Senate Begins Consideration of FY 2017 Funding Bills
This week, the full Senate began to debate the fiscal year 2017 funding legislation for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (T-HUD) programs.
While a final vote has not taken place, Senate leaders are seeking to expedite the process by combining the FY 2017 T-HUD bill (S.2844) with the Military Construction-Veterans’ Affairs appropriations bill (S.2806). The next fiscal year will begin on October 1, 2016 and Congress has limited work weeks available before summer recess begins on July 15. The Senate bill will likely not be finalized until next week. The House is also set to begin its deliberation of its own T-HUD bill next week. The text is set to be released on May 18.
NAHMA supports the Senate FY 2017 T-HUD appropriations bill. We encourage lawmakers to pass this bill, whether individually or coupled with the Military Construction-Veterans’ Affairs appropriations, without any amendments that could derail its passage.
Similar to T-HUD, the Senate is also likely to combine the Agriculture, Rural Development appropriations bill with the Commerce-Justice-Science bill. According to Senate Agriculture, Rural Development Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Jerry Moran (R-KS), the subcommittee will mark up the Agriculture, Rural Development appropriations bill on May 17 followed by a full Appropriations Committee markup on May 19.
Representative Waters introduces legislation to preserve asset management in local HUD Offices
On Wednesday, May 11, the House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Water (D-CA) introduced the Preserving HUD’s Multifamily Field Offices Act of 2016, a bill which seeks to preserve asset management staff in each of HUD’s 54 multifamily field offices across the country. Representative Waters was joined by 14 other Los Angeles area Representatives in introducing this legislation.
This new bill is released in response to concerns that HUD is not replacing asset management staff vacancies in most field offices as the Multifamily Transformation Initiative continues. NAHMA members have personally experienced the effects of losing asset managers, who are often familiar with the needs and condition of assisted housing properties in their portfolio.
The bill would require HUD to backfill all asset management positions in every field office. Appropriations would be provided to accomplish this goal, and the bill stipulates that Asset Managers may not be relocated to the five hub offices. Rep. Waters previously introduced an amendment to the FY 2015 HUD funding bill that required HUD to maintain asset management staff in all existing field offices at that time.
NAHMA will monitor this legislation and will keep members updated on its progress in Congress.
To view a press release from the House Financial Services Committee regarding this bill, please click
here
Hearing Compares US Affordable Housing Policy with that of the United Kingdom
On Thursday, May 12, the House Financial Services’ Housing and Insurance Subcommittee held a hearing titled “The Future of Housing in America: A Comparison of the United Kingdom and United States Models for Affordable Housing”. This hearing examined two reports that compare the affordable housing models of the United States and the United Kingdom. The two reports were: “Lessons of the International Housing Partnership,” by The Housing Partnership Network (2016) and the “Atlantic Exchange: Case Studies of Housing and Community Redevelopment in the United States and the United Kingdom,” by The Urban Institute (2010). The witness panel for this hearing included:
- Mr. Thomas Bledsoe, President and CEO of Housing Partnership Network
- Dr. Harris Beider, Professor of Community Cohesion at the Centre for Social Relations, Coventry University, United Kingdom
- Susan Popkin, Senior Fellow and Director of the Neighborhoods and Youth Development Initiative, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, The Urban Institute
- Ms. Jaime Alison Lee, Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Community Development Clinic, University of Baltimore School of Law
- Mr. Richard C. Gentry, President and CEO, San Diego (CA) Housing Commission
- Mr. Greg Russ, Executive Director, Cambridge (MA) Housing Authority
In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) noted that the intention of this hearing was to begin a discussion on how the Untied Could incorporate more private sector investment in affordable housing. He noted this general mission was shared by Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and later by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Representative Luetkemeyer’s goal was to examine the pro and cons of the UK’s assisted-housing reforms and how the US may incorporate these models.
Ranking Member Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) also made note of the need to consider positive reforms that could be made to US housing programs, but he also highlighted the general housing affordability crisis. Both Chairman Luetkemeyer and Ranking Member Cleaver praised the UK’s “right to buy” policy wherein tenants can work towards purchasing their affordable units at a discounted rate. However, Cleaver maintained that the US’s affordable housing programs, citing public housing in particular, serve the most disadvantaged Americans (extremely low-income, the elderly, and persons with disabilities) and that these populations must be protected in any consideration of a sweeping change in housing policy.
Within the written testimony of the panelists, the US and UK affordable housing offerings are shown to be similar in some aspects while also completely different in others. For example, the testimony of Dr. Harris Beider, of Coventry University, shows that in the UK, the public and assisted housing sector is about 16 percent of the total housing stock, while in the US, it is 2 percent. However, he notes that there is slightly less stigmatizing of “council housing” in the UK compared to the US and that there is less racial segregation in the UK system as well. He emphasized that affordable housing needs to balance with social and economic outcomes during a period of considerable transformation.
During the hearing, there was some contentious discussion on the current state of public housing in the US. Lawmakers on both sides mentioned the need for additional data and analytics on housing stock, but there was sharp contrasts on how to manage the current situation. Some members of the Democratic Party criticized Congress for disinvesting in public housing while promoting more private market participation in the space. Republicans stressed that affordable housing programs should serve as a stepping stone to self-sufficiency, and highlighted the Moving to Work program as a great tool to help tenants improve their lives.
Lawmakers did not reach a general consensus at the end of this hearing, but there was support plugged for increasing the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and additional preservation activities that will ensure that low-income Americans have access to affordable housing.
An archived webcast of this hearing as well as the written testimony of the panelists can be found
here
Pay For Success Subject of Hearing and Legislation
This week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing focused on improving outcomes for vulnerable individuals and families though more evidence-based policy decisions. As part of the discussion on evidence-based practices, the Committee covered concepts of Pay for Success (PFS) models of program funding (sometimes referred to as Social Impact Bonds). Both Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) used their opening testimony to praise the PFS model and promote its consideration among other lawmakers.
PFS financing is an innovative model that leverages philanthropic and private dollars to fund preventive services, which are provided by nonprofits and other non-governmental entities up front, with the government paying only when services generate measurable results that meet pre-specified targets. In the United States, the wide use of PFS/SIBs is still in its early stages. Currently the federal government is interested in using PFS/SIBs to transition projects from their initial experiment or demonstration stages to scalable programs.
The four witnesses on the panel brought different perspectives on pay-for-success initiatives, and each urged lawmakers to consider these innovative models. Gordon Berlin, President of the nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization MDRC noted in his written testimony that PFS can be a valuable new tool in the evidence-building movement. He continued that it provides important flexibility to state and local authorities, who might not otherwise have the resources to experiment with new approaches. Overall he views PFS as a valuable complement to the broader agency-based federal role.
Much of the discussion did not include the use of PFS for housing programs, but there was support lauded by the witnesses for two recent bill introduced in the House and Senate: the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act. This bill just recently was introduced by Representative Todd Young (R-IN) as H.R. 5170 in the House, and by Chairman Hatch in the Senate as S.1089 in late April.
The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act would require that the Treasury Department publish a request for proposals from states or local governments for social impact partnership projects which produce a measurable, clearly defined outcome that results in social benefit, such as employment for the unemployed, high school graduation, and reduction of teen and unplanned pregnancies. The Treasury Secretary would decide whether to enter into such a contract within six months after receiving an application and Congress would establishes the Federal Interagency Council on Social Impact Partnerships to assist in outlining specific desired outcomes and targets.
To qualify as a social impact partnership, PFS project under this bill, a project must produce a measurable, clearly defined outcome that results in social benefit and federal savings. Included is a measurable outcome target goal that improves the housing security of individuals experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of becoming homeless.
The PFS continues to draw interest as state and local governments look to address issues in the most efficient manner. Last year, NAHMA produced a NAHMAnalysis on PFS and its possible applications to housing, including an examination of a PFS demonstration being conducted by HUD.
An archived webcast of this hearing as well as the written testimony of the panelists can be found
here
