Official U.S. Poverty Rate Finally Ticks Down

September 16, 2014

The Great Recession officially ended more than five years ago. Data from various sources indicate that the recovery has actually taken hold, even in the labor market. And now the official poverty rate does so too.

The Census Bureau just reported that the overall poverty rate for the U.S. population ticked down for the first time since 2006 — from 15% in both 2011 and 2012 to 14.5% last year.

But like the other indicators, the new rate shows we’ve still got a long way to go — and that such prosperity as the recovery has generated is far from equally shared.

The new poverty rate translates into 45.3 million people poor enough to fall below the Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds. These are very low — an annual income of less than $18,770 for a single parent with two children, for example.

More than 19.8 million people — 6.3% — lived in what’s commonly referred to as deep (or extreme or severe) poverty, i.e., had incomes below half the threshold applicable to their family size and configuration.

As in the past, the child poverty rate was considerably higher than the overall rate — 19.9%, representing well over 14.6 million children or about one in three of all our country’s poor. And the senior poverty rate was considerably lower — 9.5%.

Approximately 6.5 million children — 8.8% lived in deep poverty. This was true for only 2.7% of seniors.

But we’ve reasons to expect that the Census Bureau’s report on its more complex Supplemental Poverty Measure will show markedly higher rates for seniors, as well as somewhat lower rates for children.

Other disparities generally mirror those we’ve seen before. For example:

  • The black poverty rate was nearly triple the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 27.2%, as compared to 9.6%.
  • The deep poverty rate for blacks was 12.2%, while only 4.3% of non-Hispanic whites were that poor.
  • The poverty rate for Hispanics was 23.5% and their deep poverty rate 9.4%.
  • Rates for Asians were 10.5% and 5.2% respectively.

Disparities among family types also replicate a familiar patterns. The percent of married couples who were officially poor was 5.8%, while the percent for single-woman families was 30.6%. Families headed by a single man were again in between — 15.9%. And there were, as usual, far fewer of them.

Like the overall rate, most of these breakout rates were lower than in 2012. Not, however, the poverty rate for blacks or the ever-so-much-lower deep poverty rates for non-Hispanic whites and married couples.

None of the rates was as low as in 2007 — the last year before the Census survey reflected the recession. And those rates were nothing to cheer about.


Acute Affordable Housing Shortage for Lowest-Income Renters

September 11, 2014

A new and notable brief from the National Low Income Housing Coalition provides further evidence of the shortage of housing that low-income individuals and families can afford to rent.

As in the past, NLIHC flags the acute shortage of units that extremely low-income households could rent at an affordable rate, i.e., for no more than 30% of their income.

ELI households are the poorest category used for publicly-subsidized affordable housing — and the poorest analysts customarily use. They’re those whose incomes are at or below 30% of the median for the area they live in.

The most notable thing about the NLIHC analysis is that it introduces a new poor category — deeply low-income households. Their incomes are, at most, 15% of the applicable AMI.

ELI and DLI Renters Nationwide

DLI households are part of the ELI category, but we can see how recent housing and income trends have disadvantaged them the most. For example, in 2012, the latest Census figures NLIHC had to work with:

  • There were 10.3 million ELI renter households nationwide, but only 3.2 million available units they could afford — in other words, 31 for every 100 households.
  • Of these households, 4 million were DLI.* The shortage for them was nearly as great as their number — 3.4 million units. This translates into 16 units for every 100 households.
  • All but 13% of ELI households paid more than they could afford for rent, plus basic utilities. And 75% of them paid more than half their income for these basic needs.
  • Housing burdens, as they’re called, were even worse for DLI households. Ninety percent paid more than they could afford and 95% more than half their income.

Drilling Down to DC

Another notable thing is that NLIHC includes (un)affordability figures for states and the District of Columbia and for major metropolitan areas, including the one used to set the AMI for the District. So we who have a particular interest in affordable housing for the District’s lowest-income residents have new grist for our mills.

Somewhat surprising, at least to me, is the fact that the crunch for them is apparently somewhat less severe than the nationwide crunch — at least, according to the NLIHC figures. We should take them with a grain of salt, however, because the AMI for the District is considerably higher than the District’s own median income.

That said, the local housing market is hardly friendly to the District’s lowest-income renters. And we’ve got a lot of them. NLIHC reports that:

  • There were 26,485 ELI households in 2012 and only 45 affordable, available rental units for every 100 of them.
  • Nearly 71% of them — 18,750 — were DLI households. For them, the affordable housing shortage was worse — 34 units for every 100 households.
  • All but 29% of the ELI households — and all but 23% of those in the DLI subgroup — paid more than half their income for rent.

So for large majorities of both, rental housing wasn’t just somewhat unaffordable, but so unaffordable as to represent a significant risk of homelessness — or if not that, then other hardships.

Trade-Offs Made to Pay for Unaffordable Housing

A recent survey for the MacArthur Foundation found that nearly two-thirds of childless adults — and 75% of parents — whose rents or mortgages were unaffordable had made at least one trade-off in order to cover their housing costs.

Trade-offs included cutting back on health care and/or “healthy food,” amassing credit card debt and giving up on saving for retirement.

Why ELI and DLI Renters Can’t Find Affordable Units

As NLIHC has explained before, part of the problem is that more higher-income households are choosing to rent. So the law of supply and demand has kicked in, driving up what landlords charge.

At the same time, developers have seen a money-making opportunity. Of the 2.5 million rental units added to local markets since 2009, fewer than half a million were affordable for households with incomes below 80% of the AMI, i.e., the highest of the low-income tiers.

It’s also the case, however, that higher-income renters are occupying units that ELI households could afford — about 45% of them nationwide. A recent in-depth study of the Washington metro area came up with virtually the same crowd-out figure.

So there’s a large unmet need for low-cost units. But, as NLIHC says, organizations that want to help meet it face significant challenges, e.g., insufficient subsidies for both developers and operators, who can’t otherwise cover their costs with the rents they’ll collect.

A clarion call for greater public investments in affordable housing programs, of course. And since we can’t look to Congress any time soon, state and local governments, including the District, will have to do more for their lowest-income residents.

Obvious, but I felt I had to say it.

* The American Community Survey, which NLIHC used for most of its analysis, reaches only people who are in some manner housed. So the affordable housing shortage for the very lowest-income individuals and families is even greater than reported, as the brief duly notes.


Hunger in America Widespread and Frequent, New Report Shows

September 8, 2014

About one in seven people in America — 46.5 million in all — depend, at least in part, on nonprofit feeding programs to stave off hunger. This is one of many, many things we can learn from Feeding America’s report on its latest survey of the agencies it helps supply and their clients.

These many, many things gel into different stories. I’ll focus on one of them here — the fact that in this very wealthy country of ours, a very large number of people can’t always afford to eat healthfully, SNAP (the food stamp program) notwithstanding.

But first a few words about the programs themselves. About two-thirds of the more than 58,000 programs that Feeding America helps supply through its food bank network provide groceries.

Most of the others provide foods already prepared. They include so-called soup kitchens, meals delivered to the homes of elderly and disabled people and food services for homeless shelters, other residential facilities, senior centers and daycare centers for children.

Some provide meals and/or snacks to kids who participate in after-school activities, either as their exclusive service or in addition to the aforementioned.

So the programs reach diverse people in diverse ways. Feeding America’s new report reflects responses from more than 60,000 of them.

Some Key Facts About Program Clients

In some respects, it’s hard to generalize about the beneficiaries of the feeding programs because, as I said, they’re a diverse group — and the report is chock-full of data points. For those of us who attend to the poverty dialogue, if we should call it that, a couple of things jump out.

More program clients are white than belong to any other race/ethnicity group — 43.4% of the total and nearly half of the prepared-meal recipients.

Among the adults, 72.5% have, at most, a high school diploma or the equivalent. But 20.5% have at least some college education — and 5.7% a four-year college degree or higher. Slightly over 10% were enrolled in school at the time the survey was conducted.

Nearly 54% of all clients lived in a household where someone was employed during the year. The percent is considerably higher — 70.6% — for households with children.

Yet unemployment and under-employment are clearly problems. Only 34.3% of households included any member who’d worked at least six months out of the last twelve. And only 43% included someone who’d worked at least 30 hours a week.

Both these percents are higher for households with children — 48.9% and 47% respectively. Yet obviously lack of paying work helps account for their food assistance needs.

Ongoing Financial Hardships

Several years ago, Feeding America reported that visits to food pantries had “become the new normal.” This is apparently still true. The number of times individuals and families received groceries and/or meals was well over eight times greater than the number served — 389.2 million over the course of a year.

What this tell us, of course, is that a great many weren’t coping with a one-time emergency. Both the employment figures and others indicate ongoing financial hardships.

About half of the households the grocery and meal programs served were officially poor, i.e. living below the federal poverty line. They include 11.7% who reported no income at all during the past twelve months.

An additional 33.2% had incomes between 101% and 185% of the FPL — the cut-off for WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) and for reduced-price school meals.

The median annual income for all households served was $9,175 — less than a fifth of the median for all U.S. households. The median for those with children was somewhat higher — $11,721. But because these households are larger, 77% lived below the FPL.

All but 6.8% of client households lived in what the report characterizes as a “nontemporary housing arrangement,” e.g., an apartment, a house they owned, were paying for or sharing.

But that doesn’t mean they were all stably housed. Nearly 27% had lived in at least two places during the past year. Somewhat over 22% started doubling-up with family members or someone else. And 15.5% had been foreclosed on or evicted within the last five years.

What About Food Stamps?

Notwithstanding their need for food assistance, only 54.8% of client households received SNAP benefits. This seems a low participation rate. And the survey data don’t altogether explain it.

All we know for sure is that about 28% of the households had incomes above the standard eligibility cut-off. But most states and the District of Columbia have higher gross income cut-offs now.

The report suggests that some others might have had savings and/or other assets above the very low limit that some states still impose.

Some probably didn’t qualify because of their immigration status. Federal law bars not only undocumented immigrants, but most of those who’ve been in the country legally for less than five years.

It’s still the case that more households probably could have qualified for SNAP and for various reasons, chose not to apply. The benefits obviously wouldn’t have enabled all them to keep food on the table, however.

About 86% of the client households enrolled in SNAP reported that they use them up in three weeks or less. The same was true for 88.8% of the SNAP households with children.

Struggles, Even With the Feeding Programs

Large numbers of households had to make trade-offs between food and some other necessity — or perhaps multiple necessities.

For example, 57.1% reported having to choose between paying for food or for housing at least once during the prior year. Percents were considerably higher for other trade-offs — nearly 66% for medical care, 66.5% for transportation and 69.3% for utilities.

For many, these weren’t one-time hard choices. More than 30% reported making them every month, except for housing. And that percent wasn’t much lower.

These weren’t the only types of choices households made. Well over 78% — and 83.5% of those with children — reported buying “inexpensive, unhealthy food.” More than half reported knowingly eating food past its expiration date.

And 40% said they watered down food and/or drink. The percent is higher for households with children — 44.8%.

So there you have it — or rather, some select pieces of it. That we should have such hunger in America today is, to my mind, simply shameful — and a call to action on various fronts.


And We Thought DC Had a Homeless Family Crisis Last Winter

September 4, 2014

Last year, I remarked that the draft Winter Plan was notably sketchy on how the District would fulfill its legal obligation to protect families from exposure to “severe weather conditions.”

The Operations and Logistics Committee, which drafts the annual plans for the Interagency Council on Homelessness, decided against specifics that would minimize the foreseeable challenges.

And challenges there surely were — even greater than most think could have been foreseen. The Department of Human Services was caught off guard. Aaron Wiener at Washington City Paper recaps the results, as of mid-March.

Now we have another Winter Plan. And my heart sinks. Because it’s as clear as day — acknowledged, in fact — that we’ve got another crisis looming.

Like as not, a bigger crisis than last year’s and one that DHS is by no means prepared to cope with — at least, not in a way that would ensure homeless families a modicum of safety and stability. Here are the lowlights.

More homeless families expected. DHS will need to make an estimated 840 shelter and/or housing placements during the upcoming winter season. This represents a 16% increase over the number of placements made during the 2013-14 season.

Yet it’s 10% lower than the increase in the number of homeless families who sought help at the intake center between May and August. They couldn’t get into shelter then, but at least some will return as soon as the weather turns freezing-cold.

Not enough shelter units. The Operations and Logistics Committee again foresees that all — or nearly all — units at the DC General family shelter and those in smaller shelters around the city will be occupied when the winter season opens.

DHS will need “overflow capacity” by December, the plan says. This would probably be true in any case. But about 40 units at DC General may have to remain vacant because they fail to comply with the criteria the court established when it ordered DHS to stop warehousing families in recreation centers.

No plan for the overflow. The ICH has, for good and proper reasons, decided against any semblance of a shelter plan for families.

It instead recommends, among other things, that the Department of General Services prepare “an options analysis that considers different solutions,” e.g., use of District-owned buildings, short-term leases from private landlords, motels.

Not much time for General Services to do this — let alone for DHS to choose solutions and make the necessary arrangements, even if one of them isn’t re-purposing buildings.

Not enough money. The plan calls on the District government to acknowledge that “meeting the anticipated need for shelter will exceed currently available resources.”

The District should further acknowledge, it says, that additional resources will be needed to prevent adverse effects on other homeless services programs, especially those “designed to move families out of shelter.”

This was altogether foreseeable — and in fact, was foreseen by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute. Mayor Gray’s proposed budget included funds for only 150 units at DC General, rather than the 280 or so then available — and no funds at all for motel rooms. The DC Council went along.

Trust in performance improvements. “A major emphasis,” the plan says, “will be on enhancing system performance to both decrease the number of entries into the system … and accelerate exits out of shelter.”

As I (and others) have said before, DHS has had a hard time moving enough families out of shelter fast enough to free up anything close to the number of units needed. Various reasons for this — some of the agency’s own making, some not.

Resources committed to the Mayor’s 500 in 100 initiative may have speeded up the rate somewhat. But we’ve no assurance families will leave shelter even sooner this winter. “It is expected,” the plan says, “that placements from shelter will continue or exceed” the current monthly average.

Perhaps we should be at least as concerned about the other half of the emphasis — decreasing entries, i.e., keeping families out of the shelters.

The plan specifies two approaches. One is “strategic targeting of resources to prevent housing loss.” This presumably is a reference to the one-time funds some District residents may receive as emergency rental assistance. No problem here, except limited funds.

The other approach is casework and “housing stabilization support” for families who’ve been “diverted” from shelter. Translated into everyday English, the latter refers to resources that may enable families to stay where they are for awhile — mainly, if not exclusively in doubled-up arrangements.

The resources include cash or cash equivalents to give friends and relatives incentives for hosting homeless families, e.g., help with utility bills and/or food costs. DHS already provides such incentives and will have funds for more.

But the cost burdens of having extra people in the home are hardly the only reason doubled-up situations tend to be temporary. So diversion of this sort may, in many cases, merely delay “entries into the system.”

Looking beyond the the no-plan plan. The Homeless Services Reform Act charges the ICH to develop an annual plan “consistent with the right of clients to shelter in severe weather conditions, describing how member agencies will coordinate to provide hypothermia shelter and identifying the specific sites that will be used.”

The ICH has, in effect, said, “We can’t do that for homeless families. The money is not there.” This, to my mind, is altogether better than putting forth a plan that glosses over the acute problems the District’s homeless services programs will face.

“We face an enormous challenge,” said Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless attorney and long-time ICH member Scott McNeilly. “If we don’t rise to the occasion, the consequences could be catastrophic.”

But ultimately “we” isn’t the ICH. It has no control over the budget or how available funds are used. It’s the Mayor and the DC Council who must “rise to the occasion.” And they’d better do it PDQ.

 


Diane Earned a Big Tip, But She May Still Live on the Verge of Poverty

September 2, 2014

My husband Jesse and I spent the weekend before last in Cleveland. We were visiting his mother to help celebrate her 95th birthday. The family gathered for a long lunch at a seafood restaurant in one of the suburbs.

Diane, who waited on our table, is altogether the best server I’ve ever encountered — and a fine example of what happens to the tips we think of as a reward for good service.

She takes pride in her professional skills — so much so that she’s written an e-book on “etiquette” for restaurant servers and those of us served.

It’s called I’ve Been Doing This Since Before You Were Born because Diane, who’s approaching middle age, has worked as a restaurant server all her life and wanted to share what she’s learned.

I asked her if she was paid the tip credit wage. Indeed, she is — $3.89 an hour. This is all her employer has to pay here, so long as her tips bring her total earnings to an average of $7.95 an hour per pay period because that’s now the regular minimum wage in Ohio.

I asked her if the restaurant owner pooled tips, i.e., collected them all and then doled them out according to some formula he’d devised.

Sort of. When Diane works daytime hours, she owes a total of 15% of her tips to the bartender, the busser and the person who sets out the plates for servers to bring to the tables. During evening hours, their share doubles.

That’s not so bad, she said. Her former boss also required servers to pay a fee in order to collect tips that were put on credit cards. This further nick in take-home pay could well have been legal, as tip pooling can also be.

Now, I’ve no idea how much Diane earns, once she’s shared her tips, as required. But we do have some new information on tip credit workers generally, thanks to the Economic Policy Institute.

There are somewhat over 3.5 million of them nationwide. Well over half — 58.5% — are servers or bartenders.

About two-thirds of tipped workers, including those in the seven states that don’t permit employers to pay them a lower wage, are women. The share is even higher for servers and bartenders — 68.5%.

More than half have at least some college education, as I’m guessing Diane does. Yet for most of them, as well as for those with less education, our tips don’t provide anything close to a living wage.

The median hourly wage for all tipped workers is just $10.22 — $6.26 less than the median for all U.S. workers. The gap is 11 cents greater for servers and bartenders.

For those who are women, as most are, the gap is even higher — $6.59 an hour or 60% of the median for all workers.

Tipped workers are far more likely than others have family incomes under $40,000 a year. This is the maximum for nearly half who are servers or bartenders — a slightly more than half for those who are women.

Family incomes are considerably lower for many. The poverty rate is nearly twice as high for tipped workers as for those whose take-home pay is entirely what they get from their employers.

And again, servers and bartenders are worse off than the rest. Their poverty rate nationwide is 14.9%, as compared to 6.5% for non-tipped workers. This, however, includes those who work in states with no tip credit wage.

Their poverty rate is a still-troubling 10.2%, strongly suggesting that other factors also keep tipped workers’ incomes low, e.g., low minimum wages, even in states where the minimum exceeds the federal, part-time and irregular schedules, lack of paid sick leave.

Not surprisingly, a higher percent of tipped workers than others receive some federally-funded benefits — 46%, as compared to 35.5%. The total value of the assistance is higher too — and highest for servers and bartenders.

It’s still, on average, only $2,724 a year, including the Earned Income Tax Credit. That’s hardly enough to make up for the low hourly wages, even when augmented by tips.

Consider that the median hourly wage for servers and bartenders translates into a full-time, year round wage of only about $21,130. And those full-time, year round jobs may be more the exception than the rule.

The minimum wage bill that’s stalled in Congress would gradually raise the federal tip credit wage until it reached 70% of the regular federal minimum. EPI, however, believes it would be “prudent” to simply do away with the “two-tiered wage system.”

Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which advocates for “restaurant workplace justice,” has also called for abolishing the tip credit wage. It cites not only the lousy take-home pay, but other problems, e.g., wage theft, sexual harassment that servers are constrained to tolerate because they depend on the harassers for tips.

In short, there are lots of reasons to eliminate the tip credit wage, though I’m not holding my breath till this happens.

We would still have added a hefty tip to our bill. But it would all have gone to Diane, rather than help her employer pay her and the colleagues she has to share it with only $3.89 an hour.


Too Many People Working Too Many Hours Without Overtime Pay

August 28, 2014

Some years ago, I worked for McDonald’s Corporation. So I recall well the last time the Department of Labor updated its overtime rules. Let’s just say, McDonald’s and its retail-business lobbying partners got pretty much what they wanted — freedom to deny overtime pay to many more workers.

This is one, though not the only reason that average compensation in private-sector jobs like food preparation, sales and a category the Bureau of Labor Statistics labels “office and administrative support” has barely increased since 2001.

Retiring Senator Tom Harkin and eight Democratic colleagues have introduced a bill to restore overtime rights to about 35% of salaried workers — the main type that employers may legally require to work overtime without overtime pay.

But DOL doesn’t need new legislation to update the rules or to close what Harkin refers to as a “loophole” — the very thing McDonald’s and collaborators wanted.

President Obama has, in fact, directed Labor Secretary Tom Perez to “modernize and streamline” the rules. And Perez clearly has an overhaul in mind, though he’s not ready to say when we’ll see it.

This is one of those rulemakings that’s going to get lots of comments — and lots of behind-the-scenes input, as well as very public efforts to shape opinion. So I thought a brief summary of the current rule and what we may expect might be helpful

Overtime Basics

The Fair Labor Standards Act has always required employers to pay some, but not all of the workers on their payrolls one-and-a-half times their regular wage when they work more than 40 hours a week.

Those who don’t qualify are mostly salaried workers, though some who get paid on a fee basis may also be exempt. All are, by definition, “white collar” workers whose primary duties fall into one of five categories — executive, administrative, professional, computer and outside sales.

Deciding who’s exempt from the requirement involves a two-part test, except for the outside sales people. The first is a compensation threshold. Anyone below it qualifies for overtime pay.

The current threshold is $455 a week — slightly under the federal poverty line for a four-person family. At its peak, in 1970, it was $1,071, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the Economic Policy Institute reports.

For a relative few, clearing the threshold is the end of it because their salaries put them into the “highly-compensated” category — currently a minimum of $100,000 a year.

For the majority, there’s a second test intended to identify employees whose primary duties involve management, supervision, other exercises of “discretion and independent judgment” and/or high-level professional expertise.

The rules specify the sorts of duties that meet the test for each of the categories. But here’s the kicker. The current rules, unlike their predecessors, don’t say how much time an employee must spend on them.

So, for example, an assistant manager at a fast food restaurant who spends virtually all her time working shoulder-to-shoulder with crew members could be exempt under the “executive” duties test so long as she created their work schedules and made recommendations — not necessarily decisions — about hiring and firing them.

What the Department of Labor May Do

Virtually everyone expects DOL to propose an increase in the salary threshold. It’s already got a range of recommendations to choose from — from $960 on the low end to $1,222 on the high end, among those I’ve seen.

The Senate Democrats’ bill would phase in an increase to $1,090 a week and then index it so it would automatically rise with consumer prices — a feature economists Ross Eisenbrey and Jared Bernstein earlier recommended to DOL.

Most speculators think DOL will reinstate the time allocation part of the duties test that its predecessor effectively eliminated in 2004 — or some variation thereof.

In fact, Perez has already said he wants to deal with the “loophole” that allows employers to exempt workers who spend virtually no time on the primary duties the current rule sketchily defines.

He may look to the Senate Democrats’ bill for a model. It would narrow the loophole by converting a former 50% “rule of thumb” to an absolute test. In other words, employees could be exempt only if they spend at least half their time on those primary duties.

One labor lawyer speculates that DOL may instead (or also) tighten up the definitions of the types of jobs that may be exempt.

Job Killer or Job Creator?

The National Retail Federation’s Senior Vice President for Government Relations says that the as-yet unseen proposal “if implemented, would have a significant job-killing effect.”

We hear somewhat similar, though subtler alarm bells from other spokespersons for affected businesses. The head of labor law policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, says that the prospective rule changes will “make employees more expensive.”

He draws a parallel to increasing the minimum wage, which the Chamber earlier claimed “destroys jobs.”

The opposite seems more likely. When Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, during the depths of the Great Depression, it included the overtime requirement in part because employers would then find it cheaper to hire more workers than to pay those they had extra money to work extra hours.

That’s how labor economist Daniel Hamerish, among others, thinks the plan Obama sketched out will work. “I would argue it’s a job-creation program,” he told reporters at the Washington Post.

This and much more before we’ve seen anything approaching a formal proposal. So we’ve got a lot of backing-and-forthing to look forward to.

Meanwhile, Happy Labor Day to all of you who don’t have to work, with or without overtime pay.

 

 


Another Round in the Debate Over Who Is Truly Homeless

August 25, 2014

The National Alliance to End Homelessness has again raised objections to the proposed Homeless Children and Youth Act — the formal title of a pair of bills now pending in Congress.

As I earlier wrote, they would expand the definition of “homeless” that controls uses communities may make of their federal homeless assistance grants.

They would, among other things, extend eligibility to homeless children and youth if they’re living doubled up with friends or relatives or in a cheap motel, just as they’re already eligible for services from public schools that receive funds under another part of the same law.

Families and children could become eligible in other ways as well, as could youth who are out in the world by themselves, without a “fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.”

NAEH argues that federal funds for homeless people can’t even meet the needs of those already eligible. “Tens of thousands of families and unaccompanied youth go unsheltered every night,” it says, “because there is not enough money to serve them all.”

No one, I think, would say otherwise. Funding for homeless assistance grants has remained virtually flat since Fiscal Year 2010. And they will get either no increase or a very small one when Congress gets around to agreeing on funding for the upcoming fiscal year.

NAEH also notes egregious under-funding for programs the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers for unaccompanied youth who’ve run away from home or are homeless for other reasons.

These programs, plus HUD’s serve barely 14% of these youth now, according to the Alliance’s estimates.

But NAEH goes further. “[M]ost people in doubled up households are not homeless,” it says. And the HEARTH Act, which governs HUD’s homeless assistance program, already covers those who are.

Some of them are people who’ll have no place to stay at the end of two weeks. Others are those who’ve fled — or urgently need to flee — the place they’ve been living because of domestic violence or some other dangerous situation, if they don’t have the resources or networks to move into other housing.

For the rest, NAEH says, the answer is HUD-funded rental assistance. But, it continues, there’s not enough money for that either. Indeed.

Only about one in four very low-income households receives rental assistance, according to HUD’s latest (somewhat outdated) assessment. And the prospects for the remainder are dismal.

In fact, we may be looking at a loss of even more than the 72,000 or so housing vouchers local agencies retired to deal with the across-the-board cuts in 2013, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.

Like as not, the agencies will also have to keep more public housing units vacant because they won’t have the funds to make essential repairs.

So NAEH is right in saying that we need a significant increase in funding for affordable housing.

What divides the Alliance from the large coalition that supports the bills is its view that we need to preserve the current restrictive definition of “homeless” so that “the very limited resources” available remain “dedicated to children, youth, and families who are without any housing at all.”

It essentially pits their needs against those of families and youth who are living doubled up. The proposed legislation, it says, “asks people living on the street and in shelter to compete with them.”

Not really. The bills would merely allow communities to include services for the newly-eligible families and unaccompanied youth in the plans they must submit to receive homeless assistance grants — and prohibit HUD from denying them grants merely because it has other priorities.

The larger issue, I suppose, is whether we should draw a bright, white line between families who are living with Aunt Suzy one month and a charitable friend the next and those who’ve exhausted such options.

Should we put families living in motels through two extra weeks of acute anxiety and stress before we offer them HUD-funded rapid re-housing, knowing they won’t have enough money to stay where they are?

And do we really want young people who’ve left their families, been kicked out or aged out of foster care to bounce from one couch to another when we know this puts them at risk of abuse, problems (or worse problems) in school and more?

NAEH apparently feels we must because the Homeless Children and Youth Act doesn’t increase funding.

The National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth vehemently disagrees. It’s “nonsensical,” the Association says, to define a problem by the funding currently available to address it.

That just gives policymakers “an unrealistic view of the scope of the problem.” Congress “needs to know who and how many people are without housing in order to define effective solutions,” NAEHCY contends.

This seems to me as incontrovertible as what NAEH says about insufficient federal funding for both homeless and affordable housing programs. Yet Congress already knows more than enough to know it’s short-changing them.

Amending the HEARTH Act to include doubled-up families, motel-dwellers who can’t afford their rooms, couch-surfers and others precariously and perhaps unsafely housed would give communities more flexibility to develop plans based on their own assessments of local needs.

But until we have a Congress that’s prepared to spend more on our safety net, every dollar spent on the newly-eligible will be a dollar less for other homeless people — at least so far as federal dollars are concerned.

That much, I think, NAEH is right about. Whether dollars spent to keep doubled-up families and the rest from joining the already-eligible on the streets or in shelters is another matter.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 165 other followers