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.

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.

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.

As I checked my coat, warm hat, heavy boots, scarf and gloves early one dark morning on the way to NETWORK in sub-freezing temperatures, my thoughts turned to people who are experiencing poverty, those viscerally impacted by this frigid weather, and wondered how they coped. Since I’ve volunteered about 20 hours each week at various homeless shelters (Arlington-Alexandria Coalition for the Homeless, better known as AACH, in Arlington; N Street Village and Bethany in D.C.; and Carpenter’s Shelter and David’s Place in Alexandria) in our area for the past 9 ½ years, my thoughts are more than mere speculation.

When I first started volunteering, I was concerned that everyone had a warm coat. People gave generously, so our donations in that area of clothing were usually ample. We even staged a special “Coat Day” a la fashion show at Bethany (part of N Street Village) in late fall each year. And hats and scarves, many hand-knitted or crocheted, did not seem to be problematic. But warm gloves and boots, nearly everywhere, have always been in great demand in seasons with plenty of snow, ice and storms, like the present winter, and never seem to be sufficient, despite special drives to collect them. As a consequence, the hands and feet of people who are homeless, suffer more than their share of the onslaught of the freezing temperatures.

Have you ever seen the hands or feet of someone who is homeless? Yes, they are red, chapped, scaly, callused, and in general, a sorry mess – and this is apart from any major problems with these extremities. Their hands and feet in this wintry wallop take a beating, which prompted me on occasion to bring hand and feet creams containing shea butter to the shelters in the winter time. Of course, my supplies were never sufficient and I always noticed an uptick in the inquiries, especially at the drop-in centers for those who lived on the streets – Bethany and David’s Place – for body lotions and hand creams as the weather became colder. Visitors to these centers, most of whom have jobs, usually part-time, are no different than the rest of us when it comes to seeking protection for their raw skin.

One basic principle I learned at the shelters is that clean clothes are not only hygienic, but also an aid to staying warm. Garments matted with dirt or grime, of which I saw plenty, lose insulation. At David’s Place, one of my responsibilities was to assist guests with their laundry. Once I learned about the connection between clean clothes and warmth, as each winter approached, I took on this task as a “happy obligation,” and so did most of the people who spent time there.

The Washington, D.C. region, where I live, does not begin to compare on the index of cold weather to the areas of the North – New York, Boston and the New England area, Detroit (my hometown), Chicago, Minnesota and the Great Plains states, etc. According to meteorologists, the polar vortex descended from the North in early January to blanket much of the country in bitter cold, harsh winds and “tons” of snow that even the North is singularly unused to dealing with. Lately, we’ve been experiencing the usual (or unusual, depending on the precise geographic area) January blast of bone-chilling winter air accompanied by more snow and ice.

Hypothermia Shelters during the Winter

Imagine struggling to survive outside in “Siberian Express” conditions (as some have referred to this January). For people already living on the margins, severe cold poses a threat to their very lives. Exposed skin risks frostbite, gangrene and severe infection, even the more serious condition of hypothermia. But aren’t there hypothermia shelters open from November through March? – you may ask. Yes, in many areas of the country, including my own. However, these shelters are normally open from 7:00 pm to 7:00 am, after which these vulnerable people are exposed to frostbite and hypothermia if they can’t find an indoor venue that accepts them.

Some of these shelters stay open during part of an especially frigid day, though not all do. Some cities have warming centers. However, many hypothermia shelters are not people-friendly; indeed, many are inhospitable or downright dangerous. Theft, sexual assault and other abuses are commonplace in many shelters. Drugs and violence are major problems. Bedbugs and other parasites are also prevalent. They infest bedrolls, backpacks, clothes and other possessions. No matter how well shelters are maintained, parasite infestation is high, as I can attest firsthand. All the organizations where I volunteered, despite their many efforts at cleanliness and their zeal in frequent spraying, suffered from the problem of parasites, although not from the other abuses I noted.

Hypothermia centers, including churches, have only a finite amount of space. Once their quota is reached, they close for the night, and those who have been turned away are without shelter in life-threatening cold and often, blizzard-like conditions. Many, as a consequence, ride the various transit systems all night to stay warm.

Others refuse to go to hypothermia shelters because of bedbugs, either because they are fearful of never ridding themselves of the parasites or because they are allergic and have broken out in hives or other rashes previously and itch uncontrollably. Others refuse shelter on dreadfully cold nights because they fear the often dangerous conditions. In both cases, women predominate.

Children and Families in Homeless Shelters

The most heart-wrenching stories of people in shelters are the children. Their fathers are often in jail or are not part of their lives. They come to shelters with their mothers and, if they are lucky, other siblings with whom they can become involved in playful activities. According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, family separation in U.S. shelters is common. In about 55% of cities recently surveyed, families may have to break up to be sheltered, most often restricting access to fathers and older boys. It’s a bitter choice for many families on freezing nights. This was true for one of the shelters where I volunteered, but not true for the others.

Another tough choice, and one that has resulted in some choosing below-freezing temperatures rather than shelter, arises from policies restricting pets at shelters. Because many people experiencing homelessness rely on their dogs or cats for their psychological health or physical safety, many don’t see the benefit of separating from their pets for housing in shelters that don’t allow pets. None of the shelters where I volunteered allowed pets, although I’ve never been aware of people having to make the choice between pets and shelter. However, those I’ve gotten to know at the shelters have indicated that sometimes the pet issue has been a problem for some of their friends.

In my experience, the children who were the most uneasy living in a shelter were the teenagers. One of my responsibilities at AACH was tutoring children who needed extra assistance with their schoolwork, and many of these kids were teenagers. After gaining their confidence, I learned from the kids themselves that living in a shelter was the most embarrassing experience in their lives. And, they would “never in a million years” let any of their school friends know of their situation. This admission explained why they so frequently scurried up the stairs after school to the rooms they shared with their families without even greeting those of us in the room they passed.

 Deaths Due to Cold Weather

Even before the record cold descended upon the country, the winter was taking a deadly toll on the most vulnerable, even in places like the San Francisco Bay Area, not only one of the wealthiest in the country, but one place that rarely gets below freezing and therefore, has few hypothermia shelters. Yet, in December, when temperatures dipped below freezing, seven homeless men died from hypothermia in separate incidents, according to the ThinkProgress website. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, approximately 700 of the 600,000+ people who are homeless die from hypothermia every year. Those deaths tend to occur along the East Coast and in the Midwest, and are, indeed, sad.

Causes of Homelessness

The causes of homelessness are multiple:

• Evictions from and foreclosures of rentals and homes
• Loss of hundreds of thousands of affordable housing units across the country
• Low-wage jobs; part-time work with inconsistent hours, (often complicated by a lack of child care opportunities) and, thus, being unable to afford rent
• Unemployment or loss of long-term unemployment benefits (more than 3 1/2 million unemployed will lose the benefits during 2014 — if unemployment insurance is not extended — which could add many to the homeless contingent)
• Cuts to HUD’s 2014 budget, especially in the areas of Section 8 vouchers and public housing. However, HUD’s housing budget for lower-income people has been cut over decades, causing increased hardship among a growing number of people who can’t afford rent, especially in high-priced areas
• Failure of local jurisdictions to build, rent or locate affordable housing for low-income residents
• Monetary and fiscal policies for the past decades favoring wealthy elites, thus intensifying income inequality
• Fewer programs to assist those who abuse drugs or alcohol due to local, state and federal budget cuts
• Failure of jurisdictions to develop group homes for people with mental illness after closing institutions where they resided –not least being the strength of NIMBY

Substandard Housing and the Effects of the Cold

Many people experiencing homelessness have previously lived in substandard housing, where the hazards of cold temperatures constitute a public health problem, according to the American Public Health Association (APHA). As a volunteer, I have heard numerous stories of their former deteriorated, roach-infested apartments with inadequate kitchen and moldy bath facilities, leaky faucets and water intrusion. Sometimes I wondered if they were not better off homeless, though I knew deep down they were not.

Freezing temperatures and damp conditions, says APHA, are associated with a wide range of health conditions in substandard housing, including respiratory infections, asthma, chronic illnesses and mental disorders. Even a deviation of indoor temperature beyond a relatively narrow range has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. And many of these houses lack adequate insulation and suffer from water intrusion. Such housing — damp, cold, and moldy — is associated with chronic respiratory symptoms because it provides a nurturing environment for mites, roaches, respiratory viruses and molds. Living in cold housing is often due to a failure to gain assistance, even if qualified, from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). According to the Chicago Reporter, LIHEAP funding has fallen 17% in just the past three years, leaving 1.5 million households stuck with energy bills they can’t afford.

What Can Be Done?

Many decentralized, grassroots activist groups, especially in urban areas, are organizing to provide additional assistance to people who are homeless and others in need this winter. Many have been using the hashtag,#OpSafeWinter and other networks to collect relevant information about hypothermia and warming centers, shelters, food and supplies and blasting it out through online social media to those in need.

Although there are many activist groups and advocates who play a large role in serving people who are homeless and near-homeless, and many advocates who lobby or otherwise work to change one or more aspects of the causes of homelessness listed above, no group can replace the government when it comes to assisting the vulnerable. The dimensions of the problem are not only too large, but just this week, Pope Francis, in his message to the World Economic Forum in Davos, reminded us that governments have a responsibility for the “frail, weak and vulnerable.” He said that “too many men and women still experience the dramatic consequences of daily insecurity” and need the assistance of government. The Pope’s words certainly reminded me of my own responsibility as an advocate for people who are homeless and in poverty that in working for the common good one must never overlook the dignity of the human person, that quiet dignity, regardless of the exterior, of those who, unfortunately, may be homeless now.