Survey Flags Unfair Treatment of Homeless Individuals in DC

April 17, 2014

Last fall, the National Coalition for the Homeless and a team of graduate students from George Washington University set out to learn “the extent to which homeless individuals in Washington, D.C. have experienced discrimination as a result of their housing status.”

They conducted a survey. And now we have a glimpse of the results. Within limits (of which more below), they indicate that many homeless people in the District have felt discriminated against — or at least, had experiences which persuaded them that others have.

The researchers wound up with usable surveys of 142 individuals — 110 men and 32 women. This is, of course, a very small fraction of the population of homeless adults in the District who have no family members with them, as last year’s one-night count indicates.

I don’t have the data to figure out whether the gender breakout — or the race/ethnicity breakouts — are reasonably representative. I rather doubt they exist. The gender breakout, however, does nearly mirror the shelter bed allocations in this year’s Winter Plan, and these are based on past demand.

The survey respondents were asked a number of questions about their experiences with private businesses, law enforcement, medical services and social services.

As the NCH website suggests, they were also asked questions about other groups, e.g., employers, landlords. But these didn’t yield statistically significant results. So they’re not in the report.

In fact, the report quantifies responses to only one question: “How often, in your experiences, did the following groups [private businesses, etc.] discriminate against people without housing?”

One could answer “often” to this on the basis of second-hand information, e.g., having been told that homeless people weren’t welcome in some McDonald’s restaurant.

Yet the survey itself included questions about direct personal experiences, especially with law enforcement. Unfortunately, as Michael Stoops at NCH confirmed, the sample was too small for statistically significant results on such important particulars.

That said, we seem to have considerable consensus that private businesses and law enforcement officers at least sometimes treat homeless people unfairly — 70.4% of affirmative responses for the former and 66.6% for the latter.*

Nearly 50% perceived discrimination by medical services and 43.7% by social services. For the former, the report includes two very disturbing anecdotal fragments.

A woman said she was refused care by local health care providers because “the staff thought she was faking it to get inside.” Another respondent said, “When I got stabbed, the paramedic said there was nothing wrong with me …. [H]e said I just wanted to get out of the rain.”

I’m frankly disappointed in this report because I’m sure as can be that people who are identifiably homeless are treated differently from thee and me — and in ways that are consequentially harmful.

The fact, sad as it is, that passersby make them feel “disconnected from the world,” as one respondent said, isn’t as harmful as getting rousted by the cops — or worse. And it’s far less harmful than being denied medical care.

These aren’t just perceptions of differential treatment. And I wish the report had provided more of them, even anecdotally, because, to me, they’re compelling evidence of a serious social problem — and one that’s reflected in a host of policy choices.

The report is nevertheless one of the first of its kind. And it’s only one portion of a campaign that NCH is waging — a complement of sorts to its annual reports on hate crimes against homeless people.

Here in the District, as elsewhere, NCH seeks to have a bill of rights for homeless people enacted. Three states and Puerto Rico already have such bills.

Alternatively, Stoops suggested, the District could amend its Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on housing status.

Either action would provide a basis for legal claims against public or private entities that deny people medical care, social services and/or opportunities to work, rent, sit in a fast food restaurant, a library or a public park because they have no home of their own.

Needless to say, we wouldn’t see a flood of legal claims, though you can bet the Chamber of Commerce will claim otherwise, as it has in California.

The potential for legal action might make some difference, however. In the best of cases, it would prompt some apparently needed education in our public agencies and private-sector enterprises.

And we, as a community, would have officially recognized “the humanity of people who are homeless,” as the latest NCH hate crimes report says we must. That would prompt us to act when we perceive inhumane treatment — as it should, even without new legislation.

Surely we’d respond if our grandmother was told she was “just faking it” when she went to a healthcare clinic.

* The report collapses responses ranging from “rarely” to “very often” into a single “yes”.

 


Doing Our Bit for Defense

April 14, 2014

Having exhausted all possibilities for procrastination, I finally prepared my tax returns. Then I got a receipt from the National Priorities Project. You can too — and as I did, also get a receipt for the typical taxpayer in your state.

Here are some things I learned.

First off, District of Columbia filers paid, on average, $5,560 more than the average for taxpayers nationwide. The District’s average is, in fact, higher than the averages for all but one state — Connecticut.

This, of course, speaks to how very well the better-off households in the District are doing. How the less well-off are doing is a different story. It’s doubtful that those in the bottom 20% earned enough to owe any federal income tax this year.

But however much or little we owe, we pay the same portions for each and every item in the federal budget.

So about 27 cents of every dollar we pay goes to defense.* For the average D.C. taxpayer, this translates into $4,681, plus nearly $873 for veterans benefits, which NPP tabulates separately.

Skimming down the receipt, I see that this same taxpayer will contribute about $1,744 to Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but only piddling amounts to other programs for low-income people. For example, s/he’ll chip in:

  • $42.07 for WIC  — probably about 60% of the cost of one month’s worth of the healthful foods supplement for one low-income mother or child in the District.
  • $23.36 for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program — just a few dollars more than the cost of restoring SNAP (food stamp) benefits for one of D.C. household that receives them.
  • $106.24 for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families — about 25% of the current maximum cash benefit for a D.C. family of three.
  • $215.87 for Pell grants and other student financial aid.

Now, the receipt doesn’t account in detail for all income tax dollars that support programs for low-income people. SNAP and free and reduced-price schools meals, for example, are included in the Food and Agriculture category, but not broken out.

And I haven’t cited above two the receipt itemizes that benefit low-income people, as well as others, i.e., job training and employment programs and the Community Development Block Grant.

But even adding them in still leaves the average D.C. taxpayer — and me — spending nearly 10 times as much on defense. I’m sure as can be that the federal budget could “provide for the common defense” with less.

That would leave more to patch the frayed safety net and to help more people achieve economic security without it. There’d be more to meet other essential needs too, e.g., protecting public health and safety, refurbishing our neglected infrastructure, enforcing civil rights and labor laws.

Perhaps not enough more, however. I, for one, would be willing to pay higher taxes — painful as that would seem at this time of year — if a larger share went to these priorities.

Congressman Paul Ryan and his Republican colleagues in the House would instead cut my taxes — or so it seems. The Center for American Progress, among others, says they’d actually rise.

Whichever, the just-passed House budget plan will clearly shift more of our tax dollars into defense  — and drastically reduce our relatively small contributions to major safety net and other non-defense programs.

Obviously not a budget reflecting my priorities — or those of most of my fellow taxpayers either, according to the polling data NPP cites.

We’ve got to do more than grumble at tax time to get a budget we like.

* The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports a considerably lower figure. This is mainly because it includes Social Security and Medicare. NPP excludes spending from dedicated revenue streams like payroll taxes.

 

 


Glimmer of Hope for More Affordable Housing Funds

April 10, 2014

Remember the National Housing Trust Fund? I wouldn’t blame you if you don’t because it has never helped finance any affordable housing units, though that’s what it’s supposed to do.

Now it looks as if the Trust Fund may fulfill expectations, but probably not until some time around 2020, if then. So we’ll still need more funding for affordable housing programs now — and would even if the Trust Fund were a for-sure, near-term source.

Why the Trust Fund Has No Funds

As I wrote some time ago, Congress established the Trust Fund in 2008 to address what was already an affordable housing shortage.

The Fund was to be a source of grants to states. They were to use 90% of the money for rental housing. And 75% of it had to go to rental housing that was affordable for extremely low-income households, i.e. those with incomes at or below 30% of the median for the area they live in.

But the Fund never had any funds for grants because its revenue stream was to come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They became essentially bankrupt when the housing bubble burst.

The agency that took over to manage them back to solvency suspended their contributions to the Trust Fund. And the freeze still stands, even though they’re turning profits again.

President Obama has repeatedly included one-time $1 billion financing for the Trust Fund in his proposed budgets. Well, we know what’s come of them. Bills have been introduced in Congress to provide funding in others ways. Nothing has come of them either.

And so, as PoltiFact says, the Trust Fund “is nothing more than a page on HUD’s website.”

A New Revenue Stream

Senator Tim Johnson, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator Mike Crapo, its most senior Republican member, have introduced a bill that would provide the Trust Fund with an ongoing revenue stream — potentially more than $5 billion a year,* according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The bill as a whole would replace Fannie and Freddie with a new entity to regulate the secondary mortgage market, i.e., securities backed by bundled mortgages that are sold to pension funds, insurance companies and other investors.

Like Fannie and Freddie, the new entity — the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation — would guarantee investors against losses, but only those that exceed 10% of the securities’ value.

Institutions that choose to participate in the new system would be charged a user fee. FMIC could calibrate it to provide incentives for issuing mortgages in underserved areas. But fees would have to average 10 basis points, i.e., 10 hundredths of a percent, on all covered securities.

Seventy-five percent of the fees would go to the Housing Trust Fund. Another  15% would go to the Capital Magnet Fund, providing a further boost for affordable housing.

So one can understand why NLIHC says that the bill “would provide the most significant new investment in rental housing affordable to America’s neediest families in forty years.”

But Will It Pass?

Zillow Real Estate Research, which provides a very useful summary of the very complex bill, cites “substantial” near-term hurdles to Congressional approval — and some that may prove not only near-term.

Some Democrats and advocacy groups, it says, believe the bill doesn’t do enough to promote affordable housing. This, I take it, refers to the fact that it eliminates the affordable housing goals that were supposed to govern Fannie and Freddie’s mortgage purchases.

The bigger hurdle, as you might expect, is right-wing Republicans’ antipathy to most anything the federal government does to regulate private markets — and to compensate for their failures.

Housing Finance Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling is thus “skeptical of any approach that does not end the permanent government guarantee in the secondary mortgage market” — a function his committee’s bill would largely privatize.

More to the point, the bill would eliminate the Trust Fund and the Magnet Fund — and replace them with … well, nothing. “The best affordable housing program is a job,” Hensarling says.

All the Congress-watchers I’ve read agree that we’ll see no definitive action on housing finance reform any time soon — almost surely not until next year, when the upcoming elections are history.

Meanwhile the Affordable Housing Crisis Worsens

NLIHC reports a shrinking “sliver” of the rental market still affordable and available to ELI households, making for a shortfall of seven million units in 2012. Only a quarter of households eligible for federal and local subsidy programs receive assistance, it adds.

In the last year alone, some 70,000 fewer families have had federally-funded vouchers to help pay their rent, according to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates. And last December’s budget deal won’t free up enough funding to restore even half the vouchers lost.

Even if Congress were to provide funding for all the lost vouchers, we’d still have waiting lists — and at least 4.9 million ELI households paying more than half their income for rent.

* This figure comes from the NLIHC report I recently wrote about. Its earlier press release (linked to further on) put the potential revenue stream at more than $3.5 billion a year.

 


Lessons From the Ryan Budget Plan

April 7, 2014

I feel I ought to say something about Congressman Paul Ryan’s latest budget plan. Yet, as the ferocious overview by the Center for American Progress indicates, there’ not much that’s new — not even the title.

It’s again The Path to Prosperity, which is true if you’re already prosperous. A path to more desperate circumstances if you’re poor or near-poor.

Not a path you’d like the country to go down if you care about the safety net or many other things the federal government supports, e.g., education, workplace safety, healthcare and other scientific research.

Or if you’re counting on having affordable health care in your golden years — or even next year, if your employer doesn’t provide it.

Far too much for a blog post. So here instead are a couple of ways of looking at the plan.

The Devil Isn’t Just in the Details

Congressman Ryan, as we know, has a long-standing hostility to federal safety net programs — except Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which the plan again endorses as the model for others.

So it’s no surprise that he again wants SNAP (the food stamp program) converted to a block grant that would, in some unspecified way, expand the already-existing work requirements.

The block grant clearly wouldn’t enable states to sustain current eligibility standards and benefit levels, since it would save an estimated $125 billion over 10 years. (More savings from other changes discussed below.)

It’s also no surprise that the Path would again make a block grant out of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Funding increases would be based on inflation and population growth, rather than healthcare costs and the number of people eligible.

So the federal government would save $732 billion over 10 years. And states would have the “flexibility” to cope with the loss.

Many other programs that benefit low-income people would get cut in different ways — Pell grants, for example, and Supplemental Security Income for severely disabled children. There’d be no funds at all for the Social Services Block Grant because the plan would kill it.

But here’s the devil lurking behind such details. Ryan made safety-net slashing inevitable by building his plan on certain basic principles. These are all, I hasten to add, cherished by the right-wing House majority.

First, the budget must balance within 10 years. In other words, what the federal government spends in any given year can be no greater than what it receives in tax revenues.

At the same time, the tax code can’t be changed to increase revenues. Any savings achieved by closing loopholes and the like would have to be used to offset tax cuts.

So the federal government would have to spend a great deal less — even less than seemed the case last year because the Congressional Budget Office now takes a dimmer view of prospects for economy growth and thus of revenue collections.

But — another principle here — the federal government must spend more on defense than what the Budget Control Act allows.

So what the plan giveth to defense, it must taketh away from non-defense — even more so because Ryan aims to bring total spending under the cap.

Defense would thus get $483 billion more than the sequestration levels in the BCA. Non-defense programs subject to annual appropriations would get $791 billion less.

Add cuts to the so-called mandatory programs like Medicaid and SNAP and the total non-defense loss soars to $4.8 trillion.

If At First You Don’t Succeed

This, of course, applies to the SNAP and Medicaid block grants, as well as to the fuzzily-described premium support option for Medicare — essentially, a choice of private insurance plans, with costs partially subsidized. But less over time, according to both CAP and Families USA.

As in the past, the Ryan plan would raise the Medicare eligibility age to the already-increased eligibility age for full Social Security retirement benefits.

This would leave a lot of low-income seniors in the lurch because — you knew this was coming — the plan would repeal the Affordable Care Act, including the federal funding for states that expand their Medicaid programs.

Seniors are far from the only people who’d be affected, of course. Everyone who became newly-eligible for Medicaid and everyone who’s purchased — or intends to purchase — subsidized health insurance on an exchange would be back where they were before.

At least 40 million people — one in eight Americans — would become uninsured by 2024, when the 10-year budget window closes, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ also ferocious response to the plan.

The plan would also undo compromises reflected in the new Farm Bill. For SNAP, it reverts to what the House Republicans put on the table.

Specifically, states could no longer use receipt of a TANF benefit as a basis for determining eligibility. At least 1.8 million and perhaps as many as 3 million low-income people in 40 states and the District of Columbia would lose their SNAP benefits, according to earlier estimates.

Every year, another 1 million or so would lose them because the plan resurrects another provision that didn’t survive the negotiations. This one eliminates the waivers states can get to exempt able-bodied workers without dependents from the usual work requirements when meeting them would be extraordinarily difficult.

The plan would also eliminate a provision that House Republicans got into the Farm Bill. No more so-called “heat and eat” option at all because what they hoped to achieve, i.e., SNAP benefits cuts for some 850,000 households, hasn’t altogether succeeded.

A Big So What

Well, this is the fourth Path we’ve been treated to. The last proved so problematic that House Republicans themselves couldn’t face some of the cuts required.

In any event, Congress has already passed bills setting defense and non-defense spending caps through 2021. House Republicans can’t change them. They can’t unilaterally make the far-reaching program changes either.

The plan is, however, a clear indication of Republican priorities — a “campaign manifesto,” as The New York Times calls it. Something to bear in mind as we read nervously about the upcoming Senate elections — and look beyond to 2016.

 

 


How Much Longer Before Emergency Unemployment Is Extended?

April 3, 2014

The tool I use for this blog tells me, among other things, the search terms that brought people to my posts. One last week was so sad. “How much longer before emergency unemployment is extended.”

Sad because I suspect the query writer had a person interest. Sadder because I haven’t the foggiest — and no one else does either. Saddest because I’m not sure Emergency Unemployment Compensation will be extended.

On the upside of this ongoing saga, the bipartisan Senate group agreed on some improvements to the bill I last wrote about. And the Senate will pass the bill today — perhaps before you read this — since six Republicans joined all Democrats in agreeing on the motion to vote.

On the downside, we’ve no evidence that House Speaker John Boehner will permit a vote on the bill. And he’s seized on a new reason, though it’s obvious any reason would do.

What the Senate Passed

Like the previous version, the final Senate bill renews EUC for five months, back-dated to the time it expired.

Unlike the previous version, the offsets no longer include any erosion in SSI (Supplemental Security Income) benefits. We’ve instead got another of those pension accounting devices — perhaps not the most fiscally responsible pay-for, but it gets the job done without hurting anybody.

A provision that required agencies to assess the reasons a jobless worker was still unemployed is gone — perhaps because negotiators realized how absurd it was at a time when there are only 40% as many job openings and people looking.

Also gone is a related provision requiring agencies to develop specific action plans for all EUC recipients — a daunting task for agencies that have been under-funded for a long time and will have extra work due to the benefits lapse.

Some other provisions related to “work suitability,” job searches and the like have been replaced by a benign mandate for a Government Accountability Office study.

But the ban on federally-funded unemployment benefits for millionaires and billionaires is still there — one of those cheap political gestures, like the ban on food stamps for lottery winners. A small price to pay, I suppose, but a bad precedent for a social insurance program.

Over in the House

As I’ve written before, Speaker Boehner has drawn a line in the sand. A bill to renew EUC must not only be paid for, but paired with other measures that “will get our economy moving again.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office earlier concluded that a year-long EUC extension would boost the economy and create as many as 300,000 jobs. But that apparently won’t do.

What would do isn’t clear. Boehner is still just saying he’s got to see something that “would help the economy and help people get back to work.”

He has, however, made occasional references to “dozens of bills” House Republicans have passed, e.g. to hamstring the regulatory agencies, block grant (and freeze funding for) job training programs and, needless to say, repeal the Affordable Care Act.

He now has a new arrow in his quiver, thanks to what seems to have been an ill-advised letter from the National Association of State Workforce Agencies. Giving the organization the benefit of the doubt here, since anyone with a grain of political sense would have known how the letter would be used.

Briefly, NASWA cites administrative challenges that could lead to delays in implementing the EUC renewal legislation, along with a potential for some overpayments.

No one, to my knowledge, has said it would be quick and easy, though it surely would have been if Republicans had quickly agreed to support a renewal.

Yet state agencies have successfully implemented retroactive extensions before. The Secretary of Labor cites twelve, including some with changes that “were as or more complex than those included in the current bill.”

And unless I’m mistaken, the final version of the bill addresses some of the specific concerns the state agencies raised — notably how to deal with the millionaire ban.

Boehner nevertheless insists that the bill is “unworkable,” citing the NASWA letter. The president of the association asserts that the letter didn’t “label” the bill that way — suggesting, at least to me, some second thoughts on the advisability of sending it at all.

The plain truth is that it doesn’t matter. Senator Dean Heller, a lead Republican on the bipartisan team, rightly observes that “no matter what solution is reached, there is some excuse to deny these much-needed benefits.”

So if it isn’t one thing, it will be another — unless and until something happens to persuade enough House Republicans that denying a lifeline to long-term jobless workers and their families is no way to show that the party care about everyday folks.

The stalemate — overcome in the Senate, but not the House — has thus far harmed well over 3.4 million jobless workers. An additional 72,000 join their ranks every week. Their poverty rate nearly doubles.

How much longer will this go on?

UPDATE: Prognosticators, including me, were wrong. The Senate vote on the EUC bill has been postponed until Monday.

 

 


DC Budget Should Fund Help With Disability Benefits Applications

March 31, 2014

The Fair Budget Coalition recommends, among many things, a $3.9 million increase for the District of Columbia’s Interim Disability Assistance program — a temporary income supplement for low-income residents with severe disabilities.

The increase would bring local funding for IDA to somewhat over $5.9 million — a significant increase, but still less in real dollars than the program had in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010.

It would be enough, Fair Budget says, to provide benefits — a modest $270 a month — to 1,200 more disabled residents while they wait … and wait for the Social Security Administration to render decisions on their applications for SSI (Supplemental Security Income).

If they’re successful, SSA pays their benefits retroactive to the day they applied, less what they received from the IDA program. That goes to the District, making the program partly self-sustaining.

The program could probably serve more residents with less local money if a larger number could obtain SSI benefits swiftly and/or the SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) benefits some are entitled to.

As it is, the process is complex and, more often than not, successful only after appeals — sometimes several stages thereof. This is when applicants have attorneys or other experts who know how to write, document and argue a claim.

Ms. I, for example, worked for many years cleaning offices, hospitals and nursing homes. She eventually suffered from a variety of serious ailments, plus side effects from the medications she had to take. She applied for SSI and SSDI in February 2009. Nearly two years passed before her application was approved.

But at least she got those benefits. Less than a third of SSI applications are initially approved. All but 10% ultimately are when applicants have attorneys to represent them in the appeals process, according to a pro bono attorney who spoke at an IDA briefing last fall.

But, of course, not all applicants do have attorneys. They’re hard put to gather the required proof that they’re not only income-eligible, but too disabled “to do any substantial gainful activity” for some considerable period of time.

They can easily miss one of the deadlines in the appeals process — especially, Fair Budget notes, if they’re homeless and so don’t have a mailbox to check every day.

Other applicants may also find the demands especially formidable, e.g., people unable to work because they’re developmentally disabled or suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder.

Special barriers aside, many prospectively eligible applicants decide at some point that they’ve just had enough of the time-consuming process — and the frustration.

As one who didn’t remarked at the briefing, “Either SSI is fickle or it’s set up to make people give up.” Perhaps both. Judges apply the complex regulations arbitrarily, said another of the pro bono attorneys.

A splendid example from Bread for the City, whose attorneys persuaded a judge to overturn a ruling which held that a father was demonstrably able to work because he could care for his son, with help from his family and the community.

Well, there’s nothing the District can do about the way the Social Security Administration conducts its business or the unpredictable proclivities of judges.

But they help explain why the District recovers, on average, only about 40% of the money it spends on IDA benefits — a reason Mayor Gray has taken a dim view of the program.

And they suggest that one of the items on his last wish list, i.e., funding priorities if revenues were higher than projected, should be put into the budget itself, as Fair Budget recommends.

I’m referring to funding for services to help residents apply for SSI. They’d then know, insofar as anyone can, what records they need to collect. Also, one hopes, how to describe their disabling condition(s) so as to ping the SSA checklist. They’d get help with appointments, Fair Budget suggests — and those who need it, a mailing address.

The investment should lead to more and quicker approvals, thus moving beneficiaries out of the IDA program to make way for others.

At the same time, more approvals would boost the reimbursement rate. So the District could tide over more SSI applicants without commensurate budget increases. It might, in fact, no longer have a waiting list, which undermines the whole point of interim assistance.

As things stand now, the Department of Human Services has capped IDA “customers” at 1,000 for this fiscal year. The DC Fiscal Policy Institute estimates that it will actually serve 825 — about 30% as many as it served in Fiscal Year 2009.

I need hardly add, I hope, that it would be a whole lot better for low-income residents with severe disabilities to receive SSI benefits, low as they are, than the $270 a month IDA provides. SSA might find some eligible for SSDI, which could be even better for them.

Fair Budget recommends $580,000 for SSI application assistance — about 60% of what the Mayor put on his wish list. The ask seems to me very small. But at least it would get the program started — without, one hopes, compromises in quality.

If it proves effective, as a particular model for homeless people has, then the District will have home-grown results justifying an increase.


Rent’s Way Too High for Low-Income DC Residents

March 27, 2014

The National Low Income Housing Coalition celebrates the 25th anniversary of Out of Reach — its annual report on rental housing (un)affordability for low-income households.

As in the past, it provides figures for the U.S. as a whole, each state and the District of Columbia, along with rankings of highest and lowest-cost jurisdictions.

The Big Picture

The big-picture story is well-known, though the figures give it new punch.

There’s a growing shortage of units that are both affordable and available to extremely low-income renter households, i.e. those whose gross incomes are at or below 30% of the median for the area they live in.

There are 10.2 million of them — about one in four of all renter households. Three-quarters of them spend at least half their income on housing, leaving them little for other expenses — and at high risk of homelessness.

Their so-called severe housing burdens are partly the result of the growing shortage — a 7 million unit deficit in 2012. They also reflect inadequate funding for housing assistance programs, which now help only about a quarter of eligible households.

Rental housing in the District is more expensive than in all but one state — Hawaii — according to NLIHC’s measures (of which more below).

A modest two-bedroom apartment, plus basic utilities would be out of reach even for workers who earn the local average for renters — and way out of reach for minimum wage workers.

How NLIHC Measures Housing Affordability

As I’ve written before, NLIHC uses several major measures:

  • The fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment, as set for the jurisdiction by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • The housing wage, i.e., how much a full-time worker would have to earn per hour for the apartment to be affordable at the customary 30% of gross income.
  • The estimated average wage for renters, based on several federal sources.

We’re cautioned against comparing this year’s figures to those NLIHC has previously reported because, it says, the FMR methodology HUD now uses introduces more year-to-year variability. Frustrating for those of us who want to track trends. And who doesn’t?

Be that as it may, here’s what we learn about how affordable rents are out of reach for several, mostly overlapping groups of low-income households in the District.

Perspectives on Rental Housing Costs in DC

The FMR for a two-bedroom apartment in the District is $1,469 a month. It would thus be affordable for a household earning $58,760 a year. This translates into a housing wage of $28.25 an hour — $20 more than the current minimum wage.

A minimum wage worker would have to put in 137 hours a week, every week to afford the apartment. Looked at another way, a household would have to include 3.4 full-time, year round minimum wage workers.

And in another way, the gap between the full-time minimum wage and earnings that would make the apartment affordable is nearly as large as the FMR — $1,049 a month.

The apartment is unaffordable, though far less so for District residents earning the local average for renters — $1,327. The gap in this case is $142. The renter would have to work 44 hours a week, year round to close it.

The gap reported for ELI households is $667 a month, but it’s surely larger for many. For one thing, the gap is based on the maximum 30% of AMI, though many households have to get along on less. For another, the AMI itself is misleadingly high because it’s inflated by incomes in nearby suburbs.

Last and worst off are households that rely solely on one member’s SSI (Supplemental Security Income) benefits. For them, the gap is a jaw-dropping $1,253.

Notwithstanding the caution, I’ll note that the gaps are all bigger than those NLIHC reported last year. This is not only because rental costs are rising — and low-cost rental units vanishing. It’s also because incomes aren’t keeping up — at least, for households in the bottom 40%.

The average hourly wage for renters is only 32 cents higher than what NLIHC estimated for 2013, while the housing wage is $1.10 higher. And though the District’s minimum wage will rise to $11.50 in 2016, it will still be less than half this year’s housing wage.

Do we need more local funding for affordable rental housing programs? Oh yes, we do.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers