Barriers

FEDERAL POLICY BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Listed below are 15 barriers to home ownership identified through our work.

Federal programs do not easily accommodate individual home ownership.

HUD and other federal funds flow predominantly to state housing authorities, public housing authorities, and non-profits who mostly create congregate housing. The limited application of federal housing programs for home ownership/control for persons with disabilities is compounded by the fact that this particular group of individuals is not typically a priority in affordable housing initiatives. Present policies, both federal and state, predominately finance programs, providers, and buildings versus financing services, supports, and people.

Section 8 vouchers and certificates cannot be used for home ownership.

There are constraints regarding the use of Section 8 vouchers for home ownership. While regulations proposed in 1993 by HUD suggested an expansion of the vouchers and certificates beyond the rental market, those individuals who receive public benefits were excluded from using Section 8 for home ownership. The proposed 1993 regulations were never enacted. In addition, there is a limited number of certificates and vouchers available for rental housing in many areas, thus creating large waiting lists favoring individuals who are homeless or people with critical needs.

There is a nationwide shortage of single-family housing that can accommodate the needs of individuals with disabilities.

Most single-family housing is not accessible physically or financially to people with disabilities having low incomes. High property values in many areas prevent people with disabilities from entering the housing market. Funds need to be secured to make single family homes accessible both physically and financial. Collaboration and regulations that result in new homes being built with universal and visitable design need to be enacted.

Homeownership for people with disabilities is not an identified priority in most consolidated plans submitted to HUD.

Consolidated plans are a prerequisite for receiving funds under HUD's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Housing for Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) programs. The consolidated plan replaces the current CHAS, HOME program description. Many individuals and organizations interested in promoting homeownership for people with disabilities have not participated in prioritizing their communities in a consolidated plan. Some communities that have identified home ownership of people with disabilities as a priority have not taken action to address this priority. Individuals and organizations need to assure that HUD will provide individuals with disabilities funds needed to own their homes by actively participating in the consolidated planning process.

Individualized personal assistance is rarely available to people with disabilities.

A majority of the funds available for services to people with disabilities is allocated to expensive institutional and facility based services. Individuals are prevented from owning their homes because of the lack of adequate individualized personal assistance to meet their daily basic needs. A percentage of the funding that is allocated to institutional and facility based services needs to be made available for personal assistance services. Any efforts that are directed at decreasing institutional and facility based services to offer people personal assistance need to be supported.

Medicaid and Social Security limit cash resources.

Medicaid and Social Security limit the amount of assets a person is allowed to accumulate before benefits are jeopardized. We are currently aware of provisions within both programs for set-asides and trusts, but need to investigate further how this will impact home ownership for people receiving benefits.

Only three states in the country have amended their Medicaid Waiver to allow for the use of the Live-in-Care provision.

In 1990, Congress amended the Medicaid Home and Community-Based Waiver statute to allow states to claim federal Medicaid reimbursement for the "room and board" (food and shelter) costs associated with having an individual live in a waiver recipient's home and provide the recipient with support. This provision (which we will call the live-in-care provision) provides an exception to the general rule that excludes federal Medicaid payments from covering the cost of room and board expenses. In order to use this provision, states must include unrelated live-in personal caregivers as providers of an approved waiver service and choose to include the caregiver's rent and food expenses as part of the waiver service payment. In order to employ this option, states must amend their waiver or include the provision in new wavier applications or renewals. Unfortunately, only three states currently have made this provision available. It is important for states to use this provision to reallocate their resources, thus allowing available funds to be used to assist Medicaid recipients to secure homes of their own. States need to avail themselves of this cost-neutral way to assist people whose options would otherwise be limited to institutional settings.

Medicaid waiver funds cannot be used for housing without live-in support.

Under the above-mentioned rule, a portion of the live-in support person's room and board can be blended into the housing costs of the supported individual. The same use is not extended to an individual with a disability who does not require live-in support. This limitation excludes a large tier of people receiving Medicaid funds who would otherwise qualify for home ownership.

The general public is not knowledgeable of the benefits gained by people with disabilities owning there own homes.

There are few examples of people with disabilities owning their own homes. Lenders, people with disabilities and their families, builders, realtors, lawyers, and judges are often unaware of the benefits of individuals owning their homes. Education needs to be provided that gives examples of individuals who have successfully achieved homeownership highlighting the benefits to individuals and the community.

Individuals who live in facilities and individuals who require intensive personal assistance are many times not informed about the possibilities of owning a home.

People with disabilities who live in facilities and who require intensive personal assistance are often not considered by others to be capable of owning a home. In order to maintain a facility's financial base, individuals are not informed by the people providing them assistance of the possibility of homeownership. Agencies (at all levels) who provide services to individuals who live in facilities and who require intensive personal assistance should be required to offer information on the possibility of homeownership.

The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) affects affordability of live-in support.

FLSA poses some complications for home ownership and control. Provisions which exempt live-in support workers from federal minimum wage requirements, thus facilitating more flexible arrangements, need to be enacted by the Department of Labor.

Liens on property restrict contributions.

Medicaid and other sources of public dollars are able to put liens on individual's homes financed with their funds, thus making it difficult for families to invest money in homes for their adult children, or for homeowners to build any equity.

Affordable housing funds predominately benefit non-profit housing providers not individuals.

Affordable housing funds do not flow directly to individuals. Both public and private funding for affordable housing needs to be directed to the individual. People with disabilities would be able to own homes if funds were made available to individuals for mortgage buy downs, downpayment and closing costs, rehabilitation, and housing escrow accounts. Housing escrow accounts include funds for a two-month mortgage reserve, general maintenance, capital improvements, long-term maintenance, and tax increases.

Public funds flow through providers.

Public funds flow to agencies, not individuals. Therefore, agencies have the power and the control. Providers of housing and services often allocate large overhead allowances to support their administrative costs (sometimes in excess of 30%), which gives them a significant financial stake in sustaining congregate housing models in which housing and supports are inextricably intertwined.

Community Reinvestment Act's (CRA) reform could offer more direct involvement for people with disabilities.

Bankers are not required to gather data on people with disabilities and may pass over this underserved group in assessing and addressing community credit needs. CRA reform calls for banks to be evaluated on their performance and to directly involve public input in drafting strategic plans for CRA compliance.