So after two public hearings, many phone calls and emails, and more than one protest here in Springfield, DHCD has made some changes in the regulations that govern homeless families' access to shelter. So the situation facing homeless families is somewhat improved. But the situation is still worse than I've ever seen it.
The gap between people's incomes and the cost of housing and other necessities of life is big enough to swallow the 35% of Springfield's residents who live below the poverty level. TAFDC benefits-- welfare for families-- had a 10% increase twelve years ago and nothing since. In the last ten years, wages have grown at the slowest rate since the decade of the Great Depression.
Families who become homeless are those pushed over the edge of the cliff by the backward movement of the working and middle class.The question is, of course, who's doing the pushing? Who benefits from the misery of so many?
To: Interested Parties
From: Ruth Bourquin (MLRI) and Kelly Turley (Massachusetts Coalition
for the Homeless)
Date: November 20, 2012
Re: DHCD’s Proposed Changes to “Final” Emergency Assistance
Regulations and Guidance
We received today from a third party a memorandum from DHCD
outlining certain changes they intend to make to the emergency EA regulations
and related pieces of Guidance before they become final. Some of the planned changes are very
important and meaningful, for which we thank the Administration.
But the proposal on the key issue of “imminent risk of
having to stay in a place not meant for human habitation” and the requirements
for proving “irregular housing” are unsatisfactory and will continue to leave
too many children at risk. For this reason, we urge additional changes.
1. “Imminent risk of staying in a place not
meant for human habitation.”
In its memorandum entitled “Further
Actions to Strengthen the Safety Net for Homeless Families” dated November 19,
2012, DHCD states on page 2 that it will provide eligibility for certain
families at “imminent risk”. But the limitations on this “imminent risk”
category are too extreme, e.g. it applies only to (a) those with a child under
the age of 6 months, (b) households
with a family member with a documented medical
condition or diagnosed disability, and (c) those in double up situations in
which the presence violates the lease and
there is documentation that the landlord will take action to terminate the
tenancy if the homeless family remains.
This leaves out most
families with vulnerable children whose health and safety will of course be
threatened by staying in a place not meant for human habitation, including
those with a child over the age of 6 months.
Moreover, the proposed language about “imminent risk” is nowhere in the actual, enforceable
regulations. It appears only in a sub-regulatory policy document, Housing
Stabilization Notice 2012-06B, p. 7. And the language there does not require that eligibility be
conferred in such situations. It only gives DHCD workers discretion
to request a DCF health and safety assessment.
While we appreciate that the Administration has made some
movement, this is not a satisfactory response with respect either to the substance
of the policy or the failure to include the limited protection in the actual regulations.
2. Irregular Housing Situation/Chronic
Couch Surfing.
On page 2
of its November 19 memorandum, DHCD says it has provided additional instruction
on “irregular housing situation.” This additional instruction is also in
Housing Stabilization Notice 2012-6B, pages 5- 6.
Unfortunately, this additional instruction makes this category more,
not less, restrictive than current
practice, and
will relegate families to as much as a full month of bouncing from one place to
another for very short periods of time in each place.
On page 6
of the Notice, DHCD says:
The
determination of what constitutes “persistent irregular housing” in a
particular case will vary dependent on a weighing of all the factors. The
shorter the lengths of stay in particular places, the greater the number of
total moves, the greater the number of different locations, and the longer the
time since the family last had regular housing, the more likely that the family
will be found to have had persistent irregular housing. In general, a family
that has moved every 2–4 days, to at least 6 different locations, over a period
of over one month, will be considered to face persistent irregular housing. For
daily moves to a different place every night, the total time period might be
somewhat shorter; for weekly moves among 6 different families, but without any
regular pattern of rotation forming, the total time period should be
considerably longer. (emphasis
supplied)
This is not a reasonable policy
for families with children most of whom are trying to maintain regular
attendance at school and parents who are trying to retain employment. And this is
a policy that will subject homeless families to additional serious stress and
related health risks.
3. Positive Changes.
The
regulations are being amended to provide:
a) that a family
evicted for purely no fault reasons
can be eligible for shelter without first staying in a place not meant for
human habitation or engaging in irregular housing, 67.06(1)(a)3.e;
b) that a
double-up housing situation will qualify as a significant threat to health and
safety if it qualifies as “unfit for human habitation” pursuant to the State
Sanitary Code, 67.06(1)(f)6.d.(iv); and
c) that the
exhaustion of time limits in a time-limited emergency family homeless shelter
not funded by EA qualifies as “irregular overnight sleeping situation.” This
should cover the end of stays in motels paid for by Travelers Aid, regional
networks, faith community groups and others, although clarification of that from DHCD would be helpful.
Certain
sub-regulatory Guidance is also being amended as follows:
a) DHCD
sub-regulatory Guidance on Domestic Violence is being amended to allow required
third-party professional documentation to be dated close in time to the EA
application even if the domestic violence that was fled occurred more than 60
days before the application. To avoid confusion, we would continue to suggest
that DHCD simply remove the language about requiring documentation “dated close
in time to the domestic violence incident” on page 7 of the Notice 2012-07A,
instead of keeping that requirement and then creating a fiction that more
recent documentation meets that standard. Most
importantly, the DV Guidance has not yet been amended to allow crediting of a
domestic violence survivor’s own declaration of the violence or of statements
by family members, friends, neighbors or other third parties who do not meet
the definition of a “professional” yet have knowledge of the violence.
b) A provision
has been included in new Housing Stabilization Notice 2012-06B recognizing that
a family is eligible for shelter if they are being kicked out of a double-up
because their presence violates a lease and there is documentation confirming
that the landlord will take action to enforce the lease. This change is positive,
but too limited. Many host tenants will reasonably
not want to tell their landlords that they have violated the lease by having
guests. Proof that the presence of the EA applicant family violates the lease
should be enough.
c) Former homeowners who were foreclosed upon
and then evicted may qualify under the “no fault” eviction provisions but only
if their foreclosure was based on failure to make mortgage payments due to
decreased income within the past 12 months or due to a disability or medical
condition. No provision is made to
confer eligibility on victims of predatory lending.
Conclusion
We
thank the Administration for making the positive changes and Legislators for
helping to make them happen. But we look forward to continued dialogue and
further, much-needed changes, particularly with respect to the issues of
“imminent risk of staying in a housing situation not meant for human
habitation” and requirements for proving an “irregular housing situation.”
