Findings

There is Considerable Unmet Need for Affordable Community-Based Housing for People with Disabilities

The lack of adequate housing that is affordable to people with disabilities has moved to the forefront of identified barriers to independent living, and is now recognized as a major obstacle to attempts to move people from costly and restrictive institutional settings into more independent community-based housing. Needs analyses for all disability groups point to a severe shortage of affordable housing facing most disabled people, particularly housing that is appropriately designed to fully meet their needs and that is linked to necessary residential support services.

• DMHMRSAS’s newly updated comprehensive plan identifies over 7,700 MH/MR/SA clients on CSB waiting lists who need community-based housing and residential services (Appendix B).

• Statewide needs assessments conducted in 1999 for the Disability Commission and DSBs found that, based on survey results, 29% of persons with physical and sensory disabilities have experienced problems in finding a satisfactory place to live, and half of students with disabilities exiting public schools are expected to need assistance with living arrangements (Appendix C).

Most Disabled People Need “Supported" Housing

A large majority of people with disabilities need “supportive" housing. They do not require in-home intensive or supervised residential services. They are able to live fully independently in existing community housing, provided that they are able to access an adequate array of community-based services.

Dependence on SSI and Other Limited Income Sources is the Main Barrier to Accessing Adequate Housing

The main reason for lack of access to adequate existing community housing is the very low income of people with disabilities, a majority of whom are unemployed. Most rely mainly on limited Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, private disability insurance, family support and intermittent wage income to meet their living needs. SSI provides recipients $494 per month which is less than 23% of median income. The portion of monthly SSI available to meet housing costs (based on 30% of income) is $148, which represents only 20%-40% of prevailing market rents for one-bedroom units. Most significantly, the $148 available to SSI recipients for housing expenses represents only 60% of typical monthly operating costs (including utilities) for a one-bedroom rental unit. Thus, even if debt service costs are eliminated entirely, there still remains a significant gap between the cost of housing and the contribution that SSI recipients can afford to make (Appendix D).

Surveys of Centers for Independent Living, public housing agencies, local administrative agents for VHDA’s Section 8 tenant-based program, and private rental property managers, confirm that the cost of housing meeting the needs of people with physical and sensory disabilities, relative to their income, is a chief barrier to their obtaining satisfactory housing (Appendix F).

Consequently, any broad-based effort to assist people with disabilities in obtaining adequate affordable housing must address the need for operating subsidies and/or client income supports in addition to the need for subsidized housing capital.

There is Also a Need to Address Issues of Housing Supply

While issues related to income are paramount, there are also key unmet needs that must be addressed through additions to the housing supply. There is still a shortage of affordable barrier-free and accessible units for rent and for sale (Appendix F). There is also a need for additional congregate housing (Appendices B and G).

State and Local Efforts Are Being Made to Provide Affordable Housing for People with Disabilities...but are Insufficient to Resolve Unmet Need

VHDA, DHCD, DMHMRSAS and local public housing authorities (PHAs), are providing a variety of programs and resources that are helping to address the housing needs of people with disabilities.

• 40% of participants in VHDA’s Section 8 tenant-based program have disabilities, as do 25% of the participants in the programs of local PHAs (Appendix H)

• High levels of production of new affordable rental units through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program are resulting in significant numbers of new barrier-free and accessible rental housing units in all areas of the state (Appendix I)

• Over 2,400 congregate beds serving all disability groups have been financed by VHDA, DHCD and local PHAs (Appendix I)

• DMHMRSAS and CSBs are using newly appropriated state funds to address their clients’ need for affordable housing and residential services (Appendix E)


Nevertheless, large CSB and Section 8 waiting lists, and continuing barriers to optimum use of newly developed barrier-free and accessible units by people with physical and sensory disabilities, demonstrate that more must be done in order to resolve a substantial level of unmet need.

Conclusions

Feasibility of a Special Capital Fund

There are a number of unmet needs for subsidized mortgage capital. For example, subsidized mortgage capital is needed to: (1) fund “supervised," “intensive" and “highly intensive" rental housing for people with mental, physical and sensory disabilities; (2) support the expansion of home modification loan programs; and (3) support special home purchase initiatives serving people with disabilities.

Nevertheless, the need for specific types of subsidized mortgage capital are diverse, and the level of demand for each has not yet been quantified. Furthermore, each of the differing needs requires the development of programs involving partnerships—either between VHDA/DHCD and the agencies providing and/or funding support services (rental and home purchase programs) or between VHDA/DHCD and local administering entities (home modification loan programs). Therefore, it is premature to recommend the creation of a special capital fund(s) until: (1) differing needs are prioritized; and (2) program structures/partnerships are defined with sufficient specificity that funding/resource gaps can be identified and quantified. The recommendations of this report are intended to create a structure through which further needed analysis and planning can occur and specific recommendations can be brought to the Governor and the General Assembly for review and action.

Development of Formal Interagency Commitments

The housing needs of people with disabilities are complex and cannot be addressed without the commitment of substantial resources in addition to mortgage capital. State-level control and management of the array of required resources is fragmented among multiple disability agencies (DMHMRSAS, DRS, DVH and DDHH) and housing agencies (VHDA and DHCD). Therefore, a formal interagency commitment to addressing the unmet housing needs of people with disabilities is needed in order for workable housing initiatives to be structured, the full array of required resources to be allocated/appropriated, and program implementation coordinated in a manner that can achieve success.

The past experience of DMHMRSAS and VHDA has shown that formal partnerships and agreements between state-level agencies are not fully effective unless local agencies are involved as full partners. A structure and process need to be developed to include CSBs, DSBs, CILs, local governments and housing authorities as full partners in program planning and implementation.

Recommendations

Recommendation #1

Create an Ongoing Interagency Council to Develop and Coordinate Housing Initiatives for MH/MR/SA Clients

DMHMRSAS, VHDA and DHCD concur with the recommendation of the HJR 225 Joint Subcommittee that the formation of an ongoing interagency council is an appropriate vehicle for securing the commitment of state-level agencies to design and implement initiatives that address the housing needs of people with mental disabilities and substance abuse problems. DMHMRSAS, VHDA and DHCD also believe that such a council should be comprised of representatives of CSBs, local governments and housing authorities in order to build a strong partnership between state and local organizations with a responsibility for addressing this need.

Recommendation #2

Further Analyze the Level of Demand for Specific Types of Subsidized Mortgage Capital

The SJR 159 study group found that further analysis should be made of the demand for specific types of subsidized mortgage capital. A key part of the analysis needs to be a review of the housing program and funding priorities of CSBs and the structure and capacity of the current system for delivering housing services in each CSB area. Timely completion of such an analysis by the SJR 159 study team would enable a new interagency council on MH/MR/SA housing (Recommendation #1) to move forward more quickly in developing specific program and funding recommendations.

Recommendation #3

Create an Ongoing Interagency Council to Develop and Coordinate Housing Initiatives for People with Physical and Sensory Disabilities

VHDA and DHCD concur that an ongoing interagency council is also the appropriate vehicle for securing the commitment of state-level agencies to design and implement initiatives that address the housing needs of people with physical and sensory disabilities. The council should be comprised of representatives of VHDA, DHCD, DRS, DVH, DDHH, VBPD, the Disability Services Council, ATLFA, DSBs, CILs, local governments, and housing authorities in order to build a strong partnership between state and local organizations with a responsibility for addressing this need.