Breaking Ground - October 1999

Fiscal Year 2000 HUD Budget...Better Than Expected

Preservation Victory: Key Provisions Approved in HUD Appropriations Conference

Look for COHHIO in Your Workplace Campaigns

Could You Work 78 Hours A Week?

COHHIO Officially Welcomes Our Tenant Outreach Coordinator

Mental Health Housing/Employment Forum

Homeless Shelter Child Nutrition Program

Mark-to-Market Program Underway in Ohio

COHHIO Web Page Update

Where Does Ohio Stack-Up With Respect to the Supportive Housing Program (SHP)?

ODOD News

Inner City V. Suburban Development

COHHIO Receives Funding

The Facts: Automated Teller Machines (ATMs)

OCRP "Dog and Pony" Show

Are You Spending Too Much Money On Your Workers' Compensation?

Beware of Back Pain

AmeriCorps Members Spotlight

Resources

First Monday 1999: Housing and Homelessness

 

 

Fiscal Year 2000 HUD Budget...Better Than Expected
There has been a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill in recent weeks around the 13 appropriations bills that fund the federal government. For a variety of reasons, both houses of Congress have once again failed to pass the necessary legislation, instead, relying on continuing resolutions to keep the government up and running. One of the pieces of legislation in question is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appropriations bill.

On September 9th, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 235-187, passed the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (H.R. 2684). This version cut the President’s requested FY 2000 HUD budget by six percent. These cuts were deep and widespread.

On September 24th, the Senate passed their version of the HUD appropriations bill (S.1596). Their recommendations, though in stark contrast to the funding levels established in the House, still cut the President’s request by three percent. Though some programs would see cuts in the Senate version, they were not as deep and/or as widespread as in the House. The Senate version, however, was not as kind to other programs: the Community Builders program would all but disappear, the HOPE VI program would be further cut to the tune of about $125 million, and as in the House, no new Section 8 housing vouchers were funded.

On October 7th, the House/Senate Conference Committee reached agreement on the FY 2000 VA-HUD appropriations bill. The Committee provided more funding for housing and community development programs than anticipated, and approved several initiatives proposed by the President. The Committee “found” $900 million in Section 8 recaptures to offset the increases in HUD programs.

Some of the highlights include:
- McKinney Homeless Assistance Program (Continuum of Care) funded at $1.02 billion, $45 million over the FY 1999 level;
- HOME Investment Partnership Program funded at $1.6 billion, even with the FY 1999 level;
- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funded at $4.8 billion, $50 million over FY 1999 level;
- Public Housing - $2.9 billion in the public housing capital fund and $3.138 billion in the operating fund, a decrease in the capital fund, but an increase in operating funds;
- HOPE VI funded at $575 million, $50 million less than the FY 1999 level;
- Full funding for Section 8 contract renewals;
- Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funded at $232 million, $7 million over the FY 1999 level;
- Supportive Housing for the Disabled (Section 811) funded at $201 million, $5 million over the FY 1999 level;
- The committee appropriated funding for 60,000 new Section 8 vouchers; and
- The Community Builders survive the proverbial “chopping block” but only until September 1, 2000. The positions then revert back to civil service slots.

By all accounts, the nation is mired in a severe affordable-housing crisis, with record low vacancy rates, rents rising at twice the rate of inflation, interminable waiting lists for federal aid and an unprecedented 5.3 million families paying half their incomes in rent. So in a startling turnaround last week -- as Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo clamored about the worst shortages in history -- congressional Republicans agreed to drop demands for cuts and prepared to approve one of the most generous housing budgets in years. While Republicans and Democrats are touting the deal as a key first step to easing the crisis, both sides agree that this modest budget boost will barely dent the problems facing the nation's poorest families.

 

For more information on specific programs, please review the chart below. (Dollars in Millions)


FY 1999 FY 2000 Conference
HUD Program Appropriated Level Presidential Request Committee Recommendation

McKinney Homeless
Assistance Programs
(Continuum of Care) $975 $1,020 $1,020

Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA) $225 $240 $232

Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) $4,750 $4,775 $4,800

Supportive Housing for
the Elderly (Section 202) $660 $660 $710

Revitalization of Severely
Distressed Public Housing
(HOPE VI) $625 $625 $575
Total HUD Budget $24.6 $28.0 $26.3

Preservation Victory: Key Provisions Approved in HUD Appropriations Conference
The House/Senate Conference Committee on HUD Appropriations included in the budget bill much of the mark-up-to-market and enhanced voucher provisions in H.R. 202, as did provisions on Section 236 properties. HUD is now required to negotiate with owners to prevent opt-outs from the Section 8 program and to assure continued affordability of assisted housing. In those cases where opt-outs cannot be prevented, the current tenants at least are protected with enhanced vouchers, which will allow them to stay in their homes. The Conference Committee also adopted some of the elderly housing provisions from H.R. 202, including grants to convert elderly housing to assisted living facilities, use of Section 8 for assisted living, and expansion of the service coordinator program.

What was left on the cutting room floor is the preservation matching grant program, which would provide federal grants to encourage states and localities to put resources into the preservation of assisted housing. Objections to authorizing a new program in the Appropriations bill by Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO), Chair of the Housing Subcommittee, apparently were persuasive enough to not include the program. The matching grant program has bipartisan appeal and builds on the mark-up-to market program by providing resources that can encourage transfer to non-profit owners and greater potential for long term affordability. The Senate Housing Subcommittee is expected to take up authorizing legislation in 2000, and this program is likely to be considered. Advocates are now preparing to move forward on the program, to make sure it is enacted next year.

 

Look for COHHIO in Your Workplace Campaigns
COHHIO, through Greater Columbus Community Shares, will be participating in several workplace campaigns this fall. Campaigns include: The Ohio State University ; State of Ohio and Columbus Combined Federal Campaign COHHIO is also participating in several other Combined Federal Campaigns around the state, including: Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton/Miami Valley, Lima, Stark County, Toledo/Maumee Valley, Trumbull County, and Youngstown/Mahoning Valley. Please look for COHHIO in any of these campaigns! If you have any questions, please call Susan Francis at COHHIO at 614/280-1984.

 

Could You Work 78 Hours A Week

According to a report published by the National Low Income Housing Coalition entitled Out of Reach, 1999: The Gap Between Housing Costs and Income of Poor People in the United States, a minimum-wage worker in the State of Ohio would have to work at least 78 hours a week to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent (FMR). To put it another way, this same worker would have to earn 196 percent of the federal minimum wage or $10.10 per hour in order to afford a two-bedroom apartment in this state. It should come as no real surprise then, to find out that 41 percent of the renters in this state are unable to afford the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom apartment. More disturbing than the numbers themselves, is the trend they are associated with. The 1998 edition of this report found that the housing wage for the State of Ohio in 1998 was $9.90 per hour. In 1997, it was $9.53 per hour.

Unfortunately, the situation in Ohio is not unlike many other states. Out of Reach, 1999 found that in 39 of the 50 states, 40 percent or more of the renters are unable to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment. In four states, that figure tops out at over 50 percent. In no state is the federal minimum wage ($5.15/hour) comparable to that state’s housing wage (what people need to earn in order to afford housing). In reality, the housing wage in 29 states is more than twice the minimum wage and in three states and the District of Columbia, it is more than three times the minimum wage. For the country as a whole, the median housing wage is $11.08 per hour.

This report suggests yet again, that the housing crisis experienced by countless Americans is worsening rather than improving. Just last year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that the number of very low-income households in this country with “worst case housing needs” reached an all-time high of 5.3 million. These are households with incomes below 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) and paying more than half of their income for rent.
The publication of this report comes at a time when much of our nation is enjoying a period of economic prosperity unseen, and indeed unheard of, in a generation. This “boom” represents one of the longest peacetime expansions in this nation’s history. Over the past six years, we have seen 18 million new jobs created. We have seen unemployment drop to a 40-year low. We have seen productivity and consumer confidence incline dramatically, while interest rates have declined. The number of Americans owning their own homes is at a record high. This is happening while the federal minimum wage remains stuck at $5.15 per hour, and the median salary and bonus package for Chief Executive Officers (CEO’s) in “Corporate America” has increased to an astounding $770 per hour! Within the context of this report, it takes an average CEO less than two days to earn what a minimum wage worker earns in an entire year.

As Senator Edward Kennedy stated in a response released by his office, “The difficult decisions of minimum wage work set their own harsh precedents for workers and their families - anxiety about work, housing, hunger and health. The price of work should not be daily fears that undermine family and community ties, and that mock the dignity of work and workers. The price of prosperity should not be unfair wages for those who tend the sick, care for our children, clean offices and serve food. The minimum wage is about people’s ability to afford a decent home and a decent life. No one who works for a living should have to live in poverty.”

If you would like to learn where your community falls with respect to the balance of the state, please check out the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s (NLIHC’s) web site at: http://www.nlihc.org or COHHIO's web page at index.html. The report contains information for each state, metropolitan statistical area, and individual county. Once you have the information, share it with your elected officials. For more information, contact Rick Taylor at COHHIO at 614/280-1984.

 

COHHIO Officially Welcomes Our Tenant Outreach Coordinator
Spencer Wells has officially joined the COHHIO staff to continue his work as Tenant Outreach Coordinator for COHHIO's Outreach and Technical Assistance Grant (OTAG) program. Spencer was formerly doing this work under a contract with COHHIO and the Cleveland Tenants Organization. Spencer will continue to work with Jill Russ, the Section 8 Project Coordinator, on the OTAG project. You can reach Jill or Spencer on their toll free "HOTLINE" 888-290-RENT if you have questions or concerns about Project Based HUD subsidized housing.

 

Mental Health Housing/Employment Forum
The Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH) is holding a series of forums throughout the state to gather community input into their planning and priority setting process. COHHIO is co-hosting the forum on mental health housing and employment issues on November 3 in conjunction with Ohio advocates and the ADAMHS Board of Adams, Lawrence and Scioto Counties. COHHIO urges you to attend to voice your important housing concerns.

In addition to the site in Scioto County, where participants can voice their suggestions and concerns in person with Michael Hogan, Director of ODMH, teleconference sites throughout the state are being arranged and participants will be able to communicate with the site in Portsmouth.

November 3, 2:00 - 5:00 p.m.; Scioto County Department of Human Services
710 Court Street, Portsmouth, Ohio

Invitations are being mailed. Additionally you can check the ODMH web site at www.mh.state.oh.us or contact Pam Argus, COHHIO, at 614/280-1984 for teleconferencing site information.

 

Homeless Shelter Child Nutrition Program
As reported in the August issue of COHHIO's Notes From and For the Field, the 1998 Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act creates an important new resource for providing nutritious meals and snacks for children in homeless and domestic violence shelters. COHHIO had approached the Ohio Department of Education about a statewide information and application session for shelter providers in Ohio. As the Education Department learned more about the process and talked with shelter providers, it became clear that shelters interested in receiving reimbursements for meals for children they serve could simply call for applications and receive the necessary information and assistance to apply.

For information and an application contact:
Laura Pernice, Assistance Director of Child and Adult Care Food Program
Ohio Department of Education
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215-4183; 614/466-9509

Effective July 1, the Act provides that shelters can use the Child and Adult Care Food Program to feed many homeless children. This resource is critical at a time when an ever increasing number of families are seeking refuge in homeless shelters.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program provides federal funds for meals and snacks to child care centers, family child care homes and now homeless shelters. Shelters participating in the Program will be reimbursed for meals and snacks served to children age 12 and under, age 15 and under for children from migrant families, and age 21 and under for children with disabilities. Families will not be asked to prove their income. Instead the homeless shelter will receive full reimbursement for each child fed who is eligible under the age criteria.

Participating shelters will receive approximately a dollar for each breakfast, two dollars for each lunch or supper and more than fifty cents for each snack. For each child served, shelters can receive food program reimbursement for up to three meals or two meals and one snack.

Mark-to-Market Program Underway in Ohio
The Mark-to-Market restructuring program for project-based Section 8 housing is officially underway in Ohio. In May, the Ohio Housing Finance Agency (OHFA) was the first state agency in the country to sign-on as a Participating Administrative Entity (PAE) under the program. OHFA has been officially assigned approximately 30 projects around the state, with about 70 more projects in the pipeline to be assigned over the next few months.

Project owners elect whether to enter the program as a “lite”, where project rents are reduced without a restructuring of the mortgage, or as a full restructuring, where rents are reduced down to market rent for the property and the mortgage debt on the property is restructured.

OHFA and its partner agency, Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing (OCCH) have been making site visits, holding tenant meetings, and assessing properties with the help of appraisers, architects and market analysts to prepare restructuring plans. COHHIO, as the Outreach and Technical Assistance Grantee, also has been visiting properties in the Mark-to-Mark Program, working with tenants to organize tenant meetings and prepare tenant comments for submission to OHFA.

HUD has also come out with a new grant program for properties that are opting-out of the project-based Section 8 program or prepaying an FHA-insured mortgage. Grants are available to tenants of the properties or non-profit development corporations in the form of resident capacity grants and predevelopment grants.

If you would like more information about the Mark-to-Market program, a list of Ohio properties in the program, or information about grant funds available, contact Jill Russ, Section 8 Project Coordinator, at COHHIO at 614/280-1984. Listings of Ohio properties participating in Mark-to-Market, opting-out and prepaying is coming soon to COHHIO’s web page at index.html.

 

COHHIO Web Page Update: index.html
COHHIO has made several exciting additions to our web page over the past month. All of the 1999 COHHIO newsletters are now available on our web site. In addition, the COHHIO Directory - A Listing of Non-Profit Housing Organizations and Agencies Serving Homeless People in Ohio - is available by county on the web site. This should be a very helpful resource. Please visit the web site to make sure your organization is listed. If not, let us know, and we'll add you. If your organization would like changes made to the directory, let us know and we can make the changes immediately. The web page also now contains a new section on the Ohio Community Reinvestment Project, including back issues of the monthly updates. Information on the Out of Reach study is on the web page, as well as regular updates regarding the HUD Appropriations bill.

The web page offers several resources of information including a list of COHHIO projects (AmeriCorps, Ohio Community Reinvestment Project and the Section 8 Project), each containing information about the projects; a what's new section; action alerts; newsletter articles; other COHHIO resources including technical and training assistance opportunities; the Directory of Services; helpful links for local, state and national groups; and funding opportunities. Coming within the next few months will be a listing of the Section 8 Mark-To-Market properties, an AmeriCorps page and the Legislative Directory.

Please take a moment to visit our web site. If you have suggestions for other materials that would be helpful to you or would like your web page linked to our site, please let us know. Please contact Susan Francis, at COHHIO, 614/280-1984; 614/463-1060 (fax) or cohhiosf@aol.com.

 

Where Does Ohio Stack-up With Respect to the Supportive Housing Program (SHP)?

In August, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report entitled HOMELESSNESS: Grant Applicants’ Characteristics and Views on the Supportive Housing Program. This report, completed at the request of Congress, was designed to provide detailed information on the following: 1) the characteristics of Supportive Housing Program applicants, 2) the types of programs and services for homeless people that this program supports, 3) the importance of Supportive Housing Program grants to applicants’ programs for the homeless, and 4) the various funding sources that applicants rely on for their programs and services for homeless people.

Without going into infinite detail regarding the objectives, scope, and methodology of the report, here's a boiled-down version of the results. Nearly 1,200 applicants for the Supportive Housing Program (SHP) from the 1997 program year were surveyed.

As to be expected, an overwhelming majority of applicants were non-profit organizations. Most of these organizations had been in existence for anywhere between 10 and 50 years, however, a substantial number started offering housing/services to the homeless during the past 20 years.

According to the report, most SHP grants support programs that provide either transitional housing with supportive services or supportive services only. It is estimated that approximately 59 percent of SHP requests in 1997 were for programs that provide transitional housing with the requisite supportive services. Another 30 percent were for programs providing supportive services only. The remaining 11 percent were for programs that provide permanent housing for persons with disabilities and innovative supportive housing projects.

For all 1997 applicants surveyed, the report estimates that SHP grants represent 45 percent of the resources used to support their programs for the homeless.

"The importance of the Supportive Housing Program is evident from the negative consequences that applicants often faced when they did not receive an award.”

The report goes on to note that nearly 78 percent of those applicants not receiving an award were unable to obtain funding from other sources, to replace the SHP funds.

Of the applicants surveyed, only about 25 percent requested federal funds from sources other than the SHP. In contrast, an estimated 74 percent relied on funding from sources other than the federal government. These sources included state and local governments, private donors and foundations.

What does all this mean for Ohio? In addition to characteristics, types of programs, and funding various sources and streams, this report also contains a geographical distribution of SHP applications from 1997. In that specific program year, the State of Ohio as a whole submitted 132 SHP applications to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Of those applications, 97 were funded, 19 were not funded, and 16 were dropped for threshold criteria problems. All tolled, 74 percent of SHP applications submitted in 1997 were funded. This was the third highest percentage of funded applications in the country, behind Rhode Island and Maine, who submitted 24 and 20 applications respectively. To help put this into perspective, Massachusetts submitted 133 applications, of which 68 were funded, 49 were not funded, and 16 were dropped. In the end, 51 percent of their applications were funded.

For the number of applications submitted and the dollar amount requested, the State of Ohio has benefited tremendously from the Supportive Housing Program. For more information, contact Rick Taylor at COHHIO at 614/280-1984.

ODOD News
Summit News. The Office of Housing and Community Partnerships will not be conducting their annual OHCP Summit in March 2000. OHCP anticipates that a summit will be held later in the year.

Staff changes. Kimberely Carter is the new OHCP Housing Development Section Supervisor. Kimberely will be taking on Tiffany Draper's responsibilities. Kimberely is formerly a Senior Housing Development Specialist with the City of Dayton. Doug Harsany has joined the Training and Technical Assistance Section as the Contract Management Specialist. Doug provides OHCP grant recipients with technical assistance regarding contract management, historic preservation and procurement issues.

 

Inner City V. Suburban Development

In the community development field today, it's popular to advocate "deconcentrating" poverty and this approach has a prominent place in federal housing policy, for example, HOPE VI demolition of public housing and the issuance of Section 8 vouchers as replacement housing. This trend is supported by fair housing advocates who seek greater housing choices for minorities, particularly in suburban locations.

City planners may propose deconcentration as the only way to address urban blight. William Julius Wilson is often cited as an authority on this issue. In The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner-City, the Underclass and Public Policy (1987) he wrote that when the poor are physically isolated from the rest of society, they are cut off from resources, opportunities and role models. The result is "a disproportionate concentration of the most disadvantaged segments of the urban black population" and the resulting "social milieu" produces a poor work ethic, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, and other social ills.

In Ohio, we observed a real debate in setting policy for the 1999 tax credit allocation plan and again for the year 2000 plan. Some stress that the plan should not provide incentives to develop in the "qualified census tracts", where poverty rates are highest and instead argue points should be given for locating far from any subsidized housing. Others in the industry have had success redeveloping such neighborhoods for low-and moderate-income residents and have a stake in continuing to do so. It is easy to explain why the opportunities in the suburbs are an attractive alternative for many families looking to improve their lives. Crime is lower. Schools are often better. Public services are better funded in general.

Studies have highlighted that most entry-level job creation is happening around the outerbelt or beyond, while the individuals needing those jobs live predominantly in the central cities and have to endure long commutes to hold a job. Welfare-to-work proponents say it would make more sense for people to live closer to job opportunities. These are persuasive arguments. Despite this, public policy makers should think twice before nixing further inner-city affordable housing development.

Politics and economics dictate that a high percentage of the poor will continue to live there, or in inner-ring suburbs if they do move, and better housing is a constant need. Additionally, housing development is an effective community development tool; housing programs address multiple and sometimes conflicting social goals involving benefits both to the physical environment and to the residents. Inner-city redevelopment helps to rein in some of the forces that feed urban sprawl, which otherwise speeds decay both at the core and in aging suburban neighborhoods. Finally, the concentration of similar people with similar aspirations- offers opportunities for mutual support, self-sufficiency and meaningful community building.

We don't have to be mesmerized by the TV image of crumbling public housing wastelands. If we carefully calculate the total equation of needed resources for families to thrive in a particular environment, a successful housing program can be implemented in almost any neighborhood, using models of broad community partnerships. Philosophical considerations aside, all talk of deconcentrating the poor runs smack into strongly held views of the middle class opposing the integration of "those people" into outer suburban neighborhoods and even into better working class neighborhoods and inner-ring blue collar suburbs that often have their own problems as jobs have migrated beyond the beltway.

Recent public hearings in Ohio for proposed tax credit housing remind us that demonstrations of blatant prejudice and fear may only be a housing development away. Sometimes, of course, there are more rational reasons for such opposition; new housing can strain existing services and infrastructure, including schools. But why is the school capacity concern so much more intense when the proposed development is "affordable housing", even as we plead that a family with a single wage earner holding a $6-$ 10 per hour job is still poor and may need housing assistance?

Let's get back to the inner city. Did the frequent failure of large public housing and Section 8 projects involve only the concentration of poverty? Perhaps it also had to do with the limited vision of developers and managers who failed to see the need to integrate this housing into the larger community in a meaningful way by involving multiple stakeholders (tenants, local government, financiers, social service agencies, etc.) in the program's success. Is there a way that income-restricted housing can be marketed and managed that makes the difference between a no man's land and a place people will protect? Most likely, the social dynamics do change with truly massive concentrations of impoverished families dumped in impoverished environments, e.g., Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago. But, what proportion of the negative behavior is a predictable response to the dismantling of the so-called safety net and other social policies that caused the decline of central cities and a loss of hope? What if we consciously enrich the environments?

In suburban locations, many of the resources and amenities which provide a high quality of life for residents and opportunities for economic advancement appear to come with the territory. In inner-city locations, the housing developer has to plan, if not finance, many of the amenities and services, which requires a high degree of sensitivity to local needs and partners. It is no longer possible just to assume that agencies of the federal, state, and local governments will take care of public services and the quality of life.


The responsibility for coordinating this has largely been privatized. CDCs all over urban Ohio have taken on this task with a high degree of success. Cleveland Housing Network and East Akron Neighborhood Development Corporation are two prominent examples of CDCs who have focused holistically on neighborhoods in order to bring about positive change.

I will suggest models from my own experience that have worked in the inner-cities of Ohio--and, of course, similar models can be found all over the country. These include:
• Large scale, holistic improvements to a neighborhood or a significant chunk of blocks that address housing blight, vacant lots, street frontage and infrastructure needs, crime, and social service needs in the context of a housing development focus. An example of this has occurred in east Akron. A combination of earlier homeownership and rehab programs, plus about 100 tax credit single-family homes, and block clubs organized by the community house-based CDC, and community policing, and city investment in streets, curbs, trees, etc. have made a measurable improvement in the area's appearance. These changes made it economically smart for others to reinvest, producing significant secondary improvements by area homeowners and landlords in their own properties.
• Intense redevelopment of whole blocks or parts which create a small "village" setting with higher value than surrounding areas and protected spaces that increase real and perceived security in the immediate area. An example of this would be Sharp Village in Over-The-Rhine (Cincinnati), which includes 36 in-fill units in 10 buildings, and redevelopment of the majority of units and vacant lots on one block, including a focal point mini-park.
• Creation of homeownership opportunities to convert housing into a family-owned resource that can leverage other financial and non-financial benefits. Developers can use existing or new single-family or duplex units (multi-family buildings can also work in parts of the country where this style of ownership is common). This program is commonly used throughout Ohio.
• Mixed ownership models such as mutual housing, limited equity cooperatives, land trusts, etc., where resident participation and control offer incentives for good stewardship of the assets. This approach is infrequently used in Ohio, although it is promoted by CommonWealth (Youngstown) and is more typical in places like New York.
• Supportive housing projects which group together tenants with a common need and ability to provide mutual support along with coordinated social services. An example is Homeless Solutions, an 89-unit LIHTC project in inner-city Youngstown for a variety of homeless sub-populations-primarily SRO units for single adults-also including eight family units with an attached day care facility. The program incorporates intensive counseling, education, job training and placement, etc., designed to restore people to the mainstream of society.

Developers who are positioned to obtain the active participation of local community groups, local government, social services, and experienced financial partners in the planning and implementation of projects can make a real difference in the inner city. No doubt, more income diversification should be encouraged as a way to regain more of the economic mix that existed prior to the urban decline of the mid-1960's. Greater income in the area creates more retail opportunities and probably more interest in on-going crime prevention and infrastructure improvement on the part of the city. Economic diversity speeds upward trends because of the greater access to private capital.

Hopefully, the benefits of partial gentrification do not inherently create a new displacement problem. There is little doubt that concentrating poor and even working poor families in particular neighborhoods is a risky business. If it occurs with little or no regard for social bonds, defensible space, and the need for multiple stakeholders-as typified by past federal housing policies and anti-urban local neglect-the predicted results of the "social milieu" will be perpetuated. We also need to apply our best efforts to overcome the resistance of suburban neighborhoods to house the service workers who often do the jobs in their communities. A breakthrough in this area, however, seems far away.

The key is offering as many meaningful housing options as we can to poor families. City living can be better than a public housing high rise ghetto. To others, a quiet suburban apartment complex near the strip center may feel like heaven. Both approaches deserve our support. Article submitted by Roy Lowenstein. Roy is currently Vice-President for Development at Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing in Columbus and has worked for more than 20 years as a non-profit developer or consultant on more than 100 housing projects for low-income families, the elderly, the homeless and those with mental disabilities.

 

COHHIO Receives Funding
COHHIO is pleased to announce that the George Gund Foundation provided $60,000 for two new COHHIO projects. The first, "Housing and Work Stability, Families Moving From Welfare to Work," will focus on the necessity of providing housing subsidies to families in a planned effort to move families from welfare toward job acquisition, retention and self sufficiency. The second, "Meeting the Needs of Homeless Children" will serve as a model for the country by focusing statewide attention on the needs of homeless youth. This project will follow a community-organizing model by bringing together youth, youth service providers and youth advocates to identify achievable issues and implement change. Look for more infomation on these projects in future newsletter issues.

 

The Facts: Automated Teller Machines (ATMs)

What is an ATM?
An Automated Teller Machine -- commonly known as an ATM -- gives you access to your account 24 hours a day in most locations by using your ATM card and Personal Identification Number (PIN). Your PIN is the password for your account. Your PIN may be assigned to you, or you may be able to choose it. Do not use your birth date, address or anything that might be easily guessed by someone who may steal your card. Do not share your PIN with anyone, or write your PIN on the card.

How do I use my ATM card?
Most things that you can do at your financial institution, you can do at an ATM. Get cash. Make a deposit. Check your account balance. Transfer money. Some ATMs simply give out cash. That means you cannot use them to make deposits, transfer money or perform other transactions. ATMs located in convenience stores, movie theaters, hotel lobbies and other high-traffic areas may charge higher fees.

If you are thinking about getting an ATM card, ask your institution if they charge a: monthly or yearly fee to use the card; a fee to use the card at your institution’s ATMs; and/or a fee to use the card at other institutions’ ATMs.

If the ATM says withdrawals must be made in denominations or increments of $10 or $20, that means it carries 10- or 20-dollar bills. For example, you need $50 and the ATM screen says your withdrawal must be in $20 increments. You can request either $40 or $60 and the machine will give you two or three $20 bills. There is no need to withdraw $20 in two or three separate withdrawals. Most institutions limit the amount of money you can take out each day--usually $100 to $600.

Your institution may offer services through an ATM network. Networks link together the ATMs of banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions. Networks give you access to your account while you are in other neighborhoods, cities or out of the country.

To avoid fees, use an ATM owned by your institution. If you cannot, look for an ATM network name or logo that matches the one on your ATM card. Network names include Star*, Cirrus* and Plus*. While you can use these machines, you might pay fees to your institution, the institution that owns the ATM, or both.

ATM Tips
Take these steps to protect your account.
• Sign the back of your card as soon as you get it. Read the information that comes with it.
• Memorize your PIN -- do not write it on your card or keep it in your wallet.
• Do not bend or scratch your card. Keep it away from hot or magnetic surfaces.
• Cover the ATM key pad when you type your PIN so other people cannot see it.
• Avoid using ATM machines at night if they are not in well-lit and safe areas. Take a friend along for safety. Some police stations have ATM machines in their lobbies.
• Keep your receipts, and record any deposits and withdrawals you make with your ATM card in your checkbook or savings account register. Rememto subtract any fees.
• Compare your records with your statement. Contact your institution immediately if there are any errors. Call first, and follow up with a letter.

What do I do if my ATM card is lost or stolen?
Call your institution right away, and follow with a letter. The longer you wait, the more money you may lose. If you report your card missing before it is used, you will not be held responsible for any unauthorized use. If you report your card missing after it is used, the amount you can be held responsible for depends on how quickly you report the loss: within two business days after you learn of the loss or theft of your card -- you will be held responsible for no more than $50 in unauthorized withdrawals; after two business days, but within 60 days after the institution sends you a statement showing an unauthorized withdrawal -- you could lose up to $500; and after 60 days -- you could lose all the money that was taken from your account after the end of the 60 days and before you report your card missing. Reprinted from the Financial Services Education Coalition.

 

OCRP "Dog and Pony" Show

If you are interested in learning more about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and how it impacts Ohio’s communities, the Ohio Community Reinvestment Project (OCRP) can help. OCRP is in the process of putting together a traveling “dog and pony” show on the basics of community reinvestment. The presentation will last approximately one hour, and focus on the history, successes (national and local), enforcement issues, and the current legislative status of the CRA. Please call Christina Buzzard at COHHIO at 614/280-1984 for more information.

 

Are You Spending Too Much Money On Your Workers' Compensation?
The Bureau of Workers Compensation allows organizations to group together to save them money on their workers' compensation premiums. COHHIO sponsors such a group, that saves our group memvaluable dollars that can go to other more important work. According to the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the COHHIO group rating program saved its mem79 percent on premiums last year, and is saving mem84 percent this year. COHHIO savings have been among the highest in the industry for three years in a row now. For example, a group not affiliated with a group would pay 100 percent of their premiums. With COHHIO's group, your organization last year would have only paid 21 percent of your premium, and only 16 percent this year. Joining a group rating program is the only way to ensure that you won't pay any more than you have to for workers' compensation. If you are interested in joining COHHIO's program, please fill out the Savings Estimate Authorization (AC-3) on the next page. You can fax it or mail it to the Frank Gates Company. You will receive a free, no-obligation group rating savings estimate. At that point, you can decide if you'd like to join COHHIO's group. If you have any questions, please call Susan Francis at COHHIO at 614/280-1984.

 

Beware of Back Pain

Most cases of worker back pain are caused by on-the-job injuries, according to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health.

A research team from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Cincinnati surveyed more than 30,000 Americans. Of 149 million workdays lost annually to back pain, findings revealed 101 million were work-related injuries. In another study, researchers from Johns Hopkins University studied 274 cases of low-back injury. Findings showed a strong association between the risk of low-back injury and job strain, the combination of high psychological demands and low control over a person's work.

The cure? While there's no quick fix, giving workers some control over their jobs might help reduce the rate, say some researchers.

Mats help low back pain
Tired and achy from working while standing for a long period of time? Just look at the floor beneath your feet to find the cause and the solution to some work-related back pain and musculoskeletal disorders.

Working on a hard surface is harder on muscles than performing the same work on a softer surface, according to a 1998 study appearing in the European Journal of Applied Physiology.
Working on a hard surface puts a strain on the muscles, leg ligaments and tendons and supporting structures of the joints. The most common symptom is acute or chronic soft tissue pain. Injuries can cause lumbar strain, muscle pain and 'wear-and-tear' arthritis.

Workers at increased risk of occupational injury include those who:
• have a history of back injury;
• are not accustomed to heavy or repetitive or prolonged labor;
• are overweight;
• smoke.

Preventing low-back pain related to working or standing for long periods of time on a hard surface may be as simple laying down a floor mat. Mats have been proven to reduce fatigue by distributing forces over a greater area and by reducing the force transmitted to the lower spine.

Additional preventive action include:
• training in lifting and posture;
• alternating weight by using a low stool for foot placement;
• alternating feet if extended standing is required.

Information taken from the Bureau of Workers Compensation, Division of Safety & Hygiene.

 

AmeriCorps Member Spotlight
COHHIO's AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless Program has memall across the state working on homelessness and housing issues.

Virginia Goggins: I am currently serving as a first year AmeriCorps memat National Church Residences in Hilliard. As the Resident Service Coordinator, I provide community resources and supportive services to the families and seniors in our housing program. In December I will graduate from The Ohio State University with a degree in Political Science and Women's Studies. I will use my AmeriCorps Education award to pay back my students loans. My future plans include exploring a Masters degree in Social Work.

Carlotta Rhym: I am currently serving as a first year AmeriCorps memat the Bishop Cosgrove Family Center in Cleveland. I have found that my past life experiences have enabled me to better assist the families that I work with. I especially enjoy and excel at working as a liaison between the families and property owners. My AmeriCorps experience has provided many opportunities, including providing me a way to pay back student loans. I will also use my Educational Award to go back to college and continue working toward a degree in Computer Science. I am looking forward to serving a second term with AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless.

Katrina Holmes: I am a second year AmeriCorps mem serving as a Family Development Specialist at WSOS in Fremont. My experience with AmeriCorps Houses the Homeless has been a very rewarding one. I have learned alot and I am truly grateful to have been given such an opportunity. I have been very happy to be able to see the changes in my families and know that in whatever small way, I helped them. I am currently attending school to achieve a Bachelors degree in Chemical Dependency.

Gloria Woods: Through exposure to my daughter, who is a second year COHHIO AmeriCorps mem I began my first year of service with National Church Residences. I chose to work with the elderly after seeing the quality of care my elderly father received to keep him in his home. I wanted the opportunity to do the same for someone else’s parent when they couldn’t be there. I also plan to attend Columbus State with a focus on Computer Courses.

Resources
TRAININGS
November 1 - Access by People with Disabilities to Housing, Ohio State Legal Services Association and the Office of Housing and Community Partnership, Ohio Department of Development, Columbus. For more information, call OSLSA at 614/299-2114, ext. 110.

November 4 - Sustaining Neighborhoods: An Antidote to Urban Sprawl, The Countywide Financial Institutions Advisory Committee (C-FIAC), Cleveland. Panel discussions include Fair and Affordable Housing Initiatives, Subprime Lending, Government Sponsored Enterprises, Proposed CRA Reform (HR 10): An Update; and Economic Development: Brownfields Project. Keynote speakers and topics are Eva Plaza, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Economic Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, "New Initiatives in Fair Lending Enforcement"; and James Howard Kunstler, author of The Geography of Nowhere Home From Nowhere, "Can America Survive Suburbia?" Registration is $45 for non-profits. For more information, call the Susan Roberts, C-FIAC Coordinator, at 216/371-4285.

November 7-9, Annual National Resident Service Coordinator Training and Network Conference for Senior and Family Housing Communities, Association of Ohio Philanthropic Homes, Housing and Service for the Aging (AOPHA), Cleveland. Registration is $360 and CEU's for social workers are available. For more information, call AOPHA at 614/444-2882.

November 18-19, People Building Communities Annual Conference, Ohio CDC Annual Conference, Cincinnati. Will include workshops on housing development skills, economic development strategies, IDAs, organizational development, microenterprise, and community organizing. For more information, call OCDCA at 614/461-6392.

November 9-12, 50th Anniversary of the National Council of Churches, Cleveland. Speakers include Archbishop Desmond Tutu; U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan; Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher; incoming N.C.C. President, Andrew Young; Marian Wright Edelman, the Hon. Louis Stokes, and others. For more information, call 800/328-6222, (4 digit pin #1999).

November 22-23, Multifamily Home Ownership Development Management, Ohio Capital Corporation for Housing and Ohio Housing Finance Agency's First Joint Conference. For more information, call 614/224-8446 (OCCH) or 614/466-0400 (OHFA).

Affordable Housing Program Seminars, Federal Home Loan Bank of Cincinnati. The purpose of the meetings is to discuss Affordable Housing Program changes and to provide detailed instructions on applying for funds in the year 2000. Dates of trainings are November 16 - Cleveland; November 17 - Toledo and December 7 - Columbus. No registration fee. For more information, call 888/345-2246.

March 13, 14 & 15, 2000, COHHIO Annual Conference, Columbus Marriott North. Save The Date! More information will follow in upcoming newsletter issues!

PUBLICATION
Board Member Manuals. Includes information on the key areas of board services, board mems responsibilities, effective board meetings, policy v. management, board/administrator relationship and nonprofit finances and board fundraising. Minimum order - 5 copies. $28 each for 5-9 copies, $25 for 10 or more. For more information, contact Aspen Publishers, 7201 McKinney Circle, Frederick, MD 21704, www.aspenpublishers.com.

HUD Publications. The Challenge of Housing Security: Report to Congress on the Housing Conditions and Needs of Older American (ACCN-HUD8709), $5; From Welfare to Work: Using HUD's Programs to Help Families in Transition (ACCN-HUD8712), $5; A House in Order: Results From the First National Assessment of HUD Housing (ACCN-HUD8704), free; New Markets: The Untapped Retail Buying Power in America's Inner Cities (ACCN-HUD8736), free; The State of the Cities 1999 (ACCN-HUD8726), free; Status of HUD-Insured (or Held) Multifamily Rental Housing in 1995 - Final Report (ACCN-HUD8711), $5. Periodicals: Fieldworks (ACCN-HUD8142), $15/6 issues; Urban Research Monitor (ACCN-HUD8135), $15/6 issues; U.S. Housing Market Conditions (ACCN-HUD8302), $30/4 issues. For more information, call 800/245-2691.

The National Neighborhood Coalition is looking for information on the work of any nonprofit community, neighborhood or faith-based group working to counter the consequences of sprawl, or to advance a neighborhood agenda at the regional level in any of these areas (housing, transportation, environment, jobs, economic development, public safety, schools, tax policy, public finance). Those submitting applications will receive free copies of NNC's project reports and information about how to contact others who are doing similar work. Applications are due October 31. For more information, contact NNC at 202/986-2096.

JOB ANNOUNCEMENT
Executive Director, North Carolina. Strong coalition builder and fundraiser, knowledgeable of legislative process, to lead mature State wide non-profit organization dedicated to increasing affordable housing resources in North Carolina. Familiarity with relevant NC advocacy issues and exceptional skills in facilitating disparate groups toward common goals. Contact Carlile Consultants at 202/966-2366 or pcarlile@erols.com.

First Monday 1999: Housing and Homelessness
COHHIO in conjunction with the Alliance for Justice, from Washington, DC, is sponsoring First Monday 1999. First Monday is a year-long program which brings together students and the public interest community in an annual call to action to further social justice and civil liberties. It was initially conceived in 1994 as an annual campaign to inspire young people to pursue public interest work. Each year, the Alliance for Justice focuses its attention on an important issue involving equality and justice. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the 1949 Housing Act, in which Congress declared that the nation required “... a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.” First Year 1999 looks at the dire state of this nation’s housing as we prepare to enter a new century, and will focus on ways to make this declaration a reality. First Monday 1999: Housing and Homelessness challenges all of us to make fair and affordable housing a reality for every American family. If you or your organization are interested in sponsoring a press release, panel discussion, or public forum on housing and homelessness, please contact Rick Taylor at COHHIO at 614/280-1984 or cohhiort@aol.com.

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

cohhio@cohhio.org