MCH submits concerns on federal definition of homelessness

Suggested Comments for you to expand on from your own experience:

1. HUD proposes to require verifications that will be difficult or impossible to obtain

The Law:
Doubled up people who will lose that housing within 14 days are defined as homeless. An oral statement that is found to be credible is sufficient to prove eligibility.

HUD’s Proposal:
To require that the oral statement be verified through self-verification by an applicant for homeless assistance and a written or oral statement from the host family. If a caseworker cannot obtain this information after multiple attempts, an individual or family can be found eligible for homeless assistance.

Our Concerns:
The written verification is not part of the law. It is an attempt by HUD to go beyond the language in the law and make it more difficult for children, youth, and families to receive homeless assistance. Host families will not provide verification because allowing people to double up in their home may violate their lease. In addition, having a caseworker call the host family may result in the homeless family being asked to leave immediately - even sooner than anticipated – potentially putting that family on the street. And even though eligibility can be found where a caseworker cannot get a response from the host family, that will take time – time that homeless families who need immediate assistance do not have.

Improving the HUD Proposal:
HUD should follow the law approved by Congress and determine that self-verification by an applicant for homeless assistance is sufficient.

2. HUD proposes to unreasonably limit the number of children, youth, and families defined as homeless under other federal laws such as the Department of Education definition.

The Law:
Unaccompanied youth and families with children who are defined as homeless under other federal laws will be considered homeless by HUD if they (a) have experienced a long term period without living independently in permanent housing; and (b) have experienced persistent instability as measured by frequent moves over such period; and (c) can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time due to a disability, a physical or mental health condition, addiction, history of domestic violence or childhood abuse, a youth with a disability, or multiple barriers to employment.

HUD’s Proposal:
(1) A “long term period” is defined as 91 days or more. (2) Persistent instability is defined as 3 or more moves over this 91 day period. (3) Multiple barriers to employment is defined as the lack of a high school degree or GED, illiteracy, low English proficiency, a history of incarceration, or a history of unstable employment.

Our Concerns:
(1) Any period in which children and youth are without housing is damaging to their health, development, and ability to attend and succeed in school. Requiring these children and youth to stay homeless for 90 days before being considered homeless by HUD is inappropriate, and not required by the law. (2) Three moves is too many moves to meet the law’s requirement of “frequent moves.” (3) The factors listed as multiple barriers to employment are appropriate, but should not be limiting – additional barriers should be included.

Improving the HUD Proposal:
(1) Make the 90 day period a 30 day period. There is no appropriate period for children and youth to be without housing, but shorter is better, and the law does require the period to be “long term.” (2) Reduce the “frequent moves” required from 3 to 2. Any family making a planned move would move once in a 30 day period. But it is highly unusual for a family to move more than once in 30 days. Thus, two moves should be considered “frequent” – one when a family loses housing and doubles up, and the second when they leave an initial doubled up situation and go to stay with a second host family. (3) Additional barriers to employment should be added to the list offered by HUD, including lack of childcare and lack of transportation.

3. HUD proposes to unreasonably limit eligibility for victims of domestic violence and other dangerous and or life threatening conditions

The Law:
HUD will consider to be homeless “any individual or family who is fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions in the individual’s or family’s current housing situation, including where the health and safety of children are jeopardized, and who have no other residence and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.”

HUD’s Proposal:
(1) HUD proposes to narrow the statute by adding language requiring any “dangerous or life-threatening conditions” to relate to violence against the individual or a family member. (2) HUD completely ignores the language regarding cases “where the health and safety of children are jeopardized.”

Our Concerns:
The law was specifically written to cover conditions that are dangerous and life threatening but that would not be considered “domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking” – including but not limited to conditions “where the health and safety of children are jeopardized.” Many conditions would meet the criteria as set forth in the law, including but not limited to dangerous overcrowding that may pose health concerns, force children and youth to sleep in unsanitary or unheated garages or other spaces normally not used for sleeping, or cause a risk of fire due to faulty wiring or improper use of space heaters and other devices. HUD’s proposal fails to take into account these situations – contrary to the plain meaning of the law.