اینترنت

برچسب: housing

  • Two types of housing vouchers for foster youth | Quick Guide

    Two types of housing vouchers for foster youth | Quick Guide


    Credit: Lisa Fotios/Pexels

    In California, where affordable housing is increasingly difficult to find, youth exiting the foster care system disproportionately face higher rates of homelessness, according to CalYOUTH, a study on foster youth conducted from 2012 to 2022.

    Two federal programs, the Family Unification Program (FUP) and the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative (FYI), work to reduce these rates of homelessness by providing targeted housing vouchers commonly referred to as Section 8.

    But FUP and FYI vouchers go largely underutilized in California, according to a recent report from John Burton Advocates for Youth, or JBAY, a nonprofit focused on supporting California foster and homeless youth.

    According to the authors of the report, child welfare agency representatives from 37 of the state’s 58 counties responded to the survey, and the counties that responded are in charge of 93% of the state’s FUP and FYI vouchers for eligible young people.

    The results from the survey provide critical insight into these two housing vouchers for former foster youth, such as how often they are being distributed and various challenges with more widespread issuance. Some of those challenges include a lack of awareness regarding recent policy changes that simplify the voucher distribution process and insufficient funding for the supportive services offered in coordination with the voucher.

    This quick guide provides insight into what the FUP and FYI programs are, how the housing vouchers can be accessed, the challenge of California’s current housing climate, and where additional information can be found.

    What do the FUP and FYI housing vouchers provide?
    Both the Family Unification Program and the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative vouchers provide eligible youth with up to three years of housing assistance, plus additional support such as locating available housing and covering some move-in costs. The housing vouchers, known commonly as Section 8, pay for all or part of the youth’s rent.

    A three-year voucher can be extended for an additional two years if the youth meets certain criteria. Those criteria include opting into a Family Self-Sufficiency program if one is offered by the local public housing authority issuing their voucher. In an FSS program, these youth can receive additional support services, including child care, job training and transportation. If a family self-sufficiency program is not offered, or if it’s impacted, youth can also meet the criteria by fulfilling education or employment conditions.

    More detailed information regarding those education or employment conditions can be found on Page 9 of this report.

    Who is eligible for the FUP and FYI?
    The Family Unification Program, or FUP, was established in 1992 and provides housing vouchers for families involved in the child welfare system and for transition-age former foster youth.

    The Foster Youth to Independence Initiative, or FYI, launched nearly three decades later in 2019, is specific to transition-age youth leaving the foster care system.

    In order to qualify for both programs, transition-age foster youth must be between the ages of 18 and 24 and cannot have reached their 25th birthday. Additional eligibility requirements include having exited the foster care system or being about to do so within 90 days and being homeless or at risk of homelessness at age 16 or above.

    It should be noted that transition-age foster youth age ranges might be different for other services, depending on the specific resource and the person’s location. In Santa Clara County, for example, some foster care transition services are available for 15-year-olds, while the city of San Francisco offers support for some former foster youth up to age 27.

    How many youth have been administered housing voucher?
    There has been a 54% increase in vouchers administered in the past two years: from 870 in 2021 to 1,341 as of Oct. 1, according to the JBAY report.

    Why don’t more eligible California youth have a housing voucher?
    There are multiple reasons for these housing vouchers being largely underutilized in California.

    One key challenge is that not every county chooses to participate in the FUP and FYI voucher programs. While those youth may likely still be eligible for other state or county-funded housing support, such programs are hard to get because they are utilized at higher rates.

    Additionally, the FUP and FYI vouchers are linked with offering supportive services and, despite new designated allocations to cover those supportive services, the costs remain prohibitive.

    Some county representatives are also unaware of key details that would facilitate the issuing of more vouchers. For example, about 65% of county child welfare agencies remained unaware that vouchers can be extended from three to five years for all youth with a voucher. Plus, recent federal policy changes have simplified the process that county agencies must follow when requesting certain vouchers, but many of the county representatives interviewed in the JBAY survey were unaware of those changes.

    How long does it take for youth to find adequate housing if they are administered a FUP or FYI voucher?

    The length of time for identifying housing ranges from less than one month to over six months, with 45% of California counties that responded to the survey indicating that the average search was one to two months. The range includes the beginning of the housing search to the moment the housing is secured.

    Finding adequate and affordable housing in California is increasingly one of the most significant barriers to using or even issuing the vouchers. Transition-age foster youth are particularly susceptible to this challenge, as they often have little to no income to rely on, no rental history and are less likely to have a co-signer to rely on.

    How can transition-age foster youth apply for FUP and FYI housing vouchers?
    If a transition-aged former foster youth thinks they might be eligible for a FUP or FYI voucher, they should connect with their child welfare or independent living worker. A direct point-of-contact for their county, if they offer vouchers, can be found at this link.

    Their local public child welfare agency makes the referral to the public housing authority and certifies whether the youth is eligible, based on their history in the foster care system.

    If the youth is eligible and the housing authority has FUP vouchers, that’s the type of voucher offered to the young person. Otherwise, an FYI voucher is requested from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Once housing is secured, the FYI voucher is administered to the landlord.

    Where can additional resources and information be found regarding housing vouchers for transition-age foster youth?

    Those potentially eligible for a FUP or FYI housing voucher can find contact information for their county on this spreadsheet compiled by JBAY.

    This fact sheet by the Youth Law Center provides an overview of the housing resources available in California for current and former foster youth.





    Source link

  • LAUSD, partners provide 25 affordable housing units for district families

    LAUSD, partners provide 25 affordable housing units for district families


    Sun Valley Apartments provide homes to LAUSD families that have experienced chronic homelessness.

    Credit: Mallika Seshadri

    Twenty-five units of permanent, supportive housing have been made available to families of LAUSD students who have experienced chronic homelessness. 

    After more than seven years of collaboration, district officials and partners — including Many Mansions, a nonprofit that provides affordable housing to Los Angeles County and Ventura County residents — cut the ribbon for the new Sun King Apartments on Monday and vowed this would be the first of many structures to come. 

    “I am filled with hope and determination to continue bringing housing opportunities to more LAUSD families in need,” said school board member Kelly Gonez on Monday. “Because while we’re not in the housing business, we are in the business of doing everything we can to advocate for our students and families.” 

    High rates of poverty “should not be the reality in the richest country on Earth, in the richest state in the nation, in one of the richest counties of this state,” district Superintendent Alberto Carvalho added. 

    The Sun King Apartments — consisting of one, two and three bedroom apartments — are located in L.A.’s San Fernando Valley, where Gonez said there are several elementary schools where more than 20% of students are homeless. 

    The apartments’ residents are supported through a voucher, and their rent is based on a sliding scale. 

    In addition to the housing, residents will have access to a range of youth services — including after-school tutoring, summer camps, family events and school supplies, according to Rick Schroeder, president and CEO of Many Mansions. 

    Several of the district’s partners and collaborators on the project attended Monday’s event, including U.S. Rep. Tony Cárdenas, City Council member Imelda Padilla and the city’s chief housing and homelessness officer, Lourdes Castro Ramirez, along with business partners. 

    ‘Not stopping here’ 

    Annika, Angel and their daughter, Faith, live in one of the Sun King Apartments. 

    The parents, whose last names were not provided, met at a homeless shelter 16 months ago. 

    In late December, they — along with their daughter, Faith — moved into the Sun King Apartments. 

    “We all started a new chapter of our lives, and it has filled us with the highest hopes, blessings and glory,” Annika said Monday. “With the thanks to Many Mansions, we have been able to create a safe and stable chapter of life and a new home for our daughter, Faith.” 

    Noting that homelessness among school-aged children has increased, Carvalho said Monday that similar projects to house members of the Los Angeles community are critical.  He said the Sun King Apartments project is something “that we need to replicate and amplify very quickly.” The superintendent did not provide details or a timeline for when additional housing is expected.

    This initial effort took more than seven years, but Carvalho hopes future projects will take less time. 

    So far, the district has put out a request for information for seven potential properties — some of which may also serve as workforce housing for teachers and classified personnel, Carvalho said. 

    He declined to share how many people the district is ultimately looking to house and said Los Angeles Unified School District would pursue options that do not cost them financially.

    “How do you tackle (homelessness)? One unit at a time, 25 units in a building, many buildings, many mansions across our entire community,” Carvalho said. 

    “And why do we do this? … Families today live on the third floor. They see the mountains. They see the street. They’re close to the school where their baby girl attends. They feel maybe for the first time somebody paid attention, they’re important.” 





    Source link

  • California wants to accelerate schools’ efforts to build 2.3 million units of housing

    California wants to accelerate schools’ efforts to build 2.3 million units of housing


    A view of the courtyard from the third floor of a housing complex for teachers and education staff of Jefferson Union High School District in Daly City on July 8, 2022.

    Credit: Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo

    Jefferson Union High School District used to lose a quarter of its staff every year, which meant that it began every school year scrambling to fill vacancies. That changed in 2022 when the Daly City-based district developed affordable housing for its staff.

    The district built 122 units on school district-owned land that is now fully occupied by 25% of the district’s staff. Board member Andy Lie said the district is beginning the new school year with zero vacancies, a transformation he calls “remarkable” and “unheard of in public education.”

    In January, legislation to ease zoning requirements for school districts interested in building affordable housing took effect. Jefferson Union High and a handful of other districts in the state are ahead of others in providing housing for both teachers and classified staff.

    Districts with success stories, as well as local and state leaders, will be at an Aug. 14 housing summit convened by the California Department of Education (CDE). During a news conference Tuesday at department headquarters, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said schools own 75,000 acres of undeveloped land that could be used to build 2.3 million units. Thurmond wants to see these units built over the next eight years as a way to address California’s teacher shortage.

    Citing overwhelming interest in this matter, the California School Boards Association’s presentation on the topic this month noted that 158 of about 1,000 school districts have expressed interest in providing affordable housing for education staff. Eight districts already provide housing or have housing under construction, while the vast majority of the rest are in the early stages of exploring it.

    The California School Boards Association (CSBA) has created a map showing the status of housing projects across the state. To access more information expand the map to full screen:

    Recruiting and retaining school staff

    State and local officials say that building housing goes a long way toward solving many of the problems both schools and other Californians face. Salaries of school staff are often far below the median rent in many areas, which creates difficulties finding or retaining staff. That leads to long commutes for staff whose household budgets are already stretched thin.

    Many districts dealing with declining enrollment and associated financial woes consider selling off some of their land, a valuable resource in California, for short-term gain, according to Andrew Keller, senior director of operations and strategic initiatives for CSBA.

    Developing housing on that land instead makes a dent in California’s affordability crisis and helps retain teachers, while also offering school districts a new stream of no-strings-attached funding. Schools can typically rent far below market value while still earning income that can support them long-term, Keller said.

    Jefferson Union High School District found no shortage of staff members interested in their affordable housing. The district currently has a waitlist of 30 members. Thurmond would also like to see legislation that would allow districts to open their units to the wider community because students and their families are also struggling with the affordability of California.

    In Los Angeles, LAUSD has three projects with 185 units that serve its employees — and Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the district is surveying employees and considering opening more affordable housing on 10 sites. But the district has also launched a project aimed at helping local families in concert with Many Mansions, a local nonprofit. The Sun King Apartments is a 25-unit facility that offers permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless families with children enrolled in LAUSD schools.

    Even school districts that led the trend said it was a struggle to make the pitch to the community. Richard Barrera, a San Diego Unified School District board member, said community members would be confused about why the district would need to get into the housing business.

    “If we don’t recruit and retain educators, we can’t do our job as educators,” Barrera said.

    San Diego Unified has a goal of opening up 1,500 affordable units to house 10% of its staff, thanks to a school bond measure that passed in 2022, Barrera said.

    Thurmond would like to see legislation that creates even more financial incentives for districts to build housing, which might help those seeking bond measures to fund projects. He noted that educator housing is also eligible for the $500 million in available annual housing tax credits from the state.

    Some school districts have had trouble convincing voters that building housing for teachers and staff is worth it. In 2020, school bond measures for staff housing failed at Patterson Joint Unified School District in Stanislaus County, Soledad Unified in Monterey County and East Side Union High School District in Santa Clara County. 

    Even Jefferson Union High School District eked out a narrow win with just over the 55% requirement needed to pass.

    “The community didn’t quite understand what it was that we were doing,” Lie said, “but it passed.”

    Lie said that staff morale has improved, and the district can now rely on veterans to stick around and build on their success in Jefferson Union High School District, demonstrating why affordable housing for staff is so important to student success. 

    “We can’t give our best to our students if our educators are struggling with housing insecurity,” he said.

    Resources for districts

    CSBA has joined forces with researchers to create resources for districts interested in building housing — to help overcome one of the biggest concerns about school districts lacking expertise in building housing, Keller said. 

    Researchers want to make the process as easy as possible for schools, said Manos Proussaloglou, assistant director at UCLA’s cityLAB, including preparing guides, based on lessons learned both from both successful and unsuccessful projects. 

    “We’re really interested in learning why some educational workforce housing projects start but then stall — and see if we can learn from those,” Proussaloglou said.

    To expedite the process of building, researchers from the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley have created a map that homes in on the communities that will most benefit.

    “Ultimately, those are the districts we really want to work with and make sure they understand that it is an opportunity to address those challenges,” said Sara Hinkley, the California program manager at the Center for Cities + Schools.

    The calculations behind the map by UC Berkeley are where Thurmond got the number of 2.3 million potential units in the state. That figure assumes that every extra acre of developable land a school district owns could support 30 units.

    The map tallies the surplus property California school districts own, considering factors such as how many are on school campuses or completely undeveloped sites and whether those sites are close to amenities like public transit, while also accounting for annual teacher turnover rate, the demographics of the school, enrollment and the gap between staff salaries and median rents.

    “We know that until we can pay teachers and classified staff better — which is our priority, that building affordable housing for them is an important tool for educator recruitment and retention,” said Thurmond.





    Source link

  • Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive

    Why housing and education leaders must work together to help students thrive


    School officials said they are currently working on dealing with the wave of new students coming from the Villages of Patterson development under construction. School officials and community members and school officials worry that the schools will not be able to handle another large-scale wave of development without a mitigation agreement.

    Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

    Education and housing are often inextricably linked, but policy decisions made in the two sectors are generally siloed, at times shaped and passed without considering how a housing policy might impact education and vice versa.

    Megan Gallagher’s research bridges the two, focusing on housing and educational collaborations that support students’ academic outcomes. Some of her latest work as a principal research associate at the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused on public policy, provides school officials and housing developers with ideas on how to partner together to desegregate schools by desegregating neighborhoods.

    Gallagher has also co-authored a report that compiled a list of key housing characteristics that impact children’s educational outcomes:

    • Housing quality
    • Housing affordability
    • Housing stability
    • Neighborhood quality
    • Housing that builds wealth

    In this Q&A, Gallagher details why those housing characteristics matter in a child’s education and the collaborations that can help children have a fair chance at achieving academic success. The interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

    How does housing policy impact children’s educational outcomes?
    It’s really important when we try to understand the influence that housing has on kids’ educational outcomes, that (we look at) its unique contribution.

    You could have families with the same income levels, (but) one is in a high-quality house and one is in a low-quality house. A low-quality house can influence a child’s health, ability to sleep, and feeling safe. And so, you could have a very different outcome for that child if they are in a lower-quality home.

    You have outlined five characteristics of housing that have an impact on children’s educational outcomes. Why are those five characteristics so important?
    Those five characteristics have been studied a decent amount in housing policy literature. I didn’t conduct all the original research that went into these findings, I just sort of pulled it all together into one place. It is possible that there are aspects of housing that have not been measured historically that could also have an influence on education.

    We know that low-quality housing — housing that has mold or electrical issues — is associated with lower kindergarten readiness scores. That causal relationship has been established. The relationship between spending too much on rent is connected to increased behavioral problems. Housing instability, and I would really put homelessness and housing insecurity into the housing instability bucket, really affects school stability and then has an effect on math and reading scores. We know that successful homeownership, so homeownership that allows families to build equity, increases the likelihood of attending college. We also know that neighborhood context, like violence, can disrupt academic progress and prevent children from succeeding in school.

    So there is evidence that connects each one of these housing conditions to a variety of aspects of kids’ well-being and educational outcomes.

    One of the things that we have not really done a very good job on is which of these aspects of housing matter the most or have the most influence. If we have a million dollars, what would we want to put that million dollars on to improve educational outcomes? I don’t think we have enough evidence right now to know exactly what would be the right pathway for that.

    Do all five characteristics need to be in place for children to have the best possible educational outcomes?
    There’s not enough data right now for us to understand which of the five need to be in place or what the likelihood of succeeding is if you have one or two or three or four of them in place.

    This is an area where we continue to need more understanding, more evidence, but I don’t think that we can wait to make policy decisions until we have all of that evidence.

    Is the lack of sufficient research one of the outcomes of the disconnect between housing and education policy?
    Absolutely. I think the sectors are so siloed, many of the giant data collection investments that have happened at HUD (the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) or at the U.S. Department of Education have not had data elements that capture aspects of the other sector.

    When we are looking at housing data in housing policy, there hasn’t been really detailed data collected about the children in the family — which schools they attend and how they’re doing — which could potentially allow data to be connected, likewise in the education world.

    We run into lots of challenges in research with privacy where just because you can connect data, should you? Is that what program participants have agreed to when they’ve decided to enroll their children in public school or when they’ve decided to enroll in a housing subsidy program? In a lot of cases, the answer is no.

    Some of the best data is really connected at the local level, where you have local policymakers that are working with local agencies that have asked permission and are connecting data to kind of fine-tune programs on the ground.

    How do we reach a point where we have the information necessary to ensure academic success for all children?
    It has to happen at multiple levels. The federal government needs to encourage the Department of Ed and HUD to collaborate and to really support or incentivize collaboration in their discretionary grant programs. I really see it as the feds have an opportunity to lead and really support this kind of work.

    But I also think that there are so many local organizations that are leading. I think a lot of the case study work that I have done can help to illustrate how flexibility and collaboration can really translate into a set of programs or practices that support kids’ education and stable, high-quality housing.

    I know that philanthropy is really supporting a lot of exploration around sector alignment.

    I feel really hopeful about this sort of broader vision for how we create policy that thinks about the way that multiple systems can influence how well a child is doing. But I also think that it’s not like there’s just all of this housing sitting there and kids are not living in it. A big part of this work is making sure that there continues to be a housing production pipeline that is developing housing to ensure that there’s enough housing at various price points so that everybody has the opportunity to live where they’d like to live.





    Source link