Contents Foreword Intro Findings Using PO in '06 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D

 

Key Findings

 

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.  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. (See Table 1 and Table 2.) See Figure 3 for a map of the United States displaying percentages of SSI needed to rent a one-bedroom housing unit.

 

    From 2004-2006, people with disabilities who relied on SSI as their source of income descended further into poverty.  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.  (See Table 3.)

 

    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 Alaska – which has the highest state SSI supplement of $362 and a total monthly SSI payment of $965 – best illustrates this finding.  In Alaska in 2006, people with disabilities receiving SSI still needed to pay 77 percent of their monthly income to rent a modest one-bedroom unit.  (See Table 5 for state SSI state supplement data.)

 

Priced Out in 2006 uses a very simple but compelling methodology to measure the severity of the housing affordability problems experienced by people with disabilities in today’s rental housing market.  By comparing HUD Fair Market Rents with the purchasing power of monthly SSI payments – including state SSI supplements – one can easily determine whether a single adult receiving SSI can obtain affordable housing in the current rental housing market.  Unfortunately, the answer to this question is a resounding no in every single one of the nation’s 2605 distinct metropolitan and non-metropolitan housing market areas.

 


 

 

SSI and Median Income

 

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. 

 

Median income is an important housing policy indicator because most government housing programs have eligibility requirements that relate to median income.  For example, all households at or below 50 percent of median income qualify for HUD public housing units, Housing Choice Vouchers, and HUD Assisted Housing with project-based Section 8 units. 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.

 

 

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 America’s affordable housing crisis.  Each year, the NLIHC publishes Out of Reach – a rental housing cost analysis similar to Priced Out that includes all low-income households.  Affordability in the context of the Housing Wage is also defined as paying no more than 30 percent of income for rental housing costs.

 

 

In 2006, the NLIHC’s national Housing Wage for a one-bedroom rental unit was $13.75.5  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.  As stated in Out of Reach:

 

The Federal minimum wage today is $5.15, as it has been since 1997.  Comparing the federal minimum wage to the National Housing Wage is a strong indication that simply working full-time at “just any job” is not sufficient to provide a person access to affordable housing today.

-          Out of Reach (www.nlihc.org)

 

See Table 4 for a comparison of SSI and the NLIHC’s One-Bedroom Housing Wage.

 


 

 

Trends Since Priced Out in 1998

 

Priced Out in 2006 reveals that the housing problems of people with disabilities receiving SSI have grown substantially worse over the past eight years.  Since the publication of Priced Out in 1998, 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 2.)

 

As rents for modest units soared, the income of people with disabilities receiving SSI dropped substantially compared to median income – from 24.4 percent of median income in 1998 to 18.2 percent in 2006.  This deadly combination of escalating rents and the declining value of SSI means that the affordable housing crisis confronting people with disabilities has now reached epic proportions.

 

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.  Even if “the bottom falls out” of the rental housing market or SSI payments increase significantly – or both – people with disabilities with the lowest incomes will still not have enough money to pay for decent housing – even housing produced through other so-called “affordable” housing programs.

 

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.  A few progressive states – including North Carolina, Louisiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania – have implemented policies that provide lower rents for people with disabilities for certain units in LIHTC projects.  However, they need new federal rent subsidies to continue these “best practice” policies and produce more units at scale.

 

Providing this type of “deep” rental 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. 

 

TAC/CCD Campaign for 150,000 New Federal Subsidies

 

 

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.  By making a ten-year commitment to create 15,000 subsidies each year the federal government 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.

 

TAC and the CCD Housing Task Force believe the goal of 150,000 new federal rent subsidies is well within reach:

 

    For the Housing Choice Voucher program, Congress should return to the extraordinarily successful bi-partisan policy of the late 1990s and again appropriate 10,000 new vouchers each year targeted to people with disabilities.  These vouchers are needed because the supply of studio/efficiency and one-bedroom federally subsidized units for non-elderly adults with disabilities has declined by 50 percent since “elderly only” designation policies were approved by Congress in 1992.  HUD data indicate that over 500,000 of the nation’s one million subsidized studio/efficiency and one-bedroom units now have “elderly only” policies – closing the door to thousands of non-elderly people with disabilities.

 

    For the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, Congress should adopt the recommendations of TAC and the CCD Housing Task Force and enact major legislative reforms in the Section 811 program.  By creating a structured link between the “affordable” units in federal LIHTC properties and Section 811 project-based rent subsidies, people with disabilities will have much greater access to high quality new rental units – including accessible and barrier-free units – produced routinely every year through this “affordable” housing program.  Modest increases in current Section 811 funding levels accompanied by these major program improvements will inaugurate a new and promising era in federal supportive housing policy for people with disabilities.

 

TAC and the CCD Housing Task Force believe that 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.  For example, federal HOME funds managed at the state and local level, and existing Housing Choice Vouchers, could be prioritized for community integration strategies.  Collectively these efforts could result in an increase in housing opportunities for people with disabilities far beyond the 150,000 new federal subsidies.

 

Other Important Federal Policies

 

In addition to new rental subsidies targeted to people with disabilities from the Housing Choice Voucher program and Section 811 program, the CCD Housing Task Force and TAC urge the federal government take affirmative action on two related policy goals:

 

    Enact the National Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007, which will expand affordable rental housing opportunities for people with disabilities by targeting extremely low-income households at or below 30 percent of median income; and

 

    Achieve the goal of ending chronic homelessness by expanding the number of new permanent supportive housing units provided through HUD’s McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance programs.

 


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.6

 

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.  As mentioned earlier, what has been missing from this policy discussion is how people will pay for the housing they need.7

 

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.8

 

Conclusion – 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.  Despite the powerful civil rights message about community inclusion and community integration in the Americans with Disabilities Act, this law is an empty promise for the lowest-income people with disabilities as long as they cannot afford decent, safe and affordable housing in the community.  Recent federal housing policies, extremely low SSI incomes and rising rents have combined to create the “perfect storm” in terms of the housing crisis experienced by people with disabilities in today’s rental housing market.

 

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.

 

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.  Housing advocates can use Priced Out in 2006 local and state level data included in Appendix A to positively affect these plans and help increase affordable housing opportunities for people with disabilities.  See “Using Priced Out Information” to learn more about these housing plans.

 

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.  As Eunice Kennedy Shriver writes so eloquently in the Foreword of this publication, 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!

 

 Continue to "Using Priced Out Information"...

 

 

End Notes

 

1 Single individuals receiving SSI may not have assets that exceed $2,000.

 

2 Some states provide SSI supplements for people with specific types of disabilities and/or people with disabilities residing in certain housing “program” settings such as group homes or licensed board and care facilities.  Only those state SSI supplements received by all people with disabilities living in the community are included in the Priced Out in 2006 study analysis.

 

3 Gold, Steve.  “Congratulations Money Follow the Person Awardees.” Information Bulletin # 188:

www.stevegoldada.com.

 

4 The 2005 State of the States in Developmental Disabilities report found that 711,000 adults with developmental disabilities were still living in the family home where at least one parent was age 62 years  or older.

 

5 The national one-bedroom Housing Wage of $13.75 was calculated using national Fair Market Rent averages and data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

 

6 For more information on these studies, see www.tacinc.org/HH/Louisiana.htm.

 

7 While HHS has offered housing advice and technical assistance to states with “Money Follows the Person” grants, most of the housing  resources suggested – such as existing Housing Choice Vouchers or HOME program funding – either have extremely long waiting lists or only provide short-term assistance. Federal rules do not permit Medicaid funds to be used for rental subsidies.

 

8 While the cost of providing Medicaid-funded community-based services can vary greatly from person to person, studies have repeatedly found that the cost of providing housing and supports in the community is considerably less than the cost of facility-based care.

 

Continue to "Using Priced Out Information"...