Oregon joins legal challenge as HUD drops Housing First model

Presenter: The state of Oregon joins 20 other plaintiffs suing HUD over changes to its Continuum of Care program. It’s the nation’s flagship program for addressing homelessness. Filed Nov. 25, the lawsuit claims the changes ‘are a virtual death blow to the CoC program as it has operated for decades and will lead to predictably disastrous results.’

Lane County’s Continuum of Care lead Amanda Borta explained the changes to members of the Poverty and Homelessness Board Nov. 20: 

Amanda Borta (Lane County): This administration and HUD have a very different direction that they would like to go with this program. They’re really emphasizing no housing first in having treatment requirements, both being offered and participated in, as well as that emphasis on employment, sobriety, and movement off of government assistance.

[00:00:48] So the overall change of direction and kind of an about-face for CoCs from what we have been doing for over a decade or more, really completely changing what the priorities are and requirements are of the CoC.

[00:01:03] So what does this all mean for us? Locally, $5.7 million in CoC funding currently supports permanent housing. That would now be limited to just over $2 million. So we anticipate about $3.7 (million) and some change is going to be reallocated to transitional housing, supportive services-only projects.

[00:01:22] Presenter: The changes mean that more local projects will have to compete for limited funding. Lane County projects are expected to receive low scores under HUD’s new scoring system. Amanda Borta:

[00:01:33] Amanda Borta (Lane County): One hundred percent of projects have participation requirements in order to get full points. That’s 10 points. In the application, usually things are like 2-3. Having 10 points for a question is quite high in the past, but you’ll see that the way that they’re weighting questions is quite skewed.

[00:01:50] We would have to demonstrate a reduction in the number of people residing in encampments by at least 20%. We don’t even currently really track encampments. There’s not a definition of what an encampment is. And it’s certainly not tracking the number of people in encampments. So I don’t think that we will be able to demonstrate that. We were looking into ways we might try.

[00:02:11] Forty points for system performance. This includes objective criteria that needs to be at least 50% of our ranking score. Previously, that was 30%. Seventeen out of 40 of those points are solely for demonstrating a reduction in your PIT (Point In Time) count. So, as we know, we do not see a reduction in our PIT count. Most CoCs do not. And so that one, so that’s 17 points we will not get.

[00:02:36]  And HUD has the PIT count data so they know almost no one will score on that question. So I’ll just say that’s intentional.

[00:02:44] Demonstrating participant exits to unsubsidized housing. That’s not something we have had to demonstrate before. We are looking into what that number is. I think the threshold for points is 20%. I don’t think that we have at least 20% exiting to unsubsidized locations.

[00:03:00] Increased points, again, for low returns to homelessness. So meeting thresholds on that as well as meeting outcomes on jobs and income growth.

[00:03:09] So typically the system performance is sort of even in terms of the system performance measures. This time, the points are skewed to those outcomes a little higher than the others.

[00:03:19] There are also 16 points for this section on availability of treatment and recovery services. To get these points, we’d have to show substance abuse treatment available on site for at least 30 % of projects. I don’t know that most or any of ours have what they’re looking for there in terms of attached agreements or letters that require that.

[00:03:40] The creation or existence of projects with the purpose of providing substance use treatment and attached documentation to show that, providing a list of beds for which these criteria apply and having a certain threshold of beds within our population size, as well as a 24-7 access to detox or inpatient treatment, formal partnerships with certified community behavioral health clinics and mental health clinics. This is something we’re looking into. I don’t know that we would have that in place prior to January.

[00:04:10] Availability of sober housing and showing adequate supportive services commitment through match, a value of 50% of our ARD (Annual Renewal Demand), or 30% of proposed funding is used for services relative to ARD.

[00:04:25] Six points for street outreach, so just slightly different criteria here, increasing the number that exit to a positive destination, as well as partnering with first responders and law enforcement.

[00:04:38] And then 13 points, so again, a high number about protecting public safety. So we have to demonstrate that laws that prohibit public drug use and enforcement that applies to the entire geographic area of the COC. So that would not just be city of Eugene.

[00:04:52] That likely would look to state law because we have to show that it applies to our entire geographic area, as well as the one about public camping and enforcement. So that would relate to the state law around public camping.

[00:05:06] Demonstrate utilization of standards that address individuals, including involuntary commitment. I believe there are some standards at the state level. I don’t know what we will have to do in terms of demonstrating utilization of those standards, specific to people who are unhoused.

[00:05:22] One about SORNA (Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act), which is sort of national standards around sexual–sex offender registration. The state of Oregon does not currently meet those standards for being considered fully implementing SORNA. We will not receive points for that.

[00:05:37] So some key takeaways, it will be nearly impossible to implement this large of a shift in policy and direction for our continuum prior to submission.

[00:05:46] So a lot of this we will not score on and we will likely see a very low score on the CoC application. And in many ways, HUD is penalizing CoCs for following previous policy requirements that HUD required, we’re now, like, being penalized for under this program.

[00:06:04] HUD is making it clear they would like to fund new applicants. They would like to fund projects that have not been in existence. They don’t believe that the folks that have been doing this work are doing it well. And they would like to, sort of, ‘Get rid of it and start over’ is sort of the messaging. So I think a lot of that scoring is very intentional. 

[00:06:24] I just want to be very clear that at least 70% of our CoC funding could be at risk, given the many questions we’re not able to score highly on. I haven’t even seen the questions. The application is not available, but just looking at the criteria, like the PIT count and other, like, we know we will not receive those points.

[00:06:41] And so, again, our chance is lower. And they have incorporated many reasons for not funding a project or even any projects. So they’ve included language that allows them to fund no projects at all or go through solo applicant processes. 

[00:06:55] Presenter: Lane County Commissioner Pat Farr: 

[00:06:58] Pat Farr (Lane County, commissioner): Regarding the PIT count: We count things differently here. We’re more accurate, I think, than most people who are required in PIT counts. So we’re being penalized for our own accuracy.

[00:07:08] Amanda Borta (Lane County): Yeah. And, I mean, most folks have not seen a reduction. I mean, we’ve seen increases in homelessness nationwide, and so most CoCs do not see a reduction in that number. 

[00:07:19] Presenter: Lane County’s Homelessness and Community Action Manager James Ewell:

[00:07:22] James Ewell (Lane County): An example that Amanda and I have talked about is the county’s dedication to gender-affirming care. That in and of itself would be against the points–that one category where they you know needs to be a man or a woman basically–there’s no navigating that.

[00:07:39] I mean, I don’t see a way that, you know, that the county–and that’s not hidden. That’s something that we’re very proud of and have shared widely. And so I think the worry is they’re going to be looking at stuff like that and there’s no way to dance around that. Not saying that we should by any means, but there’s just, you know, that’s the reality.

[00:07:58] Presenter: PHB member Genevieve Schaack:

[00:08:00] Genevieve Schaack: Is there a way that we could actually look at a different partner who’s already providing services that maybe aren’t as well aligned with the previous priorities of the county and HUD itself?

[00:08:10] The Mission meets all of these criteria. Even like Willamette Valley Treatment and Sponsors and things like that, there’s places that are more sobriety-based, even a little bit faith-based, that are already doing the work. And because what I could see that doing is, just bringing more dollars to the area for good work. 

[00:08:29] Amanda Borta (Lane County): Yeah, so the new project opportunities are certainly open to all of those entities. And again, we encourage everyone to look at them and if the work that you do aligns with these requirements or you feel like it could align, absolutely. We want to see anyone that is interested applying for these opportunities. And so all of those agencies you mentioned, yes, absolutely. 

[00:08:51] I would love to see some of these things implemented. I think the challenge is just the expectation of sort of a shift of our entire system in this time frame and without time to think or strategize or plan for it is just unrealistic.

[00:09:05] Because I wouldn’t be against adding transitional housing or SSOs, I think those could be very beneficial to fit into our system. I would love to see that in addition to permanent housing and rapid rehousing, which have also a place.

[00:09:18] And so I think the difficult part is that those things are replacing what we currently have, and that will ultimately lead to not having options . 

[00:09:27] Presenter: The mayor of the city of Eugene, Kaarin Knudson: 

[00:09:30] Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): I just want to say out loud that it’s quite apparent to me that the object of these changes is not outcomes. It’s not actual human—you know, impact positively on humans’ lives. It’s marketing and PR. It’s to be able to say that certain things have happened because data now shows it that way. Or to be able to say that certain programs are being funded and supported while other things are not.  

[00:09:56] Presenter: Oregon joins a lawsuit against HUD as the Trump administration abandons the long-held model of Housing First.