By David Layfield on April 24th, 2015
Recently I asked our 300,000 email subscribers and Facebook fans a simple question.
How does housing assistance improve the lives of those who receive it? Here's the post on Facebook.
Now, I know we have an engaging group of social media followers that aren't afraid to ask questions, share their opinions or help others out, but what happened when I asked that question left me speechless and wanting to march up to Capitol Hill and say:
"Look! Here are THOUSANDS of living, breathing reasons we should fund housing programs!"That Facebook post was viewed by nearly 2 million people, received 16,000 likes, was shared more than 10,000 times and received nearly 4,000 comments. There's no question that I hit a nerve. One of our social media managers came to me and said, "Dave, what do I do on this post? There are hundreds of people just pouring their hearts out in response to your question." Keep pouring. The only way Congress and the public are going to see the good in housing programs is if the people who need them and those that have benefited raise their voices. Advocates, progressive media, economists and social scientists, folks I'll refer to as "cheerleaders", do a wonderful job of exposing the "scientific" reasons housing programs are good for America. Are the messages the cheerleaders are chanting getting through? When you read the answers to my question in that post, you'd definitely say those cheers aren't loud enough. But I'd argue that it doesn't matter how loud the cheers are if they are ONLY coming from surrogates. While I'm sitting here in my bright, comfortable office or this evening when I'm at home relaxing in my average, middle class home in a good neighborhood, when I write about how important it is to provide an adequate housing infrastructure in America, there's a certain hollowness to my message. Not that I don't believe deeply in what I'm saying, but I'm speaking on behalf of someone else. Throughout history, real social change has only taken hold when those being harmed have found their own voices. Rosa Parks was not a social scientist discussing the ills of segregation in some study and Susan B. Anthony was an actual woman who wanted to vote but was told she couldn't. If Congress and the voting public are going to understand the value housing security brings to our society and economy, they MUST hear the stories of those being harmed by the current system. And those stories we got last week in the comments to my post...thousands of stories. I decided to boil these stories down to a Top List. Top lists are common online and have become cliche but since I couldn't find a list of ways housing assistance helps improve lives I figured one more cliche couldn't hurt. So, after pouring over nearly 4,000 responses to my question last week, here are the Top 5 Ways Housing Assistance Improves Lives.
This grandmother, raising her five year old granddaughter in a "bad neighborhood" because she can't afford to live anywhere else, knows "housing assistance could help [her] to move into a more safe neighborhood" while wanting her "grandbaby to live a happier and safe life."
One of the few tangible hopes for this obviously caring grandmother are programs like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) or Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher but with long waiting lists and active, open discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders, even after suffering the long waiting list, will this grandmother be able to escape?
"decreasing stress levels through less exposure to crime, gang activity, housing mobility, unemployment, weakened family structure, and through better access to services and resources such as libraries and health clinics; increasing academic expectations and performance through increased access to positive role models and high-performing peers, skilled employment opportunities close to home for their parents, quality day care and out-of-school resources, and prevailing norms of attending and staying in school; and promoting the adoption of pro-social attitudes and behaviors, with less exposure to peers and adults engaged in violent behavior, drug use, or other antisocial activities."And the poor families stuck in poverty-stricken neighborhoods know this.
The recent movement among Housing Finance Agencies to target more LIHTC funding toward economically diverse neighborhoods is a step in the right direction.
The Housing Choice Voucher was created to accomplish this but for the most part voucher recipients end up in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods because landlords still tend to push voucher holders to lower end properties.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs[/caption]
It would stand to reason that a cramped apartment, with a leaky roof in a building with a broken elevator in a neighborhood branded by stray bullets and street corner drug deals, would pose problems in meeting this basic human need for safety. Until the need for safety is met, love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization can't be attained easily.
Many conservative pundits and opponents to public assistance programs argue that poor folk should do more to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. They ask the question "If someone wants to move to a safer neighborhood, why don't they just work harder or start their own business?" The answer to that question is usually that they are either already working as many hours a week as humanly possible or they are so overwhelmed in trying to meet their basic physiological needs that doing anything more by oneself seems impossible. Most of these politicians, pundits and haters of the poor approach this question from a general position of safety. They've never faced the prospect of absolute failure. They've always had multilayered safety nets under them that they took for granted. Most poor Americans don't have the benefit of friends or families with extra bedrooms or a spare apartment over the garage. It would be a difficult (and I would argue foolish) decision to quit a minimum wage job that is at least providing for basic physiological needs to start a business and risk it all with no safety net. Housing assistance is that safety net. An apartment in a LIHTC community in a good neighborhood with rents 25% below market or a Section 8 voucher provides that basic security one needs to even think about moving up the hierarchy. Housing assistance can give poor Americans that "security" Maslow talked about and would allow them to eventually achieve their full potential. And when individuals fulfill their potential our community's and country's potential follows.
So minimum wage earners get to choose between providing for their families or spending time with their families but not both.
Programs like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program provide just enough financial assistance to allow these folks to spend less time working overtime and more time building strong families that make our communities even stronger.
But most of us don't suffer from a false sense of confidence. Our confidence is actually dictated by how well we solve problems and provide for our families. Feeling like we're in a hamster wheel, constantly struggling to pay the rent or the electric bill, can take a toll on our morale and self esteem. This can become a vicious circle preventing us from ever achieving self-actualization.
Housing assistance programs can provide that little bit of psychological lift we need to be stronger individuals and part of stronger communities.
Housing options for families with immigrants.
If the head of household is a citizen or eligible immigrant, you can still qualify for HUD programs with a citizenship requirement.Selina Irene says:
"I know of no other website that keeps me better informed. Keep up the good work, Affordable Housing Online!"