Community Living for People with Disabilities in Public Housing: Evaluating the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010

May 26, 2023

By Sawyer Rogers, Rosalyn Impink and Alison Ziegler

Abstract 

The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 created a federal program to advance community living for people with disabilities. [1] This program’s enactment followed the Supreme Court’s 1999 ruling in Olmstead v. L.C. which categorized unnecessary institutionalization and segregated living of people with disabilities as discriminatory. In the intervening years, amid the continued fallout of the Great Recession, the COVID-19 pandemic, and an ever-challenged affordable housing stock, it is prudent to evaluate the Melville Act’s effectiveness in achieving its goals from a national and programmatic perspective. 

We find that while the Melville Act successfully promoted mixed community living on a programmatic scale, it lacked a national-level impact due to under-resourcing, was not as cost-effective as predicted, and recipients were less satisfied with their housing than other programs. We recommend that actors in the policy design process advocate for the allocation of more resources to public housing programs with community living for people with disabilities and incorporate the principles of the “Nothing About Us Without Us” movement into the policy development and implementation process. [2] 


 

Introduction 

 

For much of American history, people with disabilities – hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living – were relegated to segregated living facilities and often kept away from society. [3] In the 1800s, those too poor for private services were sent to public almshouses and state-run hospital facilities, giving rise to the “pauper insane” class; hundreds of thousands died from infectious disease and inhumane conditions as wards of the state, their bodies buried in unmarked graves or controversially sold for research without their consent (Werner 2020, 2). While President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies made great strides towards creating a social safety net for the poor and revolutionized public housing, the federal government would take decades before they began recognizing the needs of people with disabilities. Throughout the 20th century, disability rights activists – including polio victims and their families, as well as veterans with disabilities of the Korean, Vietnam, and First and Second World Wars – fought the federal government for recognition and deinstitutionalization through alternative housing options to enable people with disabilities to live independent lives. Public housing policy serving people with disabilities has drastically changed from the past with the development of new policies designed with the intention to address people with disabilities’ needs. Still, the push for dignified accessible housing continues to this day.

People with disabilities are overrepresented among the total number of Americans who receive assistance from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Over the past nine years, the percentage of people with disabilities in the United States has consistently hovered around 13% (Houtenville, Shreya, and Rafal 2022, Table 1). [4] Bruker, Helms, and Souza report that 44% of HUD-assisted adults have a disability (2018, 252). [5] Further, Dawkins and Miller estimate that 20% of households receiving assistance from HUD include a person with a disability (2015, 3). [6] The American housing crisis represents not only a lack of affordable housing but a lack of accessible housing transcending physical barriers. The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act of 2010 was a missed opportunity for Congress to promote and increase the supply of accessible housing for people with disabilities. This creates an even greater gap between the demand for public housing for people with disabilities and the supply of housing available, disadvantaging those with greater accessibility needs. Analysis of public housing policies directed at people with disabilities can offer important insight into the effects of these policies on a significant segment of the public housing population and the American public, allowing policymakers and actors to understand how to better implement meaningful change.

Apartment building

"Stenkildevej 23-25-27 (+17) - DSC_2137_8_9_Balancer" by Lav Ulv is marked with CC0 1.0.

This paper begins with the Housing Community Development Act of 1992, which permitted the use of HUD funds to construct new housing units and redefined how people with disabilities were classified by the federal government. It then analyzes the Faircloth Amendment of 1998, which severely limited HUD’s ability to fund construction of new public housing that would increase the net number of units. The research concludes with the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010, which created the Project Rental Assistance (PRA) program that grants subsidies to state housing and health and human services agencies (HUD 2022). The development of these policies demonstrates how different policy methods of providing public housing came to be and affect the current policy realm. By focusing on people with disabilities and relating to public housing, these policies offer the opportunity for vertical and horizontal analysis, and thus produce greater insights about both disability and housing policy. This paper will conclude with recommendations for policies and programs which promote mixed community living, which are most effective in addressing public housing for Americans with disabilities, and also allowing Americans with disabilities to live safely, healthily, and with dignity.

Bill Design Analysis 

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 was passed to amend and extend several existing U.S. federal laws pertaining to housing assistance for low-income families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. The bill updated the United States Housing Act of 1937 to reform physically dilapidated public housing, restructure public housing management, and reduce substandard housing through subsidies and investment centers. The bill was introduced by Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-TX-20) on June 5, 1992. It passed the Senate on July 10 and passed the House on August 5, 1992. The bill was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on October 28, 1992.

When it was first filed with Congress, the initial version of the bill was designed so that the HUD secretary would oversee setting annual housing goals, including support for low and middle-income homeownership programs. The original bill proposed by Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-TX-20) required public housing agencies to set aside a portion of Section 8 rental housing assistance funding for families with individuals with disabilities and directed the HUD secretary to reserve funds to develop and reconstruct housing for those families. The bill also required designated service coordinators to provide support services to the elderly and people with disabilities living in federally assisted housing, and directed a new focus on congregate housing services, the HOPE program for elderly residents, and housing for people living with AIDS.

The passed version of the bill was significantly denser and more specific, than its initial version. Below, we have included a table comparing what was proposed for the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, versus what was ultimately passed in the updated version of the bill.

Figure 2.1: Comparison of Proposed and Passed Housing and Community Development Act of 1992

ProposedPassed
Required state and local certification of services to be eligible for housingReplaced the requirement of certification services for eligibility.
Combined elderly and people with disabilities into one categoryCreated separate programs catered to the individual needs of people with disabilities and the elderly.
Funds given for the construction and reconstruction of housing for people with disabilities and the elderlyAdded tenant-based rental assistance for individuals with disabilities.
 Bill set tenant selection criteria, established a HUD residency policy review committee, prohibited the unlawful eviction of the elderly, or people with disabilities, and directed the HUD secretary to study and report to Congress on people with disabilities and elderly populations living in public housing.

A report by the Congressional Research Service noted that the act gave permission to public housing agencies to designate separate living areas for elderly households and nonelderly persons with disabilities, giving “local housing agencies more discretion in setting priorities for entrants to public housing.” Historically, the report stated, the elderly and people with disabilities were lumped together, their housing needs having been thought to be relatively similar; indeed, the 1937 Housing Act had determined people with disabilities and the elderly to be the same. However, management challenges arose in trying to reconcile the different lifestyles of the elderly and people with disabilities (Schussheim, M., et al. 1993).

The act separated out the definitions and permitted housing agencies to designate, without discrimination, separate or mixed population housing for the two groups, focusing on maintaining occupancy in assisted projects for the elderly. The legislation provided funding for service coordinators to be trained in the provision of services for people with disabilities, and their desire to live separate from the elderly led to the amendment and redevelopment of the Section 811 program, which originated under the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990. [7] The program is designed to subsidize housing units in which residents are supported by support services. While nonelderly people with disabilities and the elderly had separate spaces, the law kept joint funding for the two groups.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 was a watershed moment in American housing policy, overhauling and updating outdated laws to meet the needs of the time. One of the most significant outcomes of the act was a separation of the elderly and people with disabilities in the eyes of the federal government, thereby creating two populations in acknowledgement of differing housing needs. This separation enabled the elderly and people with disabilities to live in more appropriate settings, paving the way for more affordable independent living under Section 811.  

Faircloth Amendment Act of 1998

The Faircloth Amendment of 1998 was put into motion by Senator Lauch Faircloth (R-NC) to amend the Housing Act of 1937. The Faircloth Amendment ended the use of federal funds for construction of new public housing or maintenance of existing housing (S.2544 1998), contributing to a nationwide shortage of accessible and affordable housing for those who were eligible — affecting affordable independent living options for those with disabilities. The Faircloth Amendment placed barriers to increasing the housing supply, and ultimately led to the development of the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010.

The amendment had lasting impacts on public housing and its occupants. Since 1998, many public housing complexes have not been updated and the lack of housing has left many Americans housing insecure (Keller 2018). Concurrently, Senator Faircloth had received the largest amount of donations compared to his peers in 1998 from mortgage lenders and the second most from homebuilders during this time frame (OpenSecrets 2022). 

The lack of affordable housing has not gone unnoticed, and representatives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) have tried to remove the roadblocks to progress placed by Faircloth. In 2021, Ocasio-Cortez introduced a bill, H.R. 659 calling for the repeal of Faircloth (H.R. 659 2021). Though ultimately unsuccessful, Ocasio-Cortez did rid the amendment of its limitations to new public housing. 

The Faircloth Amendment has long held back many initiatives to increase the public housing supply, especially for people with disabilities. The Melville Act of 2010 was partly introduced to help combat this shortage by providing more funds to support public housing for people with disabilities through its rental assistance program. The act worked around limits on constructing new public housing units by allocating new funds that people with disabilities could use to support their living within community environments. Partner organizations could not use the rental assistance funds to construct or refurbish public housing, but the funds still supported people with disabilities in maintaining stable housing.

The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 
CA and PRA Program

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Section 811 of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-625, section 811), [8] the Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program, provides housing assistance to people with disabilities in two ways: first, through Capital Advances (CA) to non-profits to fund the construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of public housing for people with disabilities (HUD 2022); and second, through Project Rental Assistance (PRA) which allows state agency partnerships to apply for and then provide rental assistance for those with disabilities living in projects (HUD 2022). The difference between CA and PRA is the method of increasing housing units for people with disabilities. CA creates a grant process that allows non-profits to apply for funding to construct housing units for people with disabilities. PRA creates a grant process that awards state government agencies rental assistance funds for affordable housing developments for people with disabilities. CA is a direct method of increasing the housing supply for people with disabilities while PRA is an indirect way of incentivizing the construction or repurposing of housing units for people with disabilities.

The Melville Act (H.R. 1675) is significant as it revised Section 811 to include the PRA option (HUD 2022). After Congress, through the Faircloth Amendment of 1998, limited HUD’s ability to fund the construction of new public housing units, PRA offered a more flexible option for HUD to assist people with disabilities. Since the passage and implementation of the Melville Act, PRA has become much more popular in Congress than CA. Congress has given the PRA program further funding while CA has seen negligible support — the last appropriation for the CA program made in FY2011 (HUD, 2022). The Melville Act is an innovative approach to creating more affordable housing units for people with disabilities. 

Bill Design 

The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 (H.R. 1675) is an institutional workaround devised due to the barriers created by the Faircloth Amendment of 1998. Traditionally, as illustrated in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, HUD would disburse funding to construct and maintain public housing for people with disabilities under new congregate living separations. The Faircloth Amendment limited HUD’s ability to construct new units, and hence with a new demand and advocacy for public housing with people with disabilities, Congress had to devise a workaround. A qualitative comparative method of analysis is utilized to illustrate the legislative history of the Melville Act. The text of the 2008, 2009, and 2010 versions of the bills and their amendments are compared to find the main changes and potential areas of debate. The Congressional Record supplements this analysis by further explaining the amended changes. Analysis of the congressional hearings of the final 2010 bill is used to discover the dynamics between legislators, stakeholders, and the issues discussed.  

The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 (H.R. 1675) as passed was not the first version. The bill was first introduced with bipartisan sponsors in 2008 where it passed the House with a simple amendment to add additional sponsors in a voice vote (Congress.gov 2022). [9] The 2008 version was then introduced as amended to the Senate, but never never made it out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Congress.gov, 2022). The 2008 bill was not controversial, but it was also not a legislative priority and thus was left in committee.  

In 2009, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act was introduced to the House again where it passed without amendment with all but 51 members voting in favor (Congress.gov 2022), indicating a noncontroversial and bipartisan bill. The introduced 2009 bill is nearly identical to the stalled Senate version from 2008 (Congress.gov 2022), suggesting that the action in the House was simply to get the bill back into the Senate. The Senate introduced the Johanns Amendment to improve the bill based on recommendations made in committee (Congressional Record 2010, S10447). The amendment focused its revisions on Section 2 of the act regarding tenant-based rental assistance (Congressional Record, 2010, S10447). The Senate did not debate this amendment (Congressional Record 2010, S10444 to S10451). The committee made the amendment to refine the bill’s wording rather than to substantially change its content. 

Passing the Act

The hearing indicates that the broader societal pressures of the housing crisis and independent living movement laid the framework for the bill. In 2008, the United States faced a financial and housing crisis that resulted in at least 10 million Americans losing their homes (Shalby 2018). In 1999, the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. mandated that public services could not unjustifiably segregate people with disabilities (U.S. Department of Justice 2022) — a major victory for the independent living movement. The Melville Act came from pressures following the 2008 housing crisis and a need to revise Section 811 to ensure compliance with the Olmstead decision by specifically promoting integrated community living for people with disabilities rather than institutionalization or segregated living.  

Individual senators proposed and advocated for the Melville Act in part because their states had success with similar programs and could take credit for nationwide implementation. It is also likely the states with these programs had a greater advocacy network that could pressure senators to improve housing for people with disabilities. The bill’s one Republican cosponsor, Senator Mike Johanns, (R-NE), stated:  

“In my home state of Nebraska, I as Governor led a major reform effort [in housing for people with disabilities]. Nebraska's experience demonstrates how a flexible rental assistance program can be an invaluable tool in promoting affordable housing. S. 1481 creates a project-based rental assistance demonstration program that I think builds on the success of a number of states, one of which is Nebraska” (Modernizing Affordable Housing for Seniors and People with Disabilities 2010, 4).

Senator Johanns clearly would benefit from passing and advocating for this bill, as well as representatives from Connecticut, Louisiana and North Carolina which also had similar programs at the time of the hearing (Modernizing Affordable Housing for Seniors and People with Disabilities 2010, 7). 

Witnesses speaking on the bill in the hearing for the most part supported the legislation and represented various disability, elderly, housing, and low-income advocacy groups (Modernizing Affordable Housing for Seniors and People with Disabilities 2010, 2). The heart of the bill — revising Section 811 to assist people with disabilities — was well supported. Some witnesses critiqued the bill by citing a need for even more resources — particularly to assist those with psychiatric disabilities, further technical fixes, fix potential loopholes, and to create accessible housing. Nevertheless, the bill was popular and viewed predominantly as a tested fix to an outdated Section 811.  

Conclusion 

The Melville Act was non-controversial and ultimately made it through the legislative process with little debate and amendment. Advocacy networks and the personal interests of legislators to copy similar programs from their states to the federal level pushed the bill to enaction. The Melville Act took programs that were successful in states and implemented them on a federal scale to update an outdated and ineffective Section 811. 

The Melville Act laid the framework for a better constructed affordable housing policy that would not have existed without the influences of the Faircloth Amendment and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. While Faircloth hindered any progress that had been made by the Housing and Community Development Act in promoting the independence and separation of individuals with disability in federally assisted housing, the Melville Act was able to work around Faircloth and create new avenues of funding towards public housing, while supporting the needs of the disability community with dignified affordable housing. While more work still must be done to transform housing policy for those with disabilities, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act of 2010 is a step in the right direction.

A man in an electric scooter and a woman with a cane walking on the sidewalk.

Photographer: Max Bender. Licensed by Unsplash. 

Policy Implementation of the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act 

The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 authorized the Section 811 Project Rental Assistance Program (PRA) and created community-based housing options for people with disabilities. [10] PRA operates by awarding grants to state agencies to provide rental assistance to people with disabilities in public housing. HUD has run PRA grant competitions twice, once in Fiscal Year 2012 and a second round in Fiscal Year 2013 (HUD 2020). PRA is unique compared to Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) and other HUD programs focused on people with disabilities as it is the only program that mandates mixed community living (HUD 2020). [11] This section evaluates the effectiveness of the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 in achieving its goals. We derived these goals from the discussion during the bill’s hearing and the subsequent HUD reports on the effectiveness of the bill. The goals are as follows:

  1. Assisting targeted populations of low-income people with disabilities and people with disabilities at risk of or within institutionalization [12] by providing mixed community living environments. [13] 
  2. Greater cost efficiency than other similarly oriented HUD programs.
  3. Higher satisfaction among residents than those in other HUD programs.

We conclude that while the Melville Act successfully promoted mixed community living on a programmatic scale, it lacked a national impact. Moreover it was not as cost-effective as predicted, and recipients were less satisfied with their housing than other programs.

Targeted Populations

The 2014 HUD report on Section 811 claims that the Melville Act was able to target its assistance to the most vulnerable and high-cost persons with disabilities. [14] The 2020 HUD report on Section 811 which assessed the Melville Act’s program also supports this claim. The two target populations of the act — low-income people with disabilities and people with disabilities at risk of institutionalization — were successfully aided by the bill, despite the possible perception of inequitable distribution of funds. [15]

When comparing Figures 4.1 and 4.2, two of the thirteen states and territories selected for FY2012 had some of the lowest poverty rates for people with disabilities. When comparing Figures 4.1 and 4.3, none of the states and territories with the highest poverty rates for people with disabilities were awarded, suggesting that the grant process may not award funds to the areas that need them the most. Poverty rate is not a perfect measure of the need for housing assistance for people with disabilities, but it suggests a greater need for resources for people with disabilities in certain states. From a selection perspective, the grant process did not effectively allocate resources to the states that had the highest poverty rates for people with disabilities.

Figure 4.1: FY2012 Grantees Sorted by Poverty Rate for People with Disabilities Aged 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community: 2011  

FY2012 Grantees Sorted by Poverty %Poverty %

LA

30.7

GA

29.7

PA

29.6

NC

28.9

MN

28.6

WA

27.8

MA

27.2

CA

26.9

IL

26.9

TX

26.4

MT

26.2

DE

22.5

MD

22.2

 

Figure 4.2: States/Territories with the Lowest Poverty Rates for People with Disabilities Aged 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community: 2011

State/Territories with Lowest Poverty RatesPoverty %

NH

20.2

AK

20.5

WY

20.6

NJ

21.8

MD

22.2

DE

22.5

UT

22.7

SD

23.3

 

Figure 4.3: States/Territories with the Highest Poverty Rate for People with Disabilities Aged 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community: 2011

State/Territories with Highest Poverty RatesPoverty %

PR

51.5

DC

39.4

KY

32.4

WV

32.3

MS 

31.8

ME

31.6

OH

31.5

TN

31.5

We compare the percent of eligible [16] and low-income [17] households with disabled persons not HUD assisted from 2011 to 2021 from the American Housing Survey to measure whether the program successfully reduced the gap between eligibility and available assistance. Several other factors may affect the percentage, such as the financial status of people with disabilities, yet the measure is so specific that an expansion to HUD’s programs for people with disabilities should have a clear impact. As indicated in Figure 4.4, the PRA program was initially successful in lowering the rate of eligible households with disabled persons not assisted by HUD and with low incomes. Thus, the Melville Act was at first effective in creating more opportunities for eligible individuals to take advantage of the program. Figure 4.4 also indicates that after the initial years of the program, the decreasing trend becomes less clear as the rate begins to stabilize or rise. The American Housing Survey data reveals that many low-income households with disabled persons eligible for federal rental assistance did not receive it, and further explains that the Melville Act did not have a substantial impact on providing eligible low-income households with disabled persons with rental assistance.

 

Figure 4.4: Percent of Eligible and Low-Income Households with Disabled Persons Not HUD Assisted for 2011 to 2021 [18] 

YearPercent of Eligible and Low-Income Households with Disabled Persons Not HUD Assisted

2011

55.25% 

2013

53.97% 

2015

54.26% 

2017

54.34% 

2019

56.67% 

2021

54.33% 

We use the reported rates of those coming from or at risk of homelessness into the PRA program and the incomes of recipients across HUD’s programs for people with disabilities to assess whether the PRA program is effective at reducing homelessness. From a programmatic perspective, HUD reported that those at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness made up 40 percent of those assisted by the PRA program (HUD 2020, Exhibit 2.4). In Figure 4.5, PRA residents’ average unadjusted annual total income was much lower than other HUD programs for people with disabilities. [19] This suggests that HUD was effective at providing its services to people with disabilities with some of the lowest incomes, but that HUD may not have had enough resources to have a clear impact at the national level.

 

Figure 4.5: Average Unadjusted Annual Total Income of Select HUD Programs: 2018

 PRA ResidentsPRAC ResidentsNED ResidentsOther HUD Residents

Average Unadjusted Annual Total Income

$8,578

$10,716

$14,729

$14,205

We use the reported rates of those coming from or at risk of institutionalization into the PRA program and the percentage of people with disabilities living in institutional group quarters over time to assess whether the PRA program is effective at promoting mixed community living. From a programmatic perspective, 40 percent of those assisted by the PRA program came from an institutional setting or were at risk of entering one (HUD 2020, Exhibit 2.4). On a national level, the percent of people with disabilities 64 years and younger living in institutional group quarters fell just slightly and without statistical significance from 2014 to 2015 (Houtenville A., et al. 2022, Table 2). [20] From 2015 to 2018 the percent of people with disabilities 64 years and younger living in institutional group quarters (rather than independent mixed community living) rose significantly (Houtenville A., et al. 2022, Table 2). This failure to move the needle on independent living suggests that the Melville Act did not have a national influence in decreasing institutionalized living. Such a large proportion of program recipients coming from institutional settings suggests that the Melville Act was able to achieve its goal in connecting individuals with disability to an alternative for institutionalization, but the lack of significant national change suggests that impacts were localized and that greater unmet needs exist in states that did not receive federal assistance. The Melville Act successfully promoted mixed community living for people with disabilities on a programmatic level but did not have a significant impact at the national level.

The Melville Act successfully aided its target populations of low-income people with disabilities and diverted them from unnecessary institutionalization: 80 percent of program recipients were either formerly homelessness, previously institutionalized, or were at risk for institutionalization (HUD 2020). The act had an impact on many individual lives, but the program does not have enough resources to assist enough low-income or institutionalized people with disabilities to have a national effect.

Cost-Effectiveness

The 2014 HUD report on Section 811 reported how the Fiscal Year 2012 awards were extremely cost-effective initially when compared to past HUD spending and other programs (HUD 2014). [21] The 2020 HUD report on Section 811 analyzing the effectiveness of the program up until September 2018 counters this claim by producing evidence that years later the PRA program is more expensive than its Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) program per person with disabilities (HUD 2020). [22] PRA awards project-based rental assistance, partners with state housing and health agencies for program administration, coordinates with state health agencies for services, and mandates mixed population housing (HUD 2020, Exhibit 1.2). PRAC awards project-based capital grants and operating subsidies, partners with nonprofits, ensures the placement of service plans by non-profits, and is limited to housing with only people with disabilities. PRAC was authorized by the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and provides funds for the development and operation of housing for low-income people with disabilities (National Housing Preservation Database 2022). The PRAC program operates under both Section 202 [23] and Section 811 [24], but this analysis focuses solely on Section 811 (National Housing Preservation Database 2022).

The short-term implementation indicated that the PRA program was perceived to be massively cost-effective initially, yet in the long term the program was not as cost-effective when compared to PRAC and other HUD programs for people with disabilities. Figure 4.6 indicates that PRA is $858 USD more expensive than PRAC. Figure 4.6 also displays that PRA adds significantly more administrative costs per unit of housing. This could be in part due to the PRA program partnering with state agencies while PRAC partners with nonprofits. Additionally, rental assistance requires constant administrative attention as the program is based on individual units, while PRAC provides capital grants and subsidies that are based upon buildings. The overall increase in costs with the PRA program could also be due to its mandate of mixed community living. PRA costs more than HUD’s other programs, specifically PRAC, and it is unclear whether the increased costs directly produce the benefit of mixed community living for people with disabilities.

 

Figure 4.6: Comparison of PRA and PRAC Costs: 2018

HUD ProgramTotal Housing Costs (capital and rental subsidies)Administrative Costs per UnitTotal Annual Program Costs per Unit [25]

Annual Estimated Cost of Healthcare and Disability

Services for Program Residents

Total Cost

PRA

$11,800

$5,780

$17, 577

$51,179

$68,756

PRAC

$12,000 to $13,000

< $1000

~ $14,000

$50,321

$64,321

Satisfaction

In the congressional hearing for the Melville Act, a joint statement submitted by nine disability and housing advocacy groups raised concerns over the bill’s failure to mandate physically accessible housing. [26] The groups wrote that under the current law in 2009, only five percent of federal financially assisted housing was required to be physically accessible (Modernizing Affordable Housing for Seniors and People with Disabilities 2010, 52). The lack of accessible housing is still present today; disability researcher Kathleen Bates observes that “most people can’t afford to buy or build a house to meet their accessibility needs...it’s not uncommon when looking for accessible housing to be stuck on a waiting list for several years” (Bates 2022, 15). Bailey supports and expands upon Bates’ observations by explaining that a lack of accessible, affordable housing can also be a key barrier to transitioning out of institutional settings (Bailey, et al. 2021, 8).

When it comes to measuring satisfaction of accessible housing for people with disabilities in HUD assisted housing, data is scarce. To begin with, accessibility is not always recorded by the American Housing Survey, and when it is there tends to be a focus on solely physical accessibility— specifically accessibility in regards to people who use a mobility device. Additionally, sample sizes become quite small as we specify people with disabilities who use a mobility device and are receiving HUD assistance. Thus, we included the opinion of households with people with disabilities using a mobility device eligible (those receiving and not receiving) for HUD assistance in 2019 with regards to how well their home meets their accessibility needs. In Figure 4.7, on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all and 5 being very well, 52.28 percent expressed that their housing met their accessibility needs very well while 6.45 percent expressed that their accessibility needs were not met at all. Still, 29.6 percent reported that their satisfaction was 3 or below indicating that a fair amount of people with disabilities eligible for HUD assistance with mobility devices are not having their accessibility needs met. Several bills have been introduced in the 117th Congress (2021-2022) to increase funding for accessible housing such as the Senior Accessible Housing Act (H.R.2305) and the Home Modification for Accessibility Act (H.R.7676) (Congress.gov 2022), yet so far none have made substantial progress.

 

Figure 4.7: Percentage of Opinions of How Well Home Meets Accessibility Needs of Households Eligible for HUD Assistance with a Disabled Person on a Scale of 1 to 5: 2019

 1 (not at all)2345 (very well)
Percentage of Opinions of How Well Home Meets Accessibility Needs of Households Eligible for HUD Assistance with a Disabled Person

6.45%

9.99%

13.16%

17.65%

52.28%

HUD offers its own accessibility measures, specific to comparing PRA to PRAC, that are much more comprehensive than the American Housing Survey. These measures suggest that overall, the accessibility of PRA and PRAC units are quite similar. In Figure 4.8, one substantial difference is that 34.4 percent fewer PRA recipients report that it takes them much more time for them to get where they need to go. A benefit of mixed community living is that it places individuals in the broader community rather than isolating them from it, thus allowing individuals to access where they need to go easier.

 

Figure 4.8: Comparison of PRA and PRAC Accessibility: 2018

 PRA %PRAC %% Difference
Residents who Report They Have Trouble Getting Around Their Neighborhood at Least Sometimes

20.9%

23.4%

-2.6%

  • Because it is not physically accessible enough for them

31.4%

31.3%

0.1%

  • Because their neighborhood has no public transportation

48.5%

36.2%

12.3%

  • Because it takes them too long to get where they need to go

59.5%

93.8%

-34.4%

  • Because they do not have enough money for transportation

68.6%

66.0%

2.6%

Figure 4.9 indicates that residents of the PRA program are less satisfied with their housing compared to PRAC residents. PRA residents report satisfaction rates of about 70-75 percent on various factors while PRAC is about 80-90 percent. The most substantial differences are around the condition of the building and whether they feel safe in their building. PRA assistance, despite the promotion of mixed community living, provides housing assistance to people with disabilities that is less satisfactory than the PRAC program.

 

Figure 4.9: Comparison of PRA and PRAC Resident Satisfaction: 2018

 PRA %PRAC %% Difference
They like the place where they live now

75.5%

79.8%

-4.2%

The condition of the place is excellent or good

69.0%

82.8%

-13.9%

They feel safe living in their building

76.5%

91.7%

-15.2%

They want to move from their place of residence

33.5%

32.1%

1.4%

HUD programs and the American housing supply overall lacks much needed accessible housing — especially beyond that of just physical accessibility. The Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act of 2010 was a missed opportunity for Congress to promote and increase the supply of accessible housing for people with disabilities. This creates an even greater gap between the demand for public housing for people with disabilities and the supply of housing available, disadvantaging those with greater accessibility needs. The majority of PRA residents are satisfied with their housing yet are substantially less satisfied than PRAC residents with regards to the condition and safety of their homes.

House with accessibility ramp along the front entrance of the building.

"Residential accessibility ramp" by RightCowLeftCoast is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

Conclusion 

Findings 

Overall, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act of 2010 was a success. Research supports the assertion that the Melville Act and its Project Rental Assistance (PRA) program is effective on a small scale in assisting people with disabilities of low-incomes and at risk or currently institutionalized. The act also made strides for the disability community by putting the Olmstead vs L.C. decision into law by mandating mixed community living. However, the act has not made a large national impact on people with disabilities due to the program’s limited funding. The PRA program is also slightly less cost effective than PRAC but that is likely due, in part, to the act’s mixed community living mandate. Mixed community living reduces the concentration of people with disabilities within a housing project or building inherently making the cost to provide services higher. We additionally found that there is a higher administrative cost to providing PRA assistance versus PRAC assistance. PRA and PRAC also differ when it comes to unit quality and safety.

Recommendations 

Based upon our findings we recommend the following:

  1. More resources need to be dedicated to the development of public housing for people with disabilities. There was a substantial gap of low-income people with disabilities who were eligible for HUD programs yet were not benefiting from them due to the programs lacking resources. The policy additionally did not have an impact on many of the national measures analyzed in this study, suggesting that more resources are needed for a national impact to be made.
  2. Policy should shift towards PRAC programs over PRA as they are slightly more cost effective and produce greater satisfaction among residents. 
  3. PRAC should be revised to mandate mixed community living, similar to PRA, which may increase costs yet is worth the increase due to the benefits of mixed community living. 
  4. Further research should be conducted looking into the cost-effectiveness of rental assistance versus capital investment in public housing for people with disabilities to expand upon this assessment.
  5. HUD should evaluate the equity of their PRA grant selection process. It appears that more resource-rich states may be able to produce better applications while those states more in need of assistance may lack the resources making them less competitive.
  6. The federal government should include the “Nothing About Us Without Us” principle in the policy making and implementation process. [27] With the Melville Act, we observed key instances where the needs of eligible people with disabilities were not met by the process. 
    • a. The congressional hearing included representatives from advocacy organizations but not a person with a disability receiving HUD assistance. The most closely related witness at the hearing was a parent of a person with a disability receiving HUD assistance. Congressional hearings should include those receiving assistance if there are individuals willing to do so.
    • b. The PRA grant application, and possibly other HUD grant applications for housing assistance for people with disabilities, should add additional selection criteria which rewards applications that encourage the input, feedback, and participation of program recipients in the process, plan, and implementation of the grant. This is not an uncommon practice for federal grants relating to disability, with the Administration for Community Living’s National Institute on Disability Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) grants already rewarding this criterion in some of their grants.
    • c. By including program recipients throughout the policy design and implementation process, the PRA program would more accurately match the needs of its recipients. For example, PRA did not have enough resources to properly serve all those eligible for the program. The units themselves also lacked accessible housing and had lower satisfaction rates. The inclusion of potential program or current program recipients could have raised these issues and led to their resolution. 
    • d. More research should be conducted including the input of program recipients. This study was limited in its ability to gather input from PRA recipients due to the timeframe of its production. Thus, the reliance upon quantitative data to analyze the experiences of program recipients may have missed some of the specifics that could have been gained through qualitative data from PRA recipients.
  7. Collection, production, and availability of data on people with disabilities around public housing needs to improve. This study was fortunate in what it was able to find, yet much progress is needed to produce further analysis on people with disabilities receiving public housing assistance.

As the American housing crisis grows more dire, the most vulnerable populations, including low-income citizens with disabilities, are falling through the cracks. Supply and demand dynamics create a difficult paradigm in which policymakers must act affirmatively to create public housing that supports Americans with disabilities. While the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 made strides towards achieving this end and greatly improved upon previous legislative funding formulas, it fell short of its potential to significantly increase the supply of housing for people with disabilities. As a result, in the intervening years opportunities have been missed to bridge the gap between the demand for accessible housing and the supply of housing available, exacerbating a crisis that continues to put people with disabilities at risk of unsafe conditions, homelessness, and unnecessary institutionalization. Policies and programs which promote mixed community living, which are most effective in addressing public housing for Americans with disabilities, and also allowing Americans with disabilities to live safely, healthily, and with dignity. The United States government needs to reassess its funding priorities and program formula alongside people with disabilities to ensure that funds are effectively, efficiently, and equitably distributed for maximum housing production.

*This article was edited by Michelle Zhang (Princeton University) and Joy Yee (National University of Singapore). 


About the Authors

Sawyer B. Rogers is a student in the Atlantis Program pursuing a Master's in Public Administration at Syracuse University and a Master's in Public Policy at the Hertie School. His research interests include rural community engagement, belonging, accessibility, and disability policy. Sawyer is a research assistant at the University of New Hampshire: Institute on Disability where he works on the knowledge translation of disability statistics. He can be reached on Linkedin.

Rosalyn Impink is a Master's in Public Administration candidate at Syracuse University and holds a bachelor's degree in policy studies from Syracuse University. Her interests include state and local government finance, affordable housing policy, government ethics, and municipal management. She can be reached on Linkedin.

Alison Ziegler is a Master's in Public Administration candidate at Syracuse University. In May of 2022, she received her bachelor's degree from Syracuse University in policy studies, as well as minoring in real estate and political science. Her interests are in affordable housing, nonprofit management and city planning. Previously, Alison has worked for the New York State Assembly, as well as acting as an intern, research consultant and advisor for Syracuse based nonprofit, Hopeprint. She can be reached at on LinkedIn.


Acknowledgements 

Thank you to Dr. Debra Brucker at the University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability for directing us to relevant disability and public housing literature and data, Chris Cryan for his invaluable mental archive of federal housing policy, and Dr. Richard Barton at Syracuse University for his overall guidance and encouragement to submit for publication.


Notes

[1] We use person-first language throughout this paper though we recognize that many prefer identity-first language. Some of the data tables utilize identity-first language as those are the terms used by the survey/report. (Return to Note) 

[2] “Nothing About Us Without Us” is the idea that policy development and implementation needs to meaningfully include the full and direct participation of people that the policy will affect. (Return to Note)

[3] We use the American Community Survey’s categories and definitions of disability, rather than the Washington Group Short Set or other systems of categorization, as we use ACS data throughout the paper. (Return to Note)

[4] Other surveys and data place this figure higher or lower. To keep our national and state figures comparable and consistent we use data from the American Community Survey (ACS) throughout this paper. We do use the American Housing Survey and HUD data when it comes to public housing specific figures as those surveys offer more specific measures. (Return to Note)

[5] Figure created using HUD administrative and National Health Interview Survey data (Bruker, Helms, and Souza, 2018). (Return to Note)

[6] Figure created using HUD administrative data (Dawkins and Miller, 2015). (Return to Note)

[7] “Section 811 of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-625) as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550), the Rescission Act (P.L. 104-19) the American Homeownership and Opportunity Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-569), and the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–374)” (HUD 2023). (Return to Note)

[8] “Section 811 of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-625) as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550), the Rescission Act (P.L. 104-19) the American Homeownership and Opportunity Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-569), and the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–374)” (HUD 2023). (Return to Note)

[9] A voice vote is when the presiding officer in Congress has members state their vote aloud. The presiding officer then judges the volume of the “Yays” and “Nays” to decide which side won. Voice votes are generally noncontroversial and pass by wide margins. (Return to Note)

[10] “Section 811 of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-625) as amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-550), the Rescission Act (P.L. 104-19) the American Homeownership and Opportunity Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-569), and the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–374)” (HUD 2023). (Return to Note)

[11] No more than 25% of units set aside for people with disabilities (HUD 2020). (Return to Note)

[12] Institutionalization includes settings where people “live in large, segregated congregate places including large group homes (with 7 or more people living there), residential programs located on campuses, and state and private institutions, which could limit community inclusion” (AAIDD and AUCD 2016). (Return to Note)

[13] “Community living and participation means being able to live where and with whom you choose; work and earn a living wage; participate in meaningful community activities based on personal interests; have relationships with friends, family and significant others; be physically and emotionally healthy; be able to worship where and with whom you choose (if desired); have opportunities to learn, grow and make informed choices; and carry out responsibilities of citizenship such as paying taxes and voting” (AAIDD and AUCD 2016). (Return to Note) 

[14] US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2014). Section 811 Project Rental Assistance: Bringing Permanent Supportive Housing to Scale: Status Report to Congress. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&…;(Return to Note)

[15] US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2020). HUD Section 811 PRA Project Rental Assistance Program Phase II Evaluation Final Report Implementation and Short-Term Outcomes. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Section-811-Phase-II.html&n…;(Return to Note)

[Figure 4.1] Source: Houtenville, Andrew J. & Ruiz, Tony. (2012). 2012 Annual Compendium of Disability Statistics: Table 4.1. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability. From the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, American FactFinder, Table B18130; <http://factfinder.census2.gov&gt;; (accessed 24 September 2012). Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability. (Return to Note)

[Figure 4.2] Source: Houtenville, Andrew J. & Ruiz, Tony. (2012). 2012 Annual Compendium of Disability Statistics: Table 4.1. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability. From the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, American FactFinder, Table B18130; <http://factfinder.census2.gov&gt;; (accessed 24 September 2012). Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability. (Return to Note)

[Figure 4.3] Source: Houtenville, Andrew J. & Ruiz, Tony. (2012). 2012 Annual Compendium of Disability Statistics: Table 4.1. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability. From the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey, American FactFinder, Table B18130; <http://factfinder.census2.gov&gt;; (accessed 24 September 2012). Based on a sample and subject to sampling variability. (Return to Note)

[16] For HUD assistance. (Return to Note)

[17] Defined as less than the 50 percent of area median incomes. (Return to Note)

[Figure 4.4] Community Living for People with Disabilities in Public Housing: Evaluating the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 (Figure 4.4). Note: Author’s calculations using the U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, Table Creator, 2011-2021, which is subject to sampling variation. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html&nbsp;(Return to Note)

[18] A more detailed and complex title using terms from the American Housing Survey: “Percent of Eligible Households with Disabled Persons, not HUD Assisted, and with incomes less than 50% of area median incomes in the US out of all Eligible Households with Disabled Persons.” (Return to Note)   

[19] See Figure 4.3 (Return to Note)

[Figure 4.5] Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2020). HUD Section 811 PRA Project Rental Assistance Program Phase II Evaluation Final Report Implementation and Short-Term Outcomes: Exhibit 3.3. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Section-811-Phase-II.html&n…;(Return to Note)

[20] Houtenville et al. tested at the 5 percent level and a one-tailed test (2022). (Return to Note)

[21] US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2014). Section 811 Project Rental Assistance: Bringing Permanent Supportive Housing to Scale: Status Report to Congress. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&…;(Return to Note)

[22] US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2020). HUD Section 811 PRA Project Rental Assistance Program Phase II Evaluation Final Report Implementation and Short-Term Outcomes. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Section-811-Phase-II.html&n…;(Return to Note)

[23] pertaining to the elderly. “The Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program is authorized by section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), as amended.” (HUD 2023). (Return to Note)

[24] pertaining to people with disabilities. (Return to Note)

[Figure 4.6] Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2020). HUD Section 811 PRA Project Rental Assistance Program Phase II Evaluation Final Report Implementation and Short-Term Outcomes. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Section-811-Phase-II.html&n…;(Return to Note)

[25] Some figures are rounded or approximated by HUD, thus not all numbers add up perfectly. (Return to Note)

[26] American Association of People with Disabilities, Concrete Change, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Equal Rights Center, National Spinal Cord Injury Association, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and United Spinal Association. (Return to Note)

[Figure 4.7] Community Living for People with Disabilities in Public Housing: Evaluating the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010. (Figure 4.7). Note: Author’s calculations using the U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey, Table Creator, 2011-2021, which is subject to sampling variation. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs.html&nbsp;(Return to Note)

[Figure 4.8] Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2020). HUD Section 811 PRA Project Rental Assistance Program Phase II Evaluation Final Report Implementation and Short-Term Outcomes: Exhibit 4.5. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Section-811-Phase-II.html&n…;(Return to Note)

[Figure 4.9] Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2020). HUD Section 811 PRA Project Rental Assistance Program Phase II Evaluation Final Report Implementation and Short-Term Outcomes: Exhibit 5.4. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Section-811-Phase-II.html&n…;(Return to Note)

[27] “Nothing About Us Without Us” is the idea that policy development and implementation needs to meaningfully include the full and direct participation of people that the policy will affect. This principle has been used in various activist movements. It was popularized in the disability movement in the 1990s. James Charlton and David Warner are two major authors who have written about this principle. (Return to Note)


References

111th Congressional Record, 2nd Session. (Dec. 17, 2010). Daily Edition: Vol. 156, No. 168. http://www.congress.gov/ 

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) and American University Centers on Disability (AUCD). (2016). Community Living and Participation for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. https://www.aaidd.org/news-policy/policy/position-statements/community-…

Bailey, A., De La Huerga, R. & Gartland, E. (2021). More Housing Vouchers Needed to Help People With Disabilities Afford Stable Homes in the Community. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. www.cbpp.org/research/housing/more-housing-vouchers-needed-to-help-peop…

Bates, K. (2022). Accessibility Opens Doors. RAPP NH, Spring 2022: Disability and Housing, 14-15. https://drcnh.org/rap-sheet/spring-2022-disability-and-housing/

Brucker, D. L., Helms, V., and Souza, T. (2018). Health and Health Services Access Among Adults With Disabilities Who Receive Federal Housing Assistance. Housing Policy Debate, 28:2, 248-266, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2017.1357048

Bush, G. “Statement on Signing the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.” October 28, 1992. The American Presidency Project, UC Santa Barbara, ww.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-housing-and-community-development-act-1992

Congress.gov. (2022). Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Acts. https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22frank%20melville%22%7D 

Dawkins, C. J. and Miller, M. (2015). A Picture of Disability and Designated Housing. US Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Policy Development and Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/mdrt/disability-designatedHousing.html 

Guidance on complying with the maximum number of units eligible for ... Housing and Urban Development Department. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2022, from https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/FRCLTH-LMT.PDF&nbsp;

Hayden, D. J. (2021). The social determinants of public housing performance (Order No. 28719969). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2598642737). Retrieved from https://libezproxy.syr.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/social-determinants-public-housing-performance/docview/2598642737/se-2 Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, H.R. 5334, 102nd Cong. (1992). https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/5334/text/enr

Houtenville, A., Shreya, P., and Rafal, M. (2022). Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America: 2021. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability.

Houtenville, A. J. & Ruiz, T. (2012). 2012 Annual Compendium of Disability Statistics. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability.

H.R.659 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Repeal the Faircloth Amendment Act of 2021. (2021, February 1). http://www.congress.gov/&nbsp;

H.R.5334 – 102nd Congress (1991-1992): Legislative History: Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. (2022, October 28). https://congressional.proquest.com/congressional/docview/t33.d34.102_pl_550?accountid=14214

HUD Handbook 4350.3: Occupancy requirements of subsidized multifamily ... Housing and Urban Development Department. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2022, from https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_35639.PDF&nbsp;

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2023). HUD Section 202. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/eld202

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2023). HUD Section 811. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/disab811

HUD Will Use Many Levers To Hike Housing Production. (1993, Feb 22). American Banker (Pre-1997 Fulltext) https://libezproxy.syr.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/hud-will-use-many-levers-hike-housing-production/docview/292882528/se-2

Modernizing Affordable Housing for Seniors and People with Disabilities: Hearing before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 111th Cong. (2009). Retrieved from ProQuest: https://congressional-proquest-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/congressional/do…;

National Housing Preservation Database (NHPD). (2022). Program Descriptions: HUD Project-Based Rental Assistance. https://preservationdatabase.org/documentation/program-descriptions/

Pinto, E. J. (2022). Government policies are responsible for the american housing crisis that is crowding lower income households out of the housing market. Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved from https://libezproxy.syr.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/other-sou…

Sen. Lauch Faircloth - North Carolina. OpenSecrets. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2022, from https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/lauch-faircloth/industr…

Schussheim, M., et al. (1993). The housing and community development act of 1992: highlights and analysis. (CRS Report No. 93-377 S). Retrieved from www.congressional-proquest.com

Shalby C. (2018). The financial crisis hit 10 years ago. For some, it feels like yesterday. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-financial-crisis-experiences-20180915-htmlstory.html 

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2014). Section 811 Project Rental Assistance: Bringing Permanent Supportive Housing to Scale: Status Report to Congress. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&…;

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2020). HUD Section 811 PRA Project Rental Assistance Program Phase II Evaluation Final Report Implementation and Short-Term Outcomes. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/Section-811-Phase-II.html

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2022). Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/mfh/progdesc/disab811 

US Department of Justice: Civil Rights Division. (2022). Olmstead: Community Integration for Everyone. https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_about.htm&nbsp;

Werner, A. R. (2020). Bodies of Indigents. Public Health Matters. http://www.publichealthmuseum.org/uploads/1/2/6/9/126956945/public_heal…