We Don’t Know How Many DC Youth Are Homeless, But We Do Know Too Many

October 9, 2014

My last post focused on poverty among older teens and young adults, both in the District of Columbia and nationwide. Some, though far from all are homeless. Here’s what we know — and don’t — about the scope of the problem.

As you’ll see, we still don’t have a good fix on how many homeless young people are out in the world alone — those formally known as “unaccompanied.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that, on a single night sometime during January 2013, there were 40,727 homeless, unaccompanied youth in the U.S. These are all 18-24 year olds. Teenagers on the cusp of adulthood are lumped together with younger children. Far fewer were unaccompanied, according to the counts HUD tabulated.

Nearly half (48%) of the unaccompanied youth counted were unsheltered, i.e., spending the night in a car, public transit station or, in HUD-speak, elsewhere “not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping place for human beings.”

The District reported only six homeless, unaccompanied minors and said that all were sheltered. As some of you may recall, I questioned this figure when the results of the Washington metro area counts were first reported.

To HUD itself, the District also reported 158 homeless 18-24 year olds “in households without children.” Eighteen, it said, were unsheltered.

An additional 446 in the same age bracket and counted were in households with at least one children — presumably, in most cases, their own. Somewhat over half were in an emergency shelter — and none unsheltered, the report says.

If accurate, this is probably because the count was made on a freezing-cold night, when the District is legally obliged to shelter anyone who would otherwise have no safe place to stay.

What we know for sure is that more parents at the now-notorious DC General shelter are still in their teens or not much older. Last winter, nearly half there were between 18 and 24, according to the coalition that developed the roadmap for a better homeless family system.

Yet we also know for sure that both the national and the District’s figures are undercounts. This is partly because homeless youth — the unaccompanied, at least — are singularly hard to count.

But even the best count wouldn’t give us an accurate read because the definition of “homeless” that HUD must use — and therefore, the definition its grantees must use for their counts — excludes many youth, as well as older people whom most of us, I think, would consider homeless.

HUD has only recently begun requiring breakouts for homeless youth. And the latest posted reports are more detailed than those for the previous year. So we can’t trace trends. But we do have some evidence that the number of homeless, unaccompanied children and youth is rising.

The Department of Education, whose definition of “homeless” is broader than HUD’s, reports that the public school systems to which it had awarded grants for support to homeless students had 62,890 who were enrolled during the 2012-13 school year and with no parent or guardian looking out for them. This represents a 14% increase over the 2010-11 school year.

We don’t get a breakout for the District, alas. But we do find total homeless student enrollment figures in prior Education Department reports.

So we learn that the D.C. public schools reported 2,499 homeless students during the 2009-10 school year and 2,947 during the 2011-12 school year. This represents an increase of nearly 18%.

Though the upward trends indicated are probably accurate, the hard numbers are again almost surely undercounts.

For one thing, the homeless, unaccompanied students are only those who received services from grant-funded staff or activities. For another, the totals, including the District’s, tell us only how many homeless students school authorities could identify.

Homeless students, we’re told, are often reluctant to seek aid and hard for school authorities to identify when they don’t. They’re fearful of peer reactions, being put into foster care, etc. We can assume this is especially the case for those who are on their own.

And, of course, the Education Department’s figures don’t include youth who’ve dropped out of school — or those who’ve graduated and been unable to find jobs that would give them the wherewithal for rent.

In sum we seem to have better data on homeless children and youth than we used to — the unaccompanied cohort in particular. But we know they’re imperfect.

Here in the District, we may have better numbers fairly soon. The budget for this fiscal year includes $1.3 million for the End Homeless Youth Act — an optimistically titled bill based on recommendations by another coalition.

The bill requires the Department of Human Services to conduct “an extended youth count,” which, I take it, means something considerably more comprehensive than the one-night counts that have yielded such dubious figures.

But the bill itself called for $10 million in annual funding, reflecting what the coalition estimated the first year of its plan would cost. A million was for evaluation, including, but not limited to the youth count.

So it’s not altogether clear what we’ll have and when. Meanwhile, however, even the figures we have are plenty good enough to tell us that we’ve got a larger, more complex problem than our public agencies and the nonprofits they help support have the resources or the inter-connections to cope with effectively — let alone solve.

The Winter Plan for the upcoming season identifies 117 shelter beds specifically for young adults and 10 beds (no, this is not a typo) for unaccompanied minors.

And, as I earlier wrote, there’s no genuine plan for homeless families — thus none for the large number headed by parents in their late teens and early twenties. Setting aside the urgent shelter capacity issue, solutions designed for older people, e.g., rapid re-housing, may not be suitable for them.

Many challenges for the new administration. One can only hope it will be more concerned with meeting the diverse needs of its homeless constituents — even if that means spending more, as it probably will.

 

 


More Than a Third of Young DC Adults in Poverty Last Year

October 6, 2014

My recent post on the new poverty rates for the District of Columbia prompted an email from Deborah Shore. She wanted to know what I could tell her about poverty among older teens and young adults.

I’m sure many of you know why. For the rest, Deborah is the executive director of Sasha Bruce Youthwork, a nonprofit she founded 40 years ago. It now provides emergency shelter, transitional housing and a range of services to homeless and at-risk youth in the District.

Deborah also chairs the board of the National Network for Youth — a large coalition of organizations that serve and advocate for runaway, homeless and disconnected youth, i.e., those who are neither in school nor working.

I’m grateful for her question because, like many others who reported on the results of the American Community Survey, I didn’t initially pay attention to the figures for young adults.

Children, of course. Yet the very high poverty rates for them, both in the District and nationwide, can’t be neatly separated from poverty among teens and young adults because some are parents — mostly single mothers, it seems.

The Census Bureau doesn’t tell us a whole lot about youth in poverty, though I suspect one could dig up a fair amount if one had the tools to work with the detailed tables that expand what it reports from a special piece of the Current Population Survey. I don’t.

So I went searching among the thousands of tables the Bureau uses to report the results of the ACS — a better source for community-level data anyway. Here’s what I found there and in some other reports.

Folded into the District’s child poverty rate are roughly 2,925 children on the verge of adulthood, i.e., 16 and 17 year olds. They represent about a tenth of all poor D.C. children — a far lower percent than the very youngest.

But many more who’d just crossed the threshold were officially poor. The Census Bureau reports 21,000 young D.C. adults, i.e., 18-24 year olds, in poverty. This makes for an age-group poverty rate of a bit under 37%. It’s more than 11% higher than the national poverty rate for the age group.

And (here comes the bombshell ) nearly one in four young adults in the District lived in deep poverty last year, i.e., had incomes at or below half the applicable threshold. For one person living alone, deep poverty means a maximum annual income of $6,060 — and for a single parent with one child, a maximum of $8,029.

By far and away more young adults in the District were deeply poor than poor, but less so. This was not true for young adults nationwide. For them, the deep poverty rate was 13.7%, according to the ACS, or 10.2%, according to CLASP’s analysis of the Current Population Survey.

Well, what are we to make of all this? One thing is that the poverty rates reflect the unusually hard time young adults are having in the labor market.

The unemployment rate for 18-19 year olds was 19.8% last month, as compared to 5.4% for everyone older who was also jobless and actively looking for work. The rate for 20-24 years olds was 11.4%. And rates for both groups were even higher for men.

Such figures as we have suggest that far from all jobless young people were actively looking. Last year, only 64.7% of 18-24 year olds were either working or seeking work. This is nearly 8.7% lower than in 2000.

At the same time, those who were working didn’t earn much. The median for 18-24 year olds was $17,760 in 2012 — and for those with less than a high school education, a mere $13,510.

Try as I might, I haven’t found comparable figures for young adults in the District. The Economic Policy Institute provides a couple that come close, however. It tells us that 14.8% of D.C. workers under 25 were unemployed last year, not including those who were still enrolled in school or those who’d decided it was futile to look.

An additional 26.2% were underemployed, i.e., working part time, though they wanted full-time work or had looked during the year, but given up. (I don’t know why EPI doesn’t count the latter as unemployed.)

Both rates are due partly to the fact that young workers generally have a tougher time getting — and staying — employed than workers with more job experience. This is especially true when there are far more job-seekers than jobs to go around.

But the premium our local labor market puts on college degrees is probably also a factor, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s analysis of 2012 unemployment rates shows.

And so far as good jobs are concerned, only one of the “high demand/high wage” jobs in the District requires only a high school diploma or the equivalent — and only two others less than a four-year college degree.

Both the poverty and the un/underemployment rates help explain the surge of homeless families in the District, since nearly half the parents who spent at least part of last winter in the DC General family shelter were 18-24 year olds.

They also help explain some first-time-ever figures for homeless youth who had no family members with them. Of which more in my next post.

 


How Does DC Stack Up Against States?

September 18, 2014

A few additional factoids from the new Census Bureau figures — all reinforcing the acute income divide I’ve already remarked on.

On the one hand, the median income for households in the District was higher than the medians in all but four states. Neighboring Maryland had the highest — $72,483. The District’s was $4,911 lower.

On the other hand, only five states had higher poverty rates than the District. And the District tied with Alabama for the sixth highest child poverty rate. Pretty remarkable when you consider that Alabama had the fourth lowest median income.


DC Poverty Rate Rises to Nearly 19%

September 18, 2014

I was all set to write that the poverty rate for the District of Columbia dipped down last year, just as the official national rate had. But no, according to the just-released results of the American Community Survey.

The District’s poverty rate increased from 18.2% in 2012 to 18.9% in 2013,  Or so it seems. The increase is small enough increase to fall within the margin of error.*

Here’s more of what we’ve got, plus a few remarks here and there.

The Big Picture

The new poverty rate means that approximately 115,630 District residents lived on less than the very low applicable poverty threshold — just $23,624 for a two-parent, two-child family or about 26% of the family’s basic living costs in the D.C. area.

The rate is 2.5% higher than in 2007, just before the recession set in. It is also 3.1% higher than the 2013 national rate.

The deep poverty rate, i.e., the percent of residents living below half the applicable income threshold, was 10.3%. In other words, somewhat over 63,000 residents were devastatingly poor, especially when we consider the high costs of living in the District.

Young and Old

As in the past, the child poverty rate was much higher than the overall rate — 27.2%. This means that about 29,740 D.C. children were officially poor — well over half of them (16.2%) deeply so.

Both the total and the deep poverty rates for children were slightly higher than in 2012 — in both cases, by less than 1%. But they were considerably higher than in 2007, when the child poverty rate was 22.7% and the deep poverty rate for children 12%.

They were also both higher than the national rates. These, according to the ACS, were 22.2% and 9.9%.

Seniors had lower poverty and deep poverty rates — 17.5% and 4.5% respectively. These too, however, were higher than the nationwide rates. And a better poverty measure than the clunker the ACS uses would probably yield higher rates for seniors here in the District.

Non-Hispanic Whites v. Everybody Else

Race/ethnicity gaps in the District remain very wide. For example:

  • The black poverty rate was more than three and a half times greater than the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 28.7%, as compared to 7.7%.
  • For blacks, the deep poverty rate was 15.2%, while for non-Hispanic whites only 5.1%.
  • For Hispanics, the poverty rate was 12.6% and the deep poverty rate 5.6%. These are markedly lower than the 2012 rates, unlike the others here.
  • Rates for Asians were 18.7% and 13.2% respectively.

We see similar disparities in median household income, i.e., the midpoint between the highest and the lowest.

  • The median income for non-Hispanic white households was a very comfortable $118,402.
  • For black households, the median income was less than a third of that — $38,124.
  • Hispanic and Asian households fell in between, with a median incomes of $50,861 and $63,281 respectively.

The non-Hispanic white household median was a whole lot higher here than nationwide, by nearly $60,720.  The medians for black and Hispanic households were higher too, but the dollar differences were much smaller, especially the former. The median for Asian households was lower — a surprise, since it was considerably higher in 2012.

Work and Education

We’re told that work is the solution to poverty. The ACS figures support this, but only up to a point.

In 2013, 46.5% of poor residents between the ages of 16 and 64 didn’t work at all. An additional 25.7% worked less than full time or intermittently.

But that still leaves nearly 8,380 working-age residents who were employed full-time, year round and still not earning enough to lift themselves out of poverty — or at least, not them and dependent family members.

It’s a fair guess that these are mostly residents who don’t have the formal education credentials that living-wage jobs here, as elsewhere, increasingly demand. This is probably also the case for many of the part-time and some-time employed.

What we do know is that roughly 44.5% of residents 25-64 years old who had less than a high school education were employed during 2013 — and only 54.2% with no more than that.

Not surprisingly then, the poverty rate for those 25 years and older who had just a high school diploma or the equivalent was 27% last year — and for those with less, 39.3%. By contrast, the poverty rate for those with at least a four-year college degree was just 5.4%.

(Yes, I know these shifting age brackets are frustrating.)

Income Inequality

There’s obviously a lot of wealth in the District — and a lot of poverty. We see this in the figures I’ve cited, but also in the fact that the average household income — $102,822 — is so much greater than the median.

While 15.3% of households had incomes under $15,000, 12% had incomes of at least $200,000 — the highest bracket the Census Bureau reports.

There’s nothing new about this divide, except for the specific numbers. Nor is it unique to the District, though the disparity here seems unusually high. Nothing new about that either.

Most experts — and advocates as well — view the growing income inequality in this country as a bad thing in and of itself. They also see negatives specifically for people at the low end of the income scale. Many of the same arguments would apply to the District.

Nearly 10,860 families in the District had annual incomes, including cash benefits of less than $10,000 last year. Surely we can do better, though doing it won’t be simple.

* All the ACS tables include the margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. In the interests of simplicity, I’m reporting both as given.

NOTE: I’ve revised several figures in this post because I’ve learned that I should use the ACS national figures for comparisons. I had originally used the Current Population Survey for these because that’s how I understood the Census Bureau advice.


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.

 


New Rule Shows Need to Rename DC’s Rapid Re-Housing Program

August 7, 2014

The District’s Department of Human Services has issued another emergency rule* for its rapid re-housing program — formally named the Family Re-Housing and Stabilization Program. The notice says that the agency intends to make this one permanent.

It’s got me wondering what DHS has in mind for its rapid re-housing program — and what we should have in mind. Here’s why.

DHS has, in the past, looked to rapid re-housing as its main tool for getting homeless families out of the DC General shelter quickly so as to free up space for more. That has never worked out as planned, but it’s still apparently reflected in the agency’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

The budget assumes only 150 families at DC General and allocates no funds whatever for hotel rooms if this assumption proves egregiously over-optimistic.

So you’d think that DHS would give its all to make rapid re-housing an attractive option for homeless families — and to get all takers rapidly re-housed. You’d also think its recent experience with the Mayor’s 500 Families in 100 Days campaign would have made an imprint.

I’m thinking here about how the campaign managed to identify something pretty close to the targeted 500 acceptable units landlords would rent to families with only short-term housing subsidies.

Lots of outreach by nonprofits that had relationships with potentially willing landlords. Efforts to acquaint them with rapid re-housing — something hopeful parents couldn’t always do on their own. Reassurances that reportedly included promises of financial help if tenants defaulted.

Yet the FRSP rule instead requires homeless families to find suitable units, sign leases for them and actually move in within 30 days.

As a fallback, they can attempt to prove they’ve done their best to find a unit that a landlord will rent to them at a rate consistent with the applicable affordability standard — and one that can pass inspection.

Only then can the service provider they’ve been assigned to offer them a unit that’s already been identified as suitable and available, assuming such exists. The rule makes no provision for maintaining an inventory of units.

The burden on homeless families is consistent with what the emergency rule says FRSP will do — “provide District residents with financial assistance for purposes of helping them become rapidly re-housed” (emphasis added).

Staying re-housed is a whole other matter. DC Fiscal Policy Institute analyst Kate Coventry notes that families must initially pay 40% of their rental costs, rather than the 30% that’s used for public housing and indefinite-term housing vouchers — and more generally, as the maximum for housing affordability.

Families will then become responsible for increasing shares of their rent every four months, when their provider decides whether they’re still eligible for rapid re-housing. Or at the very least, their ability to pick up a bigger share will be a factor.

This is consistent with initial eligibility, as the rule defines it. Only families providing information leading to “a reasonable expectation” that they “will have the financial capacity to pay the full amount at the end of the FRSP assistance period” can qualify.

So in one respect, shifting the rent burden to them at four-month intervals might seem reasonable, especially because they’ll get no subsidy at the end of a year — unless their need for further assistance is “caused by extraordinary circumstances.” What those might be the rule doesn’t say.

We can assume, however, that merely lacking enough money to pay the rent won’t suffice. So a reality check seems in order.

Families who’ll get top priority for FRSP are those in a publicly-funded shelter or transitional housing and those who’ve been designated Priority One because they have no safe place to spend the night.

A large majority of those at DC General are enrolled in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. This means they are dirt poor and relying, at least officially, on benefits that wouldn’t begin to cover rental costs in the District.

By way of reference, the maximum monthly benefit for a family of three will probably be about $438 come October. A modest one-bedroom apartment costs, on average, roughly $1,240 a month, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fair market rent calculations.

So a family that’s relying on TANF would have to rapidly bootstrap its way up the income scale to avoid becoming homeless again when its FRSP subsidy expired. And I do mean up. A full-time minimum wage job would leave the parent in our three-person family with about $305 for expenses after s/he paid the rent on the FMR apartment.

In short, FRSP, as now designed, may rapidly re-house homeless families. But it shouldn’t lay claim to stabilization. And though the name still does, the new rule doesn’t.

DCFPI’s comments on the new rule observe that the one it replaces defined the purpose of the program as “assisting … [families] to obtain and remain in a new rental unit.”

Now “and remain” is gone. And the rule is utterly silent on services that might help some rapidly re-housed families become stably housed, though one infers they will receive case management of some sort.

Arguably, even a year (or less) in a reasonably decent private apartment is better than enduring conditions at DC General. But respite from shelter isn’t what rapid re-housing is supposed to be about.

It’s undoubtedly all that some families need to get through a bad patch, e.g., an injury that sidelined the breadwinner for awhile, an over-long break between contracts.

And it’s altogether possible that some other families will overcome barriers that have made them unable to afford market-rate rents for a long time. But I doubt we’ll find all that many of them at DC General — or entitled to shelter, if it’s freezing cold, because they’re designated Priority One.

And I suspect DHS shares these doubts. How else to explain the retreat from the goal of stabilization?

* Unlike ordinary rules, emergency rules become effective immediately, rather than after the public has had an opportunity to comment. The District’s Administrative Procedures Act says they are for occasions when “the adoption of a rule is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, welfare, or morals.”

 


New Insights Into Housing (In)security for DC’s Lowest-Income Residents

July 24, 2014

Nobody who lives in the District of Columbia — or follows housing issues — needs to be told that rents are too damn high here. Nor that they consume an inordinate portion of low-income residents’ budgets.

A just-released study by the Urban Institute is nonetheless newsworthy because it provides many and diverse figures on our affordable housing situation, along with details on our homeless population and its needs — met and unmet.

The full study covers not only the District, but other jurisdictions in the Washington metro area. So we get comprehensive figures and interesting opportunities for comparisons.

As is always the case, however, the figures for the District understate affordability problems because they’re based on the median income for the entire area.

For the 2009-11 period covered by the housing portion of the study, that was $106,100 for a family of four. By way of rough comparison, the median income for four-person D.C. families was $84,400 last year.

But we’ve got to go with what we’ve got. So here are a few of the many things one can extract about what the study labels housing security in the District. As you’ll see, it might more appropriately be labeled housing insecurity for the lowest-income residents.

Housing Burdens

The Urban Institute, like most analysts, uses the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s affordability measures.

HUD sets 30% of household income as the affordability cut-off. A household that pays more is said to have a housing-cost burden. A household that pays more than half its income has a severe housing-cost burden.

Slightly more than half of all District households were, to some degree, cost-burdened — and 28% severely so. But housing-cost burdens were vastly more common for the District’s 63,700 or so extremely low-income households, i.e., those with incomes at or below 30% of the area median.

All but 16% of them paid more than 30% of their income for housing — generally rent, plus basic utilities, though 18% were classified as homeowners.

And nearly two-thirds (66%) had a severe housing-cost burden. This is nearly three times greater than the percent for very low-income households, i.e., those in the next income tier.

Rental Housing Availability

The rental housing market was — and still is — extremely tight. Of the total rent units the Urban Institute identified, only 8% were vacant during the 2009-11 period.

So the old law of supply and demand helps explain the housing-cost burdens for lower-income residents, as well as the cost burdens for some much better-off households.

Only 26% of the units rented for less than $800 a month — roughly what an extremely low-income family of four could afford.

But the story is more complicated. About a third of these units were occupied by higher-income households. And only 0.9% of them were vacant.

So the rental housing market was shy 22,100 units that extremely low-income families could have lived in without a cost burden.

More units affordable for very low-income households were occupied by those with higher incomes. But because the District has more such units — and because more were vacant — the Urban Institute finds no shortage.

Subsidized Housing

In 2012, HUD subsidized roughly 33,900 housing units in the District. Housing Choice (formerly Section 8) vouchers accounted for 41% — some of them vouchers awarded to developers so they could charge affordable rents and some given directly to eligible households, which could then rent on the open market.

Public housing accounted for an additional 25% of the affordable units. Subsidies for the remaining 11,600 units came from a mix of programs. It’s not clear that all these units were affordable for the District’s lowest-income households.

What is clear is that there were far more extremely-low income households than HUD-subsidized units — and that the District’s own voucher program fell far short of closing the gap.

Looking only at renter households, the Urban Institute reports 43 subsidized units for every 100 extremely low-income households during the 2009-11 period. This, recall, is before HUD’s budget got hit by sequestration.

What’s Missing

As informative — and depressing — as all these numbers are, they tell only part of the story. We need also to consider where the affordable units were.

As the Urban Institute says, “they may not be in neighborhoods of opportunity that were transit accessible, close to jobs, or had amenities like grocery stores.” For the District, this is probably more apt now as gentrification has spread.

We need also to consider whether the affordable units were livable. The recent Washington Post exposé of conditions at Park Southern tells us that some surely weren’t. Leaks, mold, rotting dead birds on the stairwell, etc.

Not a unique case, by any means, as a recent NPR story indicates.

What Now?

It would be nice to end this long post with a policy solution. The best I can do isn’t good enough.

Clearly, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute says, we need to invest more in affordable housing. Like the Urban Institute, it also says we should increase the total number of housing units, since this could relieve the demand pressures that are driving up costs.

The”we” here ought to be the federal government, as well as our local government and private sources. But it almost surely won’t be any time soon — even if the House doesn’t altogether get its way on what the HUD budget should be.

We need also to help extremely and very low-income households join the higher income tiers. An obviously large and varied agenda here.

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers