How you can help end homelessness through legislative advocacy
2008 federal legislative priorities
Increased funding for public housing and section 8 certificates
Our public housing authorities have been crucial in two regards. First, they have provided hundreds of Section 8 certificates in partnership with service funding to create the type of integrated services and housing necessary to help people leave homelessness. Second, through both their Section 8 funding and their public housing units, they have created both the safety net necessary to keep people from becoming homeless and the “throughput” for people to move on in the continuum of independence as they leave homelessness. Combined, the Seattle Housing Authority and King County Housing Authority bring millions of dollars in housing resource funding to King County. In recent years, however, the federal government has cut both Section 8 and operational and capital funding for public housing. For example, stagnant funding and rule changes resulted in a net loss of 2,245 Washington households receiving Section 8 vouchers in 2005 alone, equivalent to a $14 million per year cut. In this budget cycle we ask that congress fund 100,000 additional Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers (which will simply be replacing vouchers previously lost) and return the public housing operational and capital funding to at least 95% of the amount HUD calculates as necessary (proposed funding has been as little as 76% of that calculated as necessary). We also seek restoration of funding to the Resident Opportunity and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) and Drug Elimination Grant (DEG) programs that are essential to the residents’ progress toward self-sufficiency.
Increased funding for the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants ($1.8 billion)
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants currently provide nearly $15 million a year for housing (capital, leasing and operations) and services; fund 60 projects, which include transitional housing, permanent supportive housing for persons with disabilities, and supportive services for homeless persons (i.e., case management, childcare, employment services). These projects serve youth, young adults, single adults, families with children and people who are chronically homeless – the most vulnerable of our state’s population. In the McKinney-Vento reauthorization act, we propose total funding of $1.8 billion, which would support full renewal of existing programs plus fund creation of 15,000 units of new supportive housing.
Support new federal initiatives around veterans, discharge planning and supportive housing
With the increased focus on homelessness, several initiatives are gaining momentum in Congress, including increased funding for veterans (with a potential expansion to long-term housing rather than time-limited housing), the Second Chance Act addressing persons leaving prisons, and the Services for Ending Long Term Homelessness Act, combining housing and services to address long-term homelessness. We need to support these initiatives as they go forward.
Enact a National Housing Trust Fund
In Washington State we have seen the tremendous power of a housing trust fund. There is now a national movement to create such a trust fund on the federal level. We should support, and provide our example as an inspiration for, a National Housing Trust Fund to produce 1.5 million units over 10 years with 75% targeted to those below 30% of AMI.
Restore funding for mainstream programs
Recent years have seen repeated cuts in CDBG, HOME, 202 and 811 programs which have traditionally been key elements of our effort to address homelessness. For example, since 2005, Washington State has lost $10.5 million in CDBG funds and $3.4 million in HOME funds statewide. We support restoration of full funding for these programs including CDBG Formula Grants restored back to the FY 2005 level of $4.1 Billion and HOME Formula Grants funded at $2 billion nationwide.
In
prior years, we have focused primarily on local advocacy, because federal
advocacy was already covered by a number of coalitions and with both the legislature
and the White House controlled by people for whom housing was not a priority,
the ability to affect federal policy seemed limited.
See: