Invest in the Truth Today.
Help us raise $100,000 by the end of May.

Donate

    San Diego is eager to see an overhaul to the federal formula that doles out money to cities to combat homelessness – the current setup gives more money to cities that have smaller homeless populations than San Diego. But at least three cities that benefit from the current arrangement – Chicago, New York and Philadelphia – don’t want it to change, and are vigorously opposing the plans, saying the effort would cost them millions of dollars, federal records show.

    For more than a year, San Diego Rep. Scott Peters has led the charge to revise Department of Housing and Urban Development standards that would help San Diego receive the kind of funding that city and county officials believe it should receive, based on its homeless population. Peters first approached HUD about revising the formula in 2013, after Voice of San Diego revealed that cities with far smaller homeless populations received far more funding.

    San Diego’s homeless population is the fourth largest in the country but ranks 22nd in Continuum of Care funding – the system by which the federal government doles out money to cities or regions – according to the 2015 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress.

    But under new regulatory plans being considered by HUD, San Diego may receive as much as $3 million more in funding for homeless programs to serve 8,700 people, justifying its ranking among the top U.S. cities. The $13.3 million San Diego received in 2015 would be increased to $16.6 million under the proposal.

    “I know that matching the resources with the need should be a priority for everyone. I think something is wrong with the formula that now exists. I think most people get that,” Peters said in an interview. “We want a firm opportunity and a fair shake, that’s all.”

    But other cities are upset, saying proposals considered by HUD may drastically reduce their funding. Their objections raise an uncomfortable truth: Without an increase in funding, any changes to boost cities with larger homeless populations likely means taking money from others.


    Help Us Raise $100k By the End of May

    Chicago officials, in particular, have been vocal in their opposition, with their displeasure expressed by government officials, homeless program advocates, university and church leaders, saying the plans would upset their strategic planning and reverse advances they have made to combat homelessness, according to records filed with HUD. Chicago, the nation’s third-largest city, has a homeless population ranked ninth in the U.S.

    HUD’s proposals may result in a “shattering $22 million – approximately 50% – reduction in Chicago’s Preliminary Pro Rata Need (PPRN) for Continuum of Care funding” for the homeless, Maura McCauley, director of Chicago’s Department of Family and Support Services, wrote to the agency.

    “While the detailed impact of this loss on Chicago’s Annual Renewal Demand is unclear, the potential is devastating and could reverse years of advances against homelessness in Chicago,” McCauley wrote.

    Jackie Edens, executive director of The Inner Voice, a Chicago agency that helps homeless people find shelter, said she’s worried that her organization may be forced to shut down because of any large-scale funding cuts.

    “Every stride we have made to help the homeless people would be set back,” Edens said. “This is like something out of fiction, really bad fiction. It’s going to be devastating.”

    “San Diego and the other cities, we feel their pain and don’t want to wish them any harm, but there needs to be more money,” she added. “We have a big problem, it’s starting to get cold and snow and we have people living in tents. With no money, there’s gnashing of the teeth.”

    Photo by Sam Hodgson
    Photo by Sam Hodgson
    Rep. Scott Peters

    The CEO of Chicago’s The University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, a 495-bed public hospital, said it successfully launched a pilot program to house 25 people who have been known to frequent emergency departments on many occasions. That program would be jeopardized by the loss of funds, Avijit Ghosh, wrote to HUD.

    “Many former residents would again become homeless, exacerbating their multiple chronic health conditions and reoccurring behavioral health disorders that have been stabilized due to housing,” Ghosh wrote. “The impact on the health care system and cost to the state’s Medicaid program would be astronomical,” he said.

    New York and Philadelphia officials also expressed dismay over the HUD proposals.

    “Changing the formula,” wrote Laura D. Mascuch, executive director of the Supportive Housing Network of New York, “would be a national disaster of unprecedented proportions.” Supporting Housing Network of New York includes 200 member agencies that operate and building supportive housing to end chronic homelessness. The assessment report showed that New York has the highest homeless rate in the country, with 75,323 people.

    In Philadelphia, Nicole Drake, director for Women Against Abuse agency in the city, said officials have “serious concerns” about any of the formulas considered by HUD. “Each formula would result in a significant decrease in funding” to the city, she wrote. Although Philadelphia is not among the top 10 U.S. cities in the number of homeless people, the city ranks sixth among communities of homeless people having families and children.

    Questions About What’s Ahead

    The impact of cities’ reaction to the overall HUD planning for homeless funding remains to be seen because the long regulatory process is not yet over.

    In arguing for the change, San Diego officials said the current Continuum of Care program was limited by an antiquated formula that emphasized pre-1940s housing stock and population growth lag, based on an analytic examination of factors connected to homelessness.

    HUD is now considering at least four replacement options, which take into account a number of other indicators San Diego officials say determine a city’s need for the homeless population, including poverty and the availability and affordability of housing, and the number of rental units. A public 60-day comment period ended in September, which HUD is reviewing.

    Nearly everyone involved agrees that the process of evaluating different funding scenarios has been complex, and subject to much disagreement. While San Diego is satisfied with the formulas being explored, others find shortfalls. For instance, in all the proposed formulas, poverty and population were evaluated, Chicago officials said, but overcrowding in housing that could lead to potential homelessness was not fully explored.

    Although HUD has not yet completed its review of potential new funding options, comments made by San Diego, Los Angeles and other California and western officials favor a formula plan known as D, according to a partial review of statements made to HUD. The other plans were labeled A, B and C.

    San Diego would get more funds under each of four formulas being considered.

    In a letter to HUD, Peters and Rep. Susan Davis acknowledged a concern San Diego has on the impact of its plans on other communities. “As HUD noted in the proposed rule, a change in the formula may result in the loss of CoC funding for some communities,” they said.

    “To minimize this loss and ensure that cities with the greatest need are receiving the appropriate share of funding, the San Diego (Regional Consortium of Care Council) applied their research to the ten cities with the highest rates of homelessness.”

    Rick Gentry, president of the San Diego Housing Commission and a member of the San Diego Regional Continuum of Care Council, said in a letter to HUD that the city proposed another formula, E, to “more equitably distribute” funds.

    That formula was based on a San Diego study on the region’s experience with homelessness and the high cost of housing and also San Diego’s research on top 10 cities in the U.S. with the highest rates of homelessness. The analyses selected a combination of weighted factors involving housing and need. Under that scenario, San Diego would receive $19.5 million, a $6.1 million increase.

    HUD officials said they would not consider the regulations until after the new administration of President-elect Donald Trump takes office in January. Peters acknowledges there may be further uncertainty regarding the proposals with Trump and his pick to head HUD, Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon with no experience in government.

    Peters expressed confidence, however, and said he would anticipate discussing the regulations process with the new leadership.

    While a reversal of the HUD regulatory process appears unlikely under Trump, agency officials are reluctant to say what may happen next.

    “I can’t crystal ball future regulatory action by an administration that hasn’t assumed office yet and articulated their vision for HUD programs,” HUD spokesman Brian Sullivan said Friday.

    In the meantime, cities across the country wait, fingers crossed. Peters, too.

    “This congressman should get his money, but it should not be at the expense of other localities’ programs,” Chicago’s Edens said of Peters. “It should not be at anybody else’s expense. I don’t begrudge him getting what he thinks it’s needed for his jurisdiction, not one iota. But tell (HUD) to put more money into the pot and he can have what he wants.”

    Says Peters: “I am hoping we have an analytical approach and have the right answer for homelessness across the country. I’m not trying to be greedy.”

      This article relates to: Government, Homelessness, Must Reads

      Written by Joe Cantlupe

      7 comments
      craig Nelson
      craig Nelson

      Perhaps we can get some of the money that won't be going to sanctuary cities. 

      dstein
      dstein subscriber

      It's great that Scott Peter's and others in the region are pursing a possible 3-6 million dollars per year in funding from HUD.  That's a lot of money and could do important things.  I hope, however, that we don't focus too much on this money to the exclusion of other funding that is needed.  3+ regions across California passed bond measures in the hundreds of millions of dollar range in November 2016.  LA's was 1.2 billion.  When money is used for construction, local money generally accounts for 1/3 of the funding, matched by 1/3 state, and 1/3 federal.  It would be very efficient for us in San Diego County to take advantage of these state and federal matches by providing a large local source through a bond measure.  In 2017, the RCCC (Regional Continuum of Care Council) and RTFH (Regional Task Force on the Homeless) will be creating (through a consultant) a regional plan to end homelessness in San Diego.  That plan should calculate the funding needed and the amount of a bond that would be necessary to provide the housing (including supportive services) necessary.  Engaging with landlords is also a way to find more apartments that can be rented using Section 8 vouchers.  This is currently done by 6 housing agencies across the county in a sporadic way.  This could be centralized under the RTFH and done more aggressively.  As this is a regional problem having to do with the well-being of citizens, these positions should be funded by the County.  Kristin Gaspar was newly elected as a county board of supervisor and states that homelessness is one of her top issues.  Lobbying to her might be effective.  Chris Ward is also very supportive and represents the City of SD's district most affected by the issue.  Maybe a Chris/Kristin sponsored County wide bond on the 2018 or 20 ballot?  

      philip piel
      philip piel subscriber

      @dstein


      "Bonds" are new taxes, California's efforts to bond / tax itself out of social issues may be detrimental as increasing the cost of living through taxation seems to be a good way to increase homelessness. Our government has demonstrated it's inability to spend money wisely, feeding the beast through more taxes (bonds) seems futile.

      dstein
      dstein subscriber

      @philip piel @dstein For a certain population of homeless people who are frequent users of social services (emergency services, hospital, jails, mental health services), it is less expensive to house them than to leave them on the streets.  This is generally about the top 10% of the annual population, so maybe 3,000 people in San Diego (based on similar proportions and an in-depth cost study in Santa Clara County).  San Diego has different dynamics as we do not have county funded hospitals, so some of these costs are funded by the insurers, hospitals, and the state and federal governments.  However, they are costs.  We could more efficiently (less $) care for these people by housing them.  


      You're right though, housing other homeless people above that would be a purely "social good" thing.  We should certainly start with the highest cost users to be efficient and see if we can ever get to the rest of the group.  There is a program sponsored by the State of California called Whole Person Wellness that will hopefully identify these high cost people.  In Santa Clara, they use the Silicon Valley Triage tool which takes it one step further and predicts future high costs based on 38 criteria (age, health conditions, etc.).  


      Also, the RTFH is improving its accountability efforts for the homeless services providers.  I'd expect improvements in 2017.  


      But very good point, we shouldn't waste money.  

      Bill Bradshaw
      Bill Bradshaw subscribermember

      “….This congressman should get his money, but it should not be at the expense of other localities’ programs.  It should not be at anybody else’s expense…..tell HUD to put more money into the pot and he can have what he wants”.


      Can anyone identify a more compelling argument to get rid of, or drastically reduce, federal programs which allow politicians in various cities and states to lobby Uncle Sugar for their “fair share” of a pot of money that is created by writing checks against a non-existent pool of money in Washington?  Return this problem to the states NOW.  


      Hopefully, Doctor Carson, if confirmed by a Senate drunk on OPM*, will propose drastic cutbacks in federally-funded urban programs.  Virtually every large city has a “homeless problem”, but competing for “federal” dollars that look like money from the Tooth Fairy is not the solution.


      *“Other People’s Money”, the mother’s milk of politics. 

      bgetzel
      bgetzel subscriber

      @Bill Bradshaw So what is the solution? When your roof leaks, you have to fix it. Fixing it costs money. Would you rather see thousands of people living in the streets? The money should be spent wisely no doubt. But waiting for the Tooth Fairy (your analogy) to appear with a solution is a fantasy. 

      philip piel
      philip piel subscriber

      @bgetzel @Bill Bradshaw


      This may sound strange to a lot of people but  roof leaks are often not the result of a single event. Our City / State government wants to be everything to everybody. Waiting on the next, best idea to spend tax dollars.

      The "Tooth Fairy (your quote) has been standing in front of us in the form of fiscal responsibility in our government and public education system. In the last month VOSD has reported on the gross negligence in SDUSD, tax dollars thrown down the garbage disposal of ineptness and non-accountability yet we look to the tax payers once again to solve a problem. Our State government is more concerned about supporting Black Lives Matter, the rights of illegal immigrants and bathrooms for people searching for their sexual identity than they are about "finding" $43 million dollars in a Parks & Recreation account they didn't know about.

      Can we at least attempt to account for the money currently being spent (inspect our roofs) before going back to the well (tax payers)? Can we at least hold public education accountable before we motivate more of "The Rich" to seek shelter in other states?