Breaking Ground - June/July 2001

State Budget Ends with a Big Win for Housing

Final State Budget, Finally

How to Contact and COHHIO Staff

CALL TO ACTION - Co-Sponsors Needed for House Version of National Housing Trust Fund Bill

NIMBY Report Released

Senator Sarbanes To Introduce Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation...

YEP Secures Language to Protect Homeless Children in School

NCRC Explores Myths of Subprime Lending

COHHIO VISTA Positions Available

PAYDAY LOANS: Fringe Banking Practice Becoming Mainstream; Exploits the Poor

Grow Where You're Planted

Poverty in America

Priced Out in 2000

COHHIO Membership

Advocates at Work

Resources - Funding Sources and Web Opportunities

Resources

COHHIO News

 

State Budget Ends with a Big Win for Housing
The close (at least for awhile) of this year’s state budget season, comes with a strong sense of relief and appreciation. I have been through eight state budget processes during my years of service to the Coalition. This has been, by a long shot, the strangest and most difficult of all. It is a process that usually eats up the better part of nine months. This time, it was more consuming than ever. It is a process when local advocates can choose to speak out or be silent. This time, they were anything but silent. It is a process when our legislators can choose to ignore the affordable housing needs of our citizens or they can champion some solutions. This time, many chose to be housing champions. It is a process when we can suffer defeats or win victories for affordable housing. This time, the result was a real victory.

Quite honestly, going into this year’s state budget process I was anxious. With term limits having kicked in, we were looking at a legislature with about half being new members. The Governor’s budget came out in late January with cuts in funding for all of the existing housing programs and no new initiatives for affordable housing. To add insult to injury, Governor Taft’s budget proposed massive changes to the Ohio Housing Trust Fund statute, which would have gutted its fundamental mission and purpose.

But COHHIO and its allies did not take this as the final word. Instead, we turned these attacks into opportunities to mobilize. With the help of friendly legislators and fellow advocates, we developed an alternative approach to putting more resources into affordable housing using TANF funding, since general state funds were being reprogrammed into education. With the constant prodding of our organizer extraordinare, Cathy Johnston, local advocates did letter writing, phone calls, local tours and visits with legislators, showed up at key statehouse hearings, helped with newspaper articles, and came out in force on Lobby Day. And they did all that and more in large numbers with skill and wisdom.

So after all of this activity, all of the meetings with legislators and the administration, all of the testimony at hearings, all of the phone calls, all of the letters and e-mails and all of the statehouse hallway conversations, the Governor decided to veto about $12 million of TANF funds for housing. This was again an opportunity to mobilize and mobilize we did. The legislature rose to the occasion and pushed for restoring these housing dollars as one of the last few issues in negotiations in the final state budget. Once the Governor realized that if he did not agree to these funds being restored, the legislature was going to override his veto, he agreed to sign the legislation.

Now that this roller coaster ride state budget drama is over, it is clear to say that this time we won. We won a real increase of $3.5 million in overall funding for housing to a new record of $71.3 million over the next two years, in a budget when virtually everything except education was cut and numerous programs were eliminated entirely. The detrimental language governing the Housing Trust Fund was deleted from the final version of the bill. With the hard work of COHHIO’s Youth Empowerment Project, we even made Ohio the second state in the nation to pass legislation to help homeless children get better access to education. I have a deep appreciation for everyone who helped with this victory - local housing advocates, our friends in the legislature and to everyone who is part of COHHIO’s team. It would not have happened without you. Collectively we were “tenacious, persistent and stubborn” as one supporter put it. I even have to thank Governor Taft who gave us extra motivation to turn potential setbacks into a real victory for affordable housing.

Now the task is to build on this victory for the future. We have to make sure all of the funds are used wisely and appropriately. Local organizations have to continue to cultivate relationships with legislators to pursue more aggressive solutions to homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. We also have to find a way to build a bridge with the Governor and his administration. The fact that Joe Robertson has resigned as the Development Director presents us with an opportunity to build a stronger relationship with the new Director. Though he has a strange way of showing it, I honestly believe that the Governor personally cares about housing issues. Unfortunately, this has yet to translate into good housing policy. But for today, I am happy just to thank everyone who helped win this important victory.

 

 

Final State Budget, Finally
Funding Levels for Key Housing/Homelessness Programs
Ohio Department of Development (in millions)

Actual Approved Difference
Line Item/Program FY00/01 FY02/03

195-638 - Ohio Housing Trust Fund 20.8/30.1 21.54/22.10 - 7.213 (1)

195-406 - Transitional/Supportive Housing 2.83/2.83 2.73/2.73 - 0.200

195-440 - Emergency Shelter Grants 3.15/2.95 2.73/2.80 - 0.580

195-431 - CDC Grants 2.69/2.44 2.49/2.49 - 0.146

TOTALS 29.5/38.3 29.5/30.1 - 8.2

195-497 - TANF Housing Initiative 0/0 5.20/6.50 + 11.700 (2)

GRAND TOTALS 29.5/38.3 34.7/36.6 + 3.5

1.) Revenues to achieve this funding level will come from the General Revenue Fund (GRF) and from interest earned from the Housing Trust Fund account. The GRF portion of the funding started out in the budget debate at $20,000,000 per year but ended up at $18,715,000 per year. ODOD officials are confident that the difference can be met with the anticipated interest money.

2.) Governor Taft line item vetoed this item, along with 48 other items in the state budget bill. The General Assembly passed funding for this program under a separate “budget corrections bill,” H.B. 299 which was signed by the Governor on June 29, 2001.

Housing Trust Fund Language Issues
The final version of the budget removed numerous changes to the permanent statute of the Ohio Housing Trust Fund that had been proposed in the Governor’s budget. The changes would have totally gutted the fundamental mission and purpose of the Ohio Housing Trust Fund established in the permanent statute by the legislature ten years ago, following passage of the constitutional amendment making housing a public purpose. The proposed changes which were removed include the following:

• a provision which would have decreased Housing Trust Fund funds for nonprofits from at least 45 percent to at least 30 percent;

• provisions which would have raised the income targets for those served;

• provisions which would have focused the fund on making loans instead of grants.

COHHIO was encouraged by key members of the legislature to negotiate with the Department of Development regarding the proposed changes. There was a growing consensus that without an agreement, separate legislation would likely be introduced with an uncertain outcome. COHHIO and other advocates negotiated various other changes which were agreed to as part of the final version of the budget:

• a provision which places a cap of 20 percent on the amount of funds that can be used for supportive services which is slightly above current funding levels in this category;

• a provision which changes the definition of rural areas to be consistent with the federal HOME program which will add an additional eleven small cities to the rural definition;

• a provision which increases the rural setaside from at least 35 percent to at least 45 percent, later changed by the legislature to 50 percent, of the funds to adequately compensate for the change above. Under the new rural definition, according to the 2000 Census, 47 percent of the population would live in rural areas and 53 percent would live in urban areas. Please note that there is an existing statute which provides that the Development Department can redirect funds in this setaside if the target is not being met by the end of the second quarter of the fiscal year. An amendment was passed that increased the percentage from 45 percent to 50 percent by the General Assembly;

• a provision which makes certain types of small special needs housing projects eligible, even if the number of units is as small as one unit;

• a provision which makes technical changes to the statute to clarify that the Department shall report on a fiscal year basis to the legislature as opposed to calendar year and adds clarifying language to have setasides calculated from the total amount of funds awarded per fiscal year;

• a provision for administrative costs to be no more than six percent remains in the statute, but an amendment was approved by the General Assembly to reduce this percentage back to the original five percent level;

• a provision which adds two members to the Ohio Housing Finance Agency Board to represent both non-profit and for-profit multifamily housing organizations. This will raise the number of board members from 9 to 11.

Language to Address the Education of Homeless Children
A permanent statute was added to the bill to help address the education of homeless children. We know that mobility of students has a detrimental impact on their education. The language allows for homeless children to attend, free of charge, their school of origin or the school near the emergency shelter, as selected by the parent. The provision also makes Ohio law consistent with federal statutes concerning the education of homeless children. This makes Ohio the second state in the nation, along with Illinois, to pass such legislation. For more information on this issue, see page nine of this newsletter.

 

 

How to Contact... and COHHIO Staff
NATIONAL
National Coalition for the Homeless. Hotline:
202/775-1372 or http://NCH.ari.net.

National Low Income Housing Coalition
http://www.nlihc.org

President Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington DC 20500; 202/456-1414; 202/456-2461 (fax)
president@white house.gov

Senators Voinovich & DeWine
United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510
Voinovich - 202/224-3353; 202/228-1382 (f)
Voinovich - voinovich@voinovich.senate.gov
DeWine - 202/224-2315; 202/224-6519 (f)
DeWine - senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov

Representatives
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515; 202/224-3121

STATE
Governor Taft
77 S. High St., Columbus, Ohio 43215
614/466-3555; 614/466-9354 (fax)

Ohio Senate
State House, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0604
614/644-5466 (fax-R); 614/644-1982 (fax - D)

Ohio House of Representatives
77 S. High St., Columbus, Ohio 43215
614/644-9494 (fax)

Legislative Directories are available by contacting us: COHHIO - 35 E Gay St, Ste. 210,
Columbus, OH 43215-3138; 614/280-1984; 614/463-1060 (fax); www.cohhio.org.

 

Newsletter of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO) June/July 2001 • Volume 6 • Issue 6. Editor: Susan Francis

COHHIO is a coalition of organizations and individuals committed to ending homelessness and to promoting decent, safe, fair, affordable housing for all, with a focus on assisting low-income people and those with special needs.

COHHIO Staff
Bill Faith, Executive Director; Pam Argus, Associate Director; Rebecca Bartholomew, AmeriCorps Program Coordinator; Kevin Blackledge, Youth Empowerment VISTA, Susan Francis, Communications Coordinator; Janet Holcomb, Administrative Assistant; Jowana Jenkins, OCRP VISTA; Cathy Johnston, Advocacy Coordinator; Angela Lariviere, Youth Empowerment Coordinator; Jill Russ, Section 8 Project Coordinator; Mary Scott, AmeriCorps Program Support Administrator; Rick Taylor, Housing Policy Director; Ande Ucubagabriel, Finance Director; Kurt Weidner, AmeriCorps Leader and Spencer Wells, Tenant Outreach Coordinator. 35 E. Gay St., Suite 210, Columbus, Ohio 43215-3138; 614/280-1984; 614/463-1060 (fax); cohhio@ cohhio.org; http://www.cohhio.org.

 

 

CALL TO ACTION - Co-Sponsors Needed for House Version of National Housing Trust Fund Bill
Call your Representative today and ask him or her to sponsor the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act (H.R. 2349). On June 27th, Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced at a press conference, the introduction of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act in the House of Representatives.

The bill, authored by Reps. Sanders, Barbara Lee (D-CA), and John McHugh (R-NY), and sponsored by 44 other Representatives, reflects closely the proposal for legislation offered by the National Housing Trust Fund Campaign, including requirements that the majority of funds be used to produce housing for extremely low-income households and a more deeply targeted portion for housing production for people with incomes at or below the minimum wage.

As envisioned by the sponsors, the Trust Fund would use a portion of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) surplus each year to build affordable housing units, as many as 200,000 next year alone!


Members are asked to take the following actions:

1. Call your Representative and encourage him or her to co-sponsor the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act (H.R. 2349). Explain the housing situation in your community, and the need for resources to address these issues.
2. Write your Representative asking for his or her support for the Trust Fund (please see the sample letter on the following page).
3. Once the letter has been sent, follow up with your Representative’s housing aide and ask whether a decision has been made to sponsor the bill. Reiterate your organization’s support.
4. Report the results of your phone calls and letters to COHHIO.
5. Pass this call to action to as many groups and individuals as possible!

To find your Representative’s contact information, check out the legislative directory on the COHHIO web page (www.cohhio.org/legdirectory.html). For additional information on the National Housing Trust Fund, contact Rick Taylor at 614/280-1984 or via e-mail at ricktaylor@cohhio.org. For information on the National Housing Trust Fund campaign, visit www.nhtf.org.

The National Housing Trust Fund Campaign continues to attract endorsers. As of the end of May, nearly 450 organizations have signed on as supporters. If your organization has yet to do so, please visit the National Housing Trust Fund web page at www.nhtf.org and complete the on-line endorsement form.
National Housing Trust Fund Campaign Sample Letter


The Honorable _______ __________
Attention: _____________ (Housing Aide)
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative __________:

I am a (resident of ______/ member of _______ organization) writing to ask your support for what will be one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered in the 107th Congress: The establishment of a housing trust fund that will help to alleviate the affordable housing crisis in America and here in _________. You currently have the chance to sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill that will establish a National Housing Trust Fund, and I hope that you will do so.

On June 27th, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA), John McHugh (R-NY) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced the introduction of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act (H.R. 2349).

I know that you understand the crisis facing ___________ and Americans across the country (If available, add information about the Senator’s past work on housing). As the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s Out of Reach, 2000 report shows, ***__ percent of all renter families in _____________ cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment at the fair market rent (If available, include story about someone who is affected by the crisis despite hard work).

As unprecedented prosperity in America has driven up housing prices, the cost of housing is simply beyond the reach of too many lower-income families. There is just not enough affordable housing available for our families.

The time to do something about this housing shortage is now. Assisting states with the production of rental housing will, over time, be more cost effective than dealing with the repercussions of increased homelessness and worst-case housing needs in our communities. Please continue your commitment to helping __________’s families work for a better future by signing on to the Trust Fund bill as a co-sponsor.

Respectfully,



*** Information available at http://www.nlihc.org/oor2000/index.htm. In the box labeled data, choose the state you are writing about and hit submit. Then choose to get information about the state as a whole, or about a specific region of the state. Please be sure to delete this paragraph before printing and sending the letter.

 

 

NIMBY Report Released...
Late last month, the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) released its Spring 2001 edition of The NIMBY Report. The report, which contains several articles from around the country about efforts to reconcile the smart growth and affordable housing concepts into a rationale for local planning and implementation. Work in the states of New Jersey, Maryland, Oregon, Florida and Vermont is highlighted, along with articles on smart growth and equity, and neighborhood advocacy. The final sections of the report contain specific information about how to deal with property value concerns along with a bibliography of research that documents findings that property values are not affected by well-managed affordable and special needs housing.

Here is a brief excerpt from the report’s Editor...

November 2000 saw the defeat of state referendum initiatives to curb sprawl in Colorado and Arizona. Opposition to the anti-sprawl movement was fueled in part by affordable housing advocates. Seems obvious: the anti-sprawl movement reduces the amount of developable land, thereby increasing the cost of developable land. Increases in land costs directly result in increases in housing costs. Simple, but perhaps too simple to be the whole story. Sprawl is the epitome of exclusionary land use. The suburban leap-frog development that began with white flight from urban areas resulted in the segregation of the “haves” from the “have-nots,” the concentration of minorities in deteriorating urban cores, and the exclusion of minorities and the poor in general from these new suburban communities boasting good schools, parks, and growing job opportunities. As white middle class suburban communities developed through sprawling land use patterns, there was no room for minorities or the working poor. Even after deed restrictions that prohibited homes from being sold to minorities were struck down by the courts, minorities could not find their way into the suburban community because of NIMBYism embedded within the fabric of suburban sprawl land use. Large lot and set-back requirements, large minimum square footage requirements, and the costs of the gated community lifestyle ensured that housing prices would be beyond the reach of those who were left behind, those who the “haves” were happy to keep out of their back yards.

The “smart growth” movement is an anti-sprawl movement. That means the smart growth movement should and could be the anti-NIMBY movement as well. In Florida, we are seeing smart growth-affordable housing opportunities at the local level in the form of “New Town" land use designations for large acreage development. In a “New Town,” the principles of traditional neighborhood design are specified, and so too is the requirement that a certain percentage of the residential units be affordable within the “New Town” development. Smart growth is primarily the domain of environmentalists, but the movement is still in its infancy in most of the country. It is the perfect time to ensure that affordable housing advocates throughout the nation embrace this movement as their own. Smart growth must include affordable housing within its rubric as an equal element to preservation of open space and natural resources. Ultimately, inclusionary housing, fair share, and long term affordability or preservation should be included within the doctrine of smart growth.

NIMBYism will always be an obstacle to implementation of inclusionary land use practices so long as affordable housing is perceived as a threat to property values. We have therefore included within this edition of The NIMBY Report, a bibliography of studies conducted nationwide on the subject of affordable housing and property values. By and large, each of these studies has shown that not only does affordable housing not lower property values, but in some instances, increases property values. It is our hope that the combination of the articles from New Jersey, Florida, Oregon, Vermont, and Maryland together with the perspective of the National Neighborhood Coalition and the studies on property values, gives affordable housing advocates and smart growth advocates alike the tools they need to fight NIMBYism through smart growth.

For more information or to obtain a copy of the report, please contact the National Low Income Housing Coalition at 202/662-1530 or visit their web page at www.nlihc.org.

 

 

Senator Sarbanes To Introduce Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation...
With Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) on his way out as Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) on his way in, it goes without saying that the tables have turned. Prior to assuming the mantle of Chairman, Senator Sarbanes expressed an interest in introducing anti-predatory lending legislation that closely resembles a bill introduced earlier in the House by Representative John LaFalce (D-NY). The Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2001 would expand the number of loans subject to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), prohibit single-premium credit insurance on HOEPA loans, and enhance a number of other consumer protections for HOEPA borrowers.

To date, four other Senators have agreed to co-sponsor the measure: Senator Dodd (D-CT), Senator Kerry (D-MA), Senator Corzine (D-NJ), and Senator Stabenow (D-MI). The five Senators are circulating a "Dear Colleague" letter to other members of the Senate, soliciting additional co-sponsors for the bill. Originally, Senator Sarbanes’ staff was looking to finalize the list of co-sponsors by the end of May. Now they have indicated that they want 20 co-sponsors before they introduce the bill.

Some key provisions of the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2001 include:

Restrictions on financing of points and fees for HOEPA loans. The bill restricts a creditor from directly or indirectly financing any portion of the points, fees or other charges greater than three percent of the total sum of the loan or $600.

Limitation on the payment of prepayment penalties for HOEPA loans. The bill prohibits the lender from imposing prepayment penalties after the initial 24 month period of the loan. During the first 24 months of a loan, prepayment penalties are limited to the difference in the amount of closing costs and fees financed and three percent of the total loan amount.

Prohibition on balloon payment for HOEPA loans. The bill prohibits the use of balloon payments.

Limitation on single premium credit insurance for HOEPA loans. The bill would prohibit the up-front payment or financing of credit life, credit disability or credit unemployment insurance on a single premium basis. However, borrowers are free to purchase such insurance with the regular mortgage payment on a periodic basis, provided that it is a separate transaction that can be canceled at any time.

Extension of liability for HOEPA home improvement contract loans. The bill would make parent companies and officers of lenders, or subsequent holders of loans by a contractor, liable for HOEPA violations if the contractor goes out of business to avoid liability.

Limitation on mandatory arbitration clauses for HOEPA loans. The bill prohibits mortgages from including terms which require arbitration or other non-judicial settlement as the sole method of settling claims or disputes arising under the loan agreement.

Prohibition on requiring rescission of rights. The bill prohibits a creditor from requiring or encouraging a borrower to sign an election not to exercise the three-day right to rescind or cancel a credit transaction at the same time that the borrower receives notice of the right of rescission.

Increase HOEPA statutory damages in individual civil actions and class actions. The maximum amount that can be awarded in individual actions is increased to $100,000. The maximum amount that can be awarded in a class action is the greater of: (i) the maximum amount of the liability available for an individual action multiplied by the number of members or (ii) two percent of the net worth of the creditor.

Require that as a condition for making a HOEPA loan, a creditor make a determination at the time the loan is consummated, that the borrower will be able to make the scheduled payments to repay the loan obligation.

Prohibit a lender from making a HOEPA loan unless it certifies that it has provided the borrower with certain information regarding the risks associated with high cost loans and the availability of home ownership counseling.

Require additional disclosures related to the risks associated with HOEPA mortgages.

Prohibit a creditor/lender from: (i) recommending or encouraging default on an existing loan or other debt prior to, or in connection with, a closing on a HOEPA loan, (ii) including any provision which permits the creditor, in its sole discretion, to accelerate the indebtedness under the loan, or (iii) charging a borrower any fee to modify a HOEPA loan or defer payment due under such HOEPA loan unless it provides a material benefit to the borrower.

Require that a creditor annually report both favorable and unfavorable payment history of borrowers to credit bureaus.

For additional information, please contact Rick Taylor at COHHIO at 614/280-1984 or via e-mail at: ricktaylor@cohhio.org.

 

YEP Secures Language to Protect Homeless Children in School
The COHHIO Youth Empowerment Program (YEP) has been successful in initiating state law that will protect the educational rights of Homeless Children and Youth. This law brings Ohio into compliance with the federal McKinney-Vento Homeless education law. These safeguards allow homeless children the right to access public education. This new Ohio law will be an asset to service providers who have previously had trouble getting homeless children enrolled in school.

It is a first step in the YEP Program's long-term plan to increase educational opportunities for homeless children and youth in Ohio. Below is the language of the new state law.

(13) All school districts shall comply with the “McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act,” 42 U.S.C.A. 11431 et seq., for the education of homeless children. Each city, local, and exempted village school district shall comply with the requirements of that act governing the provision of a free, appropriate public education, including public preschool, to each homeless child.

When a child loses permanent housing and becomes a homeless person, as defined in 42 U.S.C.A. 11481(5), or when a child who is such a homeless person changes temporary living arrangements, the child’s parent or guardian shall have the option of enrolling the child in either of the following:
(a) The child’s school of origin, as defined in 42 U.S.C.A. 11432(g)(3)(C);
(b) The school that is operated by the school district in which the shelter where the child currently resides is located and that serves the geographic area in which the shelter is located.

For more information, contact Angela Lariviere at COHHIO at 614/280-1984 or angelalariviere@cohhio.org.


NCRC Explores Myths of Subprime Lending
Recently, segments of the lending industry have sought to legitimize subprime lending by hiring academics to write papers extolling the benefits of subprime lending. For example, the American Bankers Association commissioned a paper by Dr. Robert Litan of the Brookings Institution. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) does not dispute that responsible subprime lending serves credit needs. It is not, however, a driving force behind the boom in homeownership for minorities and lower income families as industry officials assert. Also, NCRC strongly believes that stronger regulation and legislation is needed to clean up subprime lending and eliminate predatory lending. Below, please find a NCRC op-ed that appeared in the American Banker.

Myth 1: Subprime lending has been responsible for record homeownership rates among minorities and lower-income groups. An invigorated Community Reinvestment Act and community-lender partnerships - not the advent of subprime lending - have spurred banks to make record numbers of home mortgage loans to minorities and lower-income borrowers. In 1990, low- and moderate-income borrowers received 18 percent of home mortgage loans made by lending institutions. That rose to 26 percent by 1995 and 30 percent by 1999.

Notice that the largest increase - eight percentage points - occurred from 1990 to 1995, before the huge spike in subprime lending. When subprime lending took off from 1995 to 1999, the share of mortgage loans received by low- and moderate-income borrowers climbed only four percentage points.

The recent Department of Treasury study required by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, found that banks made more home mortgage loans in geographical areas in which they made Community Reinvestment Act agreements and established partnerships with community groups. The study also concluded that CRA-covered banks had a considerably smaller share of the subprime market than the prime market.

Myth 2: By and large, subprime lending is priced efficiently. A study by the Research Institute for Housing America, an offshoot of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, found that minority borrowers are more apt than whites to receive subprime loans, even after controlling for credit risk factors. Freddie Mac estimates that up to 30 percent of the subprime loans they have purchased were made to borrowers qualified to receive prime loans. Fannie Mae's CEO claims that half of subprime borrowers should be receiving lower interest rates. Accordingly, Fannie Mae's Timely Payment Rewards product offers subprime borrowers rates that are two percentage points lower than prevailing subprime rates.

The assertions of overall pricing efficiencies in the subprime market are untested, disingenuous, and misleading.

Myth 3: Proposed legislation is counterproductive. The subprime market is plagued with a segment of predatory lenders that discriminate on the basis of price and load-up loans with abusive terms unrelated to compensating for risk. For example, single-premium credit insurance or the up-front financing of credit insurance products is much more costly to borrowers than if they were to purchase life or disability insurance independent of the mortgage transaction. Steep pre-payment penalties, high balloon payments, and negative amortization on high-interest-rate loans are also abusive practices that were not needed for the prime-rate homeownership boom among lower-income and minority borrowers in the 1990s.

Economists differ on the extent to which regulation and legislation is needed to eliminate market imperfections. But when the imperfections such as natural monopolies appear to be impervious to other approaches, legislation and regulation are called for.

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition, believes that certain lending practices are so exploitative that they need to be outlawed. Homeownership counseling can help borrowers shop for better loan rates, but why should we warn borrowers about single-premium credit insurance when we believe that such a product is inherently harmful? Why should we counsel borrowers against high pre-payment penalties and balloon payments on high-interest-rate loans when limiting these features does not choke off good credit, but only eliminates abusive lending?

It is time for Congress to enact predatory-lending legislation introduced by Rep. LaFalce and Sen. Sarbanes. These carefully crafted bills aim to prevent such lending without blocking underserved populations' access to credit.

NCRC is the nation’s CRA trade association of 800 community organizations and local public agencies dedicated to increasing access to capital and credit for lower-income and minority neighborhoods. For additional information about NCRC or to read more about subprime lending, please visit their web page at: www.ncrc.org.

 

 

COHHIO VISTA Positions Available!
COHHIO has openings for AmeriCorps*VISTA members in Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton and Toledo. These ONE YEAR positions will involve providing outreach and technical assistance to tenants living in privately owned HUD subsidized housing. AmeriCorps*VISTA members will be based at a local participating organization which has a memorandum of understanding with COHHIO. Local participating organizations will provide work space, access to supplies and office equipment and access to a phone for the AmeriCorps*VISTA member. COHHIO will provide internet access, work-related transportation reimbursement, and in-service training and supervision on at least a bi-weekly basis. There will also be opportunities to participate in regional, state-wide and national training events through COHHIO and the National Alliance of HUD Tenants (NAHT).

Qualifications: Seeking AmeriCorps*VISTA members who are familiar and comfortable working with low income people in neighborhood settings. Need to have own local transportation. Successful candidates must demonstrate that they are self-motivated, capable of independent work, and have experience in community work. There are no formal educational requirements, but strong verbal, writing and computer skills are a MUST.

Salary & Benefits: As an AmeriCorps*VISTA volunteer, you will receive: $9,024 a year for living expenses, medical insurance, and either a $4,725 education award or a $1,200 cash stipend. You will also receive extensive training and experience with both housing issues and community organizing. NOTE: Living allowance is not counted currently against TANF payments. COHHIO will also provide an internet account and reimbursement of work related travel expenses.

Application and Starting Dates: Applications are now being accepted for these positions, which begin August 2001. You will attend a mandatory three-day VISTA orientation at the beginning of your year of service.

To Apply:
1. Complete an AmeriCorps*VISTA application and return it to Jill Russ, COHHIO, 35 East Gay Street, Suite 210, Columbus, Ohio 43215
2. Make arrangements for an interview with Jill or Spencer.

For more information contact: Jill Russ or Spencer Wells, COHHIO, 888/290-7368, 614/463-1060 (fax), or by email: jillruss@cohhio.org or spencerwells@cohhio.org.

VISTA project number: OH 3101-6.

 

 

PAYDAY LOANS: Fringe Banking Practice Becoming Mainstream; Exploits the Poor
Ohio and the nation have seen an explosion of payday lenders. Last year, 8,000 companies made more than $9 billion worth of payday loans, a figure that is projected to double by the year 2004. Ohio has over 700 registered payday franchises, as of the end of 2000, up from 88 in 1997 ­ a hefty 695 percent increase.

The number of “working poor” households without bank accounts has grown dramatically since the early 1980’s. Maintaining a checking account is difficult -- for poor people, as well as new immigrant and some middle class populations. Banking deregulation has boosted the costs of banking services, as well as decreasing the number of branch banks in urban neighborhoods ­ especially following bank mergers. As a result, the poor are forced to resort to such “fringe” services as “payday loans” from check cashing outlets and pawnshop loans.

“Payday loans” are defined as paycheck advances made as short-term loans against the borrower’s next paycheck. A typical check cashing outlet fee for payroll and government check cashing is 20-35 percent per week, which can translate into an annual percentage rate (APR) of nearly 400-500 percent. The State of Ohio caps fees at $15 per $100 borrowed, or an APR at 390 percent. The APR, of course, is rarely quoted, as required by Truth in Lending laws; and the average consumer does not have the expertise to calculate these figures.

Low-income consumers, whose neighborhoods are targeted and who often lack rudimentary financial literacy skills, often end up on a payday loan treadmill; paying outrageous rates for the privilege of maintaining a small amount of cash for their basic living needs. These are the same low-income neighborhoods that have been abandoned by prime depository lenders, who have shifted their office locations out to the sprawl suburbs.

With the growth of check-cashing outlets has come competition and overlapping with prime lenders. Check-cashing outlets made a concerted effort to enhance their images ­ and began to offer conveniences, such as faxing, bill payment, and income tax preparation, to more middle class communities. They cashed checks, on average, for two-three percent -- a fee cheaper, for many, than maintaining a bank account. Their main revenue continued to come from the cashing of government Social Security and welfare checks ­ though as of 1999, legislation mandated that federal checks be electronically deposited.

To counter this trend in the late 1990’s, the very banks, whose high charges and closure of branches launched the check-cashing outlets, were beginning to compete for some of those check cashers’ business. At the urging of the Treasury Department, the banking industry had begun to offer more affordable basic accounts for the poor, making it easier for the banks to compete. And although closing branches, the opening of teller machines has skyrocketed since 1990, providing easier access to mainstream banking.

In turn, the check-cashing business has proposed linking check-cashing outlets to the benefit payment system so that Social Security recipients can still get their checks cashed at an outlet; they have tried to form alliances with banks to become part of the ATM network; and they have tried to get into the lending business in states that allow it.

Fringe banking companies are partnering with banks in order to come under their national bank charters. A federal banking loophole permits nationally chartered banks to “export” interest rates from their home states, with a payday lender in a regulated state acting as the “agent” of a bank in a deregulated state. Thus, for example, the State of Ohio’s prohibition against rolling over payday loans is circumvented by this practice of “exporting” a charter from another state. So customers, on a practical basis, continue to pay outrageous interest rates and payday lenders evade the meager attempts by the State to regulate their activities.

In his book, “Fringe Banking: Check-Cashing Outlets, Pawnshops, and the Poor," John P. Caskey, a Swarthmore College economics professor, formulates a set of policy proposals that would ensure access to banking services (“lifeline accounts”) and creative options for banks to comply with CRA (e.g. banking through check-cashing outlets linked up with U.S. Post Offices and national banks or credit unions), and improved regulation and enforcement of fringe banking activities.

The Consumer Federation of America has made the following recommendations:
• Federal legislation should be in place to prevent the use of national bank and thrift charters to evade state small loan rate caps and usury laws. “Banks should not be in the business of profiteering from desperate borrowers by enticing consumers to write bad checks to borrow money at exorbitant rates.” They should be prohibited from making loans based on personal checks.
• States should maintain and enforce interest rate caps for small loans.
• Lenders must comply with the Truth in Lending Act by disclosing Annual Percentage Rates, so that consumers can comparison shop for credit.
• At a minimum, states should reform existing payday loan laws with lower maximum rates and comprehensive consumer protections.

Reprinted with permission from the Metro Eye, newsletter of the Metropolitan Strategy Group, April 2001. For more information, contact Chip Bromley at MSG at 216/371-4285.

 

Grow Where You’re Planted
In AmeriCorps news, on May 23, 24, and 25, we had our spring training in Delaware, Ohio, at the Salvation Army Camp. This year's training was themed “grow where you're planted.” The 38 member group led a service project involving the repair and dismantling of light fixtures, and the cleaning and removing of towel racks for the camp. It was estimated that our members did approximately $1,500 worth of donated labor. The members also planted and decorated flower pots, in keeping with the theme.

On our second day of training, Laurie Miller from the Cleveland Mediation Center, came and did a workshop on diversity. The day long training was the highlight for many of our members. “It was alot of fun and I love it when Laurie comes to our training,” stated Angie Grywalsky, an AmeriCorps member. The three days incorporated a variety of activities including: team building, games and sharing of ideas. This year's 2001 spring training was a big success largely in part because members brought with them the dedication and skills to Get Things Done!

 

 

Poverty in America...
According to a new survey by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, Americans aren’t thinking a lot about the poor these days. In fact, only about one in 10 Americans names poverty, welfare, or a related matter as one of the top two issues government should address. Nevertheless, when asked about it directly, most Americans think that poverty is still a problem in this country, even in these generally prosperous times. A majority of Americans think poverty is not just a problem but a big problem, and another third say it’s somewhat of a problem. Despite that characterization, however, Americans are divided on why poverty is a problem and on what should be done about it. Here are some of the key findings:

Americans perceive the federal government’s definition of poverty as being too low. The government says that a family of four with an income higher than $17,029 is not poor. However, more than three in five Americans (64 percent) say that a family of four with an income of $20,000 is poor, and two in five (42 percent) say a family of four earning $25,000 is poor.

More important, perhaps, is the way low-income respondents themselves described their lives. Not surprisingly, people living below the official poverty level reported the most serious problems - in such areas as having enough money for rent, transportation or food. But people with incomes between the poverty level and twice the poverty level also reported serious problems in these areas. For instance, about 40 percent of the people in that group say they or someone in their immediate family fell behind in their utility payments or couldn’t pay for medical care in the last year; and more than a third say that at some point they had too little money to buy enough food. By contrast, only 17 percent of those making more than twice the poverty level reported not being able to afford enough food.

Americans are divided over the causes of poverty. About half the public says the poor are not doing enough to help themselves out of poverty, and the other half says that circumstances beyond their control cause them to be poor. Low-income Americans - that is, those making less than twice the federal poverty level, or about $34,000 per year for a family of four - are only slightly more likely than other Americans to feel it is due to circumstances. But when asked about specific causes of poverty, low-income Americans are significantly more likely than other Americans to name drug abuse, medical bills, too few jobs (or too many being part-time or low-wage), too many single-parent families, and too many immigrants. When asked what is the number one cause of poverty, low-income Americans are much more likely to name drug abuse, and the poorest Americans - those living below the federal poverty level - are nearly twice as likely as middle- and upper-income Americans to rank drug abuse so high. The non-poor are more likely to say that the number one cause of poverty is poor-quality public schools, but both groups are equally likely to name schools as a major cause.

Americans are also divided over welfare. Asked about welfare, Americans divide almost evenly in their views on how much welfare recipients really need help from the government. However, in this regard there are significant differences between the perceptions of low-income Americans and those with higher incomes. For instance, about half of Americans making more than twice the poverty level say that most welfare recipients could get along without assistance if they tried, and half say they could not. Similarly, about half say poor people today have easy lives because they get government benefits without doing anything in return. By contrast, only about a third of low-income Americans say the poor have it easy, and about four in 10 say welfare recipients could get along without it.

Although these are significant differences in attitudes between low-income Americans and those with higher incomes, it is interesting to note the high percentage of low-income people who think that the poor have easy lives (35 percent) or that welfare recipients don’t really need the help (39 percent) - or who express similar views of the poor in other questions. The poor may generally not be as likely to hold such views as the non-poor, but a substantial number of them agree with those who are better off.

Americans who know about the new welfare law like the way it is working. The survey found similar results in its examination of the new welfare law. About half of Americans know of the new law’s existence. Among them, 61 percent say they think the new law is working well. And the most important reason they give for why it is working well is that it requires people to go to work. Americans appear to value work so strongly that they support welfare reform even if it leads to jobs that keep people in poverty. The vast majority of those who know there has been a major change in the welfare laws (73 percent) believes that people who have left the welfare rolls are still poor, despite having found jobs (although low-income Americans who know about the new welfare law are less likely to say that the law is working well or that the main reason it is working well is that it requires people to go to work, still a majority agrees with those in higher income brackets on both counts).

Americans are unsure about the effectiveness of government programs for the poor. Although Americans (at least those who know the law exists) generally approve of the new welfare law, they express some ambivalence about government programs aimed at helping the poor. For instance, about half believe that government programs aren’t having much impact one way or the other on the condition of poor people (low-income people don’t differ from others on this). On the other hand, people want the government to try - especially when it comes to programs designed to help people who are trying to help themselves. Large majorities support expanding job-training programs (94 percent), improving public schools in low-income areas (94 percent), increasing tax credits for low-income workers (80 percent), and expanding subsidized day care (85 percent) and subsidized housing (75 percent). Support, while still high, drops off when it comes to programs that provide cash or cash-like benefits; 54 percent support increasing cash assistance for families and 61 percent support making food stamps more available. Support for all these measures declines considerably when Americans are asked whether they would be willing to have their taxes raised to pay for them, but about three in five Americans (56 percent) are willing to accept a tax increase.

Familiarity with poverty doesn’t breed sympathy. People with friends or family who are poor but are not poor themselves are not particularly sympathetic to the poor. For instance, 37 percent of people who are not poor and do not have any friends or family who are poor say that poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently; approximately the same percentage of people with friends or family who are poor (39 percent) say the same thing. This contrasts starkly with low-income people themselves; 54 percent of them say that the poor lead hard lives.

Americans believe that poor people work, but that their jobs don’t necessarily pull them out of poverty. More than 60 percent of Americans say they think that most poor people work. This is an increase from the 49 percent who held this view in 1994. In fact, most low-income people report that they do work; excluding students and retirees, about 65 percent of low-income people work (53 percent of those making less than the poverty level, and 71 percent of those making between the poverty level and twice the poverty level). More than two-thirds of Americans (69 percent) say there are jobs available for anyone who is willing to work. Although this perception is strongest among people with incomes more than twice the federal poverty level (72 percent say there are jobs available), it is still high among those with low incomes (62 percent).

However, Americans also say that the jobs available to low-income people aren’t very good ones. About three out of five (59 percent) of those who say there are jobs available for most welfare recipients who want to work also say that the jobs they can get do not pay enough to support a family. About the same proportion of low-income (62 percent) and non-low income (59 percent) Americans hold this view.

Democrats and Republicans express substantially different opinions about poverty. The survey reveals deep political divisions in the country on the subject of poverty. In question after question - especially those having to do with attitudes about poverty or welfare - the public was split about 50-50. But when the responses were separated by political party, 55 percent-65 percent of Democrats were on one side, and 55 percent-65 percent of Republicans were on the other side. Nevertheless, there is strong support even among Republicans for programs that help people who are trying to help themselves (though support is not as strong as it is among Democrats). However, when it comes to paying for the programs, Republicans are much less likely to want to raise taxes. Forty-three percent of Republicans say they would be willing to raise taxes, while 53 percent say they would not; 67 percent of Democrats are willing to raise taxes, and only 31 percent are not.

In most questions, Independents hover right around 50 percent. This is because nearly all Independents say they "lean" toward one party or the other - about half leaning toward the Democrats, and half leaning toward the Republicans - and their views generally coincide with the party toward which they lean.

Black and white Americans are divided over the magnitude of the poverty problem, the causes of poverty, perceptions of the poor, and welfare. Blacks (72 percent) are more likely than whites (52 percent) to rate poverty a big problem; to say outside circumstances are the main cause of poverty (57 percent to 44 percent); to say that poor people have hard lives (59 percent to 39 percent); to say it is harder today than it was ten years ago to get out of poverty through hard work (58 percent to 48 percent); to say that the government could eliminate poverty (67 percent to 40 percent); and to say that most welfare recipients really want to work (54 percent to 45 percent). Whites (49 percent) are more likely than blacks (36 percent) to say poor people are not doing enough to help themselves out of poverty; to say that poor people have it easy (49 percent to 31 percent); to say the government cannot eliminate poverty (56 percent to 31 percent); and to say that welfare encourages women to have more children than they would otherwise (60 percent to 48 percent). These divisions generally hold across income lines.

For additional information or to view the complete results of the poll, please visit National Public Radio’s web page at: www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/poverty.

 

 

Priced Out in 2000...
Everyone needs a place to live ­ a place to call home. Unfortunately, millions of people with disabilities today stand little chance of having a decent and affordable home of their own. This is particularly true for over three and a half million adults with disabilities who receive federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits ­ equal to a monthly income of $512 in 2000. Late last month, the Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. (TAC) and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Housing Task Force published Priced Out in 2000: The Crisis Continues.

Because of their severe lack of income, people with disabilities are facing a housing crisis ­ a crisis that is getting worse. In order to document the full scope of this housing crisis, this report examines the affordability of modest efficiency and one-bedroom housing units for people with disabilities in all 50 states and within each of the 2,703 distinct housing market areas of the country defined by the federal government. These are the type of rental units most sought after by single individuals with disabilities who want to establish a home of their own in the community.

Key Findings
The key findings of Priced Out in 2000 document that people with disabilities lost more “buying power” in the rental housing market during the past two years, and were still the low-income group with the highest levels of unmet need for housing assistance. Priced Out in 2000 documents that:
• People with disabilities continued to be the poorest people in the nation. As a national average, SSI benefits in 2000 were equal to only 18.5 percent of the one-person median household income, and fell below 20 percent of median income for the first time in over a decade.
• In 2000, people with disabilities receiving SSI benefits needed to pay ­ on a national average ­ 98 percent of their SSI benefits in order to be able to rent a modest one-bedroom unit at Fair Market Rent, published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
• Cost of living adjustments to SSI benefit levels did not keep pace with the increasing cost of rental housing. Between 1998 and 2000, rental housing costs rose almost twice as much as the income of people with disabilities.
• In 2000, there was not one single housing market in the country where a person with a disability receiving SSI benefits could afford to rent a modest efficiency or one-bedroom unit.
• “Housing wage” data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition shows that people with disabilities who received SSI benefits needed to triple their income to be able to afford a decent one-bedroom unit. On average, SSI benefits are equal to an hourly rate of $3.23, only one third of the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s housing wage, and almost $2 below the federal minimum wage.

During this past decade of increasing prosperity, low-income elderly households and low-income households with children have seen their need for government housing assistance actually decline as their incomes increased. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for people with severe disabilities receiving SSI benefits.

According to HUD’s recent policy report, A Report on Worst Case Housing Needs in 1999: New Opportunity Amid Continuing Challenges, the number of “worst case” renter households in the United States declined eight percent between 1997 and 1999. This decline in housing need occurred among every group eligible for federal housing assistance except people with disabilities. Unfortunately, for people with disabilities, increased prosperity has meant literally being “Priced Out” of the affordable housing market.

Because of their extreme poverty, the 3.5 million non-elderly people with disabilities receiving SSI benefits cannot afford decent housing anywhere in the country without some type of government housing assistance. Yet relatively few non-elderly disabled households actually benefit from HUD subsidized housing programs. Instead, millions of people with disabilities are living in restrictive congregate settings or in seriously substandard housing; still living at home with aging parents who do not know what will happen to their adult child when they can no longer provide housing for them; or are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. In a cruel irony, even though the need has increased since 1998, the number of affordable housing units available to people with disabilities has declined.

Other issues that have contributed to the housing crisis for people with disabilities include:
• Their lack of access to housing created through “mainstream” federal housing programs such as the HOME, Community Development Block Grant, and Low Income Housing Tax Credit programs;
• The blatant housing discrimination still practiced by owners and managers of federally subsidized housing; and
• The lack of a coherent and comprehensive federal housing policy to address the increasing need for housing among the lowest income people with disabilities ­ those living on SSI benefits.

Policy Recommendations
Priced Out in 2000 accurately documents the extremely difficult housing affordability problems that people with disabilities confront in today’s rental housing market. Unfortunately, it also documents that these problems have become much worse during the past two years. Despite the “wake-up call” sounded by the publication of Priced Out in 1998, the nation’s affordable housing policy makers and housing providers have still not responded enough to make any difference.

New and more aggressive policies must be developed by federal housing officials, more funding must be made available, and state and local officials must be held accountable for their responsibility to distribute a “fair share” of government housing assistance to people with disabilities based on need. To ensure that federal, state and local housing officials expand housing opportunities for people with disabilities, TAC and the CCD Housing Task Force make the following recommendations:
• Provide more access for people with disabilities to all HUD “mainstream” programs and the housing planning activities of state and local government housing officials;
• Continue to target new Section 8 vouchers to people with disabilities and improve monitoring of “elderly only” housing designation activities by federally subsidized housing providers;
• Modernize and improve the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program;
• Strengthen the role and capacity of non-profit disability organizations to become more involved in affordable housing activities;
• Continue to direct McKinney/Vento Homeless Assistance funds towards permanent housing for people with disabilities; and
• Address and prevent housing discrimination, enforce the Fair Housing Act accessibility guidelines, and provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities in all HUD programs and policies and in the private housing market.

For additional information on Priced Out in 2000 or to receive a copy of the report, please contact the Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. (TAC) at 617/742-5657 or visit their web page at www.tacinc.org.

 

 

Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio Membership

Name
Organization
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone, Fax, County
Individual: _____ $35 (Regular) _____ $75 (Benefactor) _____ $250 (Sustainer)
_____ $10 (Low-Income) _____ Fee Waiver Requested
Agency (according to budget):
_____ $35 ($100,000 or less) _____ $75 ($100,001 - $250,000)
_____ $125 ($250,001 - $500,000) _____ $200 ($500,001 - $1 million)
_____ $250 ($1 million-$1.5 million) _____ $300 (over $1.5 million)
Please send your tax deductible check to COHHIO at 35 E. Gay St, Ste. 210, Columbus, Ohio 43215.
Thank you for your support!

 

 

Advocates at Work
Regional News...Columbus. Wednesday, May 16, marked the first community-wide forum on “Out Loud: Expanding the Dialogue on Homelessness” sponsored by the Columbus Coalition for the Homeless. The event was attended by 136 providers, consumers, policy makers and community members. The keynote was given by Michael Wilkos, who spoke on city growth and opportunity and its impact both positively and negatively on affordable housing and its placement in and around the city. The morning program included panels and information sessions on “Rebuilding Lives,” Principles and Values (regarding homeless persons), Advocacy for African-Americans and People on the Land. Julia Tripp, a consumer advocate from Boston, spoke about her personal life experience with homelessness and provided a motivational message to the luncheon audience. A representative from Mayor Coleman’s office addressed the conference, praising the joint efforts of the Coalition and the city to establish a protocol regarding people living in camps on the land. The afternoon program included Making/Policy Issues, Shelter Issues, Faith Communities: Allies in Advocacy, and Alternatives in Supportive Housing.

The forum was preceded by a proclamation early in the week by Columbus City Council, recognizing the work of the Coalition. It concluded with the Sixth Annual Columbus Musicians Homeless Awareness Concert on Sunday, May 20, in Goodwill Park. Five local bands and a host of volunteers donated time, food and energy, so that approximately 1,000 community members could become familiar with homeless issues and Coalition agencies which provide services. These activities exemplify the mission of the Columbus Coalition, working to end homelessness by educating the Central Ohio community about homeless and housing issues and advocating in a unified voice for social and economic justice for all people. For more information, call Don Strasser at 614/225-0990, ext 1204 or email him at strassed@aol.com.

Special Thanks. COHHIO thanks all the Columbus Coalition members who participated in this year’s Lobby Day on April 4. The Columbus Coalition’s Annual Meeting was also scheduled for that day. Many members attended the Legislative Breakfast and then came back to afternoon appointments following their annual meeting. This extra effort to participate in Lobby Day is both recognized and appreciated.

Regional News...Lorain. Members of the Lorain County Task Force for the Homeless met with Senator Jeffrey Armbruster on May 18. This meeting was a follow up to Lobby Day. Task Force Members asked Senator Armbruster if he would champion the Ohio Housing Trust Fund in the Ohio Senate. While the Senator declined this role, he vowed to work with the Coalition on issues of importance to Lorain County. Thanks to the Lorain County Task Force for their efforts on behalf of the Ohio Housing Trust Fund.

 

 

Resources - Funding Sources and Web Opportunities
Verizon Foundation. eGrants for $240 for Internet access to nonprofits with annual budgets under $500,000 and who don't have current internet access. Visit www.techsoup.org/news_article.cfm?newsid=558 or contact the Enterprise Foundation's Director of Safety and Neighborhood Leadership, George Rice, at 410/772-5287.

First Union Foundation. Makes grants to 501(c)(3) organizations that are involved in adult education through jobs skills training, financial literacy and technology training, affordable housing that promotes community building and provides housing through shelters, single and multi-family housing, economic development that promotes economic vitality and spurs job creation, and financial literacy efforts that provide budgeting and homeownership counseling. For more information, contact July Allison, First Union, 704/374-4085.

MetLife Foundation Awards for Excellence in Affordable Housing. Presented in two categories: supportive housing and property and asset management. The project must be a single or scattered site and have a minimum of 10 dwelling units. It can be rental, cooperatively-owned or condominium units, transitional or permanent housing and serve residents earning less than 60 percent of the AMI. Must be completed, at least partly occupied and managed by the current manager on or by July 1, 1999. Applications are due August 13, 2001. Applicants must be Enterprise Foundation members. For more information, contact Samia Malak, Enterprise Foundation, at 410/772-2436.

Corporation for Supportive Housing, Social Purpose Venture Loan Fund - new resource for supportive housing providers and businesses serving the supportive housing industry. The Fund offers loans of up to $50,000 at five percent for terms ranging from one to six years. Limited to Columbus area in Ohio. CSH seeks to support businesses that are related to supporting the supportive housing industry itself and which enhance the operations of supportive housing. Such ventures might include businesses such as; property management, janitorial/maintenance, construction/painting, food services, printing/publishing or re-manufacturing printer ink cartridges. For more information, contact Bill Flaherty, Program Director, Columbus Office of CSH, at 614/228-6263 or by email at bill.flaherty@csh.org.

Harry Chapin Self-Reliance Awards, honoring innovation and creativity in grassroots efforts against hunger and poverty through self-reliance. $5,000. Deadline - August 1. For more information, contact Julianne Rana at World Hunger Year at 212/629-8850, ext. 123 or by email at hcsra@worldhungeryear.org.

CharityAdvantage- free custom websites to nonprofits. Includes the following pages: Home, Our Mission, Programs/Services, How You Can Help and Contact Us. Also allows you to receive donations. A certified professional web developer will be available for unlimited technical support. Fees are the yearly hosting and general administrative charges of $250 per year. For more information or to sign up, go to http://www.charityadvantage.com.

Enterprise MoneyNet, free online resource, consisting of 500 donors and 1,500 private and government funding deadlines. Search for funding opportunities by deadline and/or subject/focus and/or geographic focus at www.enterprisefoundation.org/products.


Resources
TRAININGS
ODOD Trainings
Finance Professional Certification Program. OHCP will sponsor the National Development Council's four week Economic Development Finance Professional Certification Program. The program explores the following skills that are essential to be successful at stimulating job creation: September 13-17 - Real Estate Finance. Presents a step-by-step overview of the real estate development process from the perspective of the market investor. Each training session includes text readings, short lectures and case studies. Registration fee - $500 per participant per week. All training sessions will be held in Columbus. The registration deadline for each session is approximately six weeks prior to the start of each session. Questions should be directed to Mary Dupler, OHCP Publications Specialist at 614/466-2285.

2001 Lead Abatement Training. The training is designed to provide lead abatement contractors/supervisors, lead abatement workers, lead inspectors and lead risk assessors with practical, lead-based paint abatement information and with the opportunity to participate in hands-on skill-based lead-abatement activities. The registration fee for each of the courses if $100. For more information, contact Tom Sherman, OHCP, at 614/466-2285 or Mike Keyes, COAD, at 740/594-8499.
Lead Inspector Training - Sept. 10-12 (Findlay); Lead Risk Assessor Training - Sept. 13-14 (Findlay); Residential Lead Abatement for Supervisors/Contractors - Oct. 15-19 (Akron), Nov. 5-9 (Findlay); Lead-Based Paint Maintenance Worker Training - July 31 (Columbus); Residential Lead Hazard Abatement for Workers - Aug. 7-10 (Xenia), Oct. 30-Nov. 2 (Athens); and Residential Lead Hazard Abatement for Workers Refresher Course - Sept. 5 (Columbus)

FIRSTLINK Luncheon Series: July 25 - Leadership Development for Today's Youth: Food for Thought...; and August 1 - Organize Your Life. FIRSTLINK is also offering "How to Do a Bulk Mailing" on August 7 from 9:00 am to 10:30 am. For more information on any of these trainings, call William McCulley at FIRSTLINK at 614/224-6866.

Building Doctors, Ohio Historical Society. Will teach old-building owners how to recognize and solve some of the most common sources of problems in maintaining older buildings. Also will make rounds of ailing buildings within five miles of the host community to examine problems and prescribe cures. The clinics and consultations are free. Clinics will be held in Bellevue on August 16 & 17; Tiffin on September 13 & 14 and Chagrin Falls on October 11 & 12. To register, call 800/499-2470.

CDC Trainings. Affordable Housing Development: Codes and Standards, Methods and Materials - August 21-23 and Board Trainings, Project Presentation, Review and Exam - Sept. 19-21. For more information, contact the Ohio CDC Association at 614/461-6392.

Workers Compensation University. Sept. 17 - Cambridge; Sept. 25 - Columbus; Sept. 27 - Akron; Oct. 2 - Dayton; Oct. 10 - Cleveland; Oct. 18 - Toledo and Oct. 24 - Cincinnati. For more information, visit the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation web page at www.ohiobwc.com.

PUBLICATIONS
Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America, Barbara Ehrenreich. Amazon.com editorial review - "With some 12 million women being pushed into the labor market by welfare reform, Ms. Ehrenreich decided to do some good old-fashioned journalism and find out just how they were going to survive on the wages of the unskilled - at $6 to $7 an hour, only half of what it considered a living wage. So she did what millions of Americans do, she looked for a job and a place to live, worked that job, and tried to make ends meet. With her characteristic wry wit and her unabashadely liberal bent, Ehrenreich brings the invisible poor out of hiding and, in the process, the world they inhabit -- where civil liberties are often ignored and hard work fails to live up to its reputation as the ticket out of poverty."

Changing Financial Markets and Community Development, Federal Reserve's Community Affairs Research Conference. Browse the proceedings. Topics include: Conference Summary, the Unbanked and the Alternative Financial Sector, New Industry Developments, Wealth Creation, Evaluation of CRA and speeches by the Federal Reserve's Chairman Greenspan and Governor Gramlich. Available at www.chicagofed.org/cedric/index.cfm.

OTHER
Home Cooling Assistance for Summer Available. Low-income residents who need help staying cool at home this summer can apply for assistance from the state to pay energy bills or buy fans and window air conditioners. To be eligible, a household's gross income must be below 150 percent of the federal poverty guideline. For example, a family of four would have to have an annual income of $25,474 or less. The Department of Development administers the Home Energy Assistance Program summer cooling project, and the funds are distributed through Ohio's 52 local community action agencies. For more information, call 800/282-0880.

Job Opening - Project Manager - West Side Rental Housing Collaborative. This position will assist the Collaborative in implementing a plan to create 500 rental housing opportunities for very low income households over a five year period. The 24 member Collaborative consists of community development corporations, community based human service providers, faith based organizations, and city wide housing and service related organizations. The May Dugan Center will supervise the position. Salary is commensurate with experience. Send a letter of interest and resume by July 20 to West Side Rental Housing Collaborative, c/o May Dugan Center, 4115 Bridge Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44113.

Webhands.org, a General Motors community initiative, is a website that matches individuals who want to assist in charitable work with charitable organizations that accept donations of goods and services in their local communities. Organizations that deal with issues such as hunger, homelessness, literacy or digital-divide bridging may be added to this website. For more information, contact e-GM Webmaster at egm.webmaster@gm.com.


COHHIO NEWS
Fiscal Management Training. COHHIO, in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Housing and Community Partnerships, held a Fiscal Management Training. Nearly 75 non-profits attended. The training focused on issues related to fund accounting, grant monitoring and reporting, fiscal policies and procedures, updates regarding federal fiscal regulations and other applicable issues. COHHIO would like to thank our presenters: Melonie Buller, C.P.A, and from the Ohio Department of Development - Maria Robinson, Caren Murdock and Todd Thobe.

Goodbye. Warren Perkins, one of COHHIO's OTAG VISTAs has left COHHIO to go work with BREAD. COHHIO would like to thank Warren for his work at COHHIO and wish him much success with his new position.

COHHIO Web Page. Be sure to visit the COHHIO web page, www.cohhio.org, to get additional information on all the projects COHHIO works on, including AmeriCorps, the Youth Empowerment Project, the OTAG project, and the Ohio Community Reinvestment Coalition, among others.

Reader Survey. Thanks to all those that responded to the reader survey. It will help guide us in making the newsletter as helpful to our readers as possible. The following are the state park raffle winners: Caren Bauer - Salt Fork, Beth Belcher - Burr Oak, Neva Graban - Mohican, Michael Gruber - Shawnee and Ken Reed - Maumee Bay.

(614) 280-1984 Voice
(614) 463-1060 Fax

cohhio@cohhio.org