Opening Doors, July 2007,
Issue 30
Priced Out in 2006:
People with Disabilities Left Behind and Left Out of National
Housing Policy
By
Ann O’Hara, Emily Cooper, Andrew Zovistoski, and
Jonathan Buttrick
Introduction
Across the
These shocking statistics are the most important findings included
in Priced Out in 2006 – the newest Priced Out study of the severe
housing affordability problems of people with disabilities who must survive on
incomes far below the federal poverty line. The study compares the SSI monthly
income of people with serious and long-term disabilities to local U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Rents for
modestly priced rental units in 2006.
This issue of Opening Doors highlights the key findings published
in Priced Out in 2006, a biennial report
published by the Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC) and the Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Housing Task Force to shine a spotlight on
our nation’s most compelling – and least understood – housing affordability
crisis.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver, nationally renowned disability rights
advocate for over 50 years, graciously contributed to Priced
Out in 2006. “Housing is the key for
individuals with disabilities,” she stated.
See below for the full
Foreword to Priced Out in 2006, written
by Mrs. Shriver.
Foreword to Priced
Out in 2006
by Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Priced Out in 2006, the newest report published
by the Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC) and the Consortium for Citizens
with Disabilities (CCD) Housing Task Force, documents the continued lack of
affordable, accessible housing for individuals with significant long-term
disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities,
mental illness, and chronic health conditions.
This shortage is a crisis of epic proportions for people with
disabilities seeking lives of independence, dignity, and acceptance.
Priced Out clearly illustrates the
persistent relationship between limited income and the lack of decent, safe,
affordable, and accessible housing. Four
million adult individuals aged 18-64 living with significant and long-term
disabilities rely on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to cover living
expenses, but the value of that income has precipitously declined. Despite the efforts of so many individuals,
families, advocacy organizations, and legislators, the data are simply
shocking:
• In 2006, the national average monthly income
of a person who relied on SSI as his or her source of income was only $632.
When Priced Out was first published in 1998, the value of SSI payments
relative to national median income was 24.4 percent. Today the value of SSI has dropped to only
18.2 percent.
• Last year the national average rent for
one-bedroom apartments rose to $715 per month – this equals 113.1 percent of
monthly SSI income.
• In 2006 – for the first time – the national
average rent of $633 for studio/efficiency apartments rose above the entire
monthly income of an individual who solely relies on SSI income. Even this modest dwelling would consume 100.1
percent of someone’s income.
How can we possibly expect
any individual or family to spend 100-113 percent of their entire monthly
income on housing? It is not only
mathematically impossible, but morally unconscionable.
Creating
and maintaining the financial and social supports to provide affordable housing
for individuals with disabilities in the community is not only the right thing
to do, it makes fiscal sense. The
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (formerly
AAMR) has determined that it costs 50-75 percent less to provide
services in community-based housing rather than more institutional-type housing
funded by Medicaid.
Several
states have recognized the housing crisis for people with disabilities and have
answered the call by creating innovative, cost-effective solutions.
As part of Hurricane Katrina/Rita
rebuilding policies, the State of
Finally,
as just one example, The Arc of Anne Arundel County in
We know decent, safe,
affordable, and accessible housing adds to the overall community. We know it
makes financial sense for individuals with disabilities to live in
community-based housing. We know federal housing programs are significantly
under-funded and waiting lists are flooded.
And we also know that this under-funded system is poised for further
strain. Approximately 700,000 people
with developmental disabilities live with one or more parents over the age of
65. These aging parents have lovingly
cared for their children, often in silent struggle, for decades. What will happen to these individuals living
at home, and how can we assure our most heroic citizens – parents – that their
children will be properly taken care of?
These circumstances call for
bold, creative, and bipartisan measures.
Priced Out in 2006 recommends that Congress
provide funding to create at least 150,000 new housing units for people with
disabilities over the next ten years.
I say bravo! It is long past time
to acknowledge the tremendous restrictions and barriers that exist for people
with disabilities and remove them one by one.
In order to obtain and
maintain decent, safe, affordable, and accessible housing in the community and
bridge the housing affordability gap identified in Priced Out in 2006:
• People with disabilities who have SSI-level
income must have access to rental subsidies such as those provided by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
and Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities programs.
• The production of new, affordable rental
housing must become a national priority for individuals with significant
long-term disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, physical
disabilities, mental illness, and chronic health conditions.
• We must work with individuals, communities,
foundations, and legislators to demonstrate that safe, affordable, and
accessible housing is not an issue of special interest, but indeed of national
interest.
Housing
is the key for individuals with disabilities.
It is the necessary foundation piece that leads to education,
employment, and active participation in communities. It is where families are nourished,
strengthened, and loved. The
As an advocate for
individuals with intellectual disabilities and their families for over 50
years, I’ve seen the unique power each individual possesses to make a
difference. We’ve made great strides by
working together. But, despite these
efforts and successes, we have much left to accomplish. I urge you to join me and make housing for
all people, but especially our most vulnerable, not just a priority, but your
priority.
I commend TAC and the CCD for
yet again amassing such compelling and needed data in the field of disability
housing. They continue to raise and
maintain awareness on such a critical issue.
I am grateful for their efforts.
Most sincerely,
Eunice Kennedy Shriver
Priced Out in 2006
Findings
The major findings from the Priced Out in 2006 study
include the following:
• In 2006 – for the first time – national average rents for both
one-bedroom and efficiency units were more than the entire monthly income of an
individual relying solely on SSI income.
The national average income of a person with a disability receiving SSI was
$632 per month in 2006. As growth in the
cost of modest rental housing continued to outpace cost-of-living increases in
SSI payments, the national average rent for a one-bedroom apartment rose to
113.1 percent of monthly SSI – up from 109.6 percent in 2004. Studio/efficiency rents rose above monthly
SSI payments for the first time, topping out at 100.1 percent as a national
average compared to 96.1 percent in 2004.
• In 2006, the annual income of a single
individual receiving SSI payments was $7,584 – equal to only 18.2
percent of the national median income for a one-person household and almost 25
percent below the federal poverty level.
• Since the first Priced Out study was published in 1998, the
value of SSI payments relative to median income has declined precipitously –
from 24.4 percent of median income in 1998 to 18.2 percent in 2006 – while
national average rents have skyrocketed.
The national average rent for a modest one-bedroom unit rose from $462 in
1998 to $715 in 2006 – an increase of 55 percent.
• Discretionary state SSI supplements provided by 21 states are not
the solution to the housing affordability problems experienced by people with
disabilities living on SSI payments. The
State of
SSI and Median Income
SSI is the federal income maintenance program that provides
financial support for people with significant and long-term disabilities who
have virtually no assets. In 2006, an
estimated 4 million people between the ages of 18-64 relied on SSI to pay for
their basic needs – including housing.
In 2006, federal SSI monthly income was $603. In addition to the federal payment, 21 states
provided an additional SSI supplement to individuals living independently,
raising the national average SSI payment to $632 per month or $7,584 per
year.
The data in Priced Out in 2006 reveals that people with
disabilities receiving SSI also fell further into poverty between 2004 and
2006. Between 2004 and 2006, the median
income of people with disabilities dropped from 18.4 percent to 18.2 percent of
median income – its lowest level ever. Table 1 below documents SSI as a percentage of one-person median income
for every state in the nation.
Households at or below 30 percent of median income are considered
extremely low-income under HUD guidelines and receive a priority under the
Housing Choice Voucher program. With
incomes at 18.2 percent of median, SSI recipients are one of the lowest-income
groups eligible for federal housing assistance.
|
Table 1: SSI as a
Percentage of One-Person Median Income - 2006 |
||||
|
State |
% of
Median Income |
|
State |
% of
Median Income |
|
|
20.1% |
|
|
21.3% |
|
|
22.7% |
|
|
17.4% |
|
|
18.8% |
|
|
17.4% |
|
|
22.8% |
|
|
15.2% |
|
|
22.4% |
|
|
13.4% |
|
|
16.5% |
|
|
22.4% |
|
|
16.3% |
|
|
19.2% |
|
|
15.3% |
|
|
19.2% |
|
|
11.4% |
|
|
18.1% |
|
|
18.9% |
|
|
17.7% |
|
|
17.7% |
|
|
22.9% |
|
|
15.3% |
|
|
17.6% |
|
|
21.4% |
|
|
18.0% |
|
|
15.5% |
|
|
17.5% |
|
|
17.6% |
|
|
19.5% |
|
|
17.9% |
|
|
20.1% |
|
|
17.4% |
|
|
20.2% |
|
|
21.1% |
|
|
19.0% |
|
|
21.2% |
|
|
18.0% |
|
|
18.9% |
|
|
18.1% |
|
|
13.6% |
|
|
15.6% |
|
|
16.2% |
|
|
17.9% |
|
|
17.0% |
|
|
22.1% |
|
|
17.2% |
|
|
18.9% |
|
|
25.4% |
|
|
17.9% |
|
|
18.1% |
|
National Average |
18.2% |
In the
|
Table 2: Percent of SSI Needed to Rent a One-Bedroom and
Studio/Efficiency Housing Unit - 2006 States
with percentages 100% or higher are listed in bold |
||||||
|
State |
% of
SSI to Rent Studio |
% of
SSI to Rent 1-BR |
|
State |
% of
SSI to Rent Studio |
% of
SSI to Rent 1-BR |
|
|
70.1% |
78.3% |
|
|
66.8% |
77.3% |
|
|
65.9% |
76.8% |
|
|
72.9% |
80.7% |
|
|
89.1% |
103.7% |
|
|
103.8% |
122.2% |
|
|
68.1% |
75.7% |
|
|
102.1% |
120.3% |
|
|
99.5% |
116.3% |
|
|
132.8% |
149.3% |
|
|
95.3% |
108.5% |
|
|
76.6% |
88.0% |
|
|
94.5% |
113.6% |
|
|
126.6% |
137.5% |
|
|
106.5% |
120.1% |
|
|
84.6% |
95.1% |
|
|
165.0% |
188.1% |
|
|
62.2% |
71.7% |
|
|
105.9% |
118.6% |
|
|
74.2% |
85.4% |
|
|
92.0% |
99.5% |
|
|
63.9% |
70.2% |
|
|
143.2% |
169.0% |
|
|
83.0% |
96.8% |
|
|
71.4% |
80.7% |
|
|
87.9% |
100.0% |
|
|
104.6% |
119.6% |
|
|
117.9% |
130.1% |
|
|
77.0% |
87.5% |
|
|
81.4% |
89.6% |
|
|
68.5% |
78.1% |
|
|
64.8% |
71.9% |
|
|
72.5% |
81.7% |
|
|
77.0% |
85.4% |
|
|
66.4% |
75.8% |
|
|
87.6% |
97.0% |
|
|
92.2% |
101.5% |
|
|
84.6% |
93.7% |
|
|
82.6% |
95.6% |
|
|
86.6% |
99.3% |
|
|
130.5% |
147.9% |
|
|
116.4% |
128.4% |
|
|
125.4% |
137.5% |
|
|
85.1% |
97.4% |
|
|
86.3% |
96.5% |
|
|
64.5% |
72.2% |
|
|
76.9% |
89.8% |
|
|
68.3% |
79.8% |
|
|
69.8% |
78.2% |
|
|
69.1% |
75.8% |
|
|
73.7% |
83.0% |
|
National Average |
100.1% |
113.1% |
Priced Out of Affordable Housing Programs
Because payment levels are so low, people who rely on SSI are also
priced out of federally financed “affordable” rental units, including those
created through the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. This program is now the federal government’s
major affordable housing financing tool with more than 110,000 units funded
every year through State Housing Finance Agencies. In its basic form, the
program creates units affordable for households with incomes at 50 percent and
60 percent of median income.
People with disabilities living on SSI payments equal to 18.2
percent of median income simply cannot move in to LIHTC-financed “affordable”
units unless they have rent subsidies.
Providing this type of subsidy to ensure affordability for the
lowest-income households has historically been the responsibility of the
federal government. HUD’s current
leadership argues that it is “too expensive” to provide housing for the poorest
Americans and that scarce federal housing subsidy funding should be directed
“more efficiently” to higher-income households who cost less to serve. It is
tragic that when state housing agencies have the political will to address the
nation’s most serious housing crisis, the federal rent subsidy resources they
need to ensure affordability for people with SSI-level incomes are not
available.
Employment and the Housing Wage
It is often said that the answer to the housing affordability gap
for people with disabilities is employment.
National Housing Wage data makes it clear that when people with
disabilities move from the SSI program to employment, many are still likely to
experience housing affordability problems.
The concept of the Housing Wage was developed by the National Low Income
Housing Coalition (NLIHC) – a national organization dedicated solely to ending
In 2006, the NLIHC’s national Housing
Wage for a one-bedroom rental unit was $13.75.
This means that a household must earn that amount of money per hour
(based on a forty hour work week) to pay the national average rent for a
one-bedroom rental unit based on HUD’s 2006 Fair Market Rents. See Table 3 below for a comparison of
SSI and the NLIHC’s One-Bedroom Housing Wage.
|
Table 3: Hourly SSI
as a Percentage of the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s
One-Bedroom Housing Wage - 2006 |
||||||
|
State |
NLIHC Housing Wage |
Hourly SSI* as % of
NLIHC 1-Bedroom Housing Wage |
|
State |
NLIHC Housing Wage |
Hourly SSI* as % of
NLIHC 1-Bedroom Housing Wage |
|
|
$9.08 |
38.3% |
|
|
$8.97 |
38.8% |
|
|
$14.26 |
39.0% |
|
|
$9.36 |
37.2% |
|
|
$12.03 |
28.9% |
|
|
$14.17 |
24.6% |
|
|
$8.78 |
39.6% |
|
|
$14.58 |
24.9% |
|
|
$18.69 |
25.8% |
|
|
$18.21 |
20.1% |
|
|
$13.10 |
27.7% |
|
|
$10.20 |
34.1% |
|
|
$16.84 |
26.4% |
|
|
$18.24 |
21.8% |
|
|
$13.93 |
25.0% |
|
|
$11.02 |
31.6% |
|
|
$21.81 |
16.0% |
|
|
$8.32 |
41.8% |
|
|
$13.76 |
25.3% |
|
|
$9.91 |
35.1% |
|
|
$11.53 |
30.2% |
|
|
$8.78 |
42.8% |
|
|
$19.59 |
17.8% |
|
|
$11.26 |
31.0% |
|
|
$9.86 |
37.2% |
|
|
$12.12 |
30.0% |
|
|
$13.86 |
25.1% |
|
|
$16.52 |
23.1% |
|
|
$10.15 |
34.3% |
|
|
$10.39 |
33.5% |
|
|
$9.06 |
38.4% |
|
|
$8.55 |
41.7% |
|
|
$9.47 |
36.7% |
|
|
$9.91 |
35.1% |
|
|
$8.79 |
39.6% |
|
|
$11.24 |
31.0% |
|
|
$11.77 |
29.6% |
|
|
$10.86 |
32.0% |
|
|
$11.27 |
31.4% |
|
|
$12.51 |
30.2% |
|
|
$17.16 |
20.3% |
|
|
$14.89 |
23.4% |
|
|
$18.98 |
21.8% |
|
|
$12.16 |
30.8% |
|
|
$11.45 |
31.1% |
|
|
$8.38 |
41.5% |
|
|
$11.81 |
33.4% |
|
|
$10.54 |
37.6% |
|
|
$9.07 |
38.4% |
|
|
$8.94 |
39.6% |
|
|
$9.62 |
36.2% |
|
National Average |
$13.75 |
26.5% |
Trends Since Priced Out in 1998
Perhaps the most shocking revelation in Priced Out in 2006
is the precipitous and relentless decline in housing affordability for SSI
recipients since 1998 when the first edition of Priced Out was
developed. The housing problems of this
vulnerable population have grown substantially worse over the past eight
years. As housing programs that can help
the lowest-income people with disabilities were slashed, modest rents for
one-bedroom units have skyrocketed from 69 percent of SSI to 113.1 percent of
SSI – an astonishing 64 percent increase.
Rents for studio/efficiency units increased 71 percent – from 58.5
percent of SSI in 1998 to 100.1 percent of SSI in 2006 (see Figure A below). During that time,
SSI income dropped 26 percent compared to the one-person median income. The root cause of the nation’s most severe –
and most hidden – housing crisis is clearly revealed in the painful statistics
included in the 2006 edition of Priced Out. These disturbing trends make it clear that
the federal government must act now and must act boldly to reverse housing
policies of the past few years by initiating a significant and sustained
increase in the supply of new rental subsidies targeted to people with
disabilities with the lowest incomes.
|
Figure A: Percent of SSI Need
to Rent a One-Bedroom or Efficiency Unit, 1998 – 2006 Percentages
100% or higher are listed in bold |
||
|
Year |
% of
SSI to Rent Studio |
% of
SSI to Rent 1-BR |
|
1998 |
58.5% |
69.0% |
|
2000 |
82.9% |
98.2% |
|
2002 |
89.2% |
105.5% |
|
2004 |
96.1% |
109.6% |
|
2006 |
100.1% |
113.1% |
The Nation’s “Hidden” Housing Crisis
The true magnitude of this housing crisis remains hidden from most
Americans – including most elected and appointed officials who could do
something about it. To learn its full
dimensions, one must look behind the doors of nursing homes, institutions, and
substandard board and care homes where people with disabilities are “placed” because
they cannot afford decent housing in the community.
Hundreds of thousands of other adults with serious and long-term
disabilities have “hidden” housing problems because they continue to live
tenuously at home with aging parents.
These parents have saved the government – and the taxpayers – enormous
sums of money by continuing to provide housing and support for their adult
children. Many of these parents need care themselves. They simply want the
assurance that their adult child will have a decent, safe, affordable and
accessible home in the community – linked with supportive services if needed –
when they are no longer able to provide it.
Cost-Effectiveness
Helping people with serious and long-term disabilities lead stable
and productive lives in the community is not just the right thing to do, it also saves the government money. Numerous studies have documented that
providing decent, safe, affordable, and accessible housing and support services
in the community costs much less than paying for a nursing home bed, or an
emergency shelter, or a psychiatric hospital stay.
The federal Medicaid budget continues to grow – driven primarily
by the high cost of institutional care.
HHS programs such as “Money Follows the Person” were created because HHS
officials understand that providing Medicaid services and supports in the
community is a much more cost effective approach than facility-based models of
care. What has been missing from this
policy discussion is how people will pay for the housing they need.
Federal officials thus far have elected to ignore this basic math
– which shows that to achieve significant cost savings in programs like
Medicaid, it is necessary to spend a little more money in the HUD budget for
rent subsidies dedicated to people with disabilities. For example, a $5,000 per year Section 811
rent subsidy used by a person with a disability in a LIHTC rental project could
save $10,000-$20,000 or more annually in Medicaid funding for that individual
after taking into consideration the cost of community-based services and supports.
The Solution – Rent Subsidies!
Discretionary state SSI supplements provided by 21 states are not
the solution to the housing affordability problems experienced by people with
disabilities living on SSI payments (see Figure B below for a list of states
that provide SSI supplements to all people with disabilities living
independently.) Despite state supplements, the national average income of a
single person household relying on SSI was almost 25 percent below the federal
poverty level of $9,800.
A monthly rental subsidy – provided through federal programs such
as the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the Section 811 Supportive
Housing for Persons with Disabilities program – is essential to close the
housing affordability “gap” for people with disabilities with extremely low
incomes. Rent subsidy programs ensure that people pay a reasonable portion of
their monthly income for rent and utilities and have money left to pay for
food, clothing, transportation, over-the-counter medical needs, and other
essentials.
|
Figure B: State SSI Supplements
for People with Disabilities Living Independently - 2006 |
|
|
State |
2006
SSI Supplement |
|
|
$362.00 |
|
|
$233.00 |
|
|
$25.00 |
|
|
$168.00 |
|
|
$32.00 |
|
|
$10.00 |
|
|
$114.39 |
|
|
$14.00 |
|
|
$81.00 |
|
|
$27.00 |
|
|
$31.25 |
|
|
$87.00 |
|
|
$48.00 |
|
|
$1.70 |
|
|
$27.40 |
|
|
$57.35 |
|
|
$15.00 |
|
|
$52.04 |
|
|
$46.00 |
|
|
$83.78 |
|
|
$10.44 |
HHS Community Integration Policies at Risk
Despite highly touted HHS policies to help people with
disabilities move into the community, HUD rent subsidies for people with
disabilities have declined substantially during recent years. The most striking example is the deep cut in
new units of supportive housing for people with disabilities funded through the
Section 811 program. This important program targeted exclusively to people with
the most serious and long-term disabilities has helped thousands of people move
successfully from institutions and other restrictive settings to affordable and
accessible housing in the community.
Current federal policies – including the “Money Follows the
Person” and Real Choice Systems Change initiatives – are intended to help
people eligible for SSI to move from institutional settings or their family
home to integrated housing of their choice in the community. Disability advocates repeatedly have warned
federal officials that HHS policies promoting community integration will fail
unless there is a parallel commitment to significantly increase federal housing
programs targeted to people with disabilities at SSI income levels. Incredibly,
since these HHS initiatives were announced, HUD has repeatedly proposed to eliminate
the development of new units under the Section 811 Supportive Housing for
Persons with Disabilities program – the federal program specifically created
for this purpose.
Over the past decade, the supply of new Section 811 units produced
each year has plunged from more than 3,500 units in the mid-1990s to a mere 790
units projected for 2007. The Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher program – HUD’s most important rent subsidy program for
households with extremely low incomes including people with disabilities – also
has been under attack by federal officials trying to reduce so-called
“discretionary” spending. Since 2003, HUD has proposed repeatedly to end the
voucher program and divert its valuable funding away from the lowest-income
households most in need of assistance.
A Bold Response – Campaign for 150,000 New Federal Subsidies
A bold response from the federal government is essential to
reverse these harmful policies and initiate a systematic approach to provide
people with disabilities the housing assistance they need and deserve. To address this compelling housing crisis
that affects our nation’s most vulnerable citizens, the CCD Housing Task Force
and TAC are calling on the federal government to create 150,000 new federal
rental subsidies targeted to people with disabilities over the next ten years. It has become clear that without a
comprehensive, sustained, and bi-partisan commitment to this issue,
appropriations will continue to stagnate or decline.
Two federal subsidy programs must provide the resources for this
150,000 Unit Campaign:
• The Housing Choice Voucher program – 100,000 subsidies
• The Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
program – 50,000 subsidies
These are the only two HUD programs that can provide new permanent
rent subsidies for non-elderly people with disabilities with extremely low
incomes. TAC and the CCD Housing Task
Force believe the goal of 150,000 new federal rent subsidies is well within
reach. When the federal government takes
the lead to provide 150,000 new subsidies, many local and state government
housing officials will follow suit and contribute additional federal resources
under their control.
While bold in comparison to current federal policies and funding
levels, the CCD/TAC plan is based on reasonable production and appropriation
levels that received bi-partisan support just a few years ago when rental
housing for the most vulnerable Americans was considered an important federal
policy objective.
By simply committing to provide 10,000 new Housing Choice Vouchers
and 5,000 new Section 811 rent subsidies each year for the next ten years, the
federal government could achieve the laudable policy goals adopted by HHS and
can play a leadership role in helping people with disabilities leave
institutions and other restrictive settings, assuring elderly parents that
their adult child with a disability will have a home after they are no longer
able to provide it, and prevent the tragedy of homelessness among people with
disabilities.
Using Priced Out Data to Make a Difference
Priced Out in 2006 makes it clear that people
with disabilities are being left out and left behind when it comes to national
housing policy. Using Priced Out in 2006, we must work together to
convince our federal, state and local housing officials who control valuable
rental subsidy resources that the acute housing problems experienced by people
with disabilities with the lowest incomes must be addressed by a bold
commitment to end this crisis.
Housing advocates can use Priced
Out in 2006 local and state level data included in Appendix A of Priced
Out in 2006 to engage housing officials in a dialogue about the housing
needs of people with disabilities.
We also urge you to use Priced
Out data to convince your local and state housing officials to adopt a high
priority for people with disabilities with SSI level incomes within their local
and state housing policies. Four
mandated federal housing plans – the Consolidated Plan, the Public Housing
Agency Plan, the Continuum of Care Plan, and the Qualified Allocation Plan –
are prepared at the state and local level and determine how billions of federal
housing funds will be spent. For more
information on these plans see the “Using Priced Out Information”
section of Priced Out in 2006.
TAC and the CCD Housing Task
Force urge all advocates in the disability community to use the data in Priced
Out to support our campaign to create 150,000 new housing opportunities for
people with disabilities during the next ten years and to advocate with your
Congressional delegation so that these new resources can be provided.
As Eunice Kennedy Shriver
writes so eloquently in the Foreword of Priced Out
in 2006, the disability community has made great strides by working
together but we still have much to accomplish.
To achieve the goal of true community integration for people with
disabilities, we must all make affordable housing our priority!