think the rules of the Continuum of Care really are 

that people in immediate danger are covered. If the only place you 

have to live is with your kids with a registered sex offender, you 

are eligible right now. You are. You can’t get help because— 

Ms. LILLEY. You are eligible for one program, not the program 

that necessarily meets your vulnerability. That is ineffective and 

fiscally irresponsible. 

Mr. BERG. That is not about—that is not—this bill wouldn’t help 

that. 

Ms. LILLEY. But it would. 

Mr. BERG. This bill changes eligibility. It doesn’t change what 

kinds of programs are available and what the community is doing. 

Ms. LILLEY. The Ranking Member raised a very interesting question about whether or not this bill should be passed based on people skipping the line. And the bill isn’t about people skipping the 

line or moving ahead in the line. The bill is addressing letting people join the line based on their vulnerability on the same scale as 

people who are outside. 

Currently, they can’t even get in line. This isn’t about jumping 

a line. It is about being able to stand in the same line for the appropriate resources based on their vulnerability, the same scale of 

vulnerability that people outside are being measured on. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Now, I think the—well, let me reiterate. I support 

and, in fact, voted that we create the line in the first place. So, I 

don’t want—I think we need to be careful as we are discussing 

something that almost everybody in here supports. 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. Mr. Chairman, can I address the line quickly? 

Am I allowed to do that? 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
15 

I just want to talk about the line. Because we talk about vulnerable, and we are talking about the doubled-up individuals, and 

then we are talking about families in shelter. And I believe there 

is an impression that the families in shelter are already in the line. 

The threshold to meet for permanent support of housing that is 

chronically homelessness, you have to have an adult with a disability to meet that definition. 

So our shelters and families that are staying in the domestic violence shelter, while they may be at the bottom of the list, they are 

still not eligible, because to be chronically homeless, the adult has 

to have a disability. 

So it isn’t just a matter of the couch-surfers not being able to get 

to the line. It is the families that are sitting in the line that we 

can’t help because they are not meeting chronically homeless. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Posey, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 

for calling this hearing. Homelessness is not something that is on 

the radar every day, but it is a massive, massive problem, and I 

don’t think anyone’s districts are completely immune from it. 

Ms. Lilley, I think your written testimony and your verbal testimony may be some of the most compelling that I have heard so far. 

Thank you very much for that. 

I love Family Promise. My wife and I became aware of it, and 

we work through our church. And I know it is effective; I know 

what you are saying is the truth. It is another example of how 

much more productive, efficient, and effective privately operated 

functions can be than Government, monolithic, one-size-fits-all, 

you-are-in-or-you-are-out structures that clearly have not seemed to 

have worked very well, or there wouldn’t be a need for so many of 

the other organizations, such as yours. 

A question that demands an answer after reading all of your testimony, a couple times actually: How did you break the cycle? How 

did you free yourself and your family? 

Ms. LILLEY. I was supported by Family Promise. And so I am actually the Deputy Director of the organization that served my family 4–1/2 years ago. So it was the support that allowed me through 

that process. 

And they extended a lot of grace to me. Emergency shelters generally will time a family out after 90 days and ask them to exit and 

then reapply if there is availability. I stayed in shelter straight for 

more than 6 months. 

I did receive assistance through Rapid Re-Housing on the back 

end of shelter to be able to house my family. And that supported 

me on my trajectory forward. 

Once I exited the shelter and was stably housed, I wanted to give 

back. And so I started volunteering with Family Promise. A year 

after exiting shelter, I became a staff member and have just 

climbed up the ranks ever since, and homelessness has become my 

life since. 

I think it is important to recognize in my personal story that I 

received some assistance that was HUD-funded that helped me 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
16 

overcome my situation. It was after 6-plus months in shelter. It 

was after an extreme amount of time of struggling. My special boy, 

during my homeless situation, had two more long-term hospitalizations because the process was stressful for him, as it was for me. 

But that HUD funding that helped me get back on my feet, I was 

able to utilize it before that 6-month mark. However, when you are 

looking at Rapid Re-Housing, I had to qualify for a landlord that 

was willing to take those funds and my family. As you can imagine, 

a lot of landlords look at an application and say, ‘‘Currently homeless, six kids, lower income than it used to be a year ago,’’ and they 

go, ‘‘I think I will pass,’’ especially when you are in communities 

with low vacancy. 

And so it took a long time for me to find a landlord willing to 

work with me, which is why that may not have been the most effective across-the-board intervention that we are offering to families. 

Mr. POSEY. How would you specifically suggest we redefine 

homeless eligibility at HUD? 

Ms. LILLEY. Specifically, I think that we need to broaden the definition to align with other Federal systems. We need to include the 

families that are doubled up. We need to include the families that 

are living in a motel. 

They are not stably housed. Most of these parents are out trying 

to figure out how they are going to pay for the motel room tomorrow. They are not sure how they are going to stay with a friend 

another week longer. They are sitting in bedrooms on floors with 

their children, telling them that they can’t cry, telling them that 

they can’t access the refrigerator because it is not their food. 

It is not a housing situation; it is a floor, it is a cot, it is a blanket. And it is not acceptable. We have to expand it. We have to 

truly work to serve the most vulnerable and acknowledge that just 

because a family has four walls around them, that doesn’t mean 

that they are not vulnerable. 

There are a lot of assumptions that go into the Alliance saying 

that we’re not—this expands it and we are no longer going to be 

serving the most vulnerable that they haven’t done the research to 

back up. These families are vulnerable, they are being victimized, 

and they deserve a spot in the line for resources based on their vulnerability. 

Mr. POSEY. If you could make one change besides the definition, 

what would that be? 

Ms. LILLEY. I would allow communities to be able to use the resources that best fit their community dynamic and the current 

housing dynamic of that community. So if transitional housing is 

effective in a community and proven effective in a community, that 

HUD not prioritize it being defunded. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you. 

I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the author of 1511, the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Stivers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And before I go to questions—I do want to ask a bunch of questions, but I want to acknowledge what Mr. Berg said initially, is 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
17 

while we may disagree on this individual issue, I want to thank 

you for your passion and what you are doing to combat homelessness, because we are all on the same side on that even if we disagree about a particular issue. 

And I want to acknowledge the folks back in Columbus, Ohio: 

Michelle Heritage, who I am sure you work with, Mr. Berg, who 

has been a friend of mine for 20 years, so I have known and 

worked with at Saint Vincent’s and worked with her on combating 

homelessness at the Community Shelter Board. They are doing incredible work. They have been one of the most innovative organizations in the country; they continue to be. And while they may disagree with me on this issue, I consider them friends and know that 

we have the same goals in mind. 

So I want to continue on what Ms. Lilley was just talking about. 

And because the Ranking Member and because Mr. Berg have 

brought it up, I just want to be really clear what this bill does and 

doesn’t do. 

This bill is about taking invisibly homeless people that are seen 

as invisible today—by the law, they are invisible. That is tragic. It 

is unacceptable. It produces very bad results for those people and 

allows them to be taken advantage of—and brings them into the 

light and allows them to be counted. That is what this bill does. 

It does not prioritize them, does not put them in line in front of 

anybody else. The communities can decide who they want to serve 

based on who has the most emergent need and who is in the most 

danger. But it brings those invisible people into the light. That is 

what we should be about. 

And then I am—I want to pledge to all of you, I will be fighting 

for resources. 

But I do want to start a few questions by asking Ms. Duffield, 

so tell me, does this bill require anybody to move to the front of 

the line? 

Ms. DUFFIELD. No, it does not. It simply means you are eligible 

to be assessed on the same vulnerability indicators as anybody else. 

You are not to the front of the line. You are in the line. You are 

actually being seen by the same standards. 

And, again, my testimony provides data showing that these children are every bit as in dire straits as anybody else. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. 

And that is where I want to move to Ms. Lilley, on that, because 

you have been so eloquent already on this issue. Talk about how 

these invisibly homeless people can be and are taken advantage of 

today in the name of getting them housed by friends, family, 

strangers, and other folks, either financially or in other ways taken 

advantage of, and how that makes them vulnerable and how they 

are—help us understand why they are vulnerable people. 

Ms. LILLEY. Absolutely. 

As we all know, people who are feeling desperation make choices 

out of that desperation, and they are not always choices that align 

with the end goal or that are safe choices to make. 

We see families who are able to pay for a motel this week and next week come up $30 short, so they are outside and they are asking people to come up with that money. And then someone will 

walk up to them and say, ‘‘You know what? I have 30 bucks. Let 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
18 

me join you in your room.’’ So now a stranger has joined these children in a room because a family needed $30 to pay for next week. 

And that is introducing the children to new, unknown dangers. 

Also, when we are talking about community systems, community 

systems are important when we are looking at the human need for 

community. And when we are talking about family homelessness 

and children homelessness, it is very isolating. When you have 

families who are in shelter, there is a community there. Parents in 

a shelter look out for each other. They support each other. They 

cheer each other on. 

Families who are experiencing homelessness in a motel or a situation where they are staying with others, it is not generally family. 

It is not generally grandma and grandpa. It is not generally aunt 

or uncle. A lot of times, it is strangers that happen to offer a place 

to stay. A lot of times, it is people that were in the past with a family who now have a place to stay. 

I currently—it breaks my heart to say, I have a mom and a dad 

with a 3-week-old baby that on Monday decided to move in with 

someone they met 3 hours prior, because that was a better choice 

for them than going to the shelter with their vulnerable baby. That 

is not safe. 

Mr. STIVERS. Wow. 

Ms. LILLEY. They are not considered homeless anymore. And 

they are in dire need for that baby, who is at a key developmental 

stage and will be for the next 3 years, for an intervention to be offered. 

So we are forcing families—we are telling families, ‘‘You are not 

homeless enough to help.’’ And then we are faulting them for being 

in situations that aren’t safe and keeping them in the shadows, 

when we are trying to draw them out so that we can help, so that 

we can assist. We want them to see the friendly face that says, 

‘‘You are not alone. It can be OK.’’ 

Mr. STIVERS. And I know I am basically out of time, but if I could 

just have each of the panel members, one at a time, say whether 

they believe these children should be counted or hidden in homelessness. 

Ms. DUFFIELD. They should be seen and served. 

Mr. BERG. I think the more data we have about all these problems, the better. So, certainly, if we can get information about who 

is living in what situations, that would be excellent. 

Ms. LILLEY. Counted and served. 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. Counted and served. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Rothfus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

calling today’s hearing. 

And I would like to commend Representative Stivers for his hard 

work on this important issue. 

The Homeless Children and Youth Act addresses a number of 

problems with our current approach to homelessness, but I want to 

start by focusing on one in particular. As HUD has prioritized oneVerDate Sep 11 2014 11:33 Nov 01, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\GPO PRINTING\DOCS\115TH HEARINGS - 2ND SESSION 2018\2018-06-06 HI - HR 15

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
19 

size-fits-all mandates, like Housing First, and connected those priorities to funding, it has pushed communities to move away from 

programs and strategies that actually work. 

As a result, local organizations have lost out on necessary funding or have been forced to change their model. Ultimately, this 

hurts the very people we are trying to help: The poor, the vulnerable, and those in need of a helping hand. 

One of the organizations that has been harmed is the HEARTH 

organization in my district. HEARTH is a transitional housing provider focusing on women fleeing domestic violence. Due to the onesize-fits-all approach pushed by HUD, HEARTH has faced pressure 

to completely change its model or risk losing funding. This is unfair 

to the western Pennsylvania families that need HEARTH in their 

community. 

And I want to enter their statement on the Homeless Children 

and Youth Act into the record. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could offer a statement from HEARTH into 

the record on the Homeless Children and Youth Act. 

Chairman DUFFY. Without objection. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Ms. Lilley, you have both personal and professional experience with your homelessness relief programs. Could 

you comment on what happened in your community when HUD 

prioritized Rapid Re-Housing and permanent supportive housing? 

Ms. LILLEY. Absolutely. I actually sit on the Ranking and 

Prioritization Committee on my Continuum of Care, so I know exactly the decisions that were made to try and meet the competitiveness of the COC. 

In my community, we have only a couple transitional housing 

programs. One of them specifically serves families with children. 

We have My Transitional Housing Program, which is exclusively 

privately funded; I don’t ask for HUD money for it. 

And then we have a transitional housing program that—it is a 

borderline. Under HUD’s definition, it is considered transitional 

housing. However, it truly hits an emergency need for unaccompanied women in our community, in that it only serves women, and 

it is a short-term transitional housing program. It maxes at 6 

months instead of the 2 years for the most markers. 

When HUD pushed the prioritization, saying that we really needed to focus on Rapid Re-Housing and that we really needed to focus 

on permanent supportive housing, as you can imagine, these are 

things that we would love to expand in our community, but they 

take infrastructure. And infrastructure takes time to develop, especially when you are talking about permanent supportive housing, 

which requires units, a lot of units, to meet that need. 

Our Continuum of Care looked at how we were meeting that 

need and decided that, to stay competitive as a continuum, although our family transitional housing program, which was large, 

was high-performing, had highly successful outcomes and lower recidivism rates, we had to remove funding from that program and 

reallocate it to a different program. It was actually a new program, 

so we weren’t sure how that was going to play out, but it matched 

the HUD priority. As a result, this transitional housing program 

had to struggle the next year to backfill the funding that was removed from them. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
20 

In my community, the women’s transitional housing program in 

this last go-around, they did not receive COC money because of the 

HUD priority. And, in addition, because the city has decided to 

align with the HUD priorities for ESG and CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money as well, they did not receive their 

ESG or CDBG money either. That shelter closed last week. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Ms. Rounsville, I understand the transitional 

housing project in your area lost Federal support as a result of 

HUD’s push to deprioritize transitional housing. 

Does transitional housing have a good track record in your area? 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. Transitional housing in our world was ideal. 

We held the lease. We could take high-barrier families. Landlords 

had worked with our agency for 50 years, so we didn’t have a problem with getting that housing provided. 

The Rapid Re-Housing is also a good model, but it is not a onesize-fits-all. Having the Rapid Re-Housing, especially under the 

stimulus—we had about $900,000 for 2 years, as opposed to now 

we get, like, $60,000 for 2 years. But having those two services 

available in the community really complemented each other. 

We had our high-barrier families where you are the single mom 

that is 21 with five kids. Transitional housing gave us more time. 

It had intensive case management. They could seek mental services 

or if they had kids with disabilities, addiction counseling, those sort 

of things. 

Versus the Rapid Re-Housing model—ideally, it works best for 

first-time homeless, low-barrier. Rapid Re-Housing would be an 

ideal program for the issue that we face with our foster care system. Our families that have their children removed, placed in foster care, we have our human services that have a group of those. 

If those people could just find housing, they could get their kids 

back. That is not a program—they are not eligible for our services. 

But if we could take a program like Rapid Re-Housing and target 

it, or transitional housing, to that population, we could bring our 

families back together, we could support our families, as opposed 

to increasing the number of children remaining in foster care that 

as teenagers are either running, staying with other people, or they 

are aging out of foster care and then we are hitting on the other 

end as chronic homeless later on. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Trott, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TROTT. I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member for organizing this hearing today and also thank the panel 

for your time today but also and perhaps more importantly for all 

the good work you no doubt do every day back in your communities. 

Mr. Berg, so all of the other panelists have disagreed with your 

assertion that someone who is in a situation, a drug den or an abusive situation or maybe a potentially trafficking situation is eligible 

for the COC program. Do you stand by your position in that regard? 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
21 

Mr. BERG. Yes, absolutely. I would recommend the committee get 

HUD in here and let them explain all the rules that they have in 

place. 

Let me just be clear, though, we are talking about eligibility because this bill addresses eligibility. The program is not funded well 

enough— 

Mr. TROTT. Let’s talk about that in a minute. 

Mr. BERG. —to help everyone who is eligible. So that is a separate problem. And that is why a lot of people who need help aren’t 

getting it. 

Mr. TROTT. So the other panelists are just wrong with respect to 

their definition of eligibility. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. BERG. I think that to the extent that they have said what 

you said, that is not correct. 

Mr. TROTT. You said that HUD needs to ascertain what programs are working and this bill undermines that. How does it do 

that? 

Mr. BERG. Well, several provisions in the bill would prohibit 

HUD from setting various kinds of priorities, even though Congress 

has been quite clear over 20 years that they want HUD to set priorities based on what works best. 

Mr. TROTT. OK. So that is the basis for that conclusion. 

Mr. BERG. That and also the concern that, by massively expanding who is eligible for the program, there would be an overwhelming effect that would prevent— 

Mr. TROTT. Would you be supporting the bill if there was more 

funding? 

Mr. BERG. That is hard to say. 

Mr. TROTT. I am trying to determine whether really your opposition is based on lack of resources or some other, more fundamental 

concern. 

Mr. BERG. The fundamental concern is that this program has a 

very specific purpose, which is to quickly get people who are in immediate danger because of their housing situation out of that. 

There are a lot of other people, millions of people, who are being 

hurt by the fact that they don’t have decent housing. I think there 

are other approaches to that that would work better to fix that 

problem. 

Mr. TROTT. I appreciate that. 

Do you agree with Ms. Rounsville’s concern that the program, as 

currently configured, favors urban areas over rural areas? 

Mr. BERG. I am concerned about that. I can’t say definitely yes 

or no, but it is definitely a concern of ours. 

Mr. TROTT. So this is to the entire panel. 

Ms. Lilley, you have already responded quite eloquently, and 

your comments I found to be very powerful and persuasive. So you 

can certainly add in another suggestion besides community flexibility, but this is for the entire panel. 

The COC program, what one or two changes would you make, 

other than the debate we are having regarding the eligibility definition? 

Ms. DUFFIELD. I think the Homeless Children and Youth Act 

does what needs to be done, which is to go back to the original purpose of the COC, which is to really have the communities figure out 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
22 

what they need, as opposed to having HUD tell them what they 

need. 

So if those projects were scored based on a local plan and local 

plans that will identify whether they were for a local plan, then we 

would see a flexible, effective system. But right now it is a very 

heavy-handed system. There is no competition. The only competition is how well you can meet HUD’s priorities. 

Ms. ROUNSVILLE. I would agree with that. I think, in terms of 

the Continuum of Care process, if there was an opportunity to 

bring back programs like transitional housing that we knew 

worked within our communities, or if there was a way that our 

local communities could look at what our needs are—as I have 

talked about, in a 69-county area, trying to do a coordinated entry 

system that is identical through a 69-county area using a screening 

tool that maybe your local groups don’t agree with but another 

community wants, there are so many pieces that are required now 

in this geographic area, and when it becomes a 69-county area, it 

is very difficult to get everybody across that spectrum to follow onesize-fits-all. 

If there was flexibility that local communities or local regions 

could each have their own process and prioritize what our needs 

are, that would make sense. And maybe in another community, 

chronic homeless is their focus, and they need to continue serving 

that population. But that doesn’t preclude another group within the 

Continuum of Care from serving children in foster care, homeless 

and runaway youth, or other populations that may be what our 

highest need is. 

Mr. TROTT. Great. Thank you. 

I will yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, as well, to 

the Ranking Members and the witnesses. 

I would like to visit with you about empirical evidence. What I 

would like to know first is, are we spending too much money on 

homelessness? If we are and you believe we are, would you kindly 

extend a hand into the air? 

Please allow the record to reflect that none of the witnesses have 

extended a hand into the air. 

Mr. BERG. Could I just extend one finger in the air? Because we 

are spending a lot of money on homelessness, not to solve it, but 

to deal with it and manage it. Jails are spending money on homelessness. Mental health systems are spending money on homelessness. We are spending a lot of money on not solving the problem. 

Mr. GREEN. Are we spending too much is the question. 

Mr. BERG. We are spending too much money not solving the 

problem. We are not spending nearly enough to solve the problem. 

Mr. GREEN. Because we are not helping enough people, does that 

mean that we are wasting money? If you think so, would you kindly extend a hand into the air? 

Let me continue then. 

If you think we are wasting money, give me one empirical piece 

of evidence of how we are wasting it. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
23 

I think, Ms. Lilley, you had some evidence? 

Ms. LILLEY. Well, I do. 

So Mr. Berg continues to say that the families that we are trying 

to expand this definition to serve are already able to be served 

under the Continuum of Care. And what I keep reiterating is that 

they are not able to be served adequately based on their vulnerability score, which is fiscally irresponsible. 

Because we are saying that if you want assistance and you need 

assistance, we can offer you one form of assistance, regardless of 

whether or not your family has a chance of that form of assistance— 

Mr. GREEN. A quick follow up, if I may, Ms. Lilley. 

Ms. LILLEY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Are you indicating that because we are helping some 

and we are not helping others that that is a waste of money? 

Ms. LILLEY. I am indicating that because we cannot— 

Mr. GREEN. I didn’t quite get the answer to my question. Are you 

indicating that because we are helping others who need help that 

we are wasting money? 

Ms. LILLEY. No. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. 

Now, here is where I think we are. I think we are victims of a 

lilliputian conviction that the poor can do more with less and that 

the rich need more to do more. 

It really is painful to see you at odds with each other because 

we have decided that there is a finite amount of money that is 

available. It is very painful to see this happening, especially given 

that we are the richest country in the world, especially given that 

we continually tout the expanding economy and we talk about how 

great Wall Street is doing and how people are faring so well. To 

see you have to combat each other over some—did you say 4 percent, Mr. Berg?—4 percent of HUD’s budget, 4 percent, when, the 

truth be told, we need to expand the budget. 

Now, I know that there are those who would say that if you pass 

this bill we will expand the budget because we will appropriate the 

funds at the appropriate time. Well, there are ways to ascertain 

what will be needed for that appropriate time before we pass the 

bill. 

I believe that we ought to help every person that you have called 

to our attention, Ms. Lilley. I really do. I think yours is a noble 

cause. It is not a quixotic effort. It is noble. 

And, Mr. Berg, I believe you want to make sure that all the people who have been getting help continue to get help. But with this 

lilliputian theology—and it is almost a theology; not really—but 

this belief that the poor can do more with less, keep the finite 

amount of money, but expand the number of people who need it, 

and then have the debate that I see here today, which is very painful, very painful. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentleman yields back. 

The Chair now recognizes one of the coauthors and sponsors of 

this legislation, the gentlelady from the great State of Wisconsin, 

Ms. Moore, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MOORE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
24 

And I do want to thank the witnesses and apologize for my late 

arrival, but I am very, very interested in this topic. 

And I just want to associate myself with some of the comments 

that the gentleman from Texas just made, because it is painful to 

recognize that there is a dearth of funding to address this bill. 

I guess I have a comment before I ask any questions. I have 

found myself 67 years old, and, I am a person who has always had 

a sea of income—I have had an island of income in a sea of need. 

And so friends and family and strangers and others—I have taken 

in many homeless people. And the minute you take them in and 

they get a place on your couch for a night, they are no longer considered homeless, even though you are unable to extend that beyond a few days. And so that was, of course, my interest in this 

bill. 

I also understand the plight of runaway youth. And children in 

my community—we have one in four kids who go to bed hungry 

every night, so those folks who would qualify under the Child Nutrition Act. 

But I am empathetic with the notion that we are scrambling over 

crumbs that are falling from the master’s table. And this bill has 

been very well-intentioned over the years, but it has never come 

with the commitment to actually fund these programs. 

I am wondering, Mr. Berg—and forgive me if you are going to be 

repeating yourself because I was absent, but do you have some 

sense of how we can prime the pump to really meet the needs of 

all homeless people? 

And I do believe that you sincerely want to see us address homelessness. You mentioned we are spending money but we are not addressing it. Can you just share with me what you think would be 

worthy of our consideration? 

Mr. BERG. Sure. Absolutely. 

And thank you, Ms. Moore. I know you were a great proponent 

of the HEARTH Act a few years ago— 

Ms. MOORE. Yes. 

Mr. BERG. —that changed the eligibility rules, expanded the eligibility rules. 

But really what we are looking at in terms of a broader housing 

campaign, we are working with a lot of different organizations, including people from the education field, the healthcare field, to address the problem that we all recognize, that people don’t have 

housing that they can afford. Whether they end up homeless as a 

result or whether they end up on your couch, they still need help. 

We need more investment in rent subsidies. We need more building of houses that are affordable to people with those rent subsidies. And we need short-term help too. I mean, this is something 

that a lot of communities are understanding. They are looking— 

Ms. MOORE. So I guess what you are saying is that this is a wellintentioned bill, but there are some things we need to do preliminarily. Is that what you are suggesting? 

Mr. BERG. Yes. I mean, thinking you can really solve these problems by changing the eligibility rules in this little homeless program, that is not— 

Ms. MOORE. I mean, for example, I was stunned to learn just recently—we haven’t raised the minimum wage in a dozen years. 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
25 

And I don’t care how hard you work, there is no housing anywhere 

in the United States of America, urban, rural, ex-urban, a person 

cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment anywhere in America off a 

minimum wage job. So they are at risk of homelessness. 

So when you expand eligibility, if I am hearing you correctly, you 

may be bringing in a universe of people who earn the minimum 

wage. Is that— 

Mr. BERG. Right. 

Ms. MOORE. —a takeaway? 

Mr. BERG. Right. 

Ms. MOORE. OK. 

Any of the rest of you have anything to offer in my 8 seconds? 

Ms. DUFFIELD. I would like to comment. 

We are aligning definitions. This isn’t adding millions of people. 

We are actually talking about creating efficiencies. 

Ms. MOORE. OK. 

Ms. DUFFIELD. The HEARTH Act changes didn’t work, or we 

wouldn’t be here. Those categories that were added are not meeting 

the needs of the most vulnerable. We are actually creating a system that is so complicated that we spend millions of dollars on 

technical assistance to figure it out. We have flowcharts, like this, 

for the definition of chronic homelessness. 

So what is the better use of time? Documenting all of this, figuring out the three layers, figuring out all the regulations HUD 

added on to those categories, or talking to a school social worker 

who knows the child, talking to a Runaway and Homeless Youth 

Act program who knows the child? What is a better use of time? 

Taking advantage of existing systems that have identified these 

kids already and helping them collaborate better and leverage services, or running around documenting their status and all the many 

hoops that HUD has put before these children? 

Ms. MOORE. I can see that my time has expired. I just want to 

thank the Chairman for his generosity, and I yield back. 

Chairman DUFFY. The gentlelady yields back. 

Here, here, Ms. Duffield. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank our panel. This has been wonderfully informational. I actually appreciate the debate that you all had. That is actually helpful to us. It is inspiring that we can go back and forth 

and hear a rigorous conversation. So thank you. 

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. 

Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER

nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
(27) 

A P P E N D I X 

June 6, 2018 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLER
28 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 31473.001
29 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 31473.002
30 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 31473.003
31 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 31473.004
32 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 31473.005
33 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 31473.006
34 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 31473.007
35 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 31473.008
36 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 31473.009
37 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 31473.010
38 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 31473.011
39 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 31473.012
40 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 31473.013
41 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 31473.014
42 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 31473.015
43 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 31473.016
44 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 31473.017
45 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 31473.018
46 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 31473.019
47 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 31473.020
48 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 31473.021
49 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 31473.022
50 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 31473.023
51 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 31473.024
52 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 31473.025
53 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 31473.026
54 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 31473.027
55 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 31473.028
56 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 31473.029
57 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 31473.030
58 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 31473.031
59 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 31473.032
60 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 31473.033
61 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 31473.034
62 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 31473.035
63 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 31473.036
64 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 31473.037
65 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 31473.038
66 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 31473.039
67 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 31473.040
68 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 31473.041
69 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 31473.042
70 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 31473.043
71 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 31473.044
72 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 31473.045
73 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 31473.046
74 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 31473.047
75 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 31473.048
76 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 31473.049
77 

Æ 


nshattuck on FSR297 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 31473.050