HD86 - Report on Housing Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities in Virginia


Executive Summary:
The Honorable Jane H. Woods, Secretary of Health and Human Resources, was noted as being the responsible party for this study. Secretary Woods directed the Department of Rehabilitative Services (DRS) to be the lead agency for the completion of the study with DRS coordinating the study with the Olmstead Advisory Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. DRS was given the services of Ms. Ashley Jardina, a Governor’s Fellow, to conduct the accumulation of the vast amount of information already present, as there have been numerous studies completed on this topic.

Secretary Woods also invited the following representatives to work with DRS on the actual discussion of this topic:

• Eric L. Olson, Executive Director, Board for Contractors Polygraph Examiners Advisory Board, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation

• William C. Shelton, Director, Department of Housing and Community Development

• William J. Ernst, III, Policy Analyst and Research, Department of Housing and Community Development

• Teri D. Morgan, Sponsored Programs Manager, Virginia Board for People with Disabilities

• Michael Shank, Director, Community Support Services, Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services

• James G. Taylor, Chief Deputy Commissioner, Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired

• Bill Fuller, Ph.D., Virginia Housing Development Authority

• Julie A. Stanley, J.D., Director, the Olmstead Initiative, Community Integration for People with Disabilities

• Barbara Cotter, Intergovernmental Liaison, Department of Social Services

• James A. Rothrock, Commissioner, DRS

• Marcia DuBois, Executive Director, Valley Associates for Independent Living, also attended the meetings and participated in this study.

Over the summer months of 2005, Ms. Jardina catalogued the most recent studies that are included in this report which respond to the data needs of the budget amendment. She also interviewed numerous members of the work group and other housing advocates throughout the Commonwealth.

In the Fall of 2005, the members of the Work Group met on two occasions and made significant contributions to the body of literature and findings on this topic.

The major issues noted within the discussions of the Work Group are as follows:

• Housing continues to be a major problem for Virginians with disabilities despite the numerous studies (see Appendix A) completed over the last two decades. This is largely due to the lack of coordination of the various agencies—federal, state, and local—that impact housing initiatives for this population.

• People with disabilities, particularly those in some type of institutional settings, do not have the financial resources necessary to move into community-based settings when they very well may be capable of doing so. Moreover, there are serious disincentives. The potential of receiving a housing subsidy that makes the consumer ineligible for life sustaining Medicaid benefits is very real.

• There continues to be a vigorous debate among consumers, family members, advocates, service providers, and officials on the strategies that would increase housing options. There is no clear consensus around housing strategies that address the housing needs already identified; and it is very unlikely that there is a “quick fix” solution to this multifaceted problem and strategies need to be designed to implement change in a long-term and well-managed process.

• Although Virginia has been somewhat successful in advancing housing options, there now is the increased potential legal liability resultant from the Supreme Court decision in the Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W ruling that requires all states to provide community-based treatment when treating professionals determine it is appropriate, the person does not object, and the state can reasonably accommodate the placement. The Olmstead decision interpreted Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulation, requiring States to administer their services, programs, and activities "in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities."

• An advocacy strategy targeted more to committees that better understand issues relating to people with disabilities should be developed for the 2006 session of the Virginia General Assembly.

Recently, Virginia received a report that substantiates and validates many of the issues identified in this study and moreover offers exceptional information on how Virginia ranks with other states. Priced Out in 2004 is the latest in a series of housing publications created as a joint effort by the Technical Assistance Collaborative, Inc. (TAC) and the Washington, D.C. based Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Housing Task Force.

An overview of the findings in this study, looking at this issue from a national perspective, is offered below:

The data presented in the Priced Out in 2004 reveal the extreme housing affordability problems of people with disabilities with the lowest incomes, particularly those who rely on the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to pay for housing and other basic needs (a total of 77,792 Virginians in 2004). Several specific analyses in the report show that the problem is particularly acute for Virginia.

The analysis of rental costs for one-bedroom and efficiency units showed that Virginians with disabilities receiving SSI would have to spend over 110% of their SSI benefit to pay the rent on either type of housing. Only the District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts ranked above Virginia on these measures.

Virginia is also one of the highest-ranked states (5th in the Nation) in the growth in fair market rents for one-bedroom apartments, where there has been a 14% increase between 2002 and 2004. As stated in the report, “Significant portions of Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia have now joined the ranks of states like California, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey that have long been recognized as high-cost housing markets.”

Cost-of living increases in SSI payments have not kept pace with the increased housing costs. In Virginia, as in over half of the other states, there was only a 3.5% increase in SSI payments between 2002 and 2004. The increases ranged from a low of 0% in Connecticut to a high of 5.3% in California.

However, while a number of states have seen substantial increases in housing costs in both urban and rural areas, here in Virginia the high-level increases seem to be confined largely to the metropolitan areas of the Commonwealth. Between 2002 and 2004, there was less than a 1% increase in the proportion of SSI income that would be needed to rent a 1-bedroom apartment in rural areas of the Commonwealth.

People with disabilities receiving SSI are at the very lowest end of the income scale and many live in poverty. A comparison of SSI benefits to one-person household median incomes in 2004 shows that Virginia ranks among the 10-lowest states, with average income of a person with a disability receiving SSI amounting to only 15% of the median income. (Even in Mississippi, the highest-ranked state, SSI income was only 24% of the median.)

Another measure of the gap between SSI income and housing costs is the comparison between the “Housing Wage” The Housing Wage is the amount of income per hour that full-time workers must earn to have their rental housing costs be affordable (i.e., no more than 30% of total income) and the “SSI wage”. In Virginia, the SSI hourly wage is only $3.25, while the housing wage is $13.92. This discrepancy is among the highest in the nation; only six states and the District of Columbia have larger gaps.

In summary, affordable housing for Virginians with disabilities continues to be a serious concern. Studies have noted year after year specific recommendations, yet to date the measures implemented have not been taken in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion. Compounding the importance of a well-coordinated strategy is the very real consequence of legal action against the Commonwealth if progress is not realized in a reasonable time and manner (see Appendix B).

The Work Group would like to offer the following recommendations:

• Financial assistance methods should be established to assist Virginians with disabilities who are capable of and interested in moving into more integrated community-based settings. These resources should be developed using some mechanism that does not jeopardize their benefits and should be offered to individuals themselves so that they may exercise choice in where to live.

• In order to assure that there is the requisite coordination of various state and local agencies and organizations throughout government, there should be one entity given the express purpose of developing a realistic policy regarding housing options for Virginians with disabilities who can live in more integrated community-based housing opportunities and coordinating the implementation of such policy. It would be reasonable, upon a review of other state’s efforts, that the Office of Community Integration for People with Disabilities, established under Executive Orders 61 and 84, be made a permanent entity and given this task assisted by the Implementation Team and the Oversight Advisory Committee. If the Commonwealth is to realize future successes, housing must be an overarching issue for purposes of Olmstead implementation (see Appendix C). Moreover, this office should convene and develop a comprehensive housing policy with consumers, family members, housing agencies, state and local government representatives, and providers of services and supports.

• Future advocacy efforts within the Virginia General Assembly should be focused on the committees typically associated with efforts within the Secretariat of Health and Human Resources. Agencies within other Secretariats such as Commerce and Trade will work to support and complement these advocacy efforts. It is also recommended that these advocacy and planning efforts be coordinated with the policy committee of the Virginia Inter-Agency Council on Homelessness (VIACH) to assure that there is no undue competition between similar proposals and, where possible, efforts are complementary.

The remainder of this report will focus on critical elements that support the above issues and recommendations.