Table of Contents
Part I
Abbreviations
Abstract
Introduction
Part II
Introduction to Case Studies
Atlanta
Boston
Los Angeles
New York
San Francisco
Seattle
Part III
Conclusion and Recommendations
Part IV
Appendix
Part I
Abbreviations
AIDS - Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeCBO - Community Based Organization
CDC - Center for Disease Control
CDBG - Community Development Block Grants
EMSA or MSA - Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area
HOPWA - Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
HUD - Housing and Urban Development
PWA - Person With AIDS
SPNS - Special Project of National Significance
SRO - Single Room Occupancy
STAP - Short Term Assistance Program
Abstract
The AIDS epidemic in the U.S. has begun to slowly fade from public consciousness. Press coverage is rare which has led many people to believe that AIDS no longer represents a problem. Unfortunately, this could not be further from the truth, considering that close to a million Americans are affected by HIV/AIDS. AIDS in fact has gone through a transformation in the past decade. No longer is it primarily a white, gay, urban disease. Today women are affected at the same rate as men, and the prevalence rate is alarmingly high for African Americans and Latinos. Furthermore, AIDS has gone rural, affecting desolate communities that do not have the infrastructure nor programs to treat a special needs population.
AIDS also continues to disproportionately affect low income people, and this has grave consequences when trying to secure a place to live for a person with AIDS (PWA) and their family. Rents in many cities are skyrocketing, and with the inability for many PWA to work due to medical needs and their overall health, acquiring housing is second only to quality health care as a fundamental need. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) is the only federal program that provides funds specifically for housing and housing services for PWA. The HOPWA program is intentionally flexible with regard to how funds can be spent to address changing needs and regional differences. As a result of this flexibility, HOPWA programs vary from city to city. Through examining the differences between various HOPWA programs, strengths and weaknesses become apparent. Thus, this report evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the various city programs and what policies can be adopted to make those programs more effective. An overall increase in HOPWA funding and the need for funds to be set aside specifically for the development of AIDS housing is recommended. Advisory committees established by the cities should be restructured to guard against a possible conflict of interest when committee members are themselves recipients of the funding disbursed by the committee.
IntroductionSince 1996, the number of deaths caused by AIDS has steadily declined compared to the devastating statistics in the eighties and early nineties. In 1994, approximately 50,000 persons with AIDS died, and in 1999 that number had decreased to 16,000(1). Although the deaths have decreased, AIDS prevalence has steadily increased year to year, a trend that will continue as long as the number of persons with a new AIDS diagnosis exceeds the number of persons dying each year(2). Furthermore, the demographics of AIDS are changing(3). Infection rates for African Americans and Latinos are alarmingly high, and now women are being affected at the same rate as men.(4)
With the steady increase in the number of PWA, and the lengthening of many of their lives as the result of highly active anti-retroviral therapy, the need for housing assistance has been increasing(5). As more PWA live longer, the greater the need for housing assistance. The lack of affordable and appropriate housing for persons with HIV/AIDS is a continual concern for AIDS housing providers, policy makers, and advocates across the country. Stable housing can facilitate improved health status, sobriety and a decreased use of nonprescriptive drugs, and a return for some persons with AIDS to productive work and social activities(6).
More people are living with AIDS in the United States than ever before, and the Center for Disease Control reported 816,149 cumulative cases by December 2001. Half of those individuals, or 408,075 persons, will be in need of housing assistance during some point of their illness. That number will only rise as the life expectancy rate increases as new drugs are introduced that prolong the life of those living with the disease. The relationship of homelessness to HIV/AIDS has pushed its way to the forefront of issues surrounding the epidemic. Many studies have concluded that people with HIV/AIDS have a higher risk for homelessness. According to estimates, one-third to one-half of those with HIV/AIDS are either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, and an alarming 50 percent of PWA are estimated to need housing assistance during the course of their illness(7).
To address the housing needs of PWA, the U.S. Congress created the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program as a part of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990(8). Under HOPWA, states and localities receive funding annually to develop long-term comprehensive strategies for meeting the housing needs of PWA and their families(9). The federal government established the Office of HIV/AIDS Housing (OHH) in 1992, which primarily functions to administer the HOPWA program. In fiscal year 2002, a total of $247,889 million was allocated, by formula, to 108 grantees. These grantees represented 74 eligible metropolitan statistical areas (EMSA), usually referring to a large city and its surrounding cities, and 34 eligible States for areas outside of EMSA’s. States can apply for HOPWA funds as their own entity, in most cases, to combat the growing need for AIDS housing in rural areas. This amount has increased since 1992 when the total amount was $42.9 million awarded to 38 grantees (27 cities and 11 States)(10). There are three ways EMSA’s, States and nonprofits can obtain funds; the HOPWA Formula Program, the HOPWA Competitive Program, and the HOPWA National Technical Assistance Funding awards.
The HOPWA Formula Program distributes funds using a statutory formula that relies on AIDS statistics (cumulative AIDS cases and area incidence) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).The funds are allocated through a formula entitlement process to the most populous city in an EMSA and to eligible states. The qualifications set forth by the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) state that metropolitan areas with a population of more than 500,000 and at least 1,500 cumulative AIDS cases are eligible for HOPWA formula grants(11). States can apply for the formula program based on their proportionate share of cumulative AIDS cases. About 90 percent of funds are allocated through the HOPWA Formula Program.
The HOPWA Competitive Program is the second way funds can be administered. Ten percent of available HOPWA funds are awarded as grants during a competitive selection of projects proposed by State, city and local governments, and by nonprofit organizations(12). Furthermore, the HOPWA Competitive Program grants may be awarded to existing grants as renewals or to new projects(13). HUD generally selects 20 to 22 HOPWA projects for the Competitive Program each year that provide housing and supportive services for low income people with AIDS and their families(14). Specifically, Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS) are awarded through the Competitive Program. Due to their unprecedented nature or their potential for replication, SPNS projects are likely to serve as effective models in addressing the needs of eligible people(15). The Competitive Program is an essential component to HOPWA because it allows for further funding for a specific area in conjunction with what that area might have received through the Formula Program.
The last way funds are administered is through the HOPWA National Technical Assistance (TA) grant. The goal of this specific grant is to strengthen the management, operation, and capacity of HOPWA grantees, project sponsors, and potential applicants of HOPWA funding(16). TA grants are awarded to programs that focus on helping communities develop comprehensive strategies for HIV/AIDS housing, ensuring sound management of HOPWA programs, providing national HOPWA information to connect clients with assistance, and programs that use HUD management tools to help achieve performance at the highest levels(17). TA grants are attainable by city, state, local governments or nonprofit organizations. Approximately $2.5 million in funding was provided in 2001 for the HOPWA National Technical Assistance program, which represented exactly one percent of the available HOPWA appropriations(18). The TA grant is an important component to HOPWA because the funds are completely committed to strengthening the management and operations of AIDS housing providers.
HOPWA funds may be used for a wide range of housing, social services, program planning, and development costs. The following activities may be carried out with HOPWA funds:
- Housing information including counseling, information, and referral services to assist an eligible person to locate, acquire, finance and maintain housing. This may also include fair housing counseling for eligible persons who may encounter discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, familial status or handicap;
- Resource identification to establish, coordinate and develop housing assistance resources for eligible persons;
- Acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, lease, and repair of facilities to provide housing and services;
- New construction (for single room occupancy (SRO) dwellings and community residences only);
- Project or tenant based rental assistance, including assistance for shared housing arrangements;
- Short-term rent, mortgage, and utility payments to prevent the homelessness of the tenant or owner of a dwelling (also known as STAP);
- Supportive services including health, mental health, assessment, permanent housing placement, drug and alcohol abuse treatment and counseling, day care, personal assistance, nutritional services, intensive care when required, and assistance in gaining access to local, State, and Federal government benefits and services, except that health service may only be provided to individuals with AIDS or related diseases and not to family members of these individuals;
- Operating costs for housing including maintenance, security, operation, insurance, utilities, furnishings, equipment, supplies, and other incidental costs;
- Technical assistance in establishing and operating a community residence, including planning and other pre-development or pre-construction expenses, including costs associated with community outreach and educational activities regarding AIDS or related diseases for persons residing in proximity to the community residence (to combat NIMBY-ism);
- Administrative expenses for a grantee that must not exceed 3 percent of the grant amount for its administrative costs relating to administering grant amounts and allocating such amounts to project sponsors(19).
An important component of HOPWA is its Short Term Rent, Mortgage and Utilities Assistance Program (STAP). HOPWA regulation 24CFR Section 574.330 (a) states “...rent, mortgage, and utility payments to prevent homelessness of the tenant or mortgagor of a dwelling may not be provided to such an individual for these costs accruing over a period of more than 21 weeks in any 52 week period” (see Appendix 1 for a complete list of HOPWA regulations). Unlike Section 8 (see Appendix 6) and similar housing programs, STAP has a limited funding cycle which makes it a less desirable program for a low income PWA.
While all of those involved in AIDS Housing share the objective of providing housing and assistance to those with HIV/AIDS and their families, the strategies for combating the problem vary from one place to the next. The HOPWA program acknowledges the unique and changing needs and circumstances of communities across the country, and as a result, provides grantees and providers with a significant amount of flexibility in accomplishing this goal(20). It is important for the HOPWA program to be adaptable since the demographics of people with HIV/AIDS changes as well as their needs. In a survey conducted for a national evaluation of the HOPWA program for HUD, about half of the grantee respondents indicated that they used some type of advisory group to help determine priorities for the allocations for their HOPWA funds.
Although not required, the formation of advisory groups is supposed to help the city or EMSA stay current on providing services and programs that people with HIV/AIDS need. These groups included planning councils, AIDS service organizations, clients or persons living with HIV/AIDS, and groups related to housing, including housing commissions and homeless assistance task forces(21). One of the essential conflicts within the HOPWA program is who comprises the HOPWA advisory committees. In many cities the committee members are also employees of the nonprofits who directly benefit from the funds. This can be a conflict of interest when advising how and where funds should be spent.
Once a city qualifies for HOPWA funds, it identifies a strategy on how to best use the funds, and in the majority of cases the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) contracts to housing assistance providers. Housing assistance providers are those organizations that make housing and services available to persons living with HIV/AIDS, and these organizations are on the front lines of service provision. Housing assistance can range from short-term financial support enabling a client to stay in a unit (STAP), to tenant-based rental assistance for an extended period, to the provision of a unit in a group home or other facility based project. These providers can be funded directly from the grantee (the most populous city in the MSA), and are either a government agency, or a private, nonprofit entity, and range in size and capacity and in the type of services they provide. About 75 percent of housing assistance providers are nonprofits, while the remaining quarter is comprised of government agencies. The primary activities generally differ between government and nonprofit organizations. Government agencies tend to report housing and public health as primary activities, while nonprofits tend to report case management and supportive services as primary activities(22).
Additionally, since 1991, Ryan White CARE (Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency) Act funds have been available to provide housing-related services such as housing referrals, emergency financial assistance, emergency housing, transitional housing, and supportive services(23). Named for Ryan White, the HIV positive teenager from Indiana who made headlines with his brave fight against ignorance and prejudice, the CARE Act funds a variety of health and social programs across the country(24). The four Titles and Part F of the Ryan White CARE Act are administrated by the HIV/AIDS Bureau of Health Resources and Services Administration (see Appendix 2 for an overview of the Ryan White CARE Act ). Although the majority of funding for AIDS Housing in cities around the nation comes from HOPWA, many cities qualify for Ryan White funds. It is important to include Ryan White CARE Act funds when analyzing AIDS Housing because the programs and services provided by the Act are often used in combination with HOPWA funds. HOPWA alone would not be able to provide the all the services or programs PWA need.
AIDS Housing providers are using many different sources of funds in combination with HOPWA for housing development, but most are using a very small percentage from each source(25). For example, HOME, a block grant program that allows State and local governments discretion to implement housing strategies, including assisting persons with special needs (Appendix 4), is used by only 32 percent of AIDS Housing providers and typically contributes to only 11 percent of total development funding(26). Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are being used by only 17 percent of AIDS Housing providers and typically contribute to only two percent of total project funding (Appendix 3) . Although AIDS housing providers use funds from several sources, the majority is subsidized through HOPWA.
Due to the flexibility of HOPWA and differences between EMSAs, the HOPWA program varies from city to city. No EMSA does it exactly like another, and this can be attributed to a number of factors. The demographics are different, the local governments or agencies are run differently, or possibly the capacities of nonprofits in the area vary. All of these distinctions add up to differences in how HOPWA funds are spent and administered. Although there is no model program that could be applied to every city, by examining city HOPWA programs around the nation, certain generic strengths and weaknesses can become evident.
Part I Notes:
PART II
Introduction to Case Studies
The cities analyzed in this study are Atlanta, Georgia; Boston, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; New York, New York; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington. The cities were chosen due to their overall population numbers and their share of cumulative AIDS cases. All of these cities have at least 400,000 people, and when the whole EMSA is included, the overall population under the HOPWA program reaches at least a million. For New York and Los Angeles, the EMSA population reaches ten million and more. Likewise, each metropolitan area has at least 7,000 AIDS cases, and unquestionably qualifies for the HOPWA Formula Program base number of 1,500 AIDS cases.
General research on HOPWA was done through reports issued by HUD, Local Governments, and Nonprofits. Further research was conducted through newspapers, magazines, and other articles. The HOPWA Program Director, or equivalent position, was contacted in each city in order to obtain budget information, project information, and overall management and administration information. Nonprofits were also contacted in each city. Nonprofits were chosen if they were contracted through the city, in order to contact those organizations which are the most active and visible in the arena of AIDS housing. Surveys were sent, via email, to several people involved in key nonprofits in each city. The surveys asked a number of questions and were basically seeking the individuals perception of the HOPWA program in her or his EMSA (see Appendix 9 for a copy of the survey).
Atlanta
The Center for Disease Control reports that Atlanta has more than seventeen thousand people with AIDS. These numbers are compounded by the fact that Atlanta is growing larger every year and faces severe problems with the administration of social services, like HOPWA, as the city falls victim to urban sprawl. For fiscal year 2002, Atlanta received $3,884,000 in HOPWA funds(1).
The City of Atlanta is the HUD-designated applicant for HOPWA funds for the Atlanta MSA that includes the city of Atlanta, Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb and Gwinnett Counties, as well as other jurisdictions within the 20-county EMSA(2). HOPWA is administered by the City of Atlanta’s Office of Grant Management in the Department of Planning, Development and Neighborhood Conservation(3). The City of Atlanta coordinates the metro-area HOPWA program in consultation with local jurisdictions and the Metro Atlanta HIV Health Services Planning Council(4).
Early on in Atlanta’s program the city felt that it did not have the capacity or knowledge to fully understand PWA needs. To compound this issue, the city also did not completely understand what the providers’ experience was and what they were able to do. Due to this unfamiliarity the city relied heavily on the Metro Atlanta HIV Health Services Planning Council’s recommendations and advice. As a consequence, in 1997 and 1998, the City, with the assistance of consultants, AIDS Housing of Washington, Inc., conducted a comprehensive housing needs assessment and developed a HIV/AIDS Housing Plan that was updated in 1999 so it would be consistent for inclusion in the City's Consolidated Plan for 2000-2004(5). Consolidated Plans can be done by Cities, Counties and States to communicate to its citizens its upcoming plans. After the City adopted its own plan, it has only used the Metro Atlanta HIV Health Services Planning Council to review and comment on new plans. Unlike other cities, Atlanta does not rely on a committee to recommend how funds are spent.
Like other cities which have HOPWA, Atlanta uses the services of nonprofit organizations to administer its programs. Among the organizations identified for major funding are AID Atlanta, Inc. that provides site-based case management for persons with AIDS living in six housing facilities plus short-term and emergency assistance with rent, mortgage and utility payments to prevent homelessness; St. Joseph’s Mercy Care, Inc. which provides essential on-site support services for residents of The Edgewood, a 46-unit SRO developed with multiple funding sources; Southside Healthcare, Inc., a permanent housing sponsor for persons living with HIV; and Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Programs of Georgia, Inc. that houses men and women who are recovering from addiction in a structured environment necessary for recovery(6).
HOPWA funding activities in Atlanta are mainly done three ways:
The fact that Atlanta published it weaknesses shows a commitment to make the program better. The housing and service providers of Atlanta generally feel confident that their City representatives will continue their effort to meet Atlanta’s AIDS housing needs. The Atlanta HOPWA program is well organized due to a very strong community network and a commitment by the city to keep providers aware of financial circumstances, changes and requirements. AIDS housing providers work closely with their city counterparts, and have in depth discussions with them at monthly Housing Coalition meetings and annual audits(10). LaTonya M. Wilkerson from AID Atlanta, Inc. states, “We receive quality feedback and guidance [from the city], and they welcome the input of the providers...it truly feels like a partnership and I am proud to be a member of the team”.
Boston
The Boston HOPWA formula grant is administered by the City of Boston’s Department of Neighborhood Development (DND) (11). The grant supports a wide variety of housing assistance and supportive services for people living with HIV/AIDS throughout the Boston Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes the city of Boston and its suburbs, as well as several other suburban and rural communities across the seven counties in Eastern Massachusetts and Southern New Hampshire(12). In 2002, the CDC reported that there were 14,945 cases of AIDS in Boston. With the addition of about 715 new cases of AIDS per year in the Boston MSA and the increased longevity of people with AIDS, the need for additional supportive housing beyond the current stock of approximately 683 units (455 dedicated units and 252 rental vouchers) will continue to grow(13).
In fiscal year 2002, the city of Boston received $2,416,000 in HOPWA funding(14). Planning for the distribution of the HOPWA grant is part of the City’s overall consolidated planning process and is done in conjunction with the Ryan White Title I Planning Council, as well as through close coordination with the Boston Public Health Commission (BPHC) and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH)(15). Currently in Boston, fourteen agencies manage twenty-four HOPWA grants and most of the fourteen agencies have a long history of working in the area of HIV/AIDS housing services and have been important partners in shaping the investment of HOPWA dollars in programs that assist the greatest number of clients(16).
The City’s HOPWA program consists of six components of assistance:
Boston, like other areas, faces many barriers when it comes to providing housing for people with AIDS. There is a basic lack of affordable housing units, extremely low vacancy rates , and escalating rents throughout the EMSA(19) . Unfortunately, Boston has a wait list for long term assistance consisting of 280 individuals that generally wait as long as two to three years for assistance(20). This forces individuals in need to sometimes rely on STAP which has a severe drawback. STAP has a limited funding cycle unlike other programs such as Section 8 and Shelter Plus Care, and therefore it is a less desirable vehicle to obtain rental assistance than other programs(21). Since a PWA can only receive assistance for 21 weeks out of every 52 weeks, as stated by HOPWA regulations, PWAs are often forced to apply for other forms of housing assistance.
Many of the agencies that receive HOPWA funding from the city of Boston also receive funds and goods/services from one or more of the following sources:
Unlike other cities, Boston does not have a HOPWA Advisory Committee. They do have annual “summit meetings” with providers to discuss issues. Allen Spivack, the Project Manager for HOPWA in the DND, conducts annual site visits with each program and talks on a regular basis with the providers. Mr. Spivack also meets every 6 weeks with other funders from the Department of Public Health (the state agency) and the Boston Public Health Commission to review housing related issues and funding. Furthermore, AIDS Housing Corp. meets regularly with directors and management staff to discuss housing and funding issues(23). The city of Boston and its providers work hard to keep communication ongoing for the benefit of its AIDS housing clients.
Los Angeles
Los Angeles County, with nine million people, is the largest county in the United States, with a population consisting of diverse ethnic and racial groups and an overall total of over nine million people(24). This is a major issue for the administration of services for a special needs population, like PWA. The nonprofit organization Shelter Partnership, in its report Housing for Persons living with HIV/AIDS in the City and the County of Los Angeles, found that sixty-five percent of people with AIDS had been homeless at some point in their lives, fifty-one percent of the respondents who had been homeless were homeless between two to twelve months, and fifty percent who were not currently homeless believed that they were at risk of becoming homeless(25). Since those surveyed for the Shelter Partnership report are already the clients of one or another service agency and are already receiving help, the figures suggest that other poor people with AIDS and HIV face an even tougher housing problem(26). Los Angeles has become one of the hardest places to administer HOPWA programs due to its sheer size and its share of AIDS cases. According to CDC statistics, Los Angeles is second in the number of cumulative AIDS cases, which is not surprising given its population size.
The CDC reports that there are 43,488 cumulative AIDS cases in the Los Angeles metropolitan area(27). With such a large population of people with AIDS, the Los Angeles HOPWA program is very large. The city of Los Angeles serves as the administrator of the HOPWA program for the entire geographical area of Los Angeles County, and the Los Angeles Housing Department is the entity within the city designated to carry out the program(28). Since the city is responsible for the distribution of funds it was necessary to create the Los Angeles Countywide HOPWA Advisory Committee (LACHAC) to serve as the advisory body to the city on HOPWA program policy, designs, and operational issues(29). In this manner, people from the county have influence over how the city uses the funds. In order to ensure a diverse committee, LACHAC is comprised of representatives with diverse expertise in the AIDS Housing and Services arena as well as seats dedicated to persons who are HIV infected(30).
The conflict with Advisory Committees is illuminated through LACHAC. Several members of the Committee are also members of the nonprofits that hold HOPWA contracts with the City. For instance, Kevin Pickett, the Executive Director of the Palms Residential Care Facility which provides transitional supportive housing for homeless persons with multiple diagnoses, including HIV/AIDS, sits on the committee. His organization also has multiple HOPWA contracts with the City. The Palms Residential Care Facility has four contracts for $121,444; $120,225; $39,493; and $207,500, for a total of $488,662(31). This is close to half a million dollars in funding and could prove to be a conflict of interest when decisions are made about how funds should be allocated.
HOPWA funds in Los Angeles are primarily administered through ten programs:
The fact that Los Angeles is not working on current development projects makes the future of AIDS housing in the area look dismal. With such high incidence numbers and the current affordable housing crisis, it is necessary that the City focus on development. The seven existing projects will unlikely be able to contend with growing numbers of PWA and the affordable housing shortage.
HOPWA funds are not the only funds that go into these programs, and usually other funding sources are leveraged. HOPWA dollars are leveraged with funding sources including but not limited to CDBG, HOME, non-profit organizations’ private funding sources, City of Industry funds (Appendix 8) and tax credits, as well as other private development funding sources(33). As with other cities, Los Angeles is forced to use HOPWA in conjunction with other funding sources because it is just simply not enough.
Los Angeles’ HOPWA program came under enormous criticism from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation in 1998, when it was discovered that million of dollars were going unspent while there were people with AIDS and HIV in need of housing and supportive services. Some organizations cite different amounts, but the range has been estimated to be from $5 million to as much as $17 million. In 1998, Los Angeles City officials publicly admitted to amassing $17 million in unspent federal AIDS funds, and then later estimated that only between $5.5 million and 6.8 million in AIDS housing funds went unspent(34). Many organizations named overall mismanagement as the problem. The city sought to counter that criticism, arguing that a number of factors played a role, including problems within HUD and the HOPWA Advisory Committee. However, City officials did acknowledge that funds were not put into operation fast enough(35).
There have been lasting effects due to the HOPWA mismanagement. There is a general feeling of mistrust from nonprofits and those involved in the AIDS community towards the city. Those involved feel that the city was not moving quick enough to ensure that funds were spent, and this shows that the city does not see AIDS issues as a priority. This mistrust is only fueled by the fact that funds still go unspent. The following table identifies the type of supportive service provided, award amounts, expenditures, and most significantly, funds unspent:
Emergency Housing & Meal Vouchers Housing Information & Referral Services Lease, Operating & Supportive Services in Emergency & Transitional Housing Supportive Services in Permanent Housing Housing Specialist Tenant Based Rental Assistance Source: City of Los Angeles Housing Department. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 2002-03 Financial Report. January 21, 2003
The combination of the controversial Advisory Committee and the continuing problem of unspent funds creates a dismal atmosphere for AIDS housing in Los Angeles. The conflict of interest that is representative of LACHAC is detrimental for the AIDS housing community and does not ensure that the contacts are awarded to the best or most capable nonprofit or agency. Furthermore, the endless cycle of unspent funding leaves many PWA without services and further perpetuates the AIDS homeless epidemic in Los Angeles.
New York
AIDS Housing has become an important issue in the city due to staggering statistics and the unavailability of affordable and decent housing. The Department of Health estimates that approximately 150,000 New Yorkers are HIV positive, about one in every 50 residents. In the year 2000 alone 6,202 new AIDS cases were reported(36). Furthermore, communities of color are disproportionately affected. By late 2000, African Americans and Latinos together represented 73% of all reported AIDS cases, and the proportion of whites has decreased steadily, from 54% in 1981 to 19% in 2000(37). Since the numbers of PWA are so high, New York City encompasses the nation’s largest HOPWA effort and received over $52 million in HOPWA funds in 2001(38).
The Mayor’s Office for AIDS Policy Coordination (MOAPC) serves as the coordinator and administrator for the HOPWA program for the entire New York City EMSA(39). The EMSA comprises the five boroughs of the City of New York together with Westchester, Putnam and Rockland Counties(40). There are three government agencies that receive HOPWA funding; Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), the HIV/AIDS Service Administration (HASA), and the Department of Mental Health (DMH). MOAPC meets each month to review the agencies’ current uses of HOPWA funds and to consider future uses. Currently, there is much debate over how MOAPC has decided to use HOPWA funds. The controversy lies in the fact that a significant amount of HOPWA funds have been redirected from HPD to HASA. Basically, funds have been redirected from development to services. Funds are usually shared by many agencies in cities, but New York City has consistently taken money that was earmarked for building and given it to case management.
HPD is responsible for developing and arranging funding for the acquisition and renovation of buildings that will be owned and operated by nonprofit, community-based organizations that specialize in providing housing and supportive services to PWA and other special needs populations(41). Like other cities, development for these types of units comes from a combination of HOPWA, federal HOME funding and city capital investment. HPD provides permanent housing for PWA, which is extremely important with a special needs population that requires stable housing with proper facilities like a kitchen. This is in contrast to the kind of emergency and temporary housing, and rental assistance that HASA provides. HASA is responsible for emergency housing placement, transitional supportive congregate housing, permanent supportive congregate housing, scatter site supportive housing and placement services and rental assistance(42). Housing in this manner is equally important, but mistrust about funding appropriations must be addressed. The services that HASA provides are not the problem. The concern is about how the city prioritizes which services are funded and at what level. The need for permanent housing is extremely high, while funding appropriations do not recognize that necessity.
In the proposed Consolidated Plan for FY2004 the city plans to continue redirection of $25,529,347 of the HOPWA budget to the case management component of HASA, which leaves only $150,000 to be allocated to HPD(43). Originally, the City promised to swap HOPWA funding with City Tax Levy funding in order to garnish increased revenues through a state match. This infamous shell game, known as the “HOPWA swap,” has been very detrimental for PWA in need of housing(44). The increased revenues received by the city were never reinvested into the housing needs of the HIV community and the promise was not upheld(45). Furthermore, the services that the case management component of HASA provides are mandated by Local Law 49 and should be paid for with city taxes and not with HOPWA funds. Local Law 49 was passed in 1997 and mandated that the city’s Division of AIDS Services & Income Support (DASIS) clients who seek emergency housing must be placed the same day(46). Local Law 49 has created a huge case management component that is currently funded by HOPWA, not by local tax revenues.
The existence of Local Law 49 provides for another severe AIDS Housing problem; the placement of individuals into single room occupancy hotels (SRO’s). Because of the increased danger of homelessness for people with AIDS and HIV, and the long waiting list for housing assistance, the city temporarily houses people in hotels. This costs millions of dollars a year, and often still does not provide adequate resources because the rooms have no kitchens and, in some cases, the bathrooms are down the hall(47). As a result the city is constantly behind; they have to spend millions on SROs, which is taken away from housing acquisition and development, limits the availability of units, and forces the city to use SRO’s. It is an endless, cyclical problem that could be alleviated if the city redirected those HOPWA funds back to HPD from HASA, and funded HASA through local taxes. With the development of permanent housing, funds could be redirected from the financially draining SROs.
Community-based organizations (CBOs), like in other cities, play a huge role in AIDS Housing, and the programs provided by the CBOs are meant to supplement and support HASA’s, HPD’s, and DMH’s services. Many are contracted through the city government to operate facilities, and some CBOs apply directly to the federal government for HOPWA competitive grants for specific projects. The Hudson Planning Group (HPG) received a HOPWA competitive grant of $451,700 in 2001. The HPG created a resource identification program of shared financial management services for a New York City network of AIDS Housing agencies and other service providers(48). The goal of the project is to help CBOs financially manage themselves more efficiently.
Under a 1996 Special Project of National Significance (SPNS) grant for $750,000, the Actor’s Fund of America used HOPWA and other funds to support the “Aurora” project, which provided 60 units of permanent, supportive housing for low-income PWA on the West Side of Manhattan(49). The Aurora project provides shared housing for approximately 190 people from three populations: PWA, the elderly, and low-income working people(50). This cooperative living environment is favorable and provides for a diverse environment where PWA do not feel like they are being quarantined.
New York City is a mixture of good and bad AIDS Housing conditions. The CBOs are successful in applying for HOPWA grants and implement projects that seek to not only help other nonprofits manage themselves better, but increase the availability of housing for PWA. However, the CBOs cannot alleviate the AIDS Housing problem themselves, they need the support from an efficient city government committed to helping PWA who need housing. Unfortunately the city has devoted HOPWA funds in the direction that does not increase the development or stock of AIDS Housing. This has left the HPD with practically no budget for new development and necessitated the spending of millions towards SROs that are only temporary and unfit for a special needs population. Of the approximately 26,000 people living with HIV/AIDS who requested permanent housing in 2002, only 2% had their need met(51). The New York City government, needs to reevaluate its appropriations and work in conjunction with the available and successful nonprofits in the city in order to provide housing for PWA who need it.San Francisco
The San Francisco HOPWA formula grant serves PWA and their families in the San Francisco MSA which consists of Marin, San Mateo, and the San Francisco Counties(52). As of December 2001, the CDC reported 28,438 PWA in these counties. Currently there are over 3,000 individuals on the San Francisco HIV/AIDS Housing Wait list (HWL) in need of housing assistance and this is more than three times the total number of beds accepting referrals from the HWL(53). To date, HOPWA Program appropriations for San Francisco have totaled $58,525,762 (54). Excluding staff and administrative costs, the average dollar amount of HOPWA funds spent per client on an annual basis is $7,003(55). A combination of HOPWA funds, McKinney (Shelter Plus Care), Section 8 Funds, Ryan White CARE, and general funds are used to provide housing and services for people living in the San Francisco EMSA.
The City and County of San Francisco designated the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (commonly referred to as “The Agency”) as the lead agency to administer the HOPWA funds. The Agency’s objectives in administering the HOPWA Program are to increase the size of the permanently affordable housing stock, expand housing opportunities to meet the needs of the city’s HIV/AIDS residents, provide appropriate housing-linked supportive services and assist nonprofit housing developers and service providers in increasing their skills and ability to create HIV/AIDS housing and related supportive services(56). Funding priorities are established by the 5-Year HIV/AIDS Housing Plan, created by the City’s AIDS Office; the Redevelopment Agency; community-based organizations; and HIV/AIDS-affected individuals(57).
The Redevelopment Agency distributes HOPWA funding for three primary activities:
Just like other cities using HOPWA funds, San Francisco contracts out much of its housing and services to local nonprofits. There are many problems that the service providers run into in San Francisco, but none are as detrimental as the high cost of living in the Bay Area. The funds that are allocated by the HOPWA Formula Program do not take into account the high cost of living in a city like San Francisco versus a smaller city. As a result, funds are spread out lightly and have less of an effect on the state of AIDS housing. Despite this severe problem, those involved with AIDS housing feel that overall the city does a good job with the funds that are provided but would like to see more development of units.
Seattle
Like other cities, Seattle deals with increasing rents and decreased availability. This trend has significant effects on the subset of Seattle’s population that has HIV/AIDS and does not have enough money to secure a decent place to live. As a result, the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett EMSA, which includes King, Island, and Snohomish Counties, began receiving HOPWA funds in 1993, and the City of Seattle Human Services Department administers HOPWA funds on behalf of the EMSA(58). The HOPWA funds are allocated through a competitive process which prioritizes funding to those projects which are consistent with the AIDS Housing Plan for King County(59).
In 2002, the city received $1.6 million in HOPWA funds to provide for an array of housing programs, including rent assistance, set-aside units in affordable housing developments, assisted living, independent and services-enriched housing, and adult day health(60). Currently, Seattle provides 85 transitional/short-term units, 321 permanent units, 18 assisted care units, and 35 skilled nursing units(61). Furthermore, Seattle-King County’s inventory of housing dedicated to people living with AIDS is increasing. The number of transitional/short-term independent housing units has increased from 68 to 85, and the number of permanent, independent units has increased from 318 to 321(62). Seattle’s AIDS Housing waiting list varies by program, from 6 people waiting for the Transitional to Permanent to 53 people waiting for the Seattle Terminally Ill Voucher Program(63). Overall, there are about 100 people waiting for housing assistance.
The Seattle EMSA , like other EMSA’s, has been able to attract other non-HOPWA resources for supportive services to our HIV/AIDS population through several non-HUD agencies including; Medicaid, State DSHS Adult Family Home and Skilled Nursing Reimbursement, private fundraising, resident participation, the Ryan White CARE Act, and the City of Seattle Human Services Program(64). In addition to these other funding sources the Seattle HOPWA program is complimented by several HUD programs; Section 8 set-asides, CDBG, the McKinney Homeless Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program(65). This diverse use of HUD and non-HUD funding sources creates a Consortium of Care concept to eligible Seattle clients(66).
Those involved in AIDS housing in Seattle feel that overall the City does a good job. Many providers express feelings that the program could be better, but the agencies and providers involved do a favorable job with the resources they are allocated. When asked about the future of Seattle’s AIDS Housing, Jude Jackson from Rosehedge felt that the best way to address the increasing AIDS population is to work with other organizations and agencies to provide units within other projects (referred to as set asides), a practice which is already underway in Seattle(67). Furthermore, Anson Laytner, a ten year veteran with Multifaith Works stated, “ My longevity helps me see that HOPWA has gone from being Ryan White’s step-sister, to being a full fledged, smoothly operating partner in providing housing for PWA in our city”(68).PART II NOTES:
PART III
The CDC reported in its June 2001 surveillance report that 331,518 persons were known to be living with a diagnosis of AIDS and estimated that 800,000 to 900,000 persons nationwide were HIV-infected(1). If those estimates are correct, half of these people will need housing assistance during some point of their illness. For this reason alone it is necessary that there be an increase of HOPWA funding at the federal level so programs are not so reliant on other funding sources; that more funds be spent on development of units rather than services like case management; that HOPWA Committees are not comprised of persons who benefit from the allocations they recommend; and that there is more cooperation among city officials and service providers to ensure sound management on both sides.
The HOPWA Program is an essential program for providing housing and services
for PWA and their families. Unfortunately, HOPWA funds cannot
currently cover all costs incurred while implementing housing and services.
Cities have to
constantly use HOPWA funds in conjunction with other sources
and raise private funds to finance projects and programs. Current funds
are inadequate to permit
localities to adequately address the growing need. The FY2002
HOPWA appropriation of $277 million must support the housing and related
services in 108 jurisdictions
eligible for HOPWA formula allocations (34 states and 74
cities for their metropolitan areas) and about 25 competitive grants
to aid approximately 61,700 PWA and
their families with some form of housing assistance(2).
Federal policies must guarantee that low-income PWA access
to affordable and
decent housing for themselves
and their families. The National AIDS Housing Coalition insists
that the Administration and Congress funds the HOPWA program at $325
million in FY2003, a level that
will sustain existing programs, permit small program expansions
at the local level, and support newly added jurisdictions(3).
There are many valid arguments
to increase funding. First, HOPWA eligible jurisdictions
are on the rise, meaning that they will reach 1,500 cumulative cases
of AIDS. Furthermore, the health
of AIDS patients declines as the price of housing and services
increase. When these patients get sick they turn to other costlier form
of healthcare, like
emergency room visits. In addition, as rising housing costs
continue to outpace HOPWA funding allocations, it becomes increasingly
important that localities
maximize their use of HOPWA funds for housing assistance
and development(4). If the government wishes to combat this trend it
must increase the funding
for housing and supportive services.
Furthermore, the HOPWA Formula Program needs to address regional
differences between EMSAs. The high cost of living in Los
Angeles, New York and Los Angeles
has severe consequences for the administration of its HOPWA
Program. The average rents in these areas is far higher than
thier HOPWA counterparts and they also
share a larger proportion of the AIDS cases. If HOPWA has
any hopes of becoming an effective housing program it must
address this issue.
In conjunction with increased funding, there must be an effort
from the cities to specifically develop housing units for
PWA and their
families. Neither Los
Angeles nor New York use HOPWA funds for new development,
only in support of existing projects. This policy has, and
will continue to have, grave
effects
due to the fact that the AIDS population is growing and living
longer. The effects from not developing are the worst in
New York City, where
no funds
are spent on development. In this case the City must spend
millions for placing people in SRO hotels which further drains
the city financially
and create a
cyclical problem where funding is taken from development
to pay for the costs associated with SRO management. There
would not be such a
demand for SRO’s
if the city developed enough units for PWA. Cities like San
Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle, and Boston specifically use
HOPWA funds for development,
acquisition
or rehabilitation and generally providers in those cities
are more content with their programs. The need for HOPWA
funds to be spent on
development for
new units becomes even more important since the STAP program,
which provides rental assistance, is only short-term, and
will not help PWA
and their families
for long periods of time. PWA are only allowed to receive
assistance for 21 weeks out of a 52 week period, which forces
people to apply
for other sources
of assistance, like Section 8. This puts a strain on the
Section 8 program since PWA should be able to get housing
through HOPWA but cannot
because there
is simply not enough units to support them and, in some cases,
the wait list is too long.
The HOPWA Advisory Committees that exist in many cities,
such as Los Angeles, should not have committee members that
directly benefit from the HOPWA allocations
that they endorse. This creates a conflict of interest where
a committee member, that needs the HOPWA allocations to support
its budget, insists on funding
his or her organization. Regardless of whether the services
that their organization provides are good or bad, it does
not allow for an objective decision. This
policy is alarming considering that one member of the Los
Angeles Advisory Committee receives almost half a million
dollars in HOPWA contracts for the
organization that he leads. It is necessary that HUD take
an instrumental role in dealing with this conflict. As an
outside entity it can act most objectively.
Furthermore, HUD issues the HOPWA funds, and it should have
an interest in ensuring that funds are spent correctly. A
monitoring system should be set
up by HUD, and this new body could be either within HUD or
it can contract out to an organization, like AIDS Housing
of Washington. This way it can be
assured that funds can be allocated towards the most effective
program.
There are obvious differences among the cities that are not
directly related to the actions of the local governments
or the service providers. Issues like
a growing population, the high cost of living, lack of stable
employment and healthcare, all have adverse affects when
trying to institute an effective
housing program. This is partly why New York and Los Angeles
have such unfavorable AIDS housing programs. Each city faces
enormous barriers due to its sheer size.
It then becomes obvious why smaller cities, like Atlanta
and Seattle, have some of the better programs in the nation;
their cities are simply smaller.
Nonetheless, large cities must learn to adopt the policies
of these smaller metropolises because AIDS will continue
to affect their cities.
The policies set forth by some of the smaller cities, like
Atlanta or Boston, are very straightforward and concise.
Their HOPWA allocations
go for specific
programming, like towards the development of units, and are
not extended throughout a wide variety of programs (like
pet care, which is the
case in Los Angeles).
Furthermore, government officials and service providers in
both Atlanta and Boston stress fluid communication between
both entities to ensure
that everyone
is caught up to date. This feeling of partnership and community
is lacking in New York and Los Angeles’, rather, a
sense of animosity exists between the service providers and
government agencies. In Los
Angeles this is due in
part to the continual mismanagement of funds, and in New
York it partly arises out of the fact that no funds are going
towards development.
The service providers
feel that their voice is not being heard by their city counterparts.
Therefore, it is evident that one aspect of having an effective
AIDS housing program is
ensuring cooperation among government officials and service
providers. In this manner everyone is caught up on current
issues and everyone
feels as if they
are working together, not against one another.
PART IV
Appendix 1
TITLE 24--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 574—HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Subpart A¾General
Subpart A¾General
Sec. 574.3 Definitions.
The terms Grantee and Secretary are defined in 24 CFR part 5.
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or related diseases means the
disease of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any conditions arising
from the etiologic agent for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, including
infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Administrative costs mean costs for general management, oversight, coordination,
evaluation, and reporting on eligible activities. Such costs do not include
costs directly related to carrying out eligible activities, since those
costs are eligible as part of the activity delivery costs of such activities.
Applicant means a State or city applying for a formula allocation as described
under Sec. 574.100 or a State, unit of general local government, or a nonprofit
organization applying for a competitive grant as described under Sec. 574.210.
City has the meaning given it in section 102(a) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302).
Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area (EMSA) means a metropolitan statistical
area that has a population of more than 500,000 and has more than 1,500
cumulative cases of AIDS.
Eligible person means a person with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
or related diseases who is a low-income individual, as defined in this
section, and the person's family. A person with AIDS or related diseases
or a family member regardless of income is eligible to receive housing
information services, as described in Sec. 574.300(b)(1). Any person living
in proximity to a community residence is eligible to participate in that
residence's community outreach and educational activities regarding AIDS
or related diseases, as provided in Sec. 574.300(b)(9).
Eligible State means a State that has:
(1) More than 1,500 cumulative cases of AIDS in those areas of the State
outside of eligible metropolitan statistical areas that are eligible to
be funded through a qualifying city; and
(2) A consolidated plan prepared, submitted, and approved in accordance
with 24 CFR part 91 that covers the assistance to be provided under this
part. (A State may carry out activities anywhere in the State, including
within an EMSA.)
Family means a household composed of two or more related persons. The term
family also includes one or more eligible persons living with another person
or persons who are determined to be important to their care or well being,
and the surviving member or members of any family described in this definition
who were living in a unit assisted under the HOPWA program with the person
with AIDS at the time of his or her death.
Low-income individual has the meaning given it in section 853( 3 ) of the
AIDS Housing
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12902).
Metropolitan statistical area has the meaning given it in section 853(5)
of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42.U.S.C. 12902).
Nonprofit organization means any nonprofit organization (including a State
or locally chartered, nonprofit organization) that:
(1) Is organized under State or local laws;
(2) Has no part of its net earnings inuring to the benefit of any member,
founder, contributor, or individual;
(3) Has a functioning accounting system that is operated in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles, or has designated an entity
that will maintain such an accounting system; and
(4) Has among its purposes significant activities related to providing
services or housing to
persons with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related diseases. Non-substantial
rehabilitation means rehabilitation that involves costs that are less than
or equal to 75 percent of the value of the building after rehabilitation.
Population means total resident population based on data compiled by the
U.S. Census and referable to the same point in time.
Project sponsor means any nonprofit organization or governmental housing
agency that receives funds under a contract with the grantee to carry out
eligible activities under this part. The selection of project sponsors
is not subject to the procurement requirements of 24 CFR 85.36. Qualifying
city means a city that is the most populous unit of general local government
in an eligible metropolitan statistical area (EMSA) and that has a consolidated
plan prepared, submitted, and approved in accordance with 24 CFR part 91
that covers the assistance to be provided under this part.
Rehabilitation means the improvement or repair of an existing structure,
or an addition to an existing structure that does not increase the floor
area by more than 100 percent.
State has the meaning given it in section 853(9) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity
Act (42 U.S.C. 2902).
Substantial rehabilitation means rehabilitation that involves costs in
excess of 75 percent of the value of the building after rehabilitation.
Unit of general local government means any city, town, township, parish,
county, village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State;
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau, the Marshall Islands, or
a general purpose political subdivision thereof; and any agency or instrumentality
thereof that is established pursuant to legislation and designated by the
chief executive to act on behalf of the jurisdiction with regard to provisions
of the National Affordable Housing Act.
[57 FR 61740, Dec. 28, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 17199, Apr. 11, 1994;
60 FR 1917, Jan. 5, 1995; 61 FR 5209, Feb. 9, 1996; 61 FR 7963, Feb. 29,
1996]
TITLE 24--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 574—HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Subpart B¾Formula Entitlements
574.100 Eligible applicants
574.110 Overview of formula allocations.
574.120 Responsibility of applicant to serve EMSA.
574.130 Formula allocations.
Reallocations of grant amounts. Subpart B ¾ Formula Entitlements
Sec. 574. 100 Eligible applicants.
(a) Eligible States and qualifying cities, as defined in Sec. 574.3, qualify
for formula allocations under HOPWA.
(b) HUD will notify eligible States and qualifying cities of their formula
eligibility and allocation amounts and EMSA service areas annually.
[57 FR 61740, Dec. 28, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 17199, Apr. 11, 1994;
60 FR 1917, Jan. 5, 1995]
Sec. 574. 110 Overview of formula allocations.
The formula grants are awarded upon submission and approval of a consolidated
plan, pursuant to 24 CFR part 91, that covers the assistance to be provided
under this part. Certain states and cities that are the most populous unit
of general local government in eligible metropolitan statistical areas
will receive formula allocations based on their State or metropolitan population
and proportionate number of cases of persons with AIDS. They will receive
funds under this part (providing they comply with 24 CFR part 91) for eligible
activities that address the housing needs of persons with AIDS or related
diseases and their families (see Sec. 574.130(b)).
[61 FR 7963, Feb. 29, 1996]
Sec. 574.120 Responsibility of applicant to serve EMSA.
The EMSA's applicant shall serve eligible persons who live anywhere within
the EMSA, except that housing assistance shall be provided only in localities
within the EMSA that have a consolidated plan prepared, submitted, and
approved in accordance with 24 CFR part 91 that covers the assistance to
be provided under this part. In allocating grant amounts among eligible
activities, the EMSA's applicant shall address needs of eligible persons
who reside within the metropolitan statistical area, including those not
within the jurisdiction of the applicant.
[60 FR 1917, Jan. 5, 1995]
Sec. 574. 130 Formula allocations.
(a) Data sources. HUD will allocate funds based on the number of cases
of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome reported to and confirmed by the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control, and on population data provided
by the U.S. Census. The number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
used for this purpose shall be the number reported as of March 31 of the
fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year for which the amounts
are appropriated and allocated.
(b) Distribution of appropriated funds for entitlement awards.
(1) Seventy-five percent of the funds allocated under the formula is distributed
to qualifying cities and eligible States, as described in Sec. 574.100,
based on each metropolitan statistical area's or State's proportionate
share of the cumulative number of AIDS cases in all eligible metropolitan
statistical
areas and eligible States.
(2) The remaining twenty-five percent is allocated among qualifying cities,
but not States, where the per capita incidence of AIDS for the year, April
1 through March 31, preceding the fiscal year of the appropriation is higher
than the average for all metropolitan statistical areas with more than
500,000 population. Each qualifying city's allocation reflects its EMSA's
proportionate share of the high incidence factor among EMSA's with higher
than average per capita incidence of AIDS. The high incidence factor is
computed by multiplying the population of the metropolitan statistical
area by the
difference between its twelve-month-per-capita-incidence rate and the average
rate for all metropolitan statistical areas with more than 500,000 population.
The EMSA's proportionate share is determined by dividing its high incidence
factor by the sum of the high incidence factors for all EMSA's with higher
than
average per capita incidence of AIDS.
(c) Minimum grant. No grant awarded under paragraph (b) of this section
shall be less than $200,000. Therefore, if the calculations under paragraph
(b) of this section would result in any eligible metropolitan statistical
area or eligible State receiving less than $200,000, the amount allocated
to that entity is increased to $200,000 and allocations to entities in
excess of $200,000 are proportionately reduced by the amount of the increase.
Sec. 574. 190 Reallocation of grant amounts.
If an eligible State or qualifying city does not submit a consolidated
plan in a timely fashion, in accordance with 24 CFR part 91, that provides
for use of its allocation of funding under this part, the funds allocated
to that jurisdiction will be added to the funds available for formula allocations
to other jurisdictions in the current fiscal year. Any formula funds that
become available as a result of deobligations or the imposition of sanctions
as provided for in Sec. 574.540 will be added to the funds available for
formula allocations in the next fiscal year.
[57 FR 61740, Dec. 28, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 1918, Jan. 5, 1995]
TITLE 24--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 574—HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Subpart C¾Competitive Grant Funds
574.200 Amounts available for competitive grants.
574.210 Eligible applicants.
574.240 Application requirements.
574.260 Amendments.
Subpart C - Competitive Grants
Sec. 574. 200 Amounts available for competitive grants.
(a) The Department will set aside 10 percent of the amounts appropriated
under this program to fund on a competitive basis:
(1) Special projects of national significance; and
(2) Other projects submitted by States and localities that do not qualify
for formula grants.
(b) Any competitively awarded funds that become available as a result of
deobligations or the imposition of sanctions, as provided in Sec. 574.540,
will be added to the funds available for competitive grants in the next
fiscal year.
(c) The competitive grants are awarded based on applications, as described
in subpart C of this part, submitted in response to a Notice of Funding
Availability published in the Federal Register. All States and units of
general local government and nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply
for competitive grants to fund projects of national significance. Only
those States and units of general local government that do not
qualify for formula allocations are eligible to apply for competitive grants
to fund other projects.
(d) If HUD makes a procedural error in a funding competition that, when
corrected, would warrant funding of an otherwise eligible application,
HUD will select that application for potential funding when sufficient
funds become available.
[57 FR 61740, Dec. 28, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 7963, Feb. 29, 1996]
Sec. 574. 210 Eligible applicants.
(a) All States, units of general local government, and nonprofit organizations,
may apply for grants for projects of national significance.
(b) Only those States and units of general local government that do not
qualify for formula grants, as described in Sec. 574.100; may apply for
grants for other projects as described in Sec. 574.200(a)(2).
(c) Except for grants for projects of national significance, nonprofit
organizations are not eligible to apply directly to HUD for a grant but
may receive funding as a project sponsor under contract with a grantee.
Sec. 574. 240 Application requirements.
Applications must comply with the provisions of the Department's Notice
of Funding Availability
(NOFA) for the fiscal year published in the Federal Register in accordance
with 24 CFR part 12. The rating
criteria, including the point value for each, are described in the NOFA,
including criteria determined by the
Secretary.
[61 FR 7963, Feb. 29, 1996]
Sec. 574. 260 Amendments.
(a) After an application has been selected for funding, any change that
will significantly alter the scope, location, service area, or objectives
of an activity or the number of eligible persons served must be justified
to HUD and approved by HUD. Whenever any other amendment to the application
is made, the grantee must provide a copy to HUD.
(b)Each amendment request must contain a description of the revised proposed
use of funds. Funds may not be expended for the revised proposed use of
funds until:
(1) HUD accepts the revised proposed use; and
(2) For amendments to acquire, rehabilitate, convert, lease, repair or
construct properties to provide housing, an environmental review of the
revised proposed use of funds has been completed in accordance with Sec.
574.510.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506-0133)
TITLE 24--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 574—HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS
Subpart D¾Uses of Grant Funds
574.300 Eligible activities.
574.310 General standards for eligible housing activities.
574.320 Additional standards for rental assistance.
574.330 Additional standards for short-term supported housing.
574.340 Additional standards for community residences
Subpart D¾Uses of Grant Funds
Sec. 574.300 Eligible activities.
(a) General. Subject to applicable requirements described in Secs. 574.310,
574.320, 574.330, and 574.340, HOPWA funds may be used to assist all forms
of housing designed to prevent homelessness including emergency housing,
shared housing arrangements, apartments, single room occupancy (SRO) dwellings,
and community residences. Appropriate supportive services, as required
by Sec. 574.310(a),
must be provided as part of any HOPWA assisted housing, but HOPWA funds
may also be used to provide services independently of any housing activity.
(b) Activities. The following activities may be carried out with HOPWA
funds:
(1) Housing information services including, but not limited to, counseling,
information, and referral services to assist an eligible person to locate,
acquire, finance and maintain housing. This may also include fair housing
counseling for eligible persons who may encounter discrimination on the
basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, familial status,
or handicap;
(2) Resource identification to establish, coordinate and develop housing
assistance resources for eligible persons (including conducting preliminary
research and making expenditures necessary to determine the feasibility
of specific housing-related initiatives);
(3) Acquisition, rehabilitation, conversion, lease, and repair of facilities
to provide housing and services;
(4) New construction (for single room occupancy (SRO) dwellings and community
residences only).
(5) Project- or tenant-based rental assistance, including assistance for
shared housing arrangements;
(6) Short-term rent, mortgage, and utility payments to prevent the homelessness
of the tenant or mortgagor of a dwelling;
(7) Supportive services including, but not limited to, health, mental health,
assessment, permanent housing placement, drug and alcohol abuse treatment
and counseling, day care, personal assistance, nutritional services, intensive
care when required, and assistance in gaining access to local, State, and
Federal government benefits and services, except that health services may
only
be provided to individuals with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or related
diseases and not to family members of these individuals;
(8) Operating costs for housing including maintenance, security, operation,
insurance, utilities, furnishings, equipment, supplies, and other incidental
costs;
(9) Technical assistance in establishing and operating a community residence,
including planning and other pre-development or pre-construction expenses
and including, but not limited to, costs relating to community outreach
and educational activities regarding AIDS or related diseases for persons
residing in proximity to the community residence;
(10) Administrative expenses:
(i) Each grantee may use not more than 3 percent of the grant amount for
its own administrative costs relating to administering grant amounts and
allocating such amounts to project sponsors; and
(ii) Each project sponsor rec