Section 8/HOPWA Waitlist Procedures

            OLA#: 038-03

LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT

TO: Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors

FROM: Amanda Kahn, Office of the Legislative Analyst

DATE: December 19, 2003

SUBJECT: Section 8/HOPWA Waitlist Procedures

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION

The City Services Committee requests that the Office of the Legislative Analyst review and identify the practices in other cities with respect to waitlists for Section 8 housing and HOPWA (or similar programs). Specifically, the Committee would like to be informed as to whether there are better practices in other cities that might be adopted in order to ensure that the Section 8 and HOPWA waitlists are not as long or that the waitlists do not close to new applicants.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 8 and HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS) are federally funded Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs designed to increase affordable housing opportunities for the low-income population. Both offer a variety of programs including development subsidies to local housing developers, as well as rental assistance programs to allow very low-income people to rent housing in the private market. The HOPWA program is specifically for low-income people living with disabling HIV/AIDS.

Each program utilizes waitlists as a way to provide entry into housing. The Section 8 rental assistance program is administered locally by the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA). The HOPWA waitlist is administered by the Department of Public Health (DPH), with significant collaboration with the Redevelopment Agency, which is responsible for procuring and utilizing HOPWA funding to develop new housing.

Both waitlists are currently closed to new applicants, and those on the waitlist are subject to long waiting periods (case studies revealed people on the HOPWA list for over seven years)1. The long waitlists and lack of opportunities for people who are not currently on the waitlist are symptoms of a systemic lack of affordable housing in San Francisco. As research into ways to increase affordable housing opportunities falls outside the scope of this report, this analysis focused on ways to improve the administration of the waitlists in an effort to enhance client relations such as:

    · Focusing on Customer Service

    · Using Automated Phone System and/or Online Systems

    · Simplifying the certification process

    · Providing systems to move people into appropriate permanent housing

Waitlists with high numbers of applicants will always remain a reality in San Francisco as long as funding levels for affordable housing programs do not match the number of people who qualify for assistance. However, adopting changes to the current management of the Section 8 Voucher waitlist and creating a system to move people into appropriate levels of supportive housing through the HOPWA program are crucial steps to ensure that people with the highest level of need receive timely assistance, or at least have access to pertinent information. Reports from other cities indicate that using new technologies, promoting positive images of the program, and streamlining processes that provide information to clients and certify application details can have cost-saving benefits, as well as customer service enhancements for the most needy San Francisco residents.

BACKGROUND

Section 8

The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is authorized by the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 Section 8(b)(1), and is administered on the local level by the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to Michael Roetzer, Administrator for Management Services at SFHA, the program is currently fully funded by the federal government. In addition to providing a rental subsidy, the program assists different populations with housing through programs that provide opportunities for family unification, mainstream for elderly and disabled, homeownership, and project development. This report will focus on tenant-based vouchers, which allow very low-income residents to rent privately owned housing units using subsidies known as vouchers. Under the voucher program, SFHA pays the landlord the difference between 30% of the tenants' adjusted income and the payment standard for the area, which is tied to the HUD-established Fair Market Rent2. In order to qualify, the applicant's income must not be more than 50 percent of the median for San Francisco, based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines. However, not less than 75 percent of new admissions to the tenant-based Section 8 Program must have income at or below 30 percent of the area median family income.

TABLE I: FAIR MARKET RENT/PAYMENT STANDARD

UNIT SIZE

EFFECTIVE 11/17/03

SRO

$894.00

STUDIO

$1,192.00

ONE

$1,546.00

TWO

$1,953.00

THREE

$2,679.00

FOUR

$2,835.00

FIVE

$3,260.00

SIX

$3,685.00

SEVEN

$4,111.00

TABLE II: INCOME LIMITS AS OF 02/20/03

FAMILY SIZE

30% of Median
(Income Targeting Per QHWRA)

SECTION 8

1

$23,750.00

$39,600.00

2

$27,150.00

$45,250.00

3

$30,550.00

$50,900.00

4

$33,950.00

$56,550.00

5

$36,650.00

$61,050.00

6

$39,350.00

$65,600.00

7

$42,050.00

$70,100.00

8

$44,800.00

$74,650.00

HOPWA

In 1990, Congress enacted the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) Program as part of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. HOPWA is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which makes grants to local communities, States, and nonprofit organizations for projects that benefit low-income persons medically diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA funds may be used for a wide range of housing, social services, program planning, and development costs. These include, but are not limited to, the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of housing units; costs for facility operations; rental assistance; and short-term payments to prevent homelessness.3

The primary agencies charged with the solicitation and use of HOPWA funding in San Francisco are the Redevelopment Agency, who utilizes the funds for housing development, and by the Department of Public Health (DPH) who administers the housing referral waitlist for clients.

THE SECTION 8 WAITLIST IN SAN FRANCISCO

Funds for the Section 8 program are extremely limited. The Section 8 waitlist was last open in September 2001 and is now closed with over 26,000 households on this list4. According to Nanette Sparks, Eligibility Program Manager at SFHA, there have been no vouchers issued in the last 7 months due to funding limitations.

Current Practices

Ranking

Applications for the Section 8 program may only be made when the Section 8 waitlist is open to receive applications. Applicants self-declare their eligibility based on the eligibility requirements noted in the published announcement opening the waitlist. When the waitlist is open, new applicants are placed into preference categories. There are three local preference categories-paying over 50% of income for housing, involuntarily displaced, and living in substandard housing. These preferences are weighted equally. There are also three additional categories-current resident of (or working in) San Francisco, veteran, and welfare-to-work participant. Applicants are given `points', or priority status, based on the number of preference categories for which they qualify. Applicants are selected from the total applicant pool by random lottery and ranked on the waitlist by preference category. For example, if there are 20 people with identical preferences, the lottery decides ranking.

Notification

When the current Section 8 waitlist was established, the SFHA sent a confirmation letter with status including stated preferences and current ranking to all applicants who were successfully entered on the waitlist. According to Ms. Sparks, those on the waitlist can receive updates via telephone twice annually in May and December. SFHA's Eligibility Department also has "Drop-In Hours" daily, between 8:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. at 440 Turk Street. This location is easily accessible by public transportation and is also fully accessible to persons with disabilities. During "Drop-In Hours", applicants can meet with Eligibility Staff, check status or make changes to their application.

Changes in Status

Applicants on the waitlist are required to notify SFHA in writing should any change occur in their situation that may affect status on the waitlist. Such changes could include becoming homeless, entering a welfare-to-work program, or a change of address. A change in preferences may result in a change of ranking, though, according to Lawrence Andrews, Director of the Section 8 Housing Department of SFHA, "a newly homeless person would not supercede someone already in that preference category."

Requests for Information on Status

SFHA discourages applicants from calling to inquire about their status on the waitlist because of a lack of staff to handle requests. Applicants can attend daily drop in hours as described earlier in this report.

Updating/Purging the Waitlist

The waitlist is updated continuously to ensure that all information on applicants remains current. SFHA sends an update letter to all applicants on the waitlist, and asks for written confirmation that all information given at the time of application is current or that updated information be provided. Applicants can also choose to opt out of the waitlist, though according to Ms. Sparks, "no one chooses to be taken off the waitlist." If the letter sent by SFHA is returned and marked, `undeliverable,' the application is withdrawn. However, the SFHA may reinstate the applicant upon contact by the family within one year of the withdrawal date, provided the family has a reasonable explanation for not maintaining contact. Special consideration is given to applicants with disabilities, those who have been hospitalized, or who have experienced a trauma. At the time of application, homeless applicants are asked to provide a post office box, agency contact, friend or relative that are likely to remain the same during the period the homeless person is on the waitlist. The address or contact should be an agency or person with which the homeless client maintains frequent contact so that communications from the SFHA regarding waitlist status and possible housing are received.

Interviews

When funding for new vouchers is available, applicants on the top of the waitlist are called in for interviews. Applicants are asked to sign various documents, provide the SFHA with documents verifying the identification of all members of the household, relationships to head of household and Immigration Status. A security clearance is conducted to verify that the adults in the household do not have a drug or violent criminal background. According to Ms. Sparks, less than 50% successfully move through the interview process and receive vouchers because they are unable to prove the preferences stated at the time of application.

Voucher Assignment

Applicants who successfully move through the interview process are awarded a Section 8 voucher. As of September 30, 2003, there were 7,229 vouchers currently in use. Average tenant rent after voucher payment is $355.13, and average household income for voucher holders is $14,868.

HOPWA WAITLIST IN SAN FRANCISCO

The HOPWA waitlist is a centralized housing referral service for people with HIV/AIDS in San Francisco. The programs included in the referral service provide housing assistance in many forms, from rental subsidies to permanent housing with high-level supportive services. To apply for all of these housing programs, clients need only enroll once with the Department of Public Health.

The HOPWA list has been closed since November 2001. There are approximately 2600 active clients, and between 2000-3000 inactive clients. Inactive means that although the client is still in the client database, with the date of enrollment still indicated the agency has not had any contact with the client for at least a year. John Tambis, who administers the waitlist at DPH reports that the program places about 90-100 clients in housing per year.

Current Practices

Intake and Eligibility

Upon completing a short enrollment form, clients are contacted to complete a 45-minute comprehensive intake assessment. This includes gathering information and collecting documentation such as a letter of diagnosis and verification of income, and is required to assess eligibility for each program. Since there are different requirements for the many programs accessed via the waitlist, eligibility requirements vary.

Ranking

Clients are ranked on a first-come first-serve basis. The decision to avoid a preference system was made due to the difficulty of using preferences in a population with constant changes in health status.

Contact with Clients

Clients and their case managers are encouraged to call John Tambis at DPH with any questions, comments or concerns about their status on the waitlist, and can expect a response within 72 hours. Mr. Tambis reports that he generally responds to inquiries within 1-2 business days.

Recertification

Clients at the top of the list are contacted once yearly in order to re-certify their need and interest in remaining on the waitlist. Mr. Tambis reports that the client population is inherently difficult to contact, because they lack stable housing. However, no client is ever taken off the waitlist because of lack of contact with the agency. They are simply moved into the `inactive' category, so that staff does not continue to use resources sending out letters, phone calls, etc. Should the client contact the agency at a later date, they will be reinstated as active, with their original activation date.

Placement

Mr. Tambis reports that he places between 90-100 clients annually, though he anticipates that numbers for 2003 will be significantly lower (~60). He attributes the decrease to difficult economic conditions and a decrease in funding for local housing agencies. When units become available, the administrator works with clients and their case managers to determine whether the level of care is appropriate for their physical needs. Mr. Tambis reports that fostering relationships with case managers is a vital element to the successful matching of clients to appropriate housing.

Defining the Problem

Systemic lack of affordable housing

There is a well-documented shortage of affordable housing in San Francisco, particularly for people in the low and extremely low-income categories. The lack of housing options has a direct relationship to the high numbers of people on the Section 8 and HOPWA waitlists, as well as the long waiting times for assistance. However, analysis on the lack of housing options and the effect on the Section 8 and HOPWA programs in San Francisco is outside the scope of this report.5

Unreasonable Wait Times

According to the Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook released by HUD, it is important for a Public Housing Authority (PHA) to manage a waitlist system with a "sufficient number of eligible applicants to ensure that new and turnover vouchers are issued as quickly as possible... At the same time, the waitlist should not be allowed to grow to such a size that the wait for housing is unreasonable."6 Given the high demand for vouchers in San Francisco, maintaining a waitlist that meets these criteria is extremely difficult.

Following a period of extensive outreach and publicity, SFHA opened the waitlist application process for one month, September 2001 at which time 30,334 applications were accepted. While the opening of the list was brief, the waitlist is still too long to ensure that all applicants are assisted in a reasonable period of time (defined by HUD as 12-24 months). Given that there are over 26,000 families still on the waitlist, it is clear that average wait times exceed 12-24 months.

Wait times for HOPWA housing are similarly long. Chris Harris from the Redevelopment Agency recently heard from an exasperated client who enrolled in the waitlist over seven years ago. One of the challenges of the program has been overcoming the expectation that entry onto the waitlist guarantees placement in housing. Ms. Harris advises clients that the waitlist has "never been an automatic entitlement to service".

Low Levels of Customer Service

The HOPWA waitlist was created with a strong emphasis on transparency and fairness. The lack of preference categories and the lower levels of clients on the list have resulted in high levels of customer service. The communication between staff and case managers has also increased service levels. However, while there has been a strong emphasis on maintaining the integrity of the waitlist and ensuring that clients are served on a first come first serve basis, there is simply not enough funding to move people into housing.

While the percent of clients served from the Section 8 waiting is not significantly different from the HOPWA waitlist, the Section 8 list is far less user-friendly due to the number of people on the list, and the resulting high costs and staffing demands for SFPH.

    1. 2. Applicants do not have easy access to information about their status

    The current policy that discourages applicants from calling the SFHA to obtain information about their status on the waitlist limits applicants from getting up-to-date information about their likelihood of receiving a voucher. While the agency does allow applicants to come into the office between 8:30 am -12 p.m. daily to get such information, this procedure is clearly challenging for applicants who are working, disabled, or who require childcare (See discussion under Options and/or Recommendations for future improvements in information sharing).

    The lack of access to information for applicants may result in suspicions that the waitlist is not operated according to the letter of the law. According to Susan Mizner from the Mayor's Office on Disability, there are numerous complaints about people receiving "special" treatment based on criteria not included in the Section 8 operating plan. This allegation is strongly disputed by staff at SFHA, who states that, "the SFHA is not aware of the basis for these comments. There have been past allegations of special treatment, but a HUD audit of the Section 8 program in 2000 did not turn up any "special" treatment."7 While investigating unfair practices falls outside the scope of this report, the link between poor customer service and customer dissatisfaction is notable.

    3. Current notification procedures may discriminate against those with highest need

    According to Ms. Mizner, the current noticing procedures discriminate against applicants with disabilities. She is particularly concerned with people who suffer from cognitive or mental illness, which could prevent accurate reading and responding to requests for updated information.

    4. Lack of assistance or screening during application process decreases success rates

    Applicants who wait years to be called for an eligibility interview are rejected 50% of the time because they cannot prove the preferences stated on their application. SFHA adheres to published policies and procedures developed through a public process, to ensure that those who truly meet the preference criteria benefit from those preferences. According to Mr. Roetzer, "in any process that includes waits of 12-48 months or more, factors involving people will change. The SFHA relies on the applicant to keep their application current, and to update their status when changes occur." However, it is the opinion of the Office of Legislative Analyst that the dismal success rate at the end stages of the waiting game underscores the need for better customer service and screening throughout the process.

Lack of Alternatives to the Waitlist

While the wait for housing can be frustrating, those people blocked out of the waitlists face an even more dismal search for housing options. While there is some coordination between agencies, there is no single clearinghouse for affordable housing options in San Francisco. Clients are often left to navigate a complicated web of governmental and non-profit agencies in search of decent housing.

For those living with HIV/AIDS, there are no opportunities outside of the centralized HOPWA waitlist for housing assistance. According to Ms. Harris, "there simply isn't another entry into housing." Thus, residents living with HIV/AIDS who lose housing, or become ill, must rely on emergency housing services.

No placement system to move people into permanent housing

Unlike Section 8 vouchers, which seek to place clients into permanent housing in the private market, HOPWA funding is generally intended to match clients into housing that meets their medical needs. However, as the client's needs change, and their condition improves or deteriorates, there is no process to transition them into different types of housing. While keeping clients in housing that surpasses their medical needs is costly, and may violate state licensing guidelines, service providers are left with few alternatives.

WAITLIST POLICIES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

·Jefferson County (KY) developed an automated system to answer applicants' questions. The applicant enters their social security number, and the system "reads" relevant information back to the caller in a synthesized human voice. The system operates 24 hours a day and averages over 300 calls per day. Because the system was developed in-house, costs were limited to $1000 for an older computer and voice board as well as staff time for programming and maintenance. The system eliminated the need for a full-time employee to answer the phone and respond to requests for information.

·Charlotte (NC) uses a computer system whereby applicants can hear recorded info on various programs administered by the CHA, and can check on their waitlist status, get an approximation of when they will be housed, and verify or update their contact information. The system operates 24/7, and counselors and other staff members are available to assist callers during regular business hours. The system handles about 80% of applicant inquiries. The cost was $22,000 for hardware, software, and programming with an annual maintenance contract of $1800. CHA funded this using monies from HUD's Comprehensive Grant Program.

·Alameda County (CA) allows applicants to view waitlist status online. After viewing information about what to expect regarding changes in ranking, how to request more information about position on the waitlist, how to update information in the system, and how long to expect to wait, applicants can then enter the last 4 digits of their Social Security Number and their last name to view their ranking.

·The County of San Diego (CA) developed an eligibility booklet to simplify the certification process. The booklet is divided into two parts and consists of tear-out pages, along with corresponding simple instructions. The first part contains the personal declaration and questionnaire for rental assistance, which asks for household, income, and employment information. The second part of the booklet contains authorization and consent forms, including release of information forms and other documents designed to get the information housing authority staff need to certify eligibility. Once the household completes the forms in the booklet, the housing authority sends the release of information forms to the appropriate third parties and gets confirmation and verification of income and employment directly from these sources. This simple device helped the housing authority make sure it gets all of the necessary information and authorizations in one visit and saves the participants from gathering and submitting the information themselves.

OPTIONS and/or RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION 8

1) Focus on Customer Service

The severity and structural nature of the affordable housing crisis may explain why the numbers of qualified applicants will always exceed the availability of "safe, sanitary, affordable, and decent housing"8. However, that they are not alone in their plight for housing is of little reassurance to San Francisco residents with the most severe housing needs. SFHA should examine their customer service levels regularly to ensure that all applicants to the Section 8 program are treated according to departmental policies and procedures.

2) Use Automated Phone System and/or Online Systems

While a personal response system like the one utilized for the HOPWA waitlist is ideal, experience in other cities has shown that the effective use of technology can increase customer access to information, and decrease staff time spent on routine check-ins. This is particularly true for a public housing authority the size of SFHA, which would benefit greatly from a system that would allow those on the waitlist to independently check their status and update pertinent information.

SFHA has recently requested proposals for a comprehensive overhaul of their computer systems, which includes features that, if implemented, will enhance current customer service levels. According to Mr. Roetzer, the Department is seeking a system that will integrate the Finance, Human Resources, and Eligibility Departments. The proposals that were submitted as a result of the SFHA's Request for Proposals include features that will allow an increase in customer service and automation of responses to questions regarding status on the waitlist. In addition, the SFHA recently reconfigured the server for its website and now has the capability to add a waitlist status check feature on line.

3) Simplify the certification process

SFHA should consider adopting an eligibility booklet similar to the one in use in San Diego, and also place the booklet online. This step will clearly take the burden off of applicants who are often bounced from agency to agency in order to collect necessary certification information, and will increase success rates during the interview process. Agencies, including SFHA may be able to simplify processes, and enhance customer service across Department lines by entering into information sharing agreements. Applicants should be encouraged to sign authorization and consent forms including release of information forms in advance of certification, to enable housing authority staff to coordinate with other social service agencies to ensure that all applicants receive timely information and requests for updates. Streamlining the certification process may also reduce wait times.

SFHA may also want to examine the feasibility of a comprehensive intake interview system as used by DPH for the HOPWA waitlist.

HOPWA

1) Provide systems to move people into appropriate permanent housing

Creating a system to re-place HOPWA clients into housing that meets their current needs will ensure that each client receives appropriate levels of service and that housing facilities follow state licensing guidelines. Moving clients from housing that no longer meets their needs may also increase turnover on the waitlist, and thus, provide housing opportunities for more clients on the waitlist.

CONCLUSION

Waitlists with high numbers of applicants will always remain a reality in San Francisco as long as funding levels for affordable housing programs do not match the number of people who qualify for assistance. However, adopting changes to the current management of the Section 8 Voucher waitlist and creating a system to move people into appropriate levels of supportive housing through the HOPWA program are crucial steps to ensure that people with the highest level of need receive timely assistance, or at least have access to pertinent information. Reports from other cities indicate that using new technologies, promoting positive images of the program, and streamlining processes that provide information to clients and certify application details can have cost-saving benefits, as well as customer service enhancements for the most needy San Francisco residents.

1 Interview with Chris Harris, Redevelopment Agency on December 5, 2003.

2 SFHA does allow tenants to pay up to 40% of their income for Section 8 housing.

3 From: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/aidshousing/programs/index.cfm

4 Number current as of September 30, 2003.

5 As evidenced by the October 30, 2003 City Services Hearing on the Housing Impediments to Fair Housing report, there remains a high level of dissatisfaction and distrust associated with housing assistance programs. However, an investigation into allegations of discrimination and unjust practices was outside the scope of this report.

6 Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

7 Comments received from Mike Roetzer on 12/17/03.

8 From SFHA mission statement.