Part two of this blog post will address the HCBS Housing
Choices” draft policy and procedures, which, unlike the Contribution to Costs
policy, are wide open for comment and revision. (Refer to https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h6PCyTDF7rPUxgOl5ntF2f0Ws71CvLu8?usp=sharing
for the set of proposed housing policies and procedures.) The Housing Choices policy and procedures lay
out what is supposed to happen in the future if people receiving residential
supports want to live with people other than DDS-designated roommates or in a
rental unit that exceeds the rent cap established by DDS. To an extent the choices offered in this policy
already exist, but entail individual negotiation with DDS. This policy would standardize
the options available to people and – most importantly - shift the risks of these
arrangements onto the people receiving supports. As the procedures (2.C.3.)
state, “the person…accepts the associated risks, including financial risks and
facing eviction for non-payment of rent.”
This is a real departure from past practice, and it’s why a
great deal of caution and deep thought are needed. Since there is no real time urgency for
implementing this policy, DDS should take the time needed to responsibly think
through the implications along with stakeholders. The next opportunity for discussion will be Monday,
January 7 at 2:00 in the Joy Evans conference room at DDS
headquarters and at Project Action’s January meeting.
Let’s look first at who this applies to - only those receiving
residential supports (supported living or residential habilitation) services
under the DDS-administered I/DD Medicaid waiver. A lot of people in the Supporting Families
meeting on the 13th were confused about this. To be clear, the policy
applies only to those receiving intensive supports in a home owned or leased by
a residential-services agency or the person being supported. (Some of the proposed changes are make things
more confusing, though, as discussed below.)
Now let’s look at why this is happening: D.C. rents are rising astronomically, and
people are getting priced out of the local housing market. Some folks who have been living for a long
while in a particular building have been forced to move because their rents have
risen above the DDS rent limit. So more
and more people are having to move where rents are less expensive, mostly out
of the city and into Prince George’s County.
(I discussed this in my post, “D.C. Housing News You Can Use,“ on August
9.) People just starting to get supports
are also being moved out of the city. So those who can do so are looking at other
options if they want to stay in familiar neighborhoods and not lose their ties
to D.C. and their community (including voting in the District, which our
citizens with disabilities have been encouraged to do).
Finally, let’s look at some of the details, and where –
based often on direct personal experience - I see bumps along the road if DDS
moves to implement the Housing Choices policy and procedures without further thought
and discussion:
-
In the policy (3.D. under “Standards”), DDS
assumes that a person “has the option to choose to become either a sole lessee
or a lessee with one or more consenting third party co-signers.” Unfortunately, this option does not
necessarily exist. If a person
has no credit record – which is the case for many people with disabilities who
have not held paid work - then some (maybe most) landlords will not allow the
person to be a lessee – not even a co-lessee.
They will only allow someone else – usually parents or other family
members - to be the lessee, with the person being listed on the lease as the
resident in exactly the same way they are when a provider agency does the
leasing. DDS will quickly need to decide
whether an apartment rented by a parent for a person getting supports then
becomes a “natural home” and whether, if it does, the person can still qualify
for the “housing choices” being offered. The existing standard for who can own or rent
a supported-living residence – section 1934.7 in http://dcrules.elaws.us/dcmr/29-1934
- suggests an inconsistency here that needs to be addressed.
-
The Housing Choices policy (Standards, 3.E.) further
calls for DDS to pay the residential provider an amount up to its rent limit. Currently, when family or others pay above
the rent cap, the provider combines both payments and the landlord receives a
single payment. Under the proposed approach, it appears there would be two payments to
the landlord, one from the provider (the DDS payment), and another from the
person or their family for the balance. If this is the intent, then does DDS
know that all landlords would accept such an arrangement, and how would the
lessee be sure the accompanying DDS payment would occur on time (see below in
the discussion of risks)?
-
The policy assumes that all risks can be shifted
onto the lessee, but in at least one regard this is not the case. Landlords often require renter’s insurance,
but - based on my direct personal experience - an insurance company will not
cover liability for staff who work in the apartment under such a renter’s
policy – they will only cover the lessee and named resident. This means that
the provider agency still will bear the risks for the actions of its own staff
and will need to carry applicable liability insurance.
The above considerations apply to landlords’ and insurance
companies’ requirements, but as it moves to shift the risks of housing arrangements
onto the people it supports, DDS must mitigate risks over which it has control,
for example:
-
DDS is not always timely in its payments to
provider agencies, and some providers are also late in their own payments. If
the person or their family is on the lease, and the DDS/provider portion of the
rent is paid late, that will affect the credit rating of the person or family
member on the lease, and if paid very late or not paid at all, could cause a
person to be evicted. There
need to be ironclad assurances by DDS and provider agencies that payments will
be made to landlords by the 5th of the month so that delays on their
part will not negatively affect others’ credit ratings.
-
The new procedures (“The Process for Making Housing
Choice,” 3.E.6.) lay out an approval process by DDS for any proposed living
situation before the lease can be signed.
Landlords may be willing to hold an apartment while this process takes
place if a DDS provider agency is the one who’s renting, but it
isn’t clear that a landlord will hold an apartment for a person or family if
the DDS approval process takes a while, so DDS should commit to getting this
done within a specified period.
-
Section 3.H. (under “Standards”) of the policy
addresses what happens in case a person opting for a nontraditional housing
choice is evicted, and goes on to describe a process for either placing the person
into an existing vacancy in provider housing or, after further discussion,
allowing them to choose another nontraditional living situation. An eviction can happen quickly, and the
process described takes time. DDS should
plan to have a clearly defined respite space for people in these circumstances,
to ensure they do not wind up on the street in the meantime.
I know I haven’t thought of everything. Other unforeseen issues will arise, along with
financial consequences such as those I discussed on part one of this blog
post. This calls for DDS to have a core
of dedicated troubleshooting staff who can step in quickly to assist when the
requirements of landlords and insurance companies don’t align with DDS expectations
and are beyond the capabilities of service coordinators to resolve. Housing decisions must often take place
quickly, and lengthy delays will only ensure that desirable apartments go to
someone else while details are worked out.
The procedures also state (section 1.) that “DDS will post
information on its website about DDA residential supports and rental limitation
rates.” DDS also needs to post a clear
discussion of likely risks and what it intends to do to mitigate risks over
which it has control, as discussed above. Many issues can be foreseen, and I’ve called
attention above to a number of them. DDS
needs to try to sort these out before moving forward so that all the learning
doesn’t take place at the expense of people and their
families.
