HUD must only and always report the truth to Congress on Homelessness. Take action now! HUD is accepting comments on final HMIS rules until February 7, 2012. The rules will determine how & when homeless people will be counted, privacy rights, funding levels for local shelters and services. HUD needs to hear from YOU & all local communities. We must balance the needs of the social service community with the rights of those seeking help.

What is the issue?
HUD is seeking comments on the rules for collecting information from homeless individuals at the shelters and aggregating that information to deliver statistics to Congress. Comments due to HUD by February 7, 2012.

Why should you respond?
The final rules will determine the privacy rights for those seeking help. The numbers collected and the outcomes could determine the funding levels for local shelters. The experiences with HMIS at the  local level are important.

What are possible outcomes?
HMIS can be costly to implement locally. A goal of HMIS is to balance the needs of the social service community with the rights of those seeking support. Overall, HMIS should provoke greater incite into solving homelessness.

To respond to the new proposed rules:
Send Comments using the federal eRulemaking Website: http://www.regulations.gov

Docket Number FR-5475-P-01 Title: Homeless Management Information Systems Requirements

Save a copy of the body of your comments and send them to info@nationalhomeless.org for our records at the National Coalition for the Homeless.

Background:
Please use this outline as a basis for submitting comments to HUD regarding the proposed rules for HMIS that were released in  December. It is important to add your local statistics, experiences, and examples to augment this list.

Comments are due to HUD by February 7, 2012 and can be submitted to www.regulations.gov by using the docket
and title of the proposed rules. The National Coalition is urging local advocates, social service providers and those experiencing homelessness to submit comments on these new rules. We believe that HMIS can be a huge burden on a small non-profit trying to provide services to those struggling with their housing, but can have great rewards in coordinating services, reducing paperwork, and providing high quality referrals to those experiencing homelessness.

Here are some comments that you can use in submitting a response to these rules. We urge you to include local activities and examples to support these comments. We believe that HUD officials will listen to local caretakers of the homeless population and your concerns over HMIS.

Comments Regarding HMIS
(Our local group) has accepted the use of HMIS to improve the delivery of services to those experiencing homelessness, but we do not support the use of HMIS as a system to report the extent of homelessness to Congress. We have seen that the statistics are often mistaken for a count of the total number of people homeless in a city or county. No matter how many qualifiers are included in the national Annual Homeless Assessment Report, both elected officials and the media mismanage the data as a complete count of homelessness. There is such wide disparity in how this data is collected that there is no way to compare among service provider and certainly between
cities this case management data. We believe that a voluntary case management system would be worthwhile to collect data, but a mandatory system that attempts to collect an unduplicated count is nearly impossible in such a fractured system.

In a period of tightening budgets and federal cuts, we believe that these resources could be redirected to basic human services or housing assistance instead of the administrative services of counting people. We see the value of one electronic case management system overseen by HUD used by every social service provider in a community. If the eventual goal is to arrive at the number of homeless people in a city or state as stated by Congress, we believe that HUD would receive much better information by funding local experts to conduct a census in representative cities. We believe that local universities or foundations in various size representative cities, suburbs, and rural jurisdictions could develop an accurate estimate of the number of homeless people and then they could use that data to extrapolate a national estimate of homelessness.

That being said we do have concerns about the proposed rules that were released in December 2011.

1. It should be made clear that there is not a minimum participation rate by clients for the social service provider. The user who is experiencing a housing emergency and refuses to enter data should not result in a penalty or an issue with the performance standards for the local social service provider. [It would be good
   to add a local example of this issue from your community]. If a user refuses to enter their social security number or other personal identifying information that should not result in a reduction in public support or a sanction for the social service provider. The shelter or meal program should be held harmless if their clients decide to withhold personal required in the HMIS database.
2. We believe that the security standards should emphatically and unequivocally state that law enforcement agencies should not have access to personal identifying information contained within the HMIS data without a warrant signed by a member of the judicial branch of government. We understand that some  communities have the local sheriff maintains the HMIS data.
3. We believe that the requirement for every publicly funded homeless service provider contribute data to a central management system is an unfunded mandate from the federal government. There should be dedicated resources separate from the Emergency Solutions Grant or Continuum funding to implement this project. [It would be good to add local information on the number of staff dedicated strictly to entering data at your
   facility.]
4. We believe that there are a number of state privacy laws that make it difficult for local agencies to submit data under these proposed rules. [Many states have strict controls over the use of social security numbers when accessing government services, which could present a conflict for the local provider who also receives federal continuum funding. If you know that this is the case in your state, please site specific local or state law.]
5. We believe that the HMIS security standards should be subject to HUD oversight and public comment. The security standards, local policies and procedures and grievance process should be posted on an easily accessible publicly available website. Those experiencing homelessness should be able to submit comment
   and have those comments responded to by the local HMIS Lead in an easy and accessible manner.
6. There are no protections for clients outlined for improper usage or improper release of data especially privacy violations by an HMIS Lead organization. We believe that if there is a break down in privacy at the local level and the policies and procedures break down there should be a way for an individual seeking assistance or currently utilizing a Continuum funded program to file a grievance with a government agency with regard to HMIS. In addition, with the exchange of data among local providers and the transient nature of the population, it is often difficult for a person experiencing homelessness to determine where a security
   breach originated. We believe that a government agency should be the final arbiter of a complaint especially if there are repeated problems with the protection of privacy at the local level. This is especially important if the HMIS Lead organizations are also permitted to be collectors of personal and private client data as service providers as well.
7. Since this data is being used by the public and Congress for planning and local decision making on the proper allocation of resources, there should be a way for advocates or the public to challenge the data’s accuracy. There should be a way for the HUD to accept challenges to the unduplicated numbers submitted
   as either a significant undercount or an over-count of the actual number of homeless people in a community as is policy for the US Census. These comments should be included with the release of the Annual Homeless Assessment Report.

After more than a decade of research and analysis, NCH has proven that behaviors that begin as hurtful towards the homeless often devolve into bias motivated criminal acts of hate. We are reminded of these facts all too often, in media stories that year after year possess increasingly more brutal forms of abuse.

Hurtful thoughts and acts based on the bias of one person towards another, quickly becomes a hate crime. A hurtful video game which rewards players who beat or kill homeless characters can quickly devolve into a crime of actual physical violence and hate. The taunting of people seeking refuge from the cold can overnight turn into a bias motivated act of hate-filled violence.

NCH believes that the eradication of hate crimes can only occur if there is a complete understanding and accounting of these crimes. Furthermore, there must be a willingness to challenge the motivations of people who choose to ignore the very existence of these crimes.

Each year, NCH releases a Hate Crimes against the Homeless Report. NCH invites you to read this year’s report, Violence Hidden in Plain View, a factual accounting of bias motivated crimes against un-housed individuals in the order of their occurrence. It is also a report that, in its entirety, illustrates the deadly consequences of decades of failed housing policies and social reforms.

“We are the National Coalition for the Homeless.  We give our time, our energy, our talents, our resources and our money to make sure everyone has a home. Why do we do this?  We give generously of ourselves because we believe that home is the singular foundation that supports us, protects us, and enables us to build better lives and a better world.   A home can be a physical structure where we can store foods and cook nutritious meals so our bodies will be strong.  It is a place where we can get clean so we can stay healthy. Homes ideally have a safe and comfortable space where we can curl up when we are tired, sick, and weary, where we can close our eyes and revitalize ourselves so we can get up and live another day.  A house is a physical place and space. A house and a home can be similar, but they are not necessarily the same.

Photo thanks to pillowhead designs on Flickr

A home is far more than walls and refrigerators and beds.  While “a house is made of walls and beams, a home is built with love and dreams.”  A home is where people care for us, listen to us, help us, and believe in us. Home is where our values are born and where our futures are paved.  “Home is where the heart is” is a commonly held notion, and people think of home as the place where they grew up, played, laughed, and shared fond memories. Children need a home to give them a good start in life, since “home is where one starts from,” as T. S. Eliot reminds us.   What children get in the home sets them up for the rest of their lives. Our nation’s original leaders knew this; Benjamin Franklin reminded us that “a house is not a home unless it contains food and fire for the mind as well as the body.”  Home is where we have the space to think, to read, to reflect, to work and to plan. It is the place where we may become loved and accepted for whatever we are.  Home comforts us when things don’t go well and celebrates our joys and accomplishments.

Sometimes people may have shelter but no sense of security. Their struggles of fighting to survive, to hold a job, to have enough to eat and a place to sleep may be exhausting and enormous. The pressures associated with lack may be overwhelming and lead us down a path filled with problems and despair.  The social forces associated with poverty may rip families apart and etch in the minds of children a picture of reality in which they are not enough and the world doesn’t care for or about them. Children may not have a mental place where they can go to be safe or build dreams.  They may suffer from a lack of belongingness.  Physical homelessness breeds emotional homelessness, and neither type is good for individuals or the world.

What happens in the home doesn’t stay in the home. When children live in a sense of abundance they can grow forward to spread it around to others; when they are deprived they will require assistance to merely survive.   We are all interconnected. One person’s sense of lack inevitably impacts us; we pay for others not having or being “enough” with our own money, time, energy, and resources. The biggest way lack hurts us is by creating a skewed way of thinking about things, ourselves, and each other. The result is that our world suffers from the creation of a host of preventable social problems.   Conversely, every act of loving kindness and generosity nurtures the heart and makes the world a better place. Confucius said that the strength of a nation is derived from the integrity of the home. Growing strong children brings forth strong societies. We don’t need a crystal ball to show us what will happen if all levels of society don’t step up to help children and families – the result is inevitable and unpleasantly clear.

We are the National Coalition for the Homeless.  We fight for people who are downtrodden because the integrity of society depends upon someone having a voice for those whose plight is ignored or discounted.  We fight for the homeless because we believe in our nation’s underlying principle of equality. We believe that each person should be treated with respect. We fight for democracy-in-action so those deemed the least among us may have the same chances as those who are regarded as best. We fight for the homeless because our nation can’t build a strong house without investing in the human foundation. We believe that homelessness is unacceptable for any citizen of the United States of America.  We fight for those who are homeless because others can’t, won’t or don’t. We hope that each citizen, organization, and governmental leader will join us in a new partnership to ensure our nation’s mandate of liberty and justice for all.”

With the 2011 calendar drawing to a close and our 2012 strategic plan at its midway point, I’m pleased to say that we’re on a direct and correct course for advancing NCH’s mission: “To prevent and end homelessness, while ensuring that the immediate needs of those experiencing homelessness are met and that their civil rights are protected.” We have accomplished a great deal in partnership with homeless Americans by protecting advancements in public policy, restoring and defending civil rights, holding accountable banks and housing officials for their role in the foreclosure crisis, and setting community standards for homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing.

While we recognize the progress we’ve made thus far, we must also identify those things which have prevented us from functioning expeditiously and accomplishing the interim steps that appeared so do-able at first blush. As we look towards next year, the three most severe and direct challenges for those we serve and for our organization specifically will be the difficult national economy, the resulting reductions in revenue from grants and contributions, and the mounting fatigue towards persistent poverty and homelessness.

The tradition of the holiday “wish list” seems an appropriate metaphor for the closing of this year’s holiday message…

In difficult times, when it seems that providing resources and direct service are the only activities that deserve your attention – Understand the important role that NCH’s advocacy plays in protecting & preserving those resources & services…

When donors are faced with their own financial challenges – Consider that NCH depends on your continued support and that your responsibility to those most in need grows more important in difficult times and is appreciated all the more…

AND, as homeless hate crimes grow, criminalizing homelessness becomes common, affordable housing disappears and low income workers fail to earn a livable wage – Remember the homeless and those who proudly and honorably serve every day.

Remember the National Coalition for the Homeless.

Recently, many states have introduced policies that would require drug tests for welfare recipients, as reported by the New York Times. States hope that these new policies will be more “fair” and will cut the budget. However, studies show that these policies are ineffective and hurt those who need the most help.

Though some argue that these programs are better because they restrict welfare only to those who want it enough to stop using drugs, this argument fails to take into account why those in poverty would use drugs in the first place. In the 2002 study, “Substance Use Among Welfare Recipients: Trends and Policy Responses” by Harold Pollack and others found that “adverse experiences, such as childhood trauma or experiences of violence, may lead some women both to seek welfare and to initiate or to increase their substance use.” Therefore, restricting welfare recipients harms more than just those who choose to use drugs; it hurts those who experience both poverty and prior abuse.

Pollack expressed his unchanging beliefs, as in a 2011 blog post he wrote, “[Alcohol and drug] disorders are important within specific populations – most crucially, welfare recipients facing child abuse or neglect issues.” Laura Schmidt, in the 1998 Alcohol Research Group study “Substance Abuse and the Course of Welfare Dependency,” had similar findings: “AFDC [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] recipients’ substance abuse problems appeared to have little effect on their future prospects for leaving welfare…. the strongest determinants of welfare dependency…correspond quite directly to…the economic hardships of single parents and their young children.” Quite simply, the argument that new welfare policies requiring drug tests just hurt those who choose to irresponsibly use drugs makes little sense.

Furthermore, the new welfare laws fail to provide means for people to have substance abuse treatment. In response to the New York Times article mentioned above, Director and President of the Legal Action Center New York wrote, “The vast majority of testing legislation also fails to allocate money for treatment, even though it is an extremely efficient use of taxpayer money.” Not surprisingly, in a 2000 study, “Sever Mental Illness and Substance Use Disorders among Former Supplemental Security Income Beneficiaries for Drug Addiction and Alcoholism, Dr. James Swartz and others found that “studies of former welfare recipients…have found that substance dependence and psychiatric illness are among the most notable barriers to gaining and maintaining employment.” Welfare reform that encompasses treatment and job training would be much more effective at improving the livelihood of those in poverty than removing all assistance from those with drug problems.

The “Housing First” method of ending homelessness also contributes to the arguments against drug testing welfare recipients. Under this method, those experiencing homelessness can begin to receive transitional housing and job training without first becoming sober. It is much easier for someone to become sober when in a hospitable environment as opposed to when living in the streets without much food or other needs. Requiring welfare recipients to first have a negative drug test is directly at odds with the successful method of Housing First. In a 2010 presentation to the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Benjamin Henwood found that “Housing First providers were able to focus more on clinical concerns since consumers and already obtained permanent housing.” Housing First programs recognize that facilitating a person’s successful recovery and employment opportunities requires assistance to put the person’s life back on track. Housing First contributes to the argument that welfare services as a whole must meet people at their level of need, including potential substance abuse.

Luckily, some of the new welfare laws have been deemed unconstitutional. However, we cannot rely on the courts to ensure that these laws do not have effect. These new laws should not pass in the first place because they disproportionately hurt those in society who need the most help in finding employment to move out of needing welfare.

*Studies show that only 20-30% of the homeless population suffers from substance abuse.  It is often the case that people believe the majority of people who are on the streets suffer from substance abuse, but lack of affordable housing remains the number one cause of homelessness. Read more from Jaqueline Dowd, Poverty Lawyer, on how advocates are pushing to make drug-testing welfare recipients illegal.