How to Perpetuate Homelessness
Readers: I'm very excited to introduce Change.org's brand spankin' new guest blogger: Jill Currier (*cheers & applause*). Jill has spent her career getting homeless people off the streets while helping them navigate through the labyrinthian government application system to obtain housing, benefits, etc. (Case in point: last year, her three-person case management staff submitted over 800 housing applications.)
So when Jill approached me with concerns about the proposed changes to the Massachusetts emergency shelter system, my ears perked. This girls knows her stuff; she deals with "the system" everyday. So policy makers take note: When it comes to making sweeping changes to human services, it's probably a good idea to check in with the experts. That said, happy reading... and welcome, Jill! -Shannon Moriarty
* * *
In the state of Massachusetts, there are no financial requirements for entering an adult individual shelter. There is no verification of income, no asset test, no proof of bank accounts.
Family shelter, however, is a different ball of wax. Families must meet strict income and asset guidelines to enter shelter. Once in shelter, they can only stay for a limited amount of time. Compared to other states, Massachusetts already has some pretty stringent rules in place for homeless families who wish to receive assistance.
That is, until now. The proposed changes to the Emergency Assistance guidelines by Governor Deval Patrick's administration will make it even harder for families to access shelter, and more importantly, stay there until safe, sustainable housing is found.
Put simply, the proposed changes encourage poverty and homelessness, instead of curing and preventing them.
1. Instituting a mandatory 30 hour work requirement will not make available housing open any quicker.
For a single parent with one child, her monthly income must be below $1,579. Changes to the Emergency Assistance guidelines are proposing 30 hours of mandatory work per week, which "may be reduced as a reasonable accommodation for those with a disability." (emphasis added)
Assuming our hypothetical mom is complying with this guideline and finds herself working, she better make sure her job doesn't offer overtime, nor earn a wage over $12.16 per hour. At that rate, she will find herself over-income.
And making more money is good, right? And puts her on the road to self-reliance?
Try again.
2. Decreasing the over-income limit grace period from the six months to only three months puts families in danger.
Current guidelines allow a family to remain in shelter for six months after going over the income limit. This allows them time to save additional wages in escrow and continue the search for housing. By splitting this safety net in half, we are creating potentially dangerous situations for numerous families.
DTA (Dept. Transitional Assistance) Commissioner Julia Kehoe has stated in reference to the DTA upheaval that, "This consolidation underscores the Administration's understanding that homelessness is a housing issue." If the administration were aware that homelessness is a housing issue, decreasing the grace period would be the last idea they would come up with. Without qualifying for emergency shelter, there are no miraculous openings of affordable family housing waiting in the wings. Families are faced with living in their cars, returning to the streets, going back to abusive relationships, or being overcrowded with family and friends.
Of course, you can still continue your search for sustainable housing from your cousin's couch. Can't you?
3. By forcing families out of shelter, we are taking opportunities away from them.
Our housing authorities are run with strict tenant selection plans. The top priority for all of them is homelessness status. Being a veteran, being very low income, fleeing a domestically abusive situation... all of these can further add to a family's priority status, but homelessness supersedes them all.
According to HUD, you are homeless under a narrow set of criteria. Families are considered homeless if they are sleeping in places not meant for human habitation (e.g. cars, parks, sidewalks, abandoned buildings) or in a residence that is part of an established shelter system. Although wait times may vary for a homeless family, one truth remains: the wait time can typically be measured in months to two years. So if a family is housed (and, being "doubled-up" or "couch-surfing" is considered housed), the wait for permanent housing goes up astronomically. It can mean the difference between a 12 month wait and a 5-10 year wait.
4. Repercussions fall on the children for actions of the parents.
Regardless of one's feelings on poverty and homelessness, I think we can all agree we don't want children living out of cars or sleeping on the streets. While the suggested regulations are to make a flawed system work, they are wrongly punishing those that will be most affected - the children. One such proposal is that families be denied from shelter "who are experiencing homelessness because they have been evicted from, or abandoned without good cause, public or subsidized housing in the past three years." Those in positions to help these groups seem unphased, such as Bob Murray, president of the Falmouth Housing Corporation. In a recent interview with Joe Burns of the Bourne Courier and Falmouth Bulletin, Murray states:
I kind of like the idea that he's (Deval Patrick) tightening things. I think it's good for people to understand they have to take some responsibility for your life. There's many, many people out there today in difficult situations but also are irresponsible in their lives. I'm not saying all of them. I wouldn't be doing this work if I thought all of them were but there's great number of people out there who don't take the responsibility to take any job when they're really down and out. Life's not that way.
The family shelter system was put in place to protect our most defenseless citizens, the children. The new regulations would punish those who have had neither choice nor control over their situations.
5. Taken together, the proposed regulations are leaving a large gap - those that are making too much money to be sheltered, but not enough money to make it in the private market.
Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Kristina Barry has stated that the changes in regulations "may disqualify an estimated 170 families in the 2009 fiscal year and 924 families in the 2010 fiscal year from Emergency Assistance once they go into effect April 1." Our aforementioned single mother can not make more than $12.16 an hour for 30 hours per week without being asked to leave shelter in 90 days. While the Patrick administration seems to feel that these families would be housed within this time frame, I promise you that the actual wait lists are much longer (one needs only contact your local housing authority to find out an average time frame).
Perhaps our working mother should enter the private market. But according to HUD , the fair market value for the two bedroom apartment our mom would need, with utilities included, is $1,345 per month. To be considered NOT rent-burdened, a family should be spending less than 50% of their income on housing expenses. For this to be the case, our mom needs to be making a minimum of $32,280 a year; not the $18,970 per year that gets her and her child thrown out of shelter. Rather than finding a job at $12.16 per hour for 30 hours a week, she needs one that pays over $20.00. Where should she and her child stay while she works her way up to an extra $8.00 per hour?
Can they come live with you, Governor Patrick?
The views and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
COMMENTS (7)