D.C. Seeks Homeless Views on Stimulus

Artwork showing a dollar bill carved into the shape of the US Capitol

Illustration by Tyler Perry

In recent days, D.C. Council members and District officials have been soliciting suggestions from D.C.’s homeless population about how the city could best use federal “stimulus” monies and improve support programs for the indigent.  

And homeless men and women, and the service and advocacy organizations that work with them, are responding with alacrity, speaking up in support of housing programs, emergency shelters and a range of other initiatives.  

On Feb. 19, the Council’s Committee on Human Services listened to testimony from dozens of participants, many of them clients of D.C. poverty and homeless programs, on the quality of the Department of Human Services’ (DHS) performance. Councilman Tommy Wells (D–Ward 6), who chaired the oversight hearing, encouraged the witnesses to offer their views on how DHS services could be improved, and how short-term subsidies from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should be spent.  

At the hearing, a large contingent of homeless men and women, speaking both as individuals and as members of organized groups, endorsed programs that they felt were working well and suggested improvements to those they felt were not.  

Several issues attracted wide support among those testifying, including the restoration of roughly $7 million in permanent supportive housing funds, frozen for the coming year in response to the city’s looming budget gap.  

Permanent Supportive Housing  

 

The District, like many other cities across the country, has embraced permanent supportive housing as part of a strategy aimed at ultimately ending chronic homelessness. Such “Housing First” programs provide apartments to indigent people, along with social services, counseling, job training and health care designed to address the problems that underlie their homelessness. While costly, such programs are credited with saving municipalities money by stabilizing the lives of homeless people and decreasing their visits to emergency shelters, hospital emergency rooms and jails.  

Four hundred and sixteen individuals and one family have been placed so far by the $19 million initiative, with 79 more families slated to receive apartments. City officials have said that people already being housed by the program will not be affected by decision to freeze millions for the coming year. But homeless people and their advocates worry about the future impact of the freeze.  

Hearing speakers also called for a range of other efforts including more and better case management services at emergency shelters, more housing facilities for the mobility impaired, increased funding for rapid re-housing for families, and upgrading and better maintaining existing shelter facilities.  

Adam Rocap, director of social services at Miriam’s Kitchen, a nonprofit that provides breakfasts and social services to homeless individuals, testified in favor of the creation of a network of smaller, service-rich, temporary shelters and for development of a 24-hour drop-in homeless service center.  

Like several other witnesses, Rocaps’ testimony stressed the priority of funding the City’s permanent supportive housing programs, ensuring adequate permanent supportive housing-related services, and expanding the program for the most vulnerable.  

Linda Kaufman of Pathways To Housing DC praised the city’s permanent supportive housing efforts, and went on to suggest that any savings from successful outcomes be channeled back into housing and support services resources for the chronically homeless.  

Improving Shelter Programs  

 

Calls for improved conditions at the larger shelters were made by a number of witnesses, as were pleas for increased funding for family assistance.  

Poppy Cali, representing the People for Fairness Coalition, recommended upgrading hygiene and safety in the city’s low-barrier shelter system.  

“We need safe and clean shelters,” he told Wells. He also called for the city to provide more case management services at the shelters.  

Another homeless advocate, Junior Almozard, reinforced Cali’s testimony on the need for improved shelter conditions. Almozard, naming two or three of the city’s larger men’s shelters, described severely crowded conditions; called for improved communications between residents and security and other shelter staff; condemned unhygienic shelter conditions, including bedbug infestations; and noted the problem of property theft at some shelters.  

Shree Hickman, who identified herself as a 22-year old mother on welfare, explained her difficulties raising her two children on the existing benefits for participants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). 

Chairman Wells indicated certain issues in which he was particularly interested by the questions he addressed to witness panels.  

Following testimony by Srinidhi Vijaykumar, of DC Hunger Solutions, on the need for increased funding, a greater outreach effort, and higher gross income and asset eligibility caps for food stamp programs, Wells asked about ways in which that program might help reduce D.C.’s high childhood obesity rate. He noted that farmers’ markets now take food stamps, and invited suggestions for possible pilot projects.  

Wells, and new Council member Michael Brown (I–At-large), echoed concerns raised by several witnesses about the lack of affordable housing for low income earners in DC.  

On the topic of family assistance programs, Wells mused aloud about the possibility of linking such assistance to school attendance. He declared that, especially for children of elementary school age, he viewed school attendance as a priority. “Having children in school,” he stressed, “is really nonnegotiable.”  

Community Round Table  

 

In late February, shortly before the D.C. Interagency Council on Homelessness’s (ICH) bi-monthly public meeting, nearly 40 homeless people and service providers met in three groups, collectively called the Community Round Table, to discuss opinions on ICH planning topics. The focus groups convened at the N Street Village shelter at 1333 N Street, NW, to reflect and comment on three specific issues:  

What priorities to apply to DC homeless prevention and rapid re-housing services; who should have access to them; and whether a residency requirement is appropriate;  

Where and when should homeless prevention information and homeless services be made available; and  

How rental subsidies should be structured; what time limits, if any, should apply; and whether or not to target low-income or other special needs populations.  

The focus groups, facilitated by staff from Miriam’s Kitchen and N Street Village, worked together on responses to a detailed questionnaire. A summary of the groups’ comments were presented at the ICH meeting, and individual written comments were collected for further analysis.  

Participants in the round table focus groups considered a narrower set of issues – mainly rapid re-housing issues and short-term “stimulus” legislation subsidies – than the DHS hearing witnesses. Despite that difference, however, some similar themes emerged.  

They included the need for access to more, and more professional, case management services at shelters and other service sites; the need for housing priorities for homeless men and women with physical, medical (especially HIV/AIDS), mental, and addiction-related disabilities; and better and more varied communications channels for providing information about support services – including to those not yet homeless, but in increased danger of becoming so.  

The focus group discussions about funding for homelessness prevention and re-housing services stressed the importance of emergency rental and utility assistance, case management and mental health services, and legal support for tenants before they become homeless as particularly urgent.  

Requiring a period of residency to be eligible for homeless prevention and rapid re-housing programs also got strong support in the focus groups, but no specific time period was endorsed.  

The Community Round Table meetings, set up to encourage greater client participation, were first instituted at the Dec. 11, 2008 meeting. Such pre-ICH meeting sessions are expected to continue as a regular part of the ICH planning process.  

The next ICH meeting is scheduled for April 2 at the Harriet Tubman Women’s Shelter at 1900 Mass. Ave., S.E. 


Issues |DC Budget|Economy|Housing|Permanent Supportive Housing|Shelters


Region |Washington DC

information about New Signature, a Washington DC tech solutions and consulting firm

Advertisement

email updates

We believe ending homelessness begins with listening to the stories of those who have experienced it.

Subscribe

RELATED CONTENT