| Opening Doors A HOUSING PUBLICATION FOR THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY |
|||
MAY 2002 |
|||
9,800 Section
8 Housing
|
A publication of the
|
Featured in this Funding Alert are:
§ Strategies for the disability community to urge PHAs to apply all available Section 8 vouchers, including two other set-asides of Section 8 vouchers for people with disabilities;
§ An outline of how non-profit disability organizations can apply directly to administer vouchers through one of these set-asides; and
§
A brief overview of other available HUD funding opportunities.
More information on how to apply for all of these resources can also be found at www.tacinc.org.
Since 1995, the nation’s PHAs have been able to designate
federal public housing buildings as elderly only.
Once this designation occurs, people with disabilities under age 62 are
no longer permitted to move into the properties that have been designated (even
if they have been on the waiting list for years) unless there are no elderly
households on the waiting list.
Because elderly only designation has obvious negative
consequences for people with disabilities, each year since 1997, Congress has
provided new Section 8 vouchers for people with disabilities who are adversely
affected when units in public housing buildings are designated elderly only.
These vouchers have been made available each year to PHAs through the Rental
Assistance for Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities in Support of Designated
Housing Plans program (referred to as the “Designated Housing” program).
There is no question that people with disabilities have few
housing options left for them when studio and one-bedroom public housing
apartments are exclusively reserved for elderly households.
Consider the plight of John, a man with multiple sclerosis who is 45
years old. Until four years ago,
John earned $25,000 a year as a copy editor.
Unfortunately, his disability progressed so that he can no longer work,
and he now relies on $700 per month in Social Security Disability Income
benefits.
John applied for elderly/disabled public housing in 1999
and is still on the waiting list. In
2001, John’s PHA received approval from HUD to designate the units in this
public housing development as elderly only.
HUD’s approval means that as long as there is an elderly person on this
PHA’s public housing waiting list – even if they applied yesterday – the
elderly person will be offered the next vacant unit that becomes available.
The only way that John will be able to move into this property is if
there are literally no elderly households left on the waiting list.
Because the housing John applied for is very desirable, well located, and
well maintained, elderly households apply to live there on a regular basis.
John stands virtually no chance of getting a unit in this property until
he turns 62.
As part of the designation process, the PHA could have
requested new Section 8 vouchers from HUD to help people with disabilities like
John who were on PHA’s public waiting list or who might have applied at some
future time if the housing had not been designated. Unfortunately, this PHA decided not to request these
vouchers. HUD also did not obligate
the PHA to apply for new Section 8 vouchers for people like John as a condition
of approving the PHA’s Allocation Plan (the plan required by HUD in order to
designated any public housing units). In
its Allocation Plan, the PHA told HUD that they would make other resources
available for people like John. However,
John is still struggling to find an affordable apartment and doesn’t have a
Section 8 voucher to help him pay the rent.
Unfortunately, there are many people like John who have
been deprived of federally subsidized housing opportunities because of elderly
only housing policies. Housing
advocates for people with disabilities are still trying to decipher why PHAs
that have designated public housing units as elderly only do not apply for these
new vouchers and what can be done about it.
Public Law 104-120, which governs elderly only designation,
states that PHAs seeking to designate elderly only housing must give HUD a
description of “any plans to secure additional resources or housing assistance
to provide assistance to families that may
have been housed if occupancy in the project were not restricted” [emphasis
added]. HUD guidance issued on
March 12, 1997 further states that this law focuses on the total housing
needs of the low-income population of a community and not one group – such as
elderly households – in particular. The
HUD Notice further states:
In most communities, there are
substantial unmet housing needs of both elderly families and persons with
disabilities. For these
communities, a public housing authority’s demonstration that it will make reasonable efforts to provide tenant based assistance or other
appropriate resources to the non-designated group is sufficient for designation.
[Emphasis added]
The most obvious interpretation of the above federal policy
is that:
Þ
If there is an unmet
need for housing for people with disabilities in a community;
Þ
And
if a PHA intends to designate elderly/disabled public housing as elderly only;
Þ
And
if Congress has made available new Section 8 vouchers for people with
disabilities specifically for these PHAs designating elderly only housing;
Þ
Then
it is reasonable to expect that PHAs would be obligated to apply for them.
Through this Opening Doors Funding Alert, the
Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. (TAC) and the Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities Housing Task Force (CCD Housing Task Force) are urging housing
advocates for people with disabilities to contact PHAs that have been
designating elderly only housing and remind them of their obligation to apply
for these vouchers during this year’s Section 8 application process.
To be as effective as possible in these discussions, advocates will need
information about:
Ø Available Section 8 vouchers and how PHAs can apply for them; and
Ø
Which PHAs have designated elderly only housing and whether they
have or have not applied for Section 8 vouchers in conjunction with this
designation.
This year, Congress has appropriate $20 million in new
funding to provide 3,950 new Designated Housing Section 8 vouchers for people
with disabilities who can no longer move into elderly only public housing units.
A PHA is eligible to apply for up to 200 of these vouchers.
Applications for these vouchers are due to HUD by July 23, 2002.
Despite the number of public housing units that have
disappeared for people with disabilities over the years, PHAs have been slow to
apply for vouchers to replace these lost units. In fact, for the past several years, HUD has not received
enough applications from PHAs designating elderly only housing to give out all
the available vouchers. For
example, during a recent 12-month period, HUD approved 50 PHA Allocation Plans
but only 5 of these PHAs applied for the new vouchers that Congress linked to
public housing designation.
From these data, it is reasonable to conclude that many
people with disabilities who were on PHA public housing waiting lists – like
John mentioned above – have been left with no affordable housing options at
all. Advocates for people with
disabilities have been concerned by this lack of response from PHAs, and are
intent on making sure that PHAs do not shirk their responsibilities to people
with disabilities in their eagerness to create elderly only buildings.
In order to be eligible to apply for the new “Designated
Housing” vouchers, PHAs must have a HUD-approved Allocation Plan.
As stated above, HUD has been approving Allocation Plans since 1995, and
has approved a total of 196 plans to date.
These plans, in the aggregate, have designated approximately 63,000 units
of public housing as elderly only. Many
of these are units with accessibility modifications to accommodate the needs of
people with disabilities. More and
more units are being designated each month and HUD is now granting extensions to
plans that were originally approved in the mid-1990s.
PHAs with a HUD-approved Allocation Plan are eligible to
apply for this set-aside of Section 8 vouchers, even if the Allocation Plan was
approved three or four years ago. In
order to assist the disability community to identify these PHAs, TAC has
included a list of all PHAs with Allocation Plans approved since 1997 in Table
1. This table, which is
compiled from data made available by HUD, is organized alphabetically by state.
To view HUD’s most up-to-date listing, go to www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/designated.
A review of HUD’s data from Table 1
shows that some PHAs have neglected to apply for these new Section 8 vouchers
targeted to people with disabilities affected by designation, even though PHAs
have reduced the number of public housing units available to people with
disabilities. The table on page 6
indicates exactly how many public housing units were designated elderly only and
how many vouchers the PHA received from HUD that year.
It is important to note that PHAs that have designated elderly only
housing can apply year after year for new vouchers for people with disabilities
as long as: (1) Congress makes new vouchers available; and (2) the PHA can show
a need for the vouchers. To
illustrate how Table 1 should be interpreted, some examples of the data included
in this table are provided below:
Ø
The Municipal Housing Authority in Des Moines, Iowa designated 190
units of public housing as elderly only in 2001 but did not receive any
designated vouchers from HUD.
Ø
The Housing Authority of Durham, North Carolina also designated
elderly only housing in 2001 – 389 units in total – and requested 200
vouchers for people with disabilities to offset this loss of housing.
Ø
In 1999, the Housing Authority of West Warwick, Rhode Island
designated 250 units of public housing as elderly only but did not receive any
vouchers for people with disabilities in 1999, 2000, or 2001, even though
vouchers were available.
Ø
The City of Las Vegas Housing Authority also designated 570 units
as elderly only housing in 1999. However,
this PHA has received 200 new vouchers for people with disabilities each year
since 1999.
It is difficult to know for certain what happens to people
with disabilities on public housing waiting lists once designation occurs.
For example, it is reasonable to conclude that people with disabilities
in Las Vegas, Nevada who were adversely affected by designation were given other
housing options because the PHA applied for a total of 600 new Section 8
vouchers over a three-year period. However,
it is very difficult to learn what happened to people with disabilities in
communities that never received new vouchers to mitigate the impact of
designation.
To learn more, the disability community may want to ask
these questions to PHAs that did not receive new vouchers linked to designation:
If the answer to the last question is yes, then these
follow-up questions are also important:
It is clear that the disability community must take the
lead in holding PHAs accountable for designation, and must do more to ensure
that PHAs apply for every voucher that Congress makes available for elderly only
designation purposes. Showing a
legitimate demand for these vouchers is the best way to show federal policy
makers that these set-aside vouchers are needed – and will continue to be
needed – as long as PHAs continue to designate housing as elderly only.
To obtain new vouchers, the disability community must
immediately organize to do several things:
Unfortunately, the 97
percent utilization rate requirement is a real barrier for disability advocates
seeking to convince a PHA to apply for new vouchers. It is also a problem for people with disabilities who need
subsidized housing because there is no guarantee or obligation that a PHA
designating elderly only housing will set-aside any of its existing unused
vouchers for people with disabilities.
Remember that a PHA with housing designated
elderly only as far back as 1995 is eligible to apply to obtain new vouchers
from this set-aside, even if they have applied in the past. For HUD’s complete and most up-to-date listing of all
Allocation Plans, go to www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/designated.
In fact, last year, 8 of the 13 applications received by HUD for these
vouchers were from PHAs that had designated housing in prior years.
Below is a list of PHAs with HUD-approved elderly only Allocation Plans from 1997 through March 8, 2002.* This chart is adapted from HUD’s online version, posted at www.hud.gov/offices/pih/centers/sac/designated. Please refer to this site for information on Allocation Plans approved before 1997. The PHAs are organized by state including the number of units designated elderly only as well as the number of Section 8 vouchers awarded to the PHA in conjunction with the Allocation Plan (if any).
|
State |
Housing Agency (PHA) |
# Units Designated |
# Vouchers Awarded (Year) |
|||||
|
PHAs with Plans Currently Pending Approval |
||||||||
|
KS |
Topeka PHA |
unknown |
N/A |
|||||
|
LA |
PHA of New Orleans |
unknown |
N/A |
|||||
|
NE |
Omaha PHA |
unknown |
N/A |
|||||
|
OH |
Dayton Metropolitan PHA |
unknown |
N/A |
|||||
|
OH |
Zanesville Metropolitan PHA |
unknown |
N/A |
|||||
|
TN |
Tennessee Housing Development Agency |
unknown |
N/A |
|||||
|
PHAs with Approved Allocation Plans** |
||||||||
|
AL |
Mobile Housing Board |
122 |
122 (‘00) |
|||||
|
AZ |
City of Phoenix |
264 |
200
(‘98) |
|||||
|
CA |
City of Santa Barbara PHA |
142 |
100
(‘97) |
|||||
|
CA |
Imperial Valley PHA |
34 |
49
(‘97) |
|||||
|
CA |
Kern County PHA |
150 |
150 (‘98) |
|||||
|
CA |
Oakland PHA |
383 |
85 (‘01) |
|||||
|
CO |
Boulder City PHA |
95 |
none |
|||||
|
CT |
Danbury PHA |
152 |
152 (‘99) |
|||||
|
CT |
Greenwich PHA |
150 |
78 (‘00) |
|||||
|
CT |
PHA of City of New Haven |
95 |
none |
|||||
|
CT |
Manchester PHA |
100 |
36 (‘00) |
|||||
|
CT |
Naugatuck PHA |
104 |
20 (‘00) |
|||||
|
CT |
Norwalk PHA |
249 |
50 (‘98) |
|||||
|
CT |
Stratford PHA |
171 |
none |
|||||
|
CT |
Torrington PHA |
198 |
none |
|||||
|
CT |
Vernon PHA |
136 |
none |
|||||
|
CT |
Winchester PHA |
79 |
20 (‘01) |
|||||
|
CT |
Windsor Locks PHA |
60 |
32 (‘00) |
|||||
|
DC |
DC PHA*** |
392 |
47 (‘99); 200 (‘00) |
|||||
|
FL |
PHA of Brevard County |
159 |
200 (‘00) |
|||||
|
FL |
PHA of Hollywood |
90 |
none |
|||||
|
FL |
PHA of the City of Daytona Beach |
142 |
30
(‘98) |
|||||
|
FL |
PHA of the City of Key West |
199 |
none |
|||||
|
FL |
PHA of the City of Lakeland |
33 |
none |
|||||
|
FL |
PHA of the City of Miami Beach |
200 |
none |
|||||
|
FL |
Hialeah PHA |
640 |
148 (‘01) |
|||||
|
FL |
Jacksonville PHA |
617 |
75 (‘98) |
|||||
|
FL |
Melbourne PHA |
100 |
none |
|||||
|
FL |
Miami-Dade PHA |
381 |
200 (‘99) |
|||||
|
FL |
Orlando PHA |
48 |
none |
|||||
|
FL |
Palm Beach County PHA |
100 |
none |
|||||
|
FL |
Tampa PHA |
600 |
150 (‘99) |
|||||
|
GA |
PHA of Fulton County |
223 |
none |
|||||
|
IA |
Des Moines Municipal PHA |
190 |
none |
|||||
|
IA |
Keokuk PHA |
50 |
none |
|||||
|
IA |
Waterloo PHA |
50 |
none |
|||||
|
IL |
PHA of Elgin |
150 |
none |
|||||
|
IL |
PHA of the City of Waukegan |
98 |
none |
|||||
|
IL |
Morgan County PHA |
173 |
none |
|||||
|
IL |
Peoria PHA |
297 |
none |
|||||
|
IN |
PHA of the City of New Albany |
365 |
200 (‘00) |
|||||
|
KS |
Lawrence PHA*** |
294 |
30 (‘99) |
|||||
|
KS |
Newton PHA |
100 |
none |
|||||
|
KS |
Wichita PHA |
176 |
176 (‘99) |
|||||
|
KY |
PHA of Louisville |
59 |
none |
|||||
|
KY |
Lexington-Fayette Urban County PHA |
185 |
25
(‘97) |
|||||
|
KY |
Owensboro PHA |
76 |
none |
|||||
|
LA |
PHA of New Orleans |
168 |
none |
|||||
|
LA |
PHA of the City of Jennings |
40 |
none |
|||||
|
MA |
Brockton PHA |
758 |
100
(‘98) |
|||||
|
MA |
Cambridge PHA |
817 |
200
(‘97) |
|||||
|
MA |
Lowell PHA |
596 |
none |
|||||
|
MA |
New Bedford PHA |
58 |
none |
|||||
|
MD |
PHA of Baltimore City*** |
157 |
200
(‘98) |
|||||
|
MI |
Battle Creek Housing Commission |
150 |
100
(‘98) |
|||||
|
MI |
Bay City PHA |
115 |
50
(‘01) |
|||||
|
MI |
Dearborn Housing Commission |
313 |
50 (‘00) |
|||||
|
MI |
Detroit Housing Commission |
1584 |
none |
|||||
|
MI |
Eastpointe Housing Commission |
164 |
none |
|||||
|
MI |
Hamtramck Housing Commission |
150 |
none |
|||||
|
MI |
Inkster Housing Commission |
120 |
none |
|||||
|
MI |
Lincoln Park Housing Commission |
103 |
none |
|||||
|
MI |
Livonia Housing Commission |
158 |
25 (‘01) |
|||||
|
MI |
Pontiac Housing Commission |
175 |
none |
|||||
|
MI |
Roseville Housing Commission |
214 |
none |
|||||
|
MI |
Saginaw Housing Commission |
306 |
none |
|||||
|
MN |
City of Minneapolis PHA |
2718 |
none |
|||||
|
MN |
HRA of the City of South St Paul |
296 |
none |
|||||
|
MN |
Moorhead Public Housing Agency |
47 |
none |
|||||
|
MO |
Excelsior Springs PHA |
79 |
none |
|||||
|
MO |
Kansas City PHA*** |
179 |
none |
|||||
|
MO |
St. Louis PHA |
40 |
none |
|||||
|
MT |
Butte County Housing and Redevelopment Commission |
66 |
10
(’01) |
|||||
|
NC |
PHA of Asheboro |
50 |
none |
|||||
|
NC |
PHA of Asheville |
4 |
none |
|||||
|
NC |
PHA of Charlotte |
727 |
200
(‘99) |
|||||
|
NC |
PHA of Durham |
389 |
200
(‘01) |
|||||
|
NC |
PHA of Greensboro |
427 |
100
(‘97) |
|||||
|
NC |
PHA of High Point |
224 |
50
(‘97) |
|||||
|
NC |
PHA of Winston-Salem |
306 |
73
(‘97) |
|||||
|
NE |
Omaha PHA |
268 |
100
(‘97) |
|||||
|
NH |
Dover PHA |
184 |
30
(‘97) |
|||||
|
NH |
Somersworth PHA |
49 |
none |
|||||
|
NJ |
Clementon PHA |
70 |
20
(‘01) |
|||||
|
NJ |
Englewood PHA |
152 |
none |
|||||
|
NJ |
PHA of Gloucester County |
180 |
none |
|||||
|
NJ |
Lakewood Township |
144 |
none |
|||||
|
NV |
City of Las Vegas PHA |
570 |
200
(‘99); 200 (‘00); 200 (‘01) |
|||||
|
NV |
North Las Vegas PHA |
120 |
71
(‘00) |
|||||
|
NY |
Amsterdam PHA |
195 |
none |
|||||
|
NY |
City of Buffalo |
990 |
200
(’99) |
|||||
|
NY |
Geneva PHA |
98 |
none |
|||||
|
NY |
Gloversville PHA |
217 |
none |
|||||
|
NY |
New York City PHA |
9849 |
200
(‘99); 200 (‘00); 200 (‘01) |
|||||
|
NY |
Plattsburgh PHA |
100 |
none |
|||||
|
OH |
Allen Metropolitan PHA |
40 |
none |
|||||
|
OH |
Ashtabula Metropolitan PHA |
221 |
60
(‘97) |
|||||
|
OH |
Clermont Metropolitan PHA |
58 |
none |
|||||
|
OH |
Columbus Metropolitan PHA |
30 |
none |
|||||
|
OH |
Cuyahoga Metropolitan PHA |
2499 |
none |
|||||
|
OH |
Dayton Metropolitan PHA |
433 |
none |
|||||
|
OH |
Hamilton County |
352 |
none |
|||||
|
OH |
Licking Metro PHA |
98 |
30
(‘00) |
|||||
|
OH |
Lucas Metropolitan PHA |
407 |
150
(‘97) |
|||||
|
OH |
Trumbull Metropolitan PHA |
150 |
none |
|||||
|
OK |
Oklahoma City PHA |
201 |
200
(‘00) |
|||||
|
OK |
Shawnee PHA |
122 |
none |
|||||
|
OK |
Tulsa PHA |
79 |
none |
|||||
|
OR |
Coos-Curry PHA |
50 |
none |
|||||
|
OR |
PHA of the City of Salem |
62 |
44 (‘97) |
|||||
|
PA |
Allegheny County PHA*** |
881 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Blair County PHA |
26 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Bucks County PHA |
561 |
150
(’99) |
|||||
|
PA |
Butler County PHA |
158 |
50
(’97); 75 (‘99) |
|||||
|
PA |
Chester PHA |
195 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Cumberland County PHA |
59 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Easton PHA |
100 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Franklin County PHA |
55 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
PHA City of Pittsburgh** |
77 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Harrisburg PHA |
510 |
150
(‘00) |
|||||
|
PA |
Indiana County PHA |
10 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Johnstown PHA |
354 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Lackawanna County PHA |
312 |
100
(‘98) |
|||||
|
PA |
Lehigh County PHA |
190 |
190
(‘00) |
|||||
|
PA |
McKeesport PHA |
200 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Nanticoke PHA |
291 |
none |
|||||
|
PA |
Philadelphia PHA*** |
425 |
200
(‘98); 150 (‘99) |
|||||
|
PR |
Puerto Rico Department of Housing |
40 |
none |
|||||
|
RI |
Newport PHA |
110 |
none |
|||||
|
RI |
North Providence PHA |
127 |
25
(‘97) |
|||||
|
RI |
Pawtucket PHA |
346 |
75
(‘97) |
|||||
|
RI |
Portsmouth PHA |
40 |
none |
|||||
|
RI |
South Kingston PHA |
16 |
none |
|||||
|
RI |
Tiverton PHA |
45 |
none |
|||||
|
RI |
Town of Bristol PHA |
220 |
none |
|||||
|
RI |
West Warwick PHA |
250 |
none |
|||||
|
TN |
Chattanooga PHA |
610 |
100
(‘00) |
|||||
|
TN |
Cookeville PHA |
158 |
none |
|||||
|
TN |
Memphis PHA |
80 |
none |
|||||
|
TX |
PHA of the City of Houston |
155 |
50
(‘98) |
|||||
|
VA |
Hampton Redevelopment and PHA |
126 |
none |
|||||
|
VA |
Norfolk Redevelopment and PHA |
100 |
none |
|||||
|
VA |
Petersburg Redevelopment and PHA |
100 |
none |
|||||
|
VT |
Brattleboro PHA |
166 |
75
(‘98) |
|||||
|
WA |
Seattle PHA |
131 |
200
(‘01) |
|||||
|
WI |
Middleton PHA |
126 |
none |
|||||
|
WI |
Milwaukee County PHA |
1241 |
none |
|||||
|
WV |
PHA of the City of Charleston |
214 |
none |
|||||
|
WV |
PHA of the City of Huntington |
350 |
56
(‘00) |
|||||
|
WV |
PHA of the City of Martinsburg |
105 |
none |
|||||
Sources of Housing Needs Data for
People with Disabilities
|
There may be some PHAs that were required by HUD to
apply for Section 8 vouchers as a condition of their Allocation Plan approval
but have nonetheless failed to submit an application. The best way to check to see if PHAs are applying is to
contact your local HUD Office (contact information is available at www.hud.gov/local/index.cfm)
and ask for the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
Be sure to ask if the PHA has HUD approval to designate public housing
units. Also, ask the HUD staff if there were any conditions imposed
by HUD as part of this designation. This
can be determined by reading the HUD letter that approved the designation.
Be sure to ask if the PHA actually followed through with a Section 8
application. If they did not, then
the PHA has not met the conditions of HUD’s approval of the Allocation Plan.
As mentioned above, PHAs with Section 8 utilization rates
less than 97 percent are not eligible to apply for new vouchers under this
year’s NOFA. There are
approximately 2,600 PHAs currently administering a Section 8 program, and only
994 of those appear on HUD’s list of PHAs eligible to apply for new vouchers
this year. Nationally, this is only
38 percent of the PHAs with Section 8 programs.
However, this fact should not deter the disability
community from finding out if elderly only designation is negatively affecting
people with disabilities. In lieu
of obtaining new vouchers, advocates can propose that the PHA set-aside some of
its existing unleased vouchers so that they may be issued to people with
disabilities who have been adversely affected by designation.
PHAs unwilling to agree to set-aside unleased vouchers for this purpose
should be reminded that they will need HUD approval to renew or extend their
Allocation Plan and that the disability community will hold the PHA accountable
at that time.
These situations illustrate the need for the disability
community to monitor PHA elderly only designation activities.
If some PHAs have not focused on the negative consequences of designation
in the past, advocates can get involved now to ensure that all elderly only
designation plans for the future are fairly implemented and include the
necessary new Section 8 vouchers for people with disabilities who need them.
Other Section 8
Vouchers Available through This Year’s SuperNOFA
In addition to the 3,950 vouchers linked to PHA Allocation
Plans, there are two other Section 8 voucher appropriations that the disability
community should be aware of:
1.
$20 million in funding for 3,950 one-year Section 8 vouchers targeted to
non-elderly people with disabilities available though the Rental Assistance
for Non-Elderly Persons with Disabilities Related to Certain Developments
program (referred to as the “Certain Developments” program).
These Section 8 vouchers are intended to help replace the loss of housing
units for people with disabilities that has occurred from the implementation of
elderly only housing policies in privately owned HUD- assisted housing.
Only PHAs can apply for these funds and can request up to 200 vouchers.
These applications are due on July 2, 2002.
2.
$53.9 million in funding for 1,900 five-year Section 8 vouchers
exclusively targeted to people with disabilities available through the Mainstream
Housing Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities program.
These funds are available to both qualified non-profit disability
organizations as well as PHAs administering a Section 8 program.
Qualified applicants can apply for up to 75 vouchers and will be selected
through a lottery system. The
application deadline is July 22, 2002.
This is the sixth year that Congress has attempted to
ensure that new Section 8 Certain Developments vouchers are available in
communities that have lost housing for people with disabilities because
HUD-subsidized privately owned housing is also being converted to elderly only
housing. TAC and the CCD Housing
Task Force have written extensively about this loss of housing – estimated at
approximately 275,000 units – which is much greater than the loss of public
housing discussed above (see issue
15 of Opening Doors for more on this topic).
Unfortunately, this year’s NOFA for these funds continues
to be difficult for PHAs to respond to because – unlike the public housing
designation data that appears in Table 1 – HUD still does not know which
HUD-assisted housing owners have actually designated their properties as elderly
only. Despite this lack of
information, the Certain Developments NOFA requires PHAs to identify specific
properties in the community that have been designated by owners and work with
the owners to refer people with disabilities who are still on the waiting lists
at these properties to other affordable housing resources.
As a practical matter, the complicated process outlined by
HUD in the NOFA – which a PHA must follow in order to obtain these 3,950 new
vouchers for people with disabilities – means that very few PHAs have actually
applied for these vouchers. Because
so few PHAs apply, those that do submit qualified applications are almost always
funded! Disability advocates have
been able to convince a number of creative and innovative PHAs to work with them
to obtain these vouchers. For
example, the State of Connecticut recently obtained 200 of these vouchers, which
will enable the Corporation for Supportive Housing and the State to proceed with
the development of more than 300 units of permanent supportive housing for
homeless people and people with disabilities at risk of homelessness.
Different from any other Section 8 vouchers described
previously, HUD is again permitting both PHAs and qualified non-profit
disability organizations to apply for new Mainstream vouchers.
The good news is that this program gives non-profit disability
organizations a chance to bring new Section 8 vouchers into their communities
– and approximately 25 have received them since these vouchers were first made
available to non-profits in 1999. The
bad news is that each year only a few non-profit disability organizations
(typically between eight to 12) are actually funded, even though hundreds of
organizations submit applications. There are usually more applications from PHAs,
and so more PHAs are funded. However,
non-profit disability organizations that can qualify to apply should not
overlook these vouchers. To assist
non-profits to evaluate their options, TAC has posted further information on its
website ( http://www.tacinc.org ).
The SuperNOFA also announced the availability of $950
million in funding for HUD's three McKinney/Vento Homeless Assistance programs.
Funding for these homeless programs is available through the development
and submission of a Continuum of Care plan to HUD.
The deadline for the submission of applications for McKinney/Vento
Homeless Assistance funding is June 21, 2002.
The Continuum of Care is a comprehensive strategic plan to
address homelessness developed via a community-wide planning/decision-making
process involving government officials; advocates; people who are homeless and
formerly homeless; non-profit organizations from the housing and service
sectors; and other local stakeholders. The
Continuum of Care process analyzes the services and housing available in a
community compared to the needs of people who are homeless.
This process includes the development of strategies and action steps to
address identified Continuum needs, including applying to HUD for homeless
program funds.
To increase the amount of permanent housing provided
through the McKinney/Vento Homeless Assistance programs, Congress has again
mandated that HUD spend at least 30 percent of its McKinney/Vento appropriation
on permanent housing. This is the
fourth year in a row that HUD has been subject to this requirement.
This set-aside amounts to approximately $302 million, which can be spent
on new or renewal Supportive Housing Program permanent housing projects, new
Shelter Plus Care projects, new Section 8 SRO projects, and any new and renewal
Safe Haven projects that are administered like a permanent housing program
(i.e., tenants have their own leases). [NOTE:
Congress also set-aside an additional $118 million specifically to renew
expiring Shelter Plus Care grants, which are not counted toward the 30 percent
set-aside].
Again this year, HUD has created a permanent housing bonus
in order to encourage more permanent housing applications.
This year the value of the permanent housing bonus – which is added
to the community’s “pro-rata need share” – is either $500,000 or the
Continuum of Care’s pro-rata need amount, whichever is less.
The bonus will be provided to Continuum of Care systems that rank a new
permanent housing project as their number one priority in their HUD application.
This permanent housing bonus is an incentive for non-profit
organizations and governments to ensure that new permanent housing projects are
submitted to HUD for funding. There
are also other permanent housing incentives in this year’s NOFA – including
offering up to 5 points in the scoring criteria for Continuum of Care
applications, which have at least 50 percent of their requested funding (up to
the pro-rata need amount) dedicated to housing activities.
For more information, read issue 13 of Opening
Doors.
Approximately $117.5 million in funding is available to
develop housing through the Section 811 Supportive Housing Program for Persons
with Disabilities. The Section 811
program was designed to help people with disabilities that have very low incomes
live independently in the community by giving non-profit organizations the
resources to develop safe and affordable housing. The application deadline is June 5, 2002.
Section 811 funding may be used by non-profit organizations
to finance the construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, and operating costs of
a variety of housing options ranging from small group homes and independent
living facilities to units in multi-family housing, condominiums, and
cooperative housing developments. For
more information, go to www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm.
HUD also announced the availability of $27.5 million in
funding for projects serving low-income persons with HIV/AIDS through the
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program.
This funding may be used to develop projects that will serve as effective
models in addressing the housing and related supportive service needs of
low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families.
Housing-related activities that this funding may be used for include: housing information services; rental assistance; construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, lease, or repair of facilities to provide housing and services; operating costs for housing; and short-term rent, mortgage, and utility payments. For more information, go to www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm.
Back to beginning | Opening Doors | TAC | CCD Housing Task Force