|
Breaking Ground - June 1999
- State
Bonds Go For Housing as Refinery Bid is Cut Back
- Statehouse
Update
- Housing
and Work Stability: Families Moving From Welfare to Work
- COHHIO
News
- Update
on Section 8 Preservation
- Now
is the Time: Places Left Behind in the New Economy
- Transitional
Housing Providers...Mark Your Calendars
- Priced
Out in 1998: The Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities
- Poverty
Guidelines Issued
- Cleveland
Housing Network Wins Tax Credit Excellence Award
- Loan
Sharks - A View From the Neighborhoods
- AmeriCorps
on the Move
- AmeriCorps
Members Spotlight
- Resources
- Cost
Reduction in Numbers - Employers Group Together to Save Money on Their
Workers' Compensation Premiums
State
Bonds Go For Housing as Refinery Bid is Cut Back
Citing
a growing demand for low-income housing, state development officials opted
to help finance four housing projects and scale back support for a controversial
oil refinery project in Toledo.
The housing projects and the British Petroleum refinery had both competed
for Ohio's remaining $100 million allocation of tax-exempt bonds.
Earlier this year, housing advocates complained that their share of the
bond financing had been slashed dramatically. The BP project, which is
backed by some of Ohio's premier lobbyists and consultants, appeared poised
to receive the entire $100 million allocation - the latest installment
of a record-setting $230 million total.
Ohio Department of Development Director C. Lee Johnson, the man responsible
for determining which projects received the financing, recommended that
the BP project receive $28.5 million, not the $100 million. Even with
the reduction, the BP project still received more than any other project.
Johnson called the BP project "a good one," but said: "When
I looked at the history of this program, it clearly was meant for smaller
businesses for whom this type of financing would really be beneficial.
Then when we looked at the housing needs, we felt they needed to be addressed
first."
Johnson said he opted to fund all housing projects that applied for the
$100 million and all small, economic development requests. BP and others
seeking support for large projects shared the remaining amount, he said.
The BP project, which is a joint venture with FirstEnergy Corp., allows
an old refinery to process high-sulfur crude oil more cheaply. The refining
process will generate more petroleum coke, which will be used in a new
boiler at FirstEnergy's Bay Shore Power Plant.
The state is not giving housing advocates and business cash. It is giving
them Ohio's share of volume cap, which is the ability to finance their
projects with bonds that are exempt from federal taxes. The bonds enable
companies to borrow money for projects at lower interest rates.
The federal government allocates each state a level of volume cap each
year. The level of allocation is tied to the population in a state.
BP officials could not be reached for comment yesterday. Housing advocates
praised Johnson's decision.
"They had a bad plan to work with, but they implemented it about
as well as we could have hoped," said Bill Faith, executive director
of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio.
Faith's real complaint centered on a legislative committee that determined
how much volume cap would be allocated for each category. Last year, multifamily
housing projects were in line for $168 million in volume cap; this year,
the panel set aside just $56 million.
The reduction occurred when demand for affordable housing is on the rise,
according to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The report cited rising rents and the loss of public housing
as two reasons for the crunch, and said need was especially great in major
urban areas such as Cleveland.
While Johnson boasts that he opted to fund all housing projects that applied,
Faith said the smaller-than-expected allocation caused the number of applicants
to drop.
"People didn't think they had a chance, so they didn't apply,"
he said.
The next step in reforming the program, Faith said, is to change the criteria
the state uses to determine which projects qualify for the multifamily
allocation. Under the current rules, largely upscale projects can qualify
for the bond financing.
In the latest round, for example, a plan to redevelop the old Hotel Statler
on Euclid Avenue in Cleveland received a $14.9 million allocation. Developers
want to convert the old hotel, now the Statler Office Tower, into a 292-unit
apartment complex.
Once transformed, the project would provide an exercise area and a party
room for tenants and some units would overlook a patio.
Johnson said the department had no plans to change the selection criteria,
nor did he plan to cap the amount large projects can receive. May 27,
1999. Reprinted with permission from The Plain Dealer ©1999. All
rights reserved.
Statehouse
Update...
Over
the past few weeks, COHHIO has been busy advocating for increased funding
for the Ohio Housing Trust Fund (HTF). As a result of this advocacy, Governor
Taft’s office recently agreed to fully fund the HTF at $41.5 million
over the next 2 years. For those of you keeping track, this commitment
essentially fixes the $12.5 million hole that existed after the state
budget left the Ohio House of Representatives in early May.
This fix was made possible in part, by transferring projected revenue
from the Human Services Budget Stabilization Fund (Human Services Rainy
Day Fund) to the General Budget Stabilization Fund (Rainy Day Fund). It
is anticipated that approximately $800 million will end up in the Rainy
Day Fund once the budget is complete. Of this $800 million, the Housing
Trust Fund will be able to tap into the first $100 million worth of interest
accrued. This translates into an estimated $12 million in additional revenue
for the Housing Trust Fund.
In an attempt to secure additional funding above and beyond the $41.5
million already committed, COHHIO will work with mem of both the Ohio
House and Senate in Conference Committee to move funding for the Housing
Trust Fund closer to $50 million a year.
In February of this year, you may have seen an article in the newsletter
regarding state NIMBY legislation. Senate Bill 48, introduced in the Ohio
Senate by Senator Cupp, would place several requirements on the Ohio Housing
Finance Agency (OHFA) and all multi-family housing projects which they
fund. Recently, COHHIO met with Senator Cupp to discuss both the legislation
and any possible alternatives.
Senator Cupp agreed to place a “permanent hold” on the legislation
after learning that OHFA currently seeks evidence of local support for
multi-family tax credit projects, and that the agency is actively pursuing
similar criteria for multi-family tax exempt bond projects.
It is important to point out though, that Senator Cupp did not withdraw
the legislation. By placing a permanent hold on the bill, Senator Cupp
is ensuring that for the time being, hearings will not be held and the
legislation will not be voted out of committee. If however, Senator Cupp
is not satisfied with OHFA’s performance regarding evidence of local
support, there is the possibility that he could remove the hold and again
push this legislation.
The final update pertains to House Bill 263, which was recently introduced
in the Ohio House of Representatives by Representative Cates. This bill
was intended to criminalize the violation of certain lease provisions
pertaining to equipment rental contracts, primarily the non-payment of
rental fees. The legislation, however, was somewhat ambiguous in its wording,
and could apply to several “contracts” including rental housing
leases, commercial real estate leases, and rent-to-own contracts.
In response, COHHIO and the Ohio State Legal Services Association (OSLSA)
contacted Representative Cates and offered an amendment to the bill that
would exempt certain transactions. Representative Cates agreed to attach
an amendment that exempts all real estate leases, all mobile home related
contracts, and all rent-to-own contracts. Currently, HB 263 is pending
in committee, with no clear timeline as to if and when it will be voted
out.
Housing
and Work Stability: Families Moving from Welfare to Work
In the nation, there is growing recognition of the role that stable, affordable
housing plays in the success of welfare reform. Evidence of this includes
an increase in Section 8 housing vouchers targeted to families moving
off welfare and TANF housing subsidy programs in three states, Connecticut,
New Jersey, Minnesota, and one county, San Mateo, California. In the newly
released final TANF Regulations, shelter is clearly an allowable benefit
included in the definition of "assistance." It is also an essential
tool in maintaining employment for low wage families.
In Ohio, there is a growing recognition that the lack of stable, affordable
housing presents a significant obstacle to obtaining and retaining employment
for many families attempting to leave welfare and move toward self sufficiency
through work. This is also true for low income families who have left
the roles or have never been on and are finding their incomes inadequate.
Evidence of this obstacle in Ohio Works First (OWF) includes the larger
than anticipated expenditure of OWF and Prevention, Retention and Contingency
(PRC) funds on housing and utility emergencies, collectively defined as
"shelter." According to ODHS, $281,872 or 48 percent of the
total $587,412 PRC expenditure for May 1999 was spent for shelter. For
the same time period (May 1999) $101,087 or 35 percent of the total $288,285
OWF emergency expenditure was spent for shelter.
COHHIO has been in discussions with the Ohio Department of Human Services
(ODHS) about the role of housing in successful welfare reform. The newly
published final TANF regulations make clear that housing is an allowable
benefit under the official definition of "assistance" when consistent
with the law's goal of moving families to work. Published on April 12,
1999, the new regulations will take effect on October 1, 1999. States
are free to continue applying reasonable interpretations until then.
The clarity regarding housing as an allowable benefit in the final regulations
strengthens COHHIO's case for providing housing supports to families on
TANF. Additionally, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
there are many options for providing benefits to low income families related
to the goal of maintaining work stability, which do not trigger time limits.
COHHIO will be exploring housing benefits as they relate to obtaining
and maintaining stable work for families not currently receiving TANF.
What follows is taken from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Highlights on Final TANF Regulations published April 29, 1999. For a copy
of the full report, contact the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
at 202/408-1080 or e-mail them at center@center.cbpp.org or visit their
website at www.cbpp.org.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Highlights on Final TANF Regulations
Definition of "assistance" (Section 260.31 and preamble discussion
at 64 FR 17754-63)
In both the TANF guidance issued in January 1997 and in the proposed regulations,
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made clear that key
TANF requirements -namely the 60-month time limit, the assignment of a
recipient's child support to the state, work participation, and data collection
on recipient families -do not apply to all uses of TANF funds. Instead,
these rules apply when TANF funds are used to provide "assistance."
The welfare law allows states to spend TANF funds on a broad range of
activities, some of which closely resemble traditional welfare programs
and some of which do not. For example, one of the purposes of the law
is to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancy. While a state can use TANF funds
on pregnancy prevention programs, Congress did not intend that such help
would count against a family's lifetime time limit. HHS thus faced the
task of setting the definition of "assistance" to cover activities
that serve purposes similar to traditional welfare programs.
The significance of the consequences that follow receipt of "assistance"
means that the definition of "assistance" is one of the most
important elements of the TANF regulations. A state's decision to support
various benefits and services with federal TANF funds is affected greatly
by whether the program in mind would be considered "assistance."
For example, states likely would be unwilling to use TANF to fund a transportation
program for low-income working families if it were to count against a
family's time limit, among other requirements. The state would be much
more likely to provide this support if it were not considered "assistance."
The definition of "assistance" in the final TANF rules makes
it clear that states can use TANF funds to provide a very broad range
of benefits and services without triggering time limit, work participation,
detailed data reporting or child support assignment consequences.
Under the final-regulations, "assistance" includes cash payments,
vouchers and other forms of benefits designed to meet a family's ongoing
basic needs (i.e., for food, clothing, shelter, utilities, household goods,
personal care items, and general incidental expenses), although there
are significant exclusions as described below. Thus, benefits and services
that serve the same purpose as a welfare check -helping a family meet
basic needs on an ongoing basis -are counted against the family's time
limit and trigger work participation and related requirements.
There are several types of benefits and services excluded from the definition
of "assistance." These exclusions refine the definition in ways
that make it more consistent with the law's goal of moving families to
work. The exclusions include:
• "supportive services such as child care and transportation
provided to families who are employed." Benefits and services states
provide to support employment among working families are not considered
assistance.
• short-term benefits that address a specific crisis or episode of
need and that are not intended to meet an ongoing or recurrent need. Short-term
aid cannot extend beyond four months, though families can receive such
help more than once a year if they experience more than one crisis or
episode of need;
• refundable state earned income tax credits;
• contributions to and distributions from Individual Development
Accounts;
• subsidies provided to employers to cover the costs of employee
wages, benefits, training, or supervision; and
• services such as counseling and employment services that "do
not provide basic income support."
The final regulations thus establish a framework under which benefits
and services that support work, as well as benefits and services that
do not provide support for basic needs on an ongoing basis -either because
the benefit is short-term or has no income effect -are not considered
assistance. By contrast, all forms of ongoing aid for basic needs that
either serve non-working families or that go to working families but would
not be considered a work support are considered assistance. This framework
is substantially different from that in the proposed regulations which,
for example, explicitly included child care, transportation and wage subsidies
within the proposed definition of assistance.
The final definition of assistance allows states to use federal TANF funds
to provide a range of supports to low-income families that do not otherwise
receive cash assistance without running the family's 60-month TANF time
clock, without triggering assignment and retention of child support and
without triggering the work requirements or data collection requirements
that apply to TANF "assistance." For example, a state could
create a monthly transportation allowance program that serves low-income
working families with earnings above the income eligibility levels for
ongoing TANF cash assistance without triggering TANF "assistance"
consequences for those families.
The definition of short-term benefits also is more expansive in the final
regulations than in the proposed regulations. The preamble to the final
regulations explains that the key element to defining short-term aid is
that the service or benefit must address a crisis or "episode of
need" and not a recurring or ongoing need. To clarify what is meant
by "episode of need," the regulations note that the aid cannot
be provided for more than four months. The preamble clarifies that short-term
aid can cover past debts -even if the debts had accumulated for more than
four months -and that families can get short-term assistance more than
once per year if they experience more than one crisis or episode of need.
Should an episode of need become longer term, the preamble indicates that
while the case could be converted to a TANF assistance case, HHS would
not require the state to re-define the initial aid as assistance and retroactively
subject the family to TANF requirements.
Contact Pam Argus regarding COHHIO's housing/welfare reform efforts at
614/280-1984 or e-mail at cohhiopa@aol.com.
COHHIO
NEWS
Goodbye: Dawn Tyler, COHHIO's Housing Policy Director, has left COHHIO
to take a position working for Columbus City Councilwoman Charleta Tavares
as her legislative aide. We wish Dawn much success in her new position.
Job Opening: COHHIO is seeking a Community Reinvestment Coordinator to
work on community reinvestment issues on behalf of COHHIO. Please call
COHHIO at 614/280-1984 for a job description.
UPDATE
ON SECTION 8 PRESERVATION
Update on Legislation to Preserve Affordable Housing
The Housing Preservation Matching Grant Act of 1999 (H.R. 425)
The Housing Preservation Matching Grant Act of 1999 was introduced on
January 19, by Congressman Bruce Vento (D-MN) and was referred to the
House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. In early February,
Congressman Jim Ramstad (R-MN) agreed to cosponsor the bill.
H.R. 425 provides for matching grants to states to be used for preservation
efforts. Funds could be used for capital (including acquisition) or operating
costs, and will come with use restrictions to keep the property affordable.
The match will be at least two federal dollars to every one state dollar.
As the bill is currently drafted, the state match requirement does not
allow for federal funds granted to states and localities (e.g., Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, bond resources, HOME or CDBG) to be used as state
match. However, Congressman Vento and Ramstad have indicated that they
are open to liberalizing the match requirement to allow for such funds
to be counted toward the state match, and it is anticipated that such
a change will occur.
There are currently 50 cosponsors of the bill, including Representatives
Tubbs Jones, Kucinich, Ney and Brown from Ohio.
The Emergency Resident Protection Act of 1999 (H.R. 1336)
The Emergency Resident Protection Act of 1999 was introduced on March
25 by Representative Lazio. On May 4, the Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity held hearings on the bill. The bill, if enacted,
will direct the Secretary of HUD to provide “enhanced vouchers”
to elderly or disabled tenants residing in a project-based Section 8 property
at the time the subsidy contract expires. The vouchers would pay the difference
between the new, increased rent at the property and what the family can
afford to pay under the Section 8 voucher program. The bill may be amended
to allow families that reside in a tight housing markets to also be eligible
for these enhanced vouchers.
The bill also directs the Secretary of HUD to mark up to market rent properties
that are currently receiving a project-based Section 8 subsidy that is
below the market rent for the geographic area in which the project is
located. HUD is in the process of developing a mark-up-to market program
(see “Update on HUD Multifamily Restructuring Program” below).
At this time the bill has 14 cosponsors, including Representatives Pryce
and Hobson from Ohio.
Both of these bills may be combined with other housing bills currently
in the House, and blended into the HUD appropriations bill for FY 2000.
Update on HUD Multifamily Restructuring Program
New HUD Notice
The Department of Housing and Urban Development has made some changes
in the rules and procedures governing project-based Section 8 contracts
expiring in Federal Fiscal Year 1999. Notice H99-8, issued May 27, revises
Notice H98-34, which governs the expiration of Section 8 contracts in
FY 1999. The new notice implements certain provisions of HUD’s FY
1999 Appropriations Act, signed October 21, 1998.
Most importantly, the new notice sets out changes to the tenant notification
requirements. Owners are no longer required to provide a 90-day notice
to tenants of any rent increase which may occur as a result of expiration
or termination of the contract. However, owners are now required to provide
not less than one year written notification to tenants and HUD of expiration
or termination of the contract.
HUD has also provided a letter that owners must use when the owner is
intending to renew the Section 8 contract with HUD, and a sample letter
that owners may use if they do not intend to renew the contract with HUD.
If the owner plans not to renew, the letter must state the date of the
contract expiration, that the owner does not intend to renew the contract,
and subject to appropriations, HUD will provide housing vouchers to eligible
residents.
Owners that are prepaying the FHA-insured mortgage on a project-based
Section 8 property are required to provide HUD, each tenant of the property,
and the chief executive officer of the appropriate State or local government
for the jurisdiction in which the project is located with at least 150
days, but not more than 270 days, written notice of their intent to prepay
the mortgage. Owners may not increase the rent at the project for 60 days
following the date of prepayment.
Mark-up-to-Market Emergency Initiative
HUD is currently developing a “mark-up-to-market” program for
properties that have subsidy contracts expiring between May 1 and October
1, 1999. The mark-up will be limited to 150 percent of the Fair Market
Rent (FMR) for the area, the owner of the property must be a for-profit,
the property must have received a score of at least a 60 on its Real Estate
Assessment Center (REAC) assessment, and the current market rents must
be equal to or more than 110 percent of the existing rents in the area
(FMR). The complete guidelines for the mark-up-to-market “emergency
initiative” is expected to be released by HUD any day.
Five-year Subsidy Agreements
The Department of HUD is also looking at initiating some kind of arrangement
with project-based Section 8 property owners for five year contracts.
According to the Department, the agreement would provide for four consecutive
renewals. The only contingency would be if the appropriations (funds)
are available. The amount of the contract would be adjusted each year
by an Operating Cost Adjustment Factor (OCAF).
New Rules for Prepayment and Opting-Out
According to HUD staff, the Department is developing new rules for prepayment
of FHA-insured mortgages on project-based Section 8 properties, and for
opting-out of the program upon expiration of the subsidy contract. HUD
staff indicate the new rules will be more restrictive, with eligibility
to opt-out or prepay established by criteria yet to be determined by HUD.
Now
Is the Time: Places Left Behind in the New Economy
At a time when this nation’s economy has created 18 million new jobs
coupled with unprecedented wealth and the lowest peacetime unemployment
rate in decades, one in three central cities are struggling with persistently
high poverty rates, one in five have seen steady population losses, and
one in six are facing chronically high unemployment rates. This from Now
Is the Time: Places Left Behind in the New Economy, recently published
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The report
took a detailed look at 539 central cities (the principal cities of larger
metropolitan areas), and measured them against three key economic indicators
- poverty, population loss and unemployment.
The report concludes that most of the 539 central cities are doing well
and have benefited from the overall growth of the economy. There is, however,
the realization that the recent economic boom has left some places behind.
• A total of 170 cities in 34 states had poverty rates of 20 percent
or more in 1995. That figure is 50 percent higher than the national rate,
and it appears as though these rates have remained high since the last
full census at the start of the decade. To put that into perspective,
cities like New Orleans, Louisiana; San Bernidino, California; and Miami,
Florida had estimated poverty rates over 30 percent.
• A total of 116 cities in 28 states lost five percent of their population,
while 57 cities lost 10 percent of their population since the early 1980’s.
These losses were occurring despite the rapid population growth (17 percent)
of the country as a whole. Again, cities that experienced the exodus of
people as jobs moved away were hardest hit. Cities like East St. Louis,
Illinois; Johnstown, Pennsylvania; and Youngstown, Ohio all lost in excess
of 24 percent of their population.
• A total of 95 cities in 26 states had poverty rates of 7.75 percent
or more in 1998 (50 percent above the national average rate for that year),
64 cities had a rate of 7.9 percent or more (75 percent above the national
rate), and 37 cities had rates of 9 percent or more (100 percent above
the national rate). These unacceptably high rates remain, despite a dramatic
drop in the overall urban unemployment rate since the early 1990’s.
Cities like Yuma, Arizona; Madera, California; and Yakima, Washington
all have unemployment rates more than twice the national average.
As Secretary Cuomo described, “This economy is in some ways deceptive.
It is so strong that it has generated almost an economic euphoria. But
when you look at the numbers underneath, you see a widespread group of
cities and counties which are lagging behind.” This report serves
as the first installment in a series, regarding the state of communities
still struggling “in the slow lane” of the nation’s economic
boom. The report concludes with a simple yet profound thought... "The
great project of our nation - extending opportunity to all - remains incomplete.
If these issues are not forcefully addressed when the national economy
is strong and budget surpluses are huge, then when.”
Transitional
Housing Providers...mark your calendar
COHHIO is sponsoring a Transitional Housing Forum on Wednesday, June 23rd,
at the YWCA in Columbus. This forum will give transitional housing providers
an opportunity to find out what is going on not only within the state
but throughout the country, with respect to transitional housing. The
first part of the forum will include participation from the Corporation
for Supportive Housing (CSH) and the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD),
regarding their unique perspectives relating to transitional housing.
After a short lunch break, the balance of the time will be used for facilitated
group discussion. The forum is intended to give providers the opportunity
to share information, learn new strategies, and begin to develop “best
practices.” To offset the costs of the forum, we are asking that
attendees each pay a $15 registration fee. This will buy you coffee and
tea in the morning; boxed lunch with beverage, and additional beverages
in the afternoon. If you are interested in attending, and would like additional
information, please contact Rick Taylor at 614/280-1984 as soon as possible.
Priced
Out in 1998: The Housing Crisis for People with Disabilities
In the State of Ohio, a person receiving Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) benefits receives $750 per month, or $4.69 per hour. A person receiving
SSI benefits in Ohio earns on average, 32 percent of the area median income.
In terms of housing affordability, a person receiving SSI benefits in
Ohio pays just over 39 percent of their monthly income to rent an efficiency
apartment, and nearly 47 percent of their monthly income to rent a modest
one-bedroom apartment at the area Fair Market Rents (FMR’s). In Ohio,
though it requires less SSI income as a percentage of rent than any other
state in the country, people are still forced to pay far more than 30
percent of their total monthly income for rent. Unfortunately, Ohio is
one of the better states in terms of housing affordability for people
with disabilities. Ohio is the only state in which SSI benefit income
exceeds 30 percent of the area median income. To put that into perspective,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines households
with incomes between 30 percent and 50 percent of the median income as
Very Low Income Households. The remaining 49 states and the District of
Columbia have SSI income as a percentage of median income ranging from
just over 12 percent to just under 30 percent. HUD defines households
with incomes below 30 percent of the median income as Extremely Low Income
Households.
According to the Social Security Administration Office of Research, there
are an estimated 4.38 million Americans with disabilities receiving Supplemental
Security Income benefits (SSI). On average, these 4.38 million Americans
receive $515 per month in SSI benefits. If you break that down, this monthly
benefit equals just $3.22 per hour - or almost $2.00 below the federal
minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. With incomes this low, it should come
as no surprise that millions of Americans with disabilities cannot afford
a place to live.
Rather than spending 30 percent of their monthly income on rent per the
federal guidelines for housing affordability, people with disabilities
are forced to spend an average of 69 percent of their monthly SSI income
to rent a one bedroom apartment priced at the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Rent (FMR).
In March of this year, the Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. (TAC)
and the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force (CCD
Housing Task Force) published Priced Out in 1998, in an attempt to document
the nature and severity of the housing crisis for people with disabilities
most in need of housing assistance. By looking at several key factors
including the Fair Market Rents (FMR’s) for some 2,646 housing market
areas throughout the country, the HUD defined Area Median Incomes (AMI’s)
of these same housing market areas, and each state’s SSI benefit
rates for individuals living independently, Priced Out in 1998 concludes
that millions of Americans receiving SSI benefits are too poor to obtain
safe, decent and affordable housing.
The report also found that:
• People with disabilities receiving SSI benefits are among the lowest
income households in the country. The national average of an individual
with a disability receiving SSI is less than 25 percent of the typical
Area Median Income for one person in that particular community.
• There is not a single housing market area in this country where
a person with a disability receiving SSI benefits can afford to rent an
efficiency apartment. This finding is based upon current federal housing
affordability guidelines for very low income households, which suggest
that no more than 30 percent of monthly income should be spent on housing
costs.
• In 125 housing market areas throughout this country, the cost of
a one-bedroom apartment exceeds a person’s monthly SSI income. Using
current FMR’s as the standard for modest rental housing costs, nowhere
in the United States can an SSI recipient rent a one-bedroom apartment
for less than 50 percent of his or her monthly income.
• The national average cost for an efficiency apartment is nearly
59 percent of monthly SSI income, while the national average for a one-bedroom
is almost 70 percent of monthly SSI income. People with disabilities receiving
SSI benefits paying this much of their monthly incomes for housing costs
are considered to have “worst case” housing needs.
To make matters worse, people with disabilities are experiencing this
housing affordability crisis while the overall number of federally-subsidized
apartments is intentionally being reduced. Due in part to “elderly
only” housing legislation passed in the early 1990’s, owners
of federally-subsidized apartments can literally shut people with disabilities
out of the housing market. This effective “net loss” of affordable
housing for people with disabilities only serves to intensify matters.
In 1996, it was estimated that by the year 2000, some 273,000 apartments
in federally-subsidized housing buildings will no longer be available
to persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, this estimate seems to be
all too accurate. As of 1998, as many as 200,000 of these apartments had
already been converted to “elderly only.”
These statistics are sobering. They serve to illustrate the sheer scope
and magnitude of the housing affordability crisis faced by millions of
Americans with disabilities. Without safe, decent, and affordable housing,
people with disabilities continue to live at home with aging parents,
in crowded homeless shelters, in institutions or nursing homes, or are
forced to choose between seriously sub-standard housing or paying most
of their monthly income for rent.
The information in Priced Out in 1998 can be used to “develop a powerful
and effective statement regarding the housing needs of people with disabilities
who want and deserve permanent and affordable housing in the community.”
The report goes on to offer several policy recommendations ranging from
the re-allocation of 50 percent of the current Section 202 funding levels
for Fiscal Year 1999 to the Section 811 program in Fiscal Year 2000, to
the increase of federal monthly SSI benefits to a rate at least comparable
to current federal minimum wage.
If you are interested in receiving a copy of the report, you can contact
either the Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. (TAC) or the Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force (CCD Housing Task Force)
via the following:
The Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc.
One Center Plaza, Suite 310
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 742-5657
http://www.tacinc.org
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force
Washington, D.C.
(202) 785-3388
http://www.c-c-d.org.
Poverty
Guidelines Issued
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has issued the 1999 Federal
Poverty Guidelines . The guidelines are used to help calculate eligibility
for many federal and state assistance programs. For example, working families
in Ohio earning up to 185 percent of the federal poverty guideline are
eligible to receive child care assistance. The 1999 guidelines are as
follows:
Family Size Annual Poverty Guideline
1 $8,240
2 $11,060
3 $13,880
4 $16,700
5 $19,520
6 $22,340
7 $25,160
8 $27,980
For family sizes larger than eight, add $2,820 for each additional person.
The guideline for a family of three represents an annual increase of $230
from 1998, while the family of four guideline increased $250.
Source: Federal Register; March 18, 1999, pp. 13428-13430.
Cleveland
Housing Network Wins Tax Credit Excellence Award
The Cleveland Housing Network (CHN) has been awarded the 1999 Tax Credit
Excellence Award by the Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition in Washington,
D.C. for its Limited Partnership 13 housing project. The project is a
scattered site, lease-purchase housing tax credit project of 64 fully
rehabilitated and 15 newly constructed homes offering eventual homeownership
for low-income families throughout Cleveland's neighborhoods.
CHN's Limited Partnership 13 project offers the lowest rents in Cleveland,
averaging $282 per month for a fully renovated home while comparable rents
on the private market average $400-$625 per month. The homes are high
quality single family homes that are newly built or fully rehabbed including
all new plumbing, heating, electric, roofs, vinyl siding and replacement
windows. Under the program, CHN assists residents of the homes with services
that prepare the families for the responsibilities of homeownership as
well as development skills to maintain lasting employment and self-sufficiency.
At the end of the 15 year lease term, families will be able to purchase
their homes for an amount expected to be one-third of the home's actual
market value.
The project was selected for the Tax Credit Excellence Award for its quality
of construction, affordability, its programs designed to encourage greater
resident self-sufficiency, the scattered-site property management system,
and CHN's innovative lease purchase model.
For more information on CHN's project, you can reach them at 216/574-7100.
LOAN
SHARKS - A View from the Neighborhoods
Neighborhood leaders are attacking a new housing issue. A new breed of
"Loan sharks" are taking people's homes out from under them.
"Loan sharks are attacking our neighborhoods with 'back-door lending."
They promise you easy money and then bite you with high interest rates
and fees. If you can't keep up with the expensive payments, they take
your home," said long-time Cleveland leader Inez Killingsworth, from
Education/Safety Organizing Project (ESOP).
The loan sharks are lenders who push refinance and home equity loans -cash
loans that use the borrower's house as collateral. They tell borrowers
to use the money for home improvements, paying-off debts and extra cash.
Loan sharks are guilty of "usury." Usury is when lenders charge
unethically high-interest and high-fees on loans. Usury is the root cause
of foreclosure, bankruptcy, and abandonment that the sharks lead homeowners
and neighborhoods into. Ultimately, the neighborhoods will have to win
caps on interest and fees charged on home loans.
Sharks use heavy advertising-sport stars push the loans on TV, huge "checks"
made out to the homeowner come through the mail, pushy telemarketers call
potential borrowers during dinner-time.
Daisy Thompson, a leader with Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago,
explained how a loan shark showed-up on her doorstep and eventually led
her into foreclosure. She had been applying to banks for a loan to fix
up her house for the past couple of years. As she explained it, "I
didn't know it, but I had been redlined by the banks. Then, a loan shark
got my name somehow, showed-up at my house, and gave me a loan. And now
they want to take my home."
Ms. Thompson went on to describe how the loan shark, Unlimited Financial
Services, charged her 14 percent interest and took most of the $20,000
cash they had promised to pay for "fees."
Ms. Killingsworth described it as "'reverse-redlining--they're making
loans, but they aren't loans that folks can afford. The sharks are setting
our folks up for failure."
Aggie Brose, from the Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group (PCRG),
commented on the explosion of these so-called "subprime lenders"
who do the loan sharking in the neighborhoods.
Ms. Brose noted that one known loan shark, The Money Store, became Pittsburgh's
fourth-largest lender in 1997. She shared that most loan sharks target
the same neighborhoods where PCRG has worked so hard and successfully
to get good loans. She declared that we have to stop the loan sharks "before
there's blood flowing from our neighborhoods" where there used to
be homeownership and community.
Reggie Smith, also of PCRG, "In 1997 alone, subprime lenders have
chewed-up 15 percent of the housing loan market."
Analysis of the number of loans made by loan sharks shows a similar pattern
in many cities. Between 1994 and 1997, the National Training and Information
Center (NTIC) found the home loans made by The Money Store jumped:
> Chicago - 584 in 1994, to 2906 in 1997
> Cincinnati - 75 in 1994 , to 209 in 1997
> Cleveland & East Cleveland - 72 in 1994, to 1573 in 1997
> The Bronx - 45 in 1994, to 154 in 1997
> Wichita - 14 in 1994, to 157 in 1997
> Washington, DC - 78 in 1994, to 192 in 1997
Green Tree Financial Services is leading the loan shark pack in Des Moines,
making 85 loans in
1994 and 194 in 1997.
Margaret Webb from Sunflower Community Action in Wichita discussed another
hard truth about loan sharks - most of what they do is legal. Most states
do not have laws that limit the amount of interest and fees a loan shark
can charge. "Usury," or high-interest and high-fees on loans,
is the root cause of foreclosure bankruptcy, and abandonment that the
sharks lead homeowners and neighborhoods into. Clearly, there's a need
for state legislation to win fee caps.
"Deceptive and unfair practices"--many of the scams that loan
sharks use to charge people more than they are expecting -- are illegal
in all states. However, rarely do state regulators take responsibility
and aggressively watch over the loan sharks that perpetrate these crimes.
Groups can win tighter regulation at the state level.
On the two fronts of fighting for state-level legislation and regulation,
there are six kinds of public officials to go to for help and to hold
accountable.
1. Loan sharks - begin at the beginning and go after the loan shark directly
-- invite them to a public meeting or fill their lobby with a busload
of folks.
2. Banks -- banks that own loan sharks are prime targets, since they are
directly responsible for the "back-door lending" and "reverse
- redlining" that loan sharks do to our neighborhoods. Banks that
don't own a loan shark may be allies in fighting-off the sharks.
3. State mortgage regulator -most states require mortgage lenders and
brokers to obtain a license to operate.
4. Attorney General - each state's Attorney General can investigate and
charge loan sharks for breaking laws; the AG can also help push new laws
against sharks through the state legislature.
5. State legislators -legislators have the power to pass laws that limit
the fees a loan shark can charge a borrower; they can also pressure state
regulators to do their job.
6. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) & Congress -the FTC has some power
but few personnel to go after sharks; Congress could give them greater
oversight power with stronger legislation.
Reprinted with permission from the National Training and Information Center.
For more information on loan sharks, call Jason Kiely at NTIC, 312/243-3035.
AmeriCorps
on the Move
AmeriCorps Training Held
The 1999 Annual Salvation Army Camp training was a huge success for AmeriCorps
Houses the Homeless memHeld at Greenwood Lake in Delaware, 50 memattended
workshops on a variety of topics ranging from Self-Defense to Crisis Intervention.
As part of the three day training, the memdid numerous service projects
on the grounds of the Salvation Army Camp. The largest project consisted
of painting the outdoor swimming pool. This pool will be utilized by the
youths attending the camp this summer. Rraking the grounds, painting sign
posts and fencing, and cleaning windows completed the list of other service
projects that the mem assisted the camp with to prepare for the youths
who will be attending the camp this summer. Leona Ryan, Assistant Camp
Director wrote, “We are grateful for the projects which were worked
on or completed by the group.” AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless is
“Getting things Done”!
AmeriCorps Members Attend the National Homeless Coalition Summit
On May 1-4, the National Coalition Homeless held a National Homeless Summit
in Washington, D.C. Over seven hundred advocates, service providers and
formerly homeless people attended. Nine AmeriCorps representatives, eight
memand two staff, six of whom were formerly homeless, had the opportunity
to join them.
Leaving late after work on Friday night we traveled together by car, stayed
with a wonderful host family and shared in an experience of a lifetime.
The conference was exciting, invigorating and inspiring. It was four days
of networking, sharing, and learning.
The conference helped us to attain a better understanding of the complexities
of homelessness and the deeper issues of poverty. Workshops and Institutes
were offered on every topic including Welfare Reform, Education, Veterans
Issues, Affordable Housing, Health Care and Outreach. Outside of the workshops,
the most powerful part of the conference was a speech that was delivered
by Dr. Joseph Lowrey, President Emeritus, Southern Christian Leadership
Conference. His uplifting words caught our hearts and his passion caught
our spirit. He left encouraging us to bring about a “Coalition of
Conscience”.
While on the surface the wealth of knowledge was apparent, but the most
powerful things about the conference were the things that were not readily
visible. The dialogue and activities that took place outside of the conference
rooms and the healing that took place within ourselves were immeasurable.
The conference was about perspective, realization and healing. Being formerly
homeless and working in the field, it is easy to testify to the fact that
you are formerly homeless and that you can understand, but somehow you
become removed from it and it becomes superficial. This conference provided
the forum to deal with the deeper issues of homelessness. It helped to
create a dialogue surrounding the levels of homelessness. It opened the
door to the truth and understanding about the short and long term affects
of poverty. It helped us to recognize our own painful past, but to focus
on the fact that you survived and empowered us to use those experiences
to help others. Sometimes it does not take a formal education or a degree.
Sometimes we experience things in our lives that makes us the experts.
These experiences enable us to have compassion and understanding for others.
AmeriCorps Member, Glory Connelly, rested on a bench in the lobby of the
hotel. She realized that right across from her an artist was selling portraits
of Homeless people. For two days she stared at these portraits as she
walked by or rested. She felt something very familiar about these pictures,
yet she just couldn’t put her finger on it. Then on that third day
it hit her. “I realized that I had seen those eyes. I had seen those
eyes walk past me when I use to sit on a stoop on Grubb Street. I realized
that those eyes were mine. I realized that those eyes were my children's
eyes because we were homeless, too.”
Five memof our group connected with a group from Pittsburgh and some from
Jacksonville. We got together and went to visit our street family in Washington,
D.C. We bought some fruit and sandwiches. We made up little bags and walked
the streets late Sunday evening to distribute the meal. We did not take
the food to give a hand out but rather to bring a gift to our host. We
were guests of their city and why shouldn’t we visit them at home.
We talked to many people that night and really had a good time sitting
down to visit with them. Two of the camps were particularly memrable.
At the first, we sat and shared stories for a while and when we went to
leave the gentlemen there serenaded us with a beautiful song. At the second
site we sat on a bench and talked with a guy named Michael and his friends.
I rememthat it was a light hearted and fun conversation, the kind that
you hate to have to leave, but unfortunately we did have to leave. It
was a good time and when we left they lent us encouragement and support
to continue on in the struggle of ending homelessness. As we left DC we
took home lots of knowledge, a renewed sense of hope, and a commitment
to continue in our work to house all of our fellow Ohioans. By Angela
Lariviere, COHHIO AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless Project Coordinator.
AmeriCorps
Member Spotlight
COHHIO's AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless Program has memall across the
state working on homelessness and housing issues.
Valerie Revere:
Prior to becoming an AmeriCorps volunteer at the Youngstown YWCA, I was
employed at a drug and alcohol prevention agency. I am currently teaching
life skills to women in a Transitional Program. I enjoy working with people
and am hopefully making a difference in someone’s life. I appreciate
AmeriCorps for what it does for the nation’s communities. I am truly
grateful to be a part of this organization. It is my intent to use my
educational award to continue my education in accounting so that I can
one day develop and operate a social service program.
Peggy Barker:
I am a second year memserving at I CAN of Stark County. I spend my time
assisting mentally ill residents in maintaining their housing. I also
spend time volunteering at Friendship Center and Foundations with are
related agencies that assist those with mental health issues. I have been
racking up the miles between Akron, Massillon and Canton to obtain my
Bachelor’s of Social Work. I will graduate in August from the University
of Akron. I am also a single mom of two boys. My oldest son Chuck is an
outstanding academic student at the University of Akron. My youngest son
Andy is “one of the few, one of the proud” in the U.S. Marine
Corps.
Jeana Patterson:
I am a 24 year old second term AmeriCorps Member. I am mother to a five
year old son, Richard and I adore children. I first began as a Member
at Faith Mission where I was a Housing Resource Specialist and later transferred
to Volunteers of America where I am serving as an After Care Case Manager.
I have helped many families to become stable and self-sufficient after
leaving emergency or transitional housing. I am proud to serve people
in the communities where I have lived all my life. I truly enjoy providing
services with a wonderful group of unique people. When I complete my AmeriCorps
term my plan is to attend school.
Clythie Sharp:
I am a 28 year old single mother of twins. It has always been an interest
of mine to be involved in the community. AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless
has made that interest a reality. Being from low income housing, I understand
the importance of adequate housing. In closing, I look forward to finishing
my term with AmeriCorps and continuing on next year.
Resources
TRAININGS
CDC Trainings. July 10 (Athens) - CHDO Board Training Workshop. Designed
to increase the capacity of organizations to utilize state resources by
giving participants an overview of the affordable housing development
process. $20. July 19-22 - Basic Skills in Affordable Housing Development
Series: Multi-family Rental Housing & Tax Credits, Columbus. An entry-level,
intensive training program for housing development staff in how to plan
and implement affordable housing projects. $120. July 22 - Introduction
to Low Income Housing Tax Credits: A Nonprofit Perspective. For information
on any of these trainings, call 614/461-6392.
July 22-25, North American Street Newspaper Association Conference, sponsored
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless (NEOCH). The conference, which
will bring together over 40 newspapers and 100 editors, vendors and writers,
will feature panel discussions and workshops. The goal is to expand the
number of street papers and provide technical assistance to sustain existing
papers. For more information, call NEOCH at 216/241-1104.
The Ohio Historic Preservation Office (OHPO) is offering free Building
Doctor Clinics. The remaining clinics are: Kelleys Island (July 29-30);
Salem (August 19-20); Peninsula (September 16-17); Defiance (September
30-October 1) and Milford (October 21-22). Designed to help solve common,
old-building problems and help owners make informed repair and improvement
decisions. Plus they will visit older buildings in or near the communities
where a clinic is being held to examine problems and prescribe cures.
The clinics and consultations are free; however, interested participants
must register to attend. For more information, call OHPO at 800/499-2470.
PUBLICATIONS
Independent Sector Publications. The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide, Second
Edition. Demonstrates the many ways nonprofits can use lobbying to advance
their causes in federal, state and local legislatures. 144 pgs. $16. Power,
Politics, and Nonprofits. Comprehensive handbook on tax-exempt organizations'
involvement in election campaigns. 24 pgs. $12. Playing by the Rules.
Helps 501 (c)(3)s interpret complex tax laws and avoid "red flag"
areas while engaging in nonpartisan voter education. 44 pgs. $20. Toolkit
on Messages and the Media. This overview kit provides three key messages
and extensive media tips that will help your organization better tell
its story. Singe copy free. For more information, call the Independent
Sector at 888/860-8118.
FUNDING
The Grant Doctors offers a website that has a list of Ohio government
agencies that provide grants to non-profit organizations, together with
the Request for Proposals published by those agencies. You can visit their
website at www.thegrantdoctors.com/Statedata/OH.htm.
JOB OPENINGS
Executive Director, ReUse Industries. Live and work in the beautiful hills
of southeast Ohio. Non-profit reuse center (www.eurekanet.com/~reuse)
near Athens, is seeking an Executive Director to head a program that creates
jobs for low-income residents by salvaging, restoring and selling discarded
materials. Competitive salary plus benefits. Send resume by July 20 to
Search Committee, ReUse Industries, 74815 U.S. Highway 50, Albany, Ohio
45701. EOE.
National Community Reinvestment Coalition: Legislative/Regulatory Director
- $35-45,000. Advocate the organization's point of view and establish
relationships with Congressional and Federal agencies staff; Senior Vice
President of Programs and Operations - $45-55,000. Will manage diverse
departments (Financial Literacy, Special Projects and Research and Policy)
within organization; Vice President of Membership and Conferences - $35-40,000.
Develop and implement strategies which enhance the level of service and
interaction between NCRC and its memorganizations. Send resume and writing
sample to NCRC, 733 15th St., NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Cost
Reductions in Numbers - Employers Group Together to Save Money on Their
Workers' Compensation Premiums
More
than 50,000 employers have banned together to potentially reduce their
workers' compensation premium rates. If you're looking for a possible
way to lower your workers' compensation premiums, consider group rating,
one of the Bureau of Workers' Compensation's (BWC) alternative rating
plans that could save you up to 50 percent in premiums.
Group rating, implemented in 1991, and other BWC alternative rating plans
enable employers to select rating options that best meet their individual
needs.
Here is what you can expect from a group and how you should prepare to
join a group.
Group rating permits small-to medium-size employers to establish groups
to neutralize the impact of workers' compensation premiums. The group-rating
plan allows employers who operate similar businesses to group together
as one risk to potentially achieve lower premium rates than they could
as individual employers.
Making the grade
For employers to participate in the group-rating plan, they must meet
certain BWC eligibility requirements. Once employers meet these eligibility
requirements, the sponsoring organizations determine who participates
and establish their own requirements and guidelines for group memip. In
addition to the variations in requirements and guidelines, the costs and
benefits of each sponsoring organization vary.
Group sponsoring organizations must be in existence for at least two years
and formed for purposes other than a workers' compensation group-rating
plan. Since group-rating sponsors can be professional organizations or
trade associations, employers have options when selecting a group-rating
sponsor. Groups are formed in 10 industry classifications. In 1998, there
were 162 sponsors representing 335 groups.
"The sponsoring organizations provide structure, promote good claims
management and promote safety in the workplace," says Larry Stelzer,
Jr., Ohio Council of Retail Merchants' associate general counsel. "It
is a tremendous incentive, for employers to keep on top of workers' compensation
issues."
Learning from each other
In addition to providing savings in workers' compensation costs, sponsors
educate employers; on other BWC programs and encourage employers to implement
a safety program. One of the main objectives for the group-rating plan
is to substantially improve accident prevention and claims handling for
the employers in the group.
Services, consulting and education provided by the sponsoring organizations
increase employers' understanding of and control over their workers' compensation
costs, according to Barry Kennedy, Ohio Chamber of Commerce's director
of memip and memservices. Education also increases compliance with BWC
requirements and filing deadlines.
Sponsoring organizations publish newsletters and brochures educating group
memon workers' compensation, changes in the Health Partnership Program
and how to reduce workers' compensation costs.
Laying the groundwork for safety
Since one of the main objectives for the group-rating plan is to substantially
improve accident prevention for the employers in the group, sponsoring
organizations help employers implement a safety program. Some sponsoring
organizations establish safety initiatives for employers to participate
in their group.
Getting the biggest bang for your buck
In addition to reduced costs, education and safety, there are other benefits
of the group-rating plan.
An employer has access to the sponsoring organizations' third-party administrator
(TPA), which provides assistance in the overall claims management.
"Group-rating plans give small companies access to TPAs to successfully
navigate the workers' compensation system," Stelzer says.
To be a memof a group-rating plan, an employer must become a memof the
sponsoring organization. Since they are formed for purposes other than
workers' compensation, sponsoring organizations vary in their purpose
and design. Some organizations are established for specific industry classifications,
while others are targeted to a variety of industries.
"Group-rating plans are attractive to employers and BWC because employers
receive direct premium reductions for maintaining good claims histories,"
Stelzer says. "Because employers want to be able to take advantage
of this alternative rating plan, they are more focused on safety in the
workplace, keeping claims costs down and addressing return-to-work issues.
This benefits the entire state-fund workers' compensation system."
And while keeping costs down is a great incentive, preventing injuries
and saving lives are just as important.
COHHIO operates a workers compensation group that has nearly 100 memOur
group saved thousands of dollards in workers' compensation premiums for
our memlast year. For more information, contact Susan Francis at COHHIO
at 614/280-1984.
Reprinted from BWC Focus Magazine, Spring 1999
|
