INTEGRATING SOCIAL & HOUSING SERVICES

Local Initiatives vs. Federal Mandate INTEGRATING SOCIAL & HOUSING SERVICES Aziz Abumilha  John Brandt  Laura Fay Christina Gonzalez  Danielle Webster  Derrick Welch June 22, 2010 PADM 524

“Houses are built to live in, and not to look on.” Sir Francis Bacon

project Self-Sufficiency, est. 1984 • The original intent of the program was to allow local programs the ability to integrate local services for the underserved and the poor. Families were selected based on motivation . • Case Managers involved who could provide services as needed and petition on behalf of the family. • For example: Many families who needed services were single mothers who could not train, go to school, or job hunt without childcare.

buy-in from agencies • There was significant buy in from multiple agencies: • Many offered families different services based on their individual needs and often agencies would cross refer. • Services included: • Politically Palatable: In the 1980’s political arena the PSS program was politically attractive to both sides, conservative and liberal.

Originally resource sharing was a local idea: • Steve Holt recommended it in 1984 to HASCO’s board of directors however they were concerned that HASCO may be stepping out of its original mission of housing related services. • The Notice of Funding Availability for Project Self-Sufficiency was published on May 31, 1984. • The requirements to fulfill the bid were appealing because they required private and public cooperation and the intention was to help families become self sufficient. • Snohomish County had a limited amount of housing for underprivileged families and wait times for housing could be 5-10 years. • The underlying issue was a trend of dependence on public housing.

Project SELF-SUFFICIENCY  Derrick

Project Self Sufficiency = PSS • Consisted of Public and Non-Profit agencies. • A program for low income families with the ultimate goal of moving people out of poverty • 95% + women listed as head of household • Combines housing with: • Job Training • Education • Supportive social services i.e. childcare, transportation, health care, counseling

PSS Program • Had a national reputation for bringing people out of poverty and helping people to become self sufficient. • Key to Success – families were selected to participate based on specific criteria including indications of initiative and motivation.

PSS Program • Participants were required to attend support groups before they were referred to one of the housing authorities for Section 8 certificate. • Participants were expected to follow through on their individualized actions plans. • A case manager with PSS would assist participant in accessing needs, setting goals, and developing a strategy for achieving those goals.

PSS Program • Participants were to keep their counselor apprised of changes in the family situation. • Participants were warned that inaction could lead to being them dropped from the program.

Success of PSS • Over 350 families graduated from the program and 400 were currently enrolled. • PSS families represent ¼ of clients serviced by HASCO’s housing programs. • Partner agencies, county government, and he regional HUD office were very proud of the PSS program.

Success of PSS • Few people could argue with a program whose goal was to help low-income families become economically independent, and it appealed to both the liberals who called extensive services for the poor and the conservatives who wanted the public assistance rolls reduced. • PSS was acknowledged as to have demonstrated its value to the community.

Inherent Problems with Block Grants • Intergovernmental relations are largely concerned with boundary-spanning public management. • On one hand, public managers must respect and represent governments that are organized around geographic and constitutional boundaries. • Finding the equity that most policy interventions seek requires managers to work within networks that comprise governments within the same level (horizontal relationships) or between levels (vertical relationships). • However, the targeting of benefits through state administration of federal block grants presents an increasingly tangled problem that requires both horizontal and vertical boundary-spanning management.

Vertical vs. Horizontal Collective Targeting • State governments have historically administered block grants with an eye toward regulatory compliance and parochial goals, which results in the flow of benefits from the federal government to individual municipalities, governments and special districts.

Vertical vs. Horizontal Targeting • Such individual targeting (vertical targeting) may optimize benefits within the geographic boundaries of recipients, but is unlikely to capture regional benefits arising from economies of scale, internalizing positive externalities, or prevention of negative spillovers.

Vertical vs. Horizontal Collective Targeting The central question, therefore, is how can state governments design the administration of federal block grant programs to implement vertical collective action (targeting) with an intention to allocate benefits toward regional targets (collective targeting)?

State-Centric Networks • The answer to this question lies in the formation of state-centric networks. • By moving away from the typical functional agency that just redistributes Federal funds, states agencies should look to become more geographically focused.

State-Centric Networks (Cont’d) • Collins suggests that state agencies, especially those administering Federal block grants, should try to be less vertical (think NCLB) and more horizontal in their organization.

Configuration of State-centric Networks

FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY  Aziz

Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) • Dilemma starts 1991 • HUD: the end of PSS • FSS’s mission • “getting any new low-income housing authority residents employed and off all forms of public assistance”

FSS Requirements VS. PSS • 1 year sustainable employment • Independent of income assistance prior the completion of the program • Participants’ selection (Housing authority waiting list) “objective criteria” • Contract enforcing the new provisions

FSS limitations • Funds for case management or coordination • Didn’t increase Section 8 certificates • FSS didn’t allow to ties between the program and the community to arrange fundraising • FSS concentrates on basic services as referral function instead of focusing on high level of involvement of counselors and participants

FSS limitations (Cont’d) • Mandate a minimum program size equal the number of Section 8 certificates • 122 families served • PSS three counselors have 50 or 60 caseload • HASCO could choose to not apply for additional certificates, but it is violation to its primary mission: • “To increase the housing inventory for low- income families”

FSS limitations (Cont’d) • “Local preference” authority • Partner service agencies would no longer direct clientele to housing, no cooperation. • Unknown reaction of the Human Service Department to “housing is no longer an incentive”

Major problems with FSS • Motivation is no longer required • “Objective criteria” the length of time assisted in housing; first-come, first-served • Motivation was a key component for PSS • Aligned with goal of the program (self-sufficient) • Pragmatic (resources) • “Even motivated participants require a significant amount of one-on-one time with counselors” (p.13)

Major problems with FSS (Cont’d) • Prohibition against selecting participants from anywhere but the current housing authority programs and waiting lists

Reason for the mandate • Universal nondiscriminatory access to the Family Self-Sufficiency program • “States and localities were concerned that many federal requirements attached to the expenditure of federal dollars were a form of micro-management. They viewed these requirements as ignoring outcomes of program implementation and, instead, focusing on input, process and sometimes output expectations. These expectations were defined at the federal level and tended toward a one size fits all approach” (Radin, p. 3)

Local Response to FSS  Danielle

What would you do? • If you were a director at the local level, would you: • Follow FSS mandates? • Ignore FSS and continue PSS unchanged? • Seek a hybrid solution?

Main considerations • Would HASCO be sacrificing too much if they fully complied with HUD’s federal mandate? • How could PSS’s effectiveness in meeting the Housing Authorities’ goals continue or further improve given the new HUD mandates? • What were the risks of non-compliance?

Decision: implement fss… • “Watered-down PSS” due to lack of funding and resources • HUD partially compromised to HASCO’s request • 50% of FSS slots could be reserved for existing clients (exempt from “objective standards” selection criteria) • Still called for termination of local PSS programs

…and Protect PSS • Responsibility to the county and to our partner service providers • Sought support from local allies to “test the boundaries” of HUD’s authority • Asserted local authority to continue PSS • No clear decision as to HUD’s authority to cancel • No news (from HUD) is good news

New structure for pss • Community Development Block Grant • Versus HUD funding under original iteration • AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer • Replaced salaried program coordinator • Preserve partner relationships and housing-meets-social services model

Performance Measurement & Accountability  Christina

Federal Performance Requirements: GPRA & PART • GPRA: requires all federal agencies to develop strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance reports. • Passed 1993 by Congress • Elicit a focus on outcomes achieved with federal money • Justify requests for Dollars • Focuses on offices and organizational units • Congress and Executive Branch involved • Bottom up approach, begins with programs (Radin, 2010)

GPRA assumptions • Single info will meet decision making needs • Denigrates role of fed govt or overblows importance with third party actors • Programs such as PSS are difficult to define in quantitative terms • Link planning, management, and budgeting processes • Avoid partisan political conflicts and differences in policy constructs • Set of expectations and more centralization • Emphasized the role of federal govt (Radin, 2010)

PART – Bush Administration • PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool • Executive Order implemented by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) • Focuses on programs • Only in executive branch centered in OMB • Top Down, OMB approves measures • performance measures are required • Focus on efficiency (Radin, 2010)

PART • Four purposes • Measure and diagnose program performance • Evaluate programs in a systematic consistent manner • Inform agency and OMB decisions for management, legislative, or regulatory improvements • Focus on program improvements and measure progress (Radin, 2010)

Accountability • Romzek and Dubnick’s four types of relationships: • Legal: external sources; high degree of control and scrutiny • Professional: internal sources; low degrees of control and high degrees of discretion • Bureaucratic: internally and exhibit high degree of control • Political: external sources and low degree of direct control

Performance Measuring and PSS • A good example: New nationwide mandated program FSS 1991 • Affects Block grant programs; receive lower ratings • Designed to be run by local and state govt • But assumes fed govt responsibility • Halt the PSS program implement FSS • Replaced flexibility with structured federal mandates • Limited level of program development; focused on service referral function • Had to change to “first come first serve basis”

Accountability and PSS / FSS • Professional: Agency administrator of the PSS and FSS program is expected to exercise discretion • Legal: OMB scrutinizes the performance of the program • Bureaucratic: obedience of organizational directives by the employees and agencies in the PSS / FSS program • Political: expectation of responsiveness to stakeholders of the program (political interests); applies to the interest groups such as the HASCO, HUD, Human Service Coalition

Final Case Notes  Laura

Wrapping it all up • The Integrated Housing and Social services case study is a classic example of the interaction between local, state and federal government. • The case study begins by outlining the emergence and eventual success of a local housing program, only later to be threatened by a federal mandate.

Tie-in with IGR • The case examines the challenge a locally run program faces in addressing a change in federal funding and support, and how the various levels of government interact to come up with a solution. • Agranoff argues that intergovernmental programs can no longer be run separately and intergovernmental management must be restructured to run collaboratively rather than by top-down control.

The Agranoff Perspective • Agranoff further explains that intergovernmental relations are shifting from interacting hierarchies to organizational networks. • In the case of HASCO vs. HUD, HASCO decided to comply with the federal requirements of Family Self-Sufficiency while simultaneously running the local Project Self-Sufficiency.

Collective Targeting • Collins builds on Agranoff’s discussion of political hierarchies and top-down control by outlining political interaction among different levels of government. • In Collins’ discussion of collective targeting, he explains that the federal government allocates funds towards local governments. Local governments, then in turn implement the services. • Federal government relies on state and local government to implement national economic and social reform and target federal funds regionally.

Collective Action Problem • In the current case study there exists a vertical collective action problem in which local government is forced to give up sovereignty over policy design to federal mandate. • In response to vertical collective action problem in which local government is at the bottom of the political hierarchy, HASCO comes up with an alternative solution…

HASCO’s Ultimate Action • FSS was a federal program delegated to a local government agency. • Grodt implements FSS as a separate program using community block grants to fund the project. • HASCO and the Everett Housing Authority continue to run PSS locally using federal funds with the support of Harold E. Saether, Director of HUD’s Northwest office.

Q & A • In what way could the federal government (HUD) restructure the FSS program in order to create fair and effective collaboration with HASCO and the local PSS program? • How can federal and local government come to a solution to the collective action problem at hand, and collaborate horizontally as opposed to the typical vertical hierarchy as described in the Collins’ paper. • Did HASCO make the right decision by continuing to run PSS simultaneously with the federally mandated FSS program? • Would one of the alternatives have been a better choice? • Terminate PSS and implement FSS • Fight against FSS

INTEGRATING SOCIAL & HOUSING SERVICES