Federal Homeless Policy Update

BRAD PAUL / Street Sheet 1may04

At least 900 local housing agencies and tens of thousands of low-income households are at imminent risk of losing their assistance as the result of new rule changes to the Section 8 program. A new formula adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement 2004 budget requirements changes the payment method of the Section 8 program and has the effect of no longer guaranteeing that the full cost of vouchers will keep pace with rent increases.

The Section 8 program is the largest source of federal housing assistance, covering nearly 2 million poor families. This decision by HUD has already led some managing agencies to issue contract terminations to landlords thereby initiating the process of notifying households that their rent subsidy is up. This latest bit of bad news comes on the heels of the President's 2005 budget request which puts 250,000 households nationwide at risk of losing rent assistance by (1) under-funding Section 8 by $1.6 billion, (2) waiving the requirement that the program serve primarily the poorest households, and (3) doing away with affordability standards that determine rent ceilings.

Remarkably, of any federal investment in low income housing, Section 8, which is a private sector-based program benefiting landlords, would seemingly win the favor of "free market" rowdies. But in slashing vouchers through the twin strategies of deep cuts and rule changes, the administration has chosen to sell its policies on a desire to "constrain rapid growth in the program's spending." Yet, virtually all of the Section 8's growth is related to rising housing costs. Furthermore, as a percentage of the overall federal budget and relative to the subsidy that homeowners enjoy every year through tax breaks and write-offs, the level of federal investment in low-income housing is absolutely shameful.

Given that, one must ask what the administration really has in mind when considering cuts to housing and their apparent hostility to even modest publicly-financed assistance for the nation's poor. Over the last three years, we've witnessed anemic housing budgets, active HUD opposition to a bipartisan national housing trust fund proposal, a continued and methodical dismantling of public housing, ambivalence toward homeless families, and a fierce gutting of Section 8. So, while the administration continues to explain any cuts within the context of reigning in program costs and providing greater "flexibility" (which, by the way, after "disconnect" is perhaps the most annoying, overused and meaningless word in Washington these days), perhaps an alternative explanation might be forwarded: how about these cuts represent a crude and cynical attempt to pay for a war and reckless tax cuts for the rich on the backs of the poor?

Sadly, the presidential campaign hasn't sparked a dialogue on the nation's housing crisis, but rather has produced talks of strategies to increase petroleum production and lower the price of gas. Maybe that's a good idea. After all, with the steady rise in homelessness and more cuts to Section 8 in the pipeline, we can expect to see more people living in their cars in the days ahead.

*     *     *

Speaking of housing trust funds, the south-west African nation of Namibia has beaten the United States to the punch and created a national housing trust fund. Prime Minister Theo-Ben Gurirab called the trust fund "a small step towards mitigating the plight of homelessness" and directed the fund's administrators to ensure that the money was properly used to assist the homeless.

Several clicks to the north in Glasgow, Scotland, public housing tenants have recently won a formal consulting role in actively shaping and determining priorities and expenditures under the roughly $112 million housing budget. Similarly, the German state of Sachsen-Anhalt requires that state and local authorities have an obligation to ensure the construction of affordable housing and prevent homelessness while the Greek constitution establishes state responsibility for providing housing for homeless people.

Where do such promising policies and developments come from? At minimum, it would seem that some states are attempting to abide by the spirit and guidance outlined in international human rights law: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), binding on all nations throughout the world, states in Article 25: "All persons have the right to an adequate standard of living, everyone has the right to standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of his family, including... housing" while the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), recognizes "...the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including... housing." Not bad. Maybe folks in Washington, DC have something to learn from our neighbors.

*     *     *

Next time you're on the phone with your member of Congress, ask them to support the following: The Day Laborer Fairness and Protection Act (HR2870). Day laborers comprise approximately 30 percent of the workforce, and are particularly vulnerable to nonpayment of wages, and the lack of access to social and legal services. Day laborers struggle to survive in an industry that is beset by low wages and worker abuses that perpetuate homelessness. This act would guarantee day laborers the same protections as those afforded to permanent workers.

Increased funding for homeless emergency assistance programs to $1.8 billion. HUD McKinney-Vento provides access to emergency shelter, transitional and permanent housing, and support services for people experiencing homelessness. President Bush's 2005 budget cuts this program by $3 million at a time when, according to the US Conference of Mayors, requests for emergency shelter have increased by 13 percent over the past year, and 30 percent of requests for shelter went unmet due to lack of space.

BRAD PAUL
National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness
http://www.npach.org