Can Public Housing Change its Stripes?

Stars above! For the first time in 10 years, the Chicago Housing Authority has opened its waiting list for families seeking housing assistance. Expect the list to mushroom by at least 40,000, just a fraction of those in need. There are no guarantees for any of the "lucky" applicants, for they face a lottery and then a daunting vetting process.

On another front, Congress may soon look at some major, and controversial, changes for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's public housing programs designed to bolster this bedraggled agency's effectiveness. Improvements? Why do I not trust that to happen?

When you are poor, unless you're very lucky, getting and keeping a roof over your head is no easy task. Never has that been more true than today, with barriers like bad credit and (nonviolent) criminal history meaning applicants need to crawl through the keyhole to get a publicly-funded place to live. Here's just a partial list of documents needed to apply for Section 8 housing:

1. Current contract for the rental space
2. Original birth certificates for all family members
3. Social Security cards for all family members
4. Proof of most recent income (child support, etc.), dated within the past 30 days
5. Other documents may be required

I don't know about you, but I'd have trouble coming up with those items.

With the skyrocketing numbers of people hitting the ranks of the impoverished, a look backward might give some perspective as to what's ahead.

Public housing was created back during the Great Depression, in 1937, at a time when spending fatigue had hit Congress. Sound familiar? Created primarily for urban ghettos, soon "the projects" became synonymous with housing for the poor. Typically, the projects deteriorated as poverty issues were ignored. And many have been torn down, replaced on a far less than 1:1 ratio, with scattered site housing creating its own problems, primarily homelessness and despair for those unlucky households not able to qualify for assistance.

While some applicants for housing assistance failed because of criminal records (real or imagined), HUD leaders have had a, um, colorful history of "shenanigans," described here by the libertarian Cato Institute. That can be someone else's story on another day, but it's worth considering as Congress starts tweaking HUD, knowing that leadership changes, and "confusion" can set in, undoing any progress made by previous administrations.

My experience dealing with local public housing authorities (PHA) has been a test of my ability to restrain homicidal urges. A few years back I looked into how they "worked" on a local level and found they were governed by a body of people appointed by the mayor. In most cases, the mayor seemed to have washed his or her hands of it once the board was picked. The abysmal abuse of power, lack of oversight and transparency, and blatant disregard for the population they were supposed to serve was appalling. And little could be done.

A fair housing advocate friend of mine from Virginia shared a story about a client who was "denied housing because he had a criminal history — of course, it was not his criminal record and he could prove it but the housing authority would not discuss the matter. Oh and he also carried a MH (mental health) diagnosis."

A call I received this weekend illustrated the powerlessness of "consumers" (the agency's way of saying they care about their clients) in accessing help. A physically and mentally disabled, but capably intelligent, mother and her 13-year-old son lost housing last week and the mother ended up sleeping in her car. She had asked for help when she learned the landlord was selling the house from under her, but help was too slow in coming. According to the caseworker I spoke to at this Washington, Pennsylvania housing agency, the mother's appointment this week will not bear fruit. The waiting list is so long she won't even begin to predict when housing will be available.

Can I suggest that public housing agencies nationwide could use a major make-over? Some a total do-over. Mention "housing authority" to anyone who has had any reason to contact one, consumer or agency personnel, and you'll get rolling eyes or foaming at the mouth. That doesn't even touch the supply/demand issue.

To be fair, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, an Obama pick, who inherited HUD's history of dysfunction (pdf), is getting high marks from some folks I know who have been around long enough to know the culprits. One state official told me, "We have actually recently had some decent experiences with housing authorities. HUD is really pushing them to work with human service agencies through the competitive process. It's truly uncomfortable for them, and many PHAs won't even apply for the vouchers because it's too much work to figure out new MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding) .... "

Still, this idea of privatizing all/part of HUD operations makes me nervous. I don't know how to fix HUD, but strongly urge that safeguards are solidly in place to prevent HUD from repeating history. A no-cost show of good faith would be to get local PHAs to change their MO to exude respect for their consumers, which may eventually become mutual.

Seems to me since housing is a human right, it's far past time to make that happen. What might be needed is a benevolent dictator, but for now our benevolent leader is up to his arse in oil-covered alligators.

Photo credit: Diane Nilan