The House passed its version of the Transportation, Housing & Urban Development (T-HUD) appropriations bill on June 10 and, as of this writing (June 19), the Senate is handling housing within a “minibus” (including Commerce-Justice-Science (S-2437), Transportation-HUD (S-2438) and Agriculture (S-2389). The Senate T-HUD bill is less damaging to low-income households than is the House bill. But dozens of amendments have been offered by both parties, some damaging to housing vouchers and to providing additional housing units. A conference committee will need to be formed to work out a compromise between the House and Senate bills.

The House appropriations bill for HUD, part of H.R. 4745, provides $44.7 billion — $740 million less than Congress allocated for 2014. And the bill takes the majority of this $740 million out of programs for low-income families and individuals. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) says that the alarming aspect of the House appropriations bill is that it fails to fully fund the Housing Choice Voucher Program, cuts funding for public housing, flat funds homeless assistance grants, cuts the HOME program by 30%, and makes deep cuts to HUD’s fair housing, healthy housing and research programs. The House bill’s disproportionate reductions in these programs will mean less rental assistance, less help in related areas and therefore greater hardships for low-income families.

More than half of the households living in public housing today are seniors or people with disabilities. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) says that while most public housing developments manage to meet federal housing quality standards, chronic underfunding has created a large backlog of repair, renovation and other capital investment needs. A recent HUD report found that public housing developments had accumulated a $26 billion backlog of capital needs, and unfortunately, these needs will continue and be deepened over time.

The White House decried the low level of assistance to families in the House bill, even when comparing it to the depressed levels of 2014. Further, the proposed funding would not restore the sequestration cuts of 2013. Cuts to the homeless assistance grants would undercut the administration’s efforts to end chronic homelessness by 2016. The White House also blamed inferior funding levels on the potential delay of necessary maintenance and capital improvements that would undoubtedly expose low-income families to deteriorating living conditions, such as exposure of children to lead and malfunctioning fire sprinklers.

The Senate housing bill (released by the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 6) improves on that of the House, but would still fall far short in many ways, according to CBPP. Most importantly, the Senate bill would reduce the number of housing vouchers, the nation’s largest rental assistance program, by 76,000 relative to December 2012, whereas the House bill would reduce the number by 80,000 vouchers. The House bill, however, risks locking in the loss of 70,000 housing vouchers lost in 2013 due to sequestration.

The Housing Choice Voucher Program, the largest of the rental assistance programs, helps more than 2 million low-income families rent modest units of their choice in the private market. CBPP says that research shows housing vouchers sharply reduce homelessness and other hardships, lift more than a million people out of poverty and give families an opportunity to move to safer, less poor neighborhoods.

The National Alliance to End Homelessness maintains that the president’s 2015 budget would have allowed the housing voucher program to continue serving the more than 2 million households already in Section 8 housing and would be enough to undo some of the negative impacts of sequestration, although more would be needed. CBPP analysis shows that even the president’s 2015 budget request falls short on housing vouchers. Funding shortfalls might be due to the unexpected declines in FHA and GNMA receipts in the past year. Neither the president’s 2015 budget nor the congressional bills allows for the natural increase in the number of households and individuals that can be served by these programs. And that number is never static.

To protect low-income families, Congress should at least meet the president’s request for funding the Housing Choice Voucher Program, public housing and homeless assistance grants and should seek additional funds to restore to use the remainder of the 70,000 housing vouchers that were cut due to sequestration. NETWORK’s vision of economic equity requires that we all support public systems that provide what markets cannot do well – and affordable housing for low-income families and individuals is one major part of that vision.

It is no surprise that persons who become homeless are struggling in extreme poverty. There is no way to align homelessness with Catholic Social Teaching/Tradition. One who is living on the streets, in a shelter or their car, or even bunking in an overcrowded apartment is not living in dignity.

And certainly it does not show our nation as having a preferential option for people who are poor. For more than the ten years I have been with NETWORK, the organization has worked for passage of, and then funding for, the National Housing Trust Fund.

The purpose of the National Housing Trust Fund is to provide sufficient housing units available and accessible to persons at the extremely-low-income level. That refers to those whose income is at or below 30% of the “area median income” of the community.

Consider your own annual income – what would be 30% of that, as a family’s total annual income? Find out the median income of your city, town or county – would you be able to live your lifestyle with that income? Would you be able to afford a place for your family to live, adequate heating, sufficient food, medical care,… and the list goes on.

There are two big problems: there is not enough housing stock affordable and available, and people at the extremely-low-income level in most areas can’t afford housing that is available through current vouchers, of which there are also far too few! The trust fund would purchase, rehabilitate or otherwise make available additional units – at least 90% of which would be apartments. Most of these would be in multi-income complexes, so as not to further concentrate extreme poverty. The funding would be apart from annual discretionary funding in order to allow planning, construction and rehabilitation to take place. Currently, for every 100 households that are eligible, there exist only 35 units of housing.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed the National Housing Trust Fund into law. Its stated sources of funding were “GSEs” (government-sponsored enterprises) and additional profits that would be coming to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac due to their being allowed to guarantee higher priced mortgages. That was well and good – until two months later, when the bottom fell out of the housing market. Fannie and Freddie went through the next few years with no profit, and being in debt. Over the last couple of years that has turned around. They are now gaining profits, and have made the decision to fund some grants through the National Housing Trust Fund. Regulations are completed and have been put into effect.

However, now there are members of Congress trying to destroy the Trust Fund! Their reasoning is distorted/inaccurate. Most recently, the House Financial Services Committee attacked the Fund in its “Views and Estimates” paper in response to the President’s budget proposal. Their attacks were varied, such as:

• Calling it duplicative of other housing programs. (NO, there is no other program designated as providing housing units for this population, and the programs noted were for purchase of houses.)
• Fabricating information (Congressman Hensarling) that it would become an “ACORN-like” slush fund – this was countered by Congresswoman Waters, saying his comment is “unbelievable.”

NETWORK is grateful to those countering these accusations. Congressman Kildee (MI) proposed an amendment to clarify the differences between the Trust Fund and the other housing programs – however, it was defeated along party lines. The National Housing Trust Fund is well developed, the regulations are in place, and now the funding sources can be implemented. Advocates must work to keep congressional members from destroying this and other sources of assistance to those who struggle to have a place to call home.

My colleague here at NETWORK, Sister Marge Clark, in a blog at this site on March 2, drew attention to the National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) and some recent attacks on the fund itself. A research report by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), entitled “Affordable Housing Is Nowhere to Be Found for Millions,” released the week of March 9, highlights the acute need for the NHTF. It primarily analyzes the dire housing plight of all those who earn less than an area’s median income and thus depend on the fund and other related resources.

Let’s recall from Sister Marge’s blog that, although the NHTF was signed in 2008, it was not funded at that time because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government-sponsored enterprises – GSEs) were taken into conservatorship and their federally-mandated contributions to the NHTF were suspended. By 2014, both GSEs were garnering profits again and Housing Finance Agency Director Mel Watt said NHTF funding should be available by March 2016.

The NHTF was originally structured so that 75% of rental housing must benefit those considered “extremely low income” or ELI (those with incomes at or below 30% of the area median income). However, estimates for the amount of NHTF funds for 2016 are too small to significantly impact the current shortage of rental housing needed for households below an area’s median income. Thus, it is critical to build and preserve affordable housing for the lowest-income households by seeking funding through the annual budgetary process and to find other funding sources.

Lack of Affordable Housing Nationwide

NLIHC’s report focuses on the gap between the number of ELI households (and other low -income renters) and the number of rental homes that are both affordable and available to them across the nation. Specific information is also supplied at the state level as well as for the 50 largest metropolitan areas. The focus of the report, therefore, involves the country’s most vulnerable renters.

We are probably all aware of the diminishing stock of affordable housing through witnessing the growth of multifamily housing, especially in urban areas, or the total modernization (gentrification) of what previously constituted affordable housing. This housing is advertised for those with incomes at or above 50% of the area median income. Combined with the demolition or contract expirations of federally-subsidized housing as well as the loss of housing vouchers in recent years, this has exacerbated the situation. As a result, waiting lists for housing assistance are often years-long. “Federal housing assistance is so limited that just one out of every four eligible households receives it,” maintains the NLIHC report.

The dearth of housing stock is only part of the problem. Since the Great Recession, the number of renters has increased significantly due not only to the foreclosure crisis but also to population growth. Coupled with a growth in the number of ELI renter households, the mismatch in supply and demand has resulted in a notable shortage of affordable units for this segment of the population, which constitutes 24% of all renter households (2013 data, according to NLIHC).

For those who depend on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to cover housing costs, the NLIHC report says that in “181 housing markets across 33 states, one-bedroom rents exceeded 100% of monthly SSI income.” This fact illustrates another facet of the housing affordability problem: a large percentage of low-income households are considered “severely housing cost-burdened.” This is because they are spending 50% or more of their income on rent and utilities at a time when 30% is considered the norm. Any unforeseen expense, whether a car repair or an expensive illness, can become a financial disaster, leading to eviction and eventual homelessness (a subject not covered in this report, other than to conclude that the topic of affordable housing is even more egregious than this report indicates, and to suggest that homelessness requires increased investment for ELI households).

High Housing Costs Impact Spending on Other Needs

NLIHC’s research in some cases depended on recent surveys that found that housing cost-burdened renters cut back substantially in other areas such as healthcare, especially prescriptions, vehicle maintenance and even food, to pay the rent. These renters were more likely than homeowners to use payday lenders when finances were tight.

Such renters live “on the margins,” unable to afford savings for education, retirement or any long-term needs. Those facing housing challenges are often forced to double up with family members. This often leads to overcrowded conditions, and these are the same people who sometimes are forced to rent substandard housing with pest infestation, gas leaks and poor electrical systems.

Eligible ELI Renters Shut Out of Housing

Approximately 45% of the units considered affordable for ELI renter households are not available to them because they are occupied by higher-income households. In fact, there were only 31 affordable and availableunits per 100 ELI renter households.

So, who is occupying these units? Not those who have incomes above the area median, but probably other low-income households who are better off than ELI renter households. And none of this analysis takes into account the fact that the location of the rental may be too far from jobs, public transportation or other needed services and does not speak to the condition of the apartment, which could be execrable.

While the extent of the affordable housing shortage varies by state, the report was clear that “no state has sufficient housing units affordable to ELI renter households,” and “in every state, at least 60% of ELI renters paid more than half of their income on rent and utilities.” Yet some states have a wider gap to fill than others. The states where ELI renters were least likely to find housing affordable and available to them included Nevada, which had only 15 units per 100 ELI renters, California (21), Oregon and Arizona (22) and Florida (23). The states with the most affordable and available units per 100 ELI households were South Dakota (56) and Wyoming (55). Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island joined South Dakota (not Wyoming) in having a lower proportion of ELI renters facing a severe housing cost-burden; whereas at least 80% of ELI renters faced this situation in Nevada, California, Oregon, Arizona, Florida and Georgia.

City Differences

There is also great variation among the 50 metropolitan areas with the largest rental populations. The Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise metropolitan area in Nevada had the greatest need, with only 10 units that were affordable and available for every 100 ELI renter households. Compare these metropolitan areas with Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA (47) and Louisville/Jefferson County KY-IN (46).

Twenty (20) metropolitan areas experienced large increases (2013 compared to 2012) in the shortage of units affordable and available to ELI renters: Richmond, VA (21%), Pittsburgh (20%), Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise (17%), Washington DC -Arlington-Alexandria, VA (17%) and New Orleans-Metairie (14%). The other 30 metropolitan areas had relatively small decreases in their shortages of affordable and available housing for ELI renter households.

In seven of the 11 largest America’s cities most people rent their homes – up from five cities seven years ago. And the number of renters grew substantially in five of these cities. As the rental vacancy rates decreased due to increased demand, rents rose significantly and drove many low-income renters to outlying suburbs and beyond. The NLIHC report concludes, “As renting becomes more popular in large cities and elsewhere, it becomes more important to ensure that the lowest-income renters can access high quality, affordable housing in areas of opportunity.”

NETWORK’s Concerns

As Sister Marge has indicated, we, at NETWORK have been concerned about the issue of affordable housing for a very long time. The NLIHC report provides us with a distinctive lens from which to view the world of the ELI and other low-income households anew. We know that affordable housing stock is being lost as upper-income renters move back into metropolitan areas. The issue is compounded as retail/office space is rapidly constructed in these same areas and plots of land previously used for affordable housing are subtracted from the affordable domain.

As we have seen, when rental costs escalate, lower-income groups are forced to flee to less desirable areas or to areas farther from their work. All lower-income groups, including ELI renter households, suffer as they experience higher transportation costs and extra commuting time, added to other difficulties related to poverty.

At the same time, government’s attention and resources have neglected the needs of renters, focusing instead on issues relating to home ownership, primarily the foreclosure crisis.

What has happened on our watch is that low-wage workers have experienced the overpowering of their group by those more powerful and with more wealth. This situation is in opposition to a sense of solidarity and the common good. No low-income renter households, including ELI renters, can live in human dignity or enjoy meaningful security while facing the obstacles that the NLIHC report describes. All the more reason to defend the National Housing Trust Fund from anyone intent on distorting its meaning or destroying it outright.

All anyone has been talking about has been the Supreme Court recently, specifically its decisions on the Affordable Care Act subsidies and same-sex marriage. Yet there was a third, less-publicized decision that will also impact millions, though less directly than the two previous cases. The case is entitled Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project; in its decision, the Supreme Court protects the use of disparate impact analysis under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Some background: the Texas agency is being challenged over the methodology it uses to select construction sites for its low-income subsidized housing. According to the prosecution, said methodology reinforces housing discrimination that results in “segregated living patterns.” The defense, on the other hand, argues that their construction decisions are not racially-motivated. If the judges were to apply disparate impact analysis, the motivation behind the methodology wouldn’t matter; on the contrary, if they deemed such analysis inapplicable, the Texas agency would win the case.

What is disparate impact analysis? “Disparate impact analysis considers whether policies or practices have a disproportionate and deleterious impact on protected populations such as people with disabilities, women, families with children, or people of color.” However, a disparate impact charge only seeks to end those practices that serve no legitimate business need or serve a business need that could be accomplished with less harm done. In other words, if a policy “accidentally” discriminates, but it is for a legitimate business reason that can be done no other way, it can be maintained.

Why is this type of analysis so important? Well, the answer lies both in history and in our modern-day reality. Throughout our nation’s history, disparate impact analysis has helped end all types of discrimination. Additionally, since residential and housing discrimination tends to be very subtle in the twenty-first century, disparate impact analysis is vital to ensure equal treatment of all potential tenants and residents.

So what happened in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project? In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that housing policies can still be designated as discriminatory based on disparate impact analysis, upholding years of precedent and ensuring people can still, in the words of the Court, “counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.”

Overall, this is a vitally important decision by the Supreme Court and one that will help ensure that our work in moving towards the creation of a more just society can and will continue.

All anyone has been talking about has been the Supreme Court recently, specifically its decisions on the Affordable Care Act subsidies and same-sex marriage. Yet there was a third, less-publicized decision that will also impact millions, though less directly than the two previous cases. The case is entitled Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project; in its decision, the Supreme Court protects the use of disparate impact analysis under the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Some background: the Texas agency is being challenged over the methodology it uses to select construction sites for its low-income subsidized housing. According to the prosecution, said methodology reinforces housing discrimination that results in “segregated living patterns.” The defense, on the other hand, argues that their construction decisions are not racially-motivated. If the judges were to apply disparate impact analysis, the motivation behind the methodology wouldn’t matter; on the contrary, if they deemed such analysis inapplicable, the Texas agency would win the case.

What is disparate impact analysis? “Disparate impact analysis considers whether policies or practices have a disproportionate and deleterious impact on protected populations such as people with disabilities, women, families with children, or people of color.” However, a disparate impact charge only seeks to end those practices that serve no legitimate business need or serve a business need that could be accomplished with less harm done. In other words, if a policy “accidentally” discriminates, but it is for a legitimate business reason that can be done no other way, it can be maintained.

Why is this type of analysis so important? Well, the answer lies both in history and in our modern-day reality. Throughout our nation’s history, disparate impact analysis has helped end all types of discrimination. Additionally, since residential and housing discrimination tends to be very subtle in the twenty-first century, disparate impact analysis is vital to ensure equal treatment of all potential tenants and residents.

So what happened in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project? In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that housing policies can still be designated as discriminatory based on disparate impact analysis, upholding years of precedent and ensuring people can still, in the words of the Court, “counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification as disparate treatment.”

Overall, this is a vitally important decision by the Supreme Court and one that will help ensure that our work in moving towards the creation of a more just society can and will continue.