DC Mayor Wants Law Changed to Allow New Dorm-Style Family Shelters

October 1, 2015

Mayor Bowser has formally asked the DC Council to approve two changes to the Homeless Services Reform Act — the law that establishes the framework for the District’s policies and programs for homeless people.

One would allow the administration to open new family shelters without apartment-style units. The other would alter the regular appeals process in cases where the Department of Human Services shelters families temporarily and then denies them shelter for a longer term.

The administration links the changes to the recently revived policy of sheltering homeless families with no safe place to stay year round, rather than admitting them only in freezing-cold weather, when the law says it must.

Seems the Council — and the rest of us — are to view the changes as an “all or nothing at all” package, though the bill itself would leave in place the current, much more restrictive right to shelter.

I want to give the issues the space I think they deserve. So I’ll confine myself here to the shelter units. Still a lot to grapple with, as you’ll see.

Why the New Shelter Plan Hinges on an Amendment

The HSRA generally requires the District to provide apartment-style shelter units for homeless families — separate bedrooms for parents and children, plus bathrooms, “cooking facilities” and related equipment for only the family. This has been honored more in the breach than the observance for a long time.

Families at DC General, the main family shelter, are in single rooms, barely converted from what were once hospital rooms. The motel rooms DHS puts homeless families in when DC General is full are just that — not suites with kitchenettes. The legal out in both cases is that the HSRA permits private rooms if no apartment-style units are available.

The administration plans to replace DC General with smaller shelters scattered around the city, picking up on the plan of sorts issued late in the Gray administration. It too wants only private rooms in the shelters.

No legal out in this case, since a shortage of apartment-style units wouldn’t apply. So the administration wants a change in the law that would allow it to choose either apartment-style or what’s essentially dormitory-style.

Why the Administration Has Opted for Private Rooms

The bottom line is the bottom line, as DHS Director Laura Zeilinger’s presentation to a “listening session” made clear. The choice, in other words, is cost-driven — in two ways.

The first is what the administration would have to pay for shelters built from the ground up or created by renovation. They’d obviously cost more if all the units were apartment-style, as the HSRA defines it.

Yet a slide in a series Zeilinger used at the session indicates that the extra cost wouldn’t be all that great. We see estimates for 200 units, equally divided into four new shelters. Apartment-style units for all of them would cost roughly $16.6 million more.

Not chump change, but hardly beyond the pale, since the capital budget — the source of the new shelter funds — is about $72.3 million. On the other hand, the Mayor can’t just dip into that budget for anything she chooses.

Cost estimates, of course, reflect not only the type of units, but the number. DHS claims it would need more if they were apartment-style because they wouldn’t turn over as fast. It’s got several slides showing that families stay longer in them.

The only local data presented do seem to support this. But they don’t necessarily indicate that families feel so at home that they don’t try to find housing — or accept it when offered.

The data could instead reflect where DHS has focused its housing placement efforts and/or the fact that families got apartment-style units for reasons that make affordable housing for them unusually difficult to find.

“I’m not saying we want to make shelter uncomfortable,” Zeilinger told us at the listening session. But it’s hard to come to any other conclusion.

What Troubles Advocates

Attorney Amber Harding, speaking for the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless, says they’re concerned about “lowering the floor for health and safety.” Health because germs spread — endangering all, but especially parents and children with conditions that compromise their immune systems.

Also because families would have to eat whatever DHS provides. Parents at DC General have long complained that they or their children can’t eat what the agency has trucked in for them, in part because of food sensitivities or special dietary needs.

Safety refers partly to the fact that children would have to share bathrooms with adults who may have perverse sexual proclivities and/or uncontrolled tendencies to violence. Unreasonable to expect them to use a bathroom only when a same-sex parent can chaperone.

Beyond the issue of actual physical danger, we should consider what Tamaso Johnson at the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence referred to as “acute concerns for safety.” These are understandably common among victims of domestic violence, as well as people, including children who’ve experienced other traumas.

For them, strangers in the bathrooms they’d have to use and in other “intimate settings,” as Johnson called them, could trigger anxieties they wouldn’t experience in apartment-style units — or at the very least, less communal arrangements.

What Standards Would Apply

Zeilinger says we need to look at the bigger picture. The flexibility the administration wants if part of “a larger plan to improve resources for struggling families,” including “better quality rooms” than what they have at DC General.

This seems to me a very low bar. And, in fact, the amendment the administration seeks would license another warehouse for homeless families because it sets no minimal standards.

DHS has shared two possible layouts, reflecting “principles” or “prototypical design elements” of a new shelter. These include several types of bathrooms, including at least one unit per floor with its own.

But all the administration would have to comply with is the “private room” definition the Council set after the Gray administration contended that screened-off spaces in recreation centers qualified — four permanent walls, a ceiling, a door that locks, lights that can be turned on an off from inside the cubicle and access to a hot shower.

The heart of the debate, I think, is how much more flexibility the DC Council should build into the HSRA. The Mayor and her lead officials may have all the best intentions. They may tweak the design principles to accommodate some concerns.

But who knows that will happen to them, tweaked or otherwise, if officials can’t contract for enough replacement units without compromising them?

The proposed amendment does require the administration to maintain apartment-style units. But there’s nothing to ensure it will lease up enough for all the families that would suffer harm during even a brief stay in a single room. Zeilinger’s focus on lengths of stay could make one queasy.

In short, it seems prudent for the Council to balance relief from the apartment-style unit mandate with some legally-binding constraints.

Alternatively, it could find the funds for apartment-style units or, at least, some compromise. What about rooms with private bathrooms, plus some food storage and prep equipment, for example?


Will We Have DC Families Living on Less Than $2 a Day?

September 28, 2015

Short answer to the question the title poses is we already do, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute reports. And about a year from now, we could have well over 6,000, including about 13,000 children with no cash income whatever unless Mayor Bowser comes up with a lifeline that the DC Council approves.

“This is the single most important moment for poverty in D.C.” since the birth of DCFPI in 2001, Executive Director Ed Lazere told a group of us meeting to discuss the crisis those families may face.

What Has Driven So Many Families Into Such Deep Poverty

Families who’ve participated in the District’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for a lifetime total of 60 months or more have exceeded the time limit District law now sets. It provides for a benefits phase-out leading to zero in October 2016.

The Council suspended the phase-out after the first cut, but then let it resume. So a three-person TANF family now receives a benefit equivalent to 9% (not a typo) of the federal poverty line.

What Federal Law Has to Do With the Time Limit

No state or the District must have a time limit. We can trace the reason virtually all do to the law that established TANF. It generally prohibits states from using their federal block grant funds for cash assistance to adults or minor heads-of-household after they’ve been in the program for 60 months. Exceptions allowed, however (of which more below).

What We Know About TANF and Work

Parents do, by and large, seem to have a sense of urgency about finding work. Extremely low benefits, as well as imminent cut-offs help account for this, though we shouldn’t ignore aspirations and values they share with the great majority of Americans.

Staying in the workforce — and in a job that pays more than the very low maximum for TANF eligibility — is another matter.

We know from past research that adults who leave TANF for work or because work they had began to pay more often return to the program — about one in five during the late 1990s, when the labor market was considerably more favorable than it is now.

A more recent audit of the District’s longest-term participants casts severe doubts on their employment and earnings prospects. Fewer than half the parents who’d received job training and/or placement help got a job of any sort. And only a tiny fraction still had those jobs six months later.

These dismal results probably reflect, among other things, reasons they’ve come up against the time limit. A deplorable lack of current research here.

But we know from a 2002 study of the District’s TANF caseload that most parents who’d remained in the program for three years faced multiple barriers to work, e.g., less than a high school education, little (or no) work experience, mental health problems, recent and severe domestic violence, sick children or other family members they had to care for.

These findings generally conform to others. An evaluation of a Minnesota TANF employment program, for example, found, among other things, that about two-thirds of participants had a physical or learning disability, a mental health problem and/or responsibility for an incapacitated family member.

What the District Could Do

The District had no time limit until 2011, after soon-to-be Mayor Gray pushed through a bill during his last days as Council Chairman — a license for him to revert to his earlier benefits phase-out plan.

And indeed, he did, but with none of the relief options federal rules allow. For example, the District could extend benefits beyond the time limit for up to 20% of its average caseload and still use federal funds to pay for them so long as the families met criteria for “hardship,” however it chose to define that, or had a member who’d been “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.”

Most states extend benefits when parents, for various reasons, can’t be expected to immediately find work — because they’re victims of domestic violence, for example, sick or incapacitated or caring for family member who is.

As of mid-2013, 14 states provided extensions when parents were “cooperating,” i.e., doing what their plans said they should, but couldn’t find work. This would seem especially relevant to the District’s at-risk families.

Though we don’t know how many of the parents have less than a high school diploma or the equivalent, we do know that working-age residents (25-64 years old) without the credential have very high unemployment rates — nearly 14.6% last year, according to the American Community Survey. Probably even higher for younger residents.

We also know that parents in the District’s TANF program are still on waiting lists for job training and placement services — about 300, the new head of the agency responsible for TANF told us at the meeting.

More to the point perhaps, parents waited, on average, 11 months for such services last year. But the clock kept ticking toward the time limit.

And some of them were pretty far along before the Department of Human Services rolled out improvements in both the training component and the assessments used to decide which services would best prepare parents for work. Time in the old problem-riddled program still counts.

What Will Happen Next

The budget for the upcoming fiscal year pushes back the benefits cut-off that was originally set for October 2015 in part because the Mayor wanted DHS to have some time to develop an extension policy — something it should have done four years ago.

One can hope the policy recognizes the fact that the vast majority of TANF parents aren’t to blame for remaining unemployed — or so egregiously under-employed as to still be income-eligible.

Nor to blame if some unforeseeable barrier arises after they’ve passed the time limit, e.g., an eruption of domestic violence or stalking, a debilitating illness. Needless to say, children aren’t to blame, no matter what.

All this calls for not only liberal extensions, but a rollback of the benefits cuts that have caused such dire hardships for the 60-month families.

Yet even the best extension policy and fully restored benefits can’t make up for flaws in the basic structure of the federal TANF law — the main reason some 1.5 million families have had to get by on, at most, $2 a day.

When No News Isn’t Good News: Hunger Edition

September 24, 2015

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that the food insecurity rate last year was so little different from the 2013 rate as to be statistically the same — 14%.

That’s about 17.4 million households or a total of 48.1 million people without “consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.”

There was also no measurable change in what USDA calls the “very low food security rate,” i.e., the percent of households where at least one member sometimes didn’t have enough to eat due to lack of resources, including SNAP (food stamp) benefits.

More than 6.9 million households — 5.6% of all in the U.S. — fell into this category. And in 422,000 of them, children were sometimes hungry, had to skip meals or even went a whole day without anything to eat. No statistically significant change in this rate either.

These figures almost surely understate the actual extent of malnutrition and hunger in this country because the survey they’re based on doesn’t include homeless individuals or families. They’re nonetheless troubling. And the news doesn’t get more cheering as we drill down.

Food Insecurity Over the Longer Term

The nationwide food insecurity rate peaked in 2011, when it was 14.9%. The latest rate is lower than that, by a meaningful amount. But the very low food security rate isn’t.

Looking back over a longer time period, the food insecurity rate in 1999 was 10.1%. It rose every year, but one thereafter until 2012. At the same time, the very low food security rate inched up, though not yearly until 2009.

We see a slight drop then, but a return to the prior rate — 5.7% — the following year. And, as the foregoing indicates, that’s basically where it’s stuck.

Food Costs and SNAP

The typical U.S. household spent $50 a week per person for food last year. This is 17% more than the costs of the Thrifty Food Plan, the basis for determining SNAP benefits.

But the percent is considerably higher for households with incomes of at least 185% of the federal poverty line, the income eligibility cut-off for WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children) and for reduced-price school meals.

These households spent $52.50 a week per person or 30% more than what the Thrifty Food Plan would allot them. As in the past, these figures are among the many that tells us SNAP benefits are too low.

The more telling, however, are the food insecurity rates among households that received these benefits for the entire 12 months the survey covered.

More than half the households — 51.9% — were food insecure. And well over half of these — 25.5% — had very low food security. Both these rates are somewhat higher than in 2012, the last full year before the premature expiration of the SNAP benefits boost the Recovery Act provided.

Food Insecurity in the District of Columbia

USDA reports three-year averages for states and the District to compensate for the relatively small number of households surveyed each year.

During 2012-14, 13.2% of D.C. households — roughly 41,315 — were food insecure. Of these, 4.9% — about 15,335 — couldn’t always afford to buy enough food of any sort for everyone to have enough to eat.

Both these rates are essentially the same as the national rates for the same time period. And both are essentially the same as the District’s rates during 2009-11. They’re considerably higher, however, than the rates during 2002-4, when they were 10.2% and 2.9%.

The just-released results of the American Community Survey don’t yet include current three-year averages for SNAP. We do, however, learn that 14.4% of District households received SNAP benefits last year. This is somewhat higher than the nationwide rate. But it apparently doesn’t translate into less food insecurity.

Don’t know what to make of all of this beyond the obvious. While SNAP benefits are too low everywhere, they’re especially insufficient in high-cost cities like the District, as research I’ve previous cited shows.

SNAP households are expected to spend 30% of their own money on food. Even that much probably wouldn’t make up for the shortfall between SNAP benefits and the costs of even the unrealistic Thrifty Food Plan.

In any case, a family doesn’t live by food alone. High housing costs and extraordinarily high childcare costs dwarf the estimated amount a family would need for food in the District.

So one has to assume that at least some families spend less on food than what’s supposed to be their share because that’s the only way they can pay the rent — and the only way they can work if they’ve got children who can’t be left to fend for themselves or with a friend of family member.

We’ve got a broad network of nonprofits that provide free food and/or meals to low-income District residents. But as Bread for the World’s president has said, “We can’t ‘food bank’ our way out of hunger.”

The new USDA figures confirm this not only for the District, but elsewhere. Yet we’re a long way from long-advocated increases in SNAP benefits — and a long way as well, it seems, from federal appropriations that would increase the reach of other anti-hunger programs.

In fact, we’ll be lucky if the news from Capitol Hill is no news.



DC Poverty Rate Dips Down

September 17, 2015

Hard on the results of the Census Bureau’s latest annual Current Population Survey supplement come the vastly more detailed results of its American Community Survey. As the headline says, they indicate what seems a drop in the overall poverty rate for the District of Columbia — down from 18.9% in 2013 to 17.7% last year.*

In human terms, this means that roughly 5,120 fewer District residents lived in poverty, as the Census Bureau’s official measure defines it.

At the same time, fewer residents lived in deep poverty, i.e., with household incomes no greater than 50% of the applicable poverty threshold — 9.1%, as compared to 10.3% in 2013.

These figures are obviously good news. But they’re hardly good enough to pop a champagne cork for. Several major reasons we should remain very concerned.

First, as I’ve said before, the poverty thresholds are extraordinarily low. A single parent and her two children, for example, were counted as poor only if the family’s pre-tax cash income was less than $19,073 — this in a city where the family’s basic needs cost roughly $104,000. Perhaps even more, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute has noted.

Second, the District’s poverty rate is still high, even comparatively. The national poverty rate, according to the ACS, was 15.5% last year. The District’s poverty rate also exceeds all but 11 state-level rates.

Third, the poverty rate for children in the District is far higher than the rate for the population as a whole — 26% or more than one in four residents under 18 years old. The deep poverty rate for children is also higher — 12.4%.

True, these rates are lower than in 2013, when they were 27.2% and 16.2%. But we’ve got more children in the District now. So the rate dips — for plain vanilla poverty in particular — reflect less progress than they seem to.

Fourth, we still have large gaps among major race/ethnicity groups in the District — one, though far from the only sign of persistent income inequality, rooted in discriminatory policies and practices. For example:

  • The new poverty rate for blacks is 25.9%, as compared to 6.9% for non-Hispanic whites.
  • 12.7% of blacks lived in deep poverty, while only 4.8% of non-Hispanic whites did.
  • The rates for Hispanics fall in between, as they have in the past — 16.9% and 7.5%.

We find the same sort of divide in household incomes. The median for non-Hispanic white households was $117,134 — $57,512 higher than their median nationwide. The median household income for black residents was barely more than a third of what non-Hispanic whites here had to live on — $40,739.

For the poverty rates themselves, we can find some ready explanations in other ACS figures. For example, the poverty rate for District residents who were at least 25 years old and had less than a high school diploma or the equivalent was 33.7%, as compared to 5.8% for their counterparts with at least a four-year college degree.

Only a small fraction of working-age (16-64 year-old) residents who worked full-time, year round were officially poor — 2.1% — while 45.9% who lived in poverty didn’t work (for pay) at all.

They presumably include residents too disabled to work and dependent on Supplemental Security Income benefits. These, at a maximum, left a single individual about $3,660 below the poverty threshold.

But that leaves 23.4% who worked for at least part of the year, less than full time or both. They were not, by any means, all workers who chose part-time and/or temporary work, as a recent report by DCFPI and partners tells us.

The report includes some policy recommendations to help low-wage hourly workers who are now jerked around — and economically disadvantaged — by unpredictable, erratic work schedules. One can readily find other policy proposals that would, in various ways, significantly reduce poverty rates in the District and nationwide.

Though the ACS gives us new numbers, neither the story they tell nor the solutions they imply are new. Still worth knowing how the prosperity we witness in our gentrifying neighborhoods, as well as our traditionally upper-income havens has egregiously failed to reach so many District residents.

* All the ACS tables include margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. For readability, I’m reporting both as given. However, the high side of the margin for the overall rate could mean no change from 2013.


A Better Winter Plan for Homeless DC Families … At Last

September 10, 2015

I’ve remarked before on promising shifts in the District of Columbia’s approach to homelessness generally and to family homelessness in particular. We see them again, I think, in the Winter Plan the DC Interagency Council on Homelessness adopted last Tuesday.

‘Bout time because we’ve witnessed a series of funding cutbacks — and worse — by the past two administrations. Some, though not all surfaced, if you knew what to look for, in the annual plans the ICH developed, as legally required, to lay the groundwork for what the District would do to keep homeless people safe during severely-cold weather.

I’ve been blogging on the plans for six years now — mainly on how they address the District’s legal responsibility to shelter or otherwise protect homeless families from freezing outdoors.

Last year’s plan for families was, in most respects, the worst. An effort initiated the prior year to estimate shelter needs on a month-to-month basis was abandoned — or shared only among the drafters.

No specifics at all for how the District would shelter or house the estimated total number of families who’d be entitled to protection during the five or so months of the winter season.

As I wrote at the time, the ICH basically threw up its hands because the homeless services budget clearly fell short of the resources needed.

The new plan doesn’t — and perhaps couldn’t — specify the number of families that won’t need shelter because help they receive kept them housed or will need it only for a short while because they get subsidized housing of one sort or another.

It does, however, make a serious effort to project shelter needs for each winter month — a more sophisticated projection than the plan for 2013-14 disclosed.

We see, on the one hand, the number of families that will qualify for shelter and, on the other hand, the number that will “exit” — not only those who’ll leave because they find some alternative, as before, but also those who receive assistance.

This may sound like a technical matter, but it isn’t because the estimates provide the basis for monitoring the in-and-out flow — and thus for action, if needed, to avert another crisis. The plan, in fact, commits the District to updating the figures.

Three other changes reflect policy shifts — all embedded in the estimates. One is the Bowser administration’s decision to shelter homeless families who’ve got no safe place to stay year round, rather than let them in only when the law says it must.

This is something that advocates have urged, for both humane and practical reasons, ever since the Department of Human Services, under the Gray administration, abandoned an unofficial, but operative year-round shelter policy dating back to some time before the Homeless Services Reform Act established a right to shelter.

The humane aspect needs no explanation. The practical, however, perhaps does. Basically, the intake center was overwhelmed with homeless families on the first freezing-cold day — and DC General, the main homeless family shelter, immediately full, if it wasn’t already.

This is one, though not the only reason that DHS had to scramble to find a place to park homeless families. Also why intake center staff may not have done the best job with needs assessments and referrals, the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless has suggested.

The two other changes reflect a budget that realistically anticipates the need to shelter more families than DC General can accommodate.

Would seem like a no-brainer, one might think. But the last Gray administration budget included no funds for motel rooms, even though it also left roughly 90 DC General units unfunded. This, more than anything else, accounts for the no-plan Winter Plan for homeless families last year.

Now we have not only projections for “overflow units needed,” but a subset for “contingency capacity.” This, I’m told, provides for an extra number of motel rooms DHS will contract for to ensure swift, adequate shelter if the entry estimates prove too low or the exit estimates too high.

The numbers can, of course, be adjusted as the season goes on. But the very fact that the plan expressly includes a fudge factor indicates that DHS has both the will and some confidence in resources to agree to a crisis prevention measure.

Here again, I’m struck by the difference that the Mayor has made by her choice of a new director and inferentially her commitment to support. Looking back even before the later days of the Gray administration, we see instead empty assurances that DHS will somehow muddle through.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that the DC Council also deserves credit for policies and plans that promise more enlightened, effective services for both homeless families and singles.

The ICH has long had members with the expertise and commitment to propose such policies and plans. But the Council’s decision to create what became a funded executive director position for the ICH has clearly made a difference.

I’ve already commented on the thoughtful, ambitious plan the ICH developed to make homelessness in the District “rare, brief, and non-recurring.” The budget for the upcoming fiscal year shows that the Mayor intends to jump start action on the plan.

So we’ve got grounds to hope for more effective homeless services, better tuned to the diverse needs of homeless and at-risk residents — a prospectively fewer of them, though that hinges on developments beyond the reach of DHS.

I feel similarly hopeful about the new Winter Plan — and for similar reasons.  As I learned early on, non-agency members of the ICH working group that develops the annual plans may propose, but it’s DHS that disposes so far as resources are concerned.

Not saying everything will fall nicely into place now. But the Winter Plan, so far as it goes, does seem to  reflect the “fresh start for homeless families” that the Mayor promised the ICH last Tuesday.

NOTE: Not everything the Mayor told the ICH merits as much confidence. I’ll probably have more to say about her legislative plans when I’ve got a clearer fix on them.

Some Photo ID Help for DC Homeless, But Hard to Get Without Expert Help

September 2, 2015

I started looking into the District of Columbia’s photo ID requirements when I heard several formerly homeless men complain about the difficulties their peers have had with a process that’s supposed to enable them to get the ID when they’ve no fixed address and/or can’t afford the fee.

I thought it best to begin with why they, like all District residents, need a photo ID and what the District ordinarily requires to issue one. The District, to its credit, does afford homeless residents several workarounds. So, as promised, a brief look at them.

Homeless people, as I noted, may not have any of the documents applicants must have to prove they’re District residents, e.g., a recent utility bill in their name, a lease or any of several documents homeowners probably have on file somewhere.

There used to be a workaround for those living doubled up with friends or relatives — a form their host could use to certify their residency. Burdensome for the host, who had to show up in person at the Department of Motor Vehicles, with a photo ID and at least two current proofs of residency.

But at least an avenue toward getting a photo ID that anyone could find out about if s/he looked around online. Now it’s open only to minors.

Doubled-up adults can get certification directly from the Department of Human Services, but only if a caseworker provides a letter stating that they’re homeless and can use his/her organization’s mailing address as their own. They’d need a well-informed caseworker to even know what DHS could do.

What about homeless people who live in shelters or on the streets? For some, there’s another workaround — a voucher that will both substitute for the usual residency proofs and cover the photo ID fee. An even more complex process — and virtually impenetrable to anyone who doesn’t know the system.

Basically, DHS makes vouchers available to pre-approved social service providers that are willing to accept mail on an applicant’s behalf.

There are roughly 40 of these providers. Most will issue vouchers only to homeless people who are clients, residents in their shelters or members of a target group the provider exists to serve, e.g., people who identify as LGBT.

Providers can get only a limited number of vouchers at any given time. They don’t always have enough to meet demand. This, in fact, is what the formerly homeless men griped about — understandably, since trips to any of the sources, except the pre-approved shelters are a costly crap shoot.

It’s also the case, I’m told, that staff at those shelters don’t always know they can issue vouchers — or understand the process. So homeless individuals who’ve heard of the vouchers have been told they can’t get one.

In short, accommodations for homeless people, but probably unknown to those who don’t have a relationship with a well-informed caseworker or the equivalent — and one who’s got the time and concern to help them navigate.

Now, a voucher doesn’t clear the way to a photo ID. Homeless people still have to produce a proof of identity — in most cases, a birth certificate — and proof of a valid Social Security number.

Both, as I earlier wrote, may not be ready to hand for someone who’s homeless. Nor for some of the rest of us. But the costs and wait times for us are probably more annoying than truly problematic — unless, of course, we want to fly someplace in the near future.

Nothing anyone can do about the wait times, it seems. But low-income residents may get help with the costs of a birth certificate. Two local nonprofits offer such financial assistance, though not for the swifter online process.

One source says it can help only the first 15 people who show up in the morning. The other will help the first 36 on Fridays and alternate Saturdays, but only those who’ve got appointments made by a social service provider.

So we’re back to the relationship issue. Homeless and other low-income people who’ve got no such relationship will obviously have to take their chances — perhaps many times.

On a more positive note, the District will waive the documentation requirements and the fee for returning citizens who can get an official letter from the Department of Corrections or either of two agencies responsible for supervising ex-offenders.

Might there be some equally streamlined — and readily discoverable — workaround for residents who haven’t recently spent time behind bars? Shouldn’t the District, at the very least, explore the options?

Shouldn’t nonprofits reconsider their own photo ID requirements?


We Need Photo IDs, But Not Easy for Poor and Near-Poor in DC to Get

August 31, 2015

Most of us, I suppose, have a photo ID and don’t think much about what we’d do without it. If we do, it’s probably because 17 states, mostly red, have made photo IDs a passport to the voting booth, not coincidentally disenfranchising disproportionate numbers of blacks, Hispanics and others who tend to vote for Democrats.

Nothing of that sort in the District of Columbia, which would probably be the bluest state if granted statehood. But lack of a photo ID here, as well as elsewhere is a problem — and getting one can be a big problem for people with little or no income.

Why Poor and Near-Poor Residents Need Photo IDs

Doubtful that very low-income residents will be trying to board planes — another occasion when the rest of us may become fleetingly conscious of the need for a photo ID. But they’ll face barriers to opportunities that can improve their situation if they don’t have one.

First off, federal rules require employers to verify the identity of people they hire. All but two of the acceptable documents are photo IDs. The only exception for adults will do nothing for the vast majority of prospective workers.

Second, lack of a photo IDs limits access to cash and in-kind assistance. Some local nonprofit sources of the latter, including many food pantries and some free-clothing providers will distribute only to residents with photo IDs.

The Department of Human Services agency that administers Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, SNAP (the food stamp program) and several smaller safety net programs advises applicants to bring photo IDs with them to the interview that’s part of the application process.

The IDs are not an absolute requirement, according to the department’s policy manual. We can nevertheless assume, I think, that the more accessible instruction — and thus prospects of hassle, if not denial — can deter residents from seeking help they need.

They may also figure it’s futile to try because they believe they must have a photo ID. That’s what the Washington Examiner reported — and what the District itself says homeless families must bring to the center that’s their gateway to services.*

A third reason is that lack of a photo ID can limit low-income residents’ opportunities to advocate for policies, including budgets that will alleviate their hardships — among them, the costs, frustrations and complexities of getting a photo ID.

The problem here is that only people with photo IDs can get into federal and District office buildings, including the building where the DC Council holds hearings and Councilmembers have their offices.

Why Poor and Near-Poor Residents May Face Problems

Getting a photo ID is a one-time nuisance for all District residents. but it’s singularly challenging for those who’ve got no money to spare, haven’t recently worked, except perhaps on a day-to-day or off-the-books basis, and/or don’t own or rent a home of their own.

This is partly because the District charges most residents $20 for an ID card and more than twice as much for a driver’s license, which serves the same identification purposes.

The larger problem is that the District requires three different types of documents for a photo ID — each with its own potential challenges.

Proof of Identity. Photo ID applicants must prove they’re U.S. citizens or legally-authorized immigrants. Many options, but for citizens, the most common are probably a birth certificate or currently-valid passport — unless they’ve already got a photo ID from another jurisdiction.

Not many poor folks have the passport, of course. They may not have a birth certificate handy either. The District will issue a copy to people born here, for a $23 charge. But they’ll need a photo ID or three other documents, none of which everyone is sure to have.

They’ll need a photo ID for sure if they want to request the birth certificate in person because the Vital Records Division is in one of those buildings that requires the ID for entrance.

States charge varying amounts for copies of birth certificates. Mine would cost $20 if I got a paper copy and could wait 6-8 weeks. To speed things up, I could order online — for nearly $88, even more if I need it ASAP.

Social Security Number. The District also requires applicants to present a document proving they have a Social Security number. Most people who work for pay — or did in the prior year — shouldn’t have a problem with this.

They’ll presumably have a pay stub or the end-of-year form their employer filed with the Internal Revenue Service, assuming they are or were actually on a payroll. Not much hope for many day laborers or people who do low-wage, occasional work for individuals and families.

For them, the only official option is a Social Security card. Lots of people who once had one don’t any more, for any one of a number of reasons, including theft of the wallet it was tucked in or just simple loss.

Either may be particularly likely for homeless individuals who spend their nights in shelters or on the streets and have to lug all their worldly belongings around during the day.

The solution then is getting a replacement Social Security card. But for that, one has to prove identity, with that photo ID, which won’t be issued without the card, or an ID of another specified sort, e.g., issued by an employer, school or government agency.

And if the Social Security Administration hasn’t issued the applicant a card before, it requires a birth certificate or passport. This is also true for a replacement if the applicant became a U.S. citizen after the original card was issued. Bit of a Catch 22 here, as you can see.

Proofs of Residency. Applicants must also produce two documents proving they live in the District, e.g., a recent utility bill, current lease or home insurance policy with their name on it, official mail from a federal or District government agency, with the envelope it came in.

Even homeowners and renters might have difficulty coming up with such documents. What if, for example, the lease and utility accounts are in a spouse’s name — or if they’re paying for a room or two on an informal month-to-month basis? And who, pray tell, saves the envelopes agency mail comes in?

The challenges are obviously greater for homeless people, including those who live doubled-up with friends or relatives, especially if they move frequently from one home to another. Though the District does have some workarounds, they’re a complex business — and known only to those in the know.

Why Such Challenges

The District didn’t just gin up all these documentation requirements. After 9/11, the Bush administration and Congress decided we’d all be a lot safer if terrorists couldn’t so easily board planes (or enter federal facilities and nuclear plants) with fraudulent IDs.

So the District had to impose requirements that would meet federal standards. Whether it could comply using a simpler, more flexible set is beyond my ken.

Whether it could do more to help homeless and other very low-income residents deal with the challenges the current set poses is a separate question. Look for a followup post on this.

* The statement about intake at the Family Resources Center appears, on its face, inconsistent with DHS policy. I have tried, without success, to fact-check it with staff directly responsible for center operations.





Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 212 other followers