Prepared by Peggy Welker

December 8, 2014

Tighter government funding

CMS ruling (3/17/14 to 3/2020) [compliance with US Supreme Court’s Olmstead ruling]

Multiple target populations

Existing housing: majority with Mom and Dad

SSI/SSDI monthly income exceeds monthly rent payment = not working solution i.e. housing affordability gap

HUD: Section 8, Section 811, Disability Vouchers all underfunded

Current State of Affairs

A person has a sense of what they want (self-determination)

(later explain the 5 year plan to “grow” more of these kinds of people)

A person has some level of self-autonomy – in other words, they do not need 24/7 independent living

A person is eligible for (or can fit within the parameters of) Partnership For Hope waiver (not on the list, just eligible) of $12K per year

Basic Assumptions

Group home living (4+ people living together) – existing model

Individual home living – existing model

1. Mixed-use housing (people receiving affordable housing pricing and people paying full price)

2. Symbiotic Relationships – Integrating DSP and person they support (foster family, home share, residential live-in support)

3. Equitable Valued community living (L’Arche, Clubhouse model, foster family, home share, farm community, Camphill)

4. Section 811 reform (along with CMS Ruling)

A variety of models

1. Capital – acquire or rehab property

2. Ongoing rent & gap between tenant contribution & housing operating costs. Possibly with PRA (Sec811: must be only 25% filled with PWD)?

3. Daily support services – case management, DSP. Possibly with PFH?

3 legs of the PSH model

Taken directly from 2013 The Arc conference by SperlingPRA: Project rental assistance, term used in Section 811

40% of residents are people with disabilities

60% of residents are full-paying residents

Managed by a real estate company

Independent Living

DeKalb Apartments in Brooklyn, NY (“integration of persons with specials needs into a mainstream setting”). **

Merlo Station in Beaverton, Oregon – mixed housing Section 8 & Section 811 with 1 on-site provider to “help residents with grocery shopping, cleaning, cooking and other life skills.” **

Possibility #1 – Mixed Housing

Similar to Section 811 Project Rental Assistance where state housing finance agencies commit the rental assistance to up to 25% of units in a building. Side-note: NPO associated with Merlo Station has folded as of 2010. ** article available upon request.

Independent Supported Living based on needs of both clients

Elderly non-parent + person with disabilities supported by one daytime DSP

Elderly non-parent is “night supervisor” for person with disabilities

Peer relationship

“residential live-in support” model in Santa Barbara, CA **

Community Vision NPO in Portland Oregon (similar to Beyond Housing in St. Louis) **

Cupertino Duplexes (4 duplexes provide housing for 12 PWDD where 4 families responsible for their care/supervision)**

Possibility #2 –symbiotic relationships

** article available upon request.

L’Arche model is:

Core values on mutual respect

Strength-based

Mentoring process of “accompaniment”

Faith-based

Core members live alongside assistants

L’Arche-like model could be: Use college students with R.A. pricing model as L’Arche “assistants”

for core members

Have 2-1 ratio of core members to assistants

Smaller stipend, not as much daytime together because going to school

Similar to Residential live-in support in Santa Barbara, CA. See documentation.

Possibility #3 – Equitable/Valued Community Living

L’Arche

No more than 25% of unites in Section 811 PRA are people with

disabilities

Missouri Housing Development Commission in Kansas City applied for this federal grant by the 2012 deadline & again for 2013/2014.

Missouri did not get the grant. Missouri re-applied in 2013.“No funds have been appropriated for FY 2013 or 2014 Section 811 Capital Advances.” Applications were due May 2014.

What is the plan in Missouri for when the next round of Section 811 funding becomes available?

Possibility #4 –Section 811: recent reforms

Is this possible?

The 3 legs of permanent supportive housing (per Sperlin’sArc Convention presentation in 2013) is:

Acquire/rehab a property

Ongoing rent or operating subsidy

Support services

Can support services be shared among 2 individuals?

Can this be used in a L’arche or Shared Housing model?

Can there be collaboration with other agencies on this?

A new model? Section 811 + PFH

L’Arche plans for expansion – see reference page for their

regional strategic plan

Jewish Federation – one year analysis

Rainbow Village is presenting to them

St. Louis Arc?

Other agencies’ work

Current state of affairs: $5 million programmatic support

($175/day = $64K/year)

Flipping back to Intermediate Care facility for our 71 individuals

CMS effective date is March 17, 2014 + 5 year transition (right?)

New HCBS does not require a separation between housing provider & service provider (although that’s not a consideration here)

St. Louis Arc & Rainbow Village

Their goal is to amass enough capital to use 5% of

the base + interest to fund projects

Currently at $8 million in assets per 990

Goal is for ___ ? (in my notes?)

Learning from Lutheran Family & Children’s Services Foundation

ACF created the Affordable Housing Fund in 2007 as an innovative

way to address the issue. Unlike traditional charitable funds, this Fund provides zero-

interest loans to nonprofit housing developers for the pre-development phase of affordable housing projects, for which financing is not typically available. Once the project receives long-term lender financing, loans are repaid to the Fund—making those dollars available for new projects.

31 zero-interest loans made, totaling $2.4 million Leveraged approximately $300 million in housing (1,500 units) Loans range from $25,000 to $75,000 per project. The Fund is flexible in light of changing housing market

conditions, and funds supportive housing, rehabilitation of foreclosed and abandoned properties, and conversion of existing inventory for affordable uses.

Learning from Arizona Community Foundation

(2014) Camphill Communities of North America. Retrieved from www.camphill.org/about-us/ on 12/10/2014.

(2014) Charities Housing: Cupertino Duplexes. Retrieved from http://charitieshousing.org/cupertino-duplexes/ on 12/10/2014.

(2014). Community Vision, Inc. (Programs for employment connections, howonership independence, accessibility loan fund). Retrieved on 12/10/2014 from http://cvision.org/

(2014). DeKalb Avenue Apartments: Dunn Development Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.dunndev.com/L3/dekalb.html on 12/10/2014.

Maurer, T. (2008, May 30). Merlo Station offers developmentally disabled and low-income families a home. The Oregonian. Retrieved from http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/05/merlo_station_offers_developme.html on 12/10/2014. [side-note: NPO in charge of project has folded]

Resnik, D. & Blackbourn, J. (2009). Opening Doors: A discussion of residential options for adults living with autism and related disorders. A collaborative report by the Urban Land Institute Arizona, Southwest Autism Research & Resource Center and Arizona State University. Retrieved from https://stardust.asu.edu/docs/stardust/advancing-full-spectrum-housing/full-report.pdf

Sperling, Andrew. (2013). Section 811 PRA Demonstration: A new model for affordable housing in your community. The Arc National Convention 2013.

The Arc. (2014). The 2014 federal home & community-based services regulation: what you need to know. The Arc National Policy Matters.

References

Ahrentzen, S. & Steele, K. (2009). Advancing Full Spectrum Autism Housing: Designing

for adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders. P.1-58. Retrieved from https://stardust.asu.edu/ on 10/19/2014.

(2014, April 5). Linger Over Breakfast: The Spirituality of Jean Vanier: changing the world one heart at a time. A powerpoint presentation, pg. 1-27.

(2014) 10 Principles of independent living. From the Disability Options Network. Accessed on 8/30/2014 from http://www.disabilityoptionsnetwork.org/independentlivingprinciples.php

(2014) Infograph: Rural Housing for people with disabilities: the on-ramp to community participation.

(2014) Infograph: Housing for people with disabilities: the on-ramp to community participation.

(2014). L’Arche Regional Strategic Plan 2014-2019. Retrieved from http://www.larcheusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2014-2019-Western-U-S-Regional-Mandate-Approved-6-21-14.pdf on 12/11/2014.

Baldwin, C. (2012). For NCB Capital Impact. Sustainable Community Living Option to support transition & prevent institutionalization. Retrieved on 5/12/2014 at http://www.nasuad.org/documentation/hcbs2011/Presentations/T8Yosemite.pdf

Background Research

Brackin, L. & Robertson, N. (2014). CMS Settings Rule Part A: How to get my

chapter of The Arc into compliance; The Arc 2014 National Convention.

Campbell, K. & Schmidt, J. (2004, June). A Guide to Single Household Supported Living Services. Connections for Information & Resources on Community Living.

Chicago Jewish Community Supported Community Living report (December 2012). Retrieved from http://www.jcfs.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/SCLI%20%20Vision%20and%20Action%20Plan%20Jan%202013.pdf on 5/13/2014.

Felce, D. Perry, J. & Kerr, M. (2010). A comparison of activity levels among adults with intellectual disabilities living in family homes and out-of-family placements, Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 24, pg. 421-426.

Francis, G., Blue-Banning, M. & Turnbull, R. (2014). Variables within a household that influence quality-of-life outcomes for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities living in the community: Discovering the gaps. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, vol. 39 (1) p.3-10.

Hugg, J. (2014). Housing Element Policy Best Practices Version 1.0. Retrieved on 4/25/2014 from http://www.abag.org/graphics/HLCHEToolkitFinal.pdf.

Background Research

Larson, S. & Lakin, C. (2012). Behavioral outcomes of moving from institutional to

community living for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: US studies from 1977 to 2010; Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37 (4), p.235-246.

Logic models for affordable housing for: State of Georgia & Rhode Island Coalition for Affordable Housing.

LTO Ventures Community Model: mixed-use disability specific campus setting that is financially sustainable. Retrieved from http://ltoventures.org/our-model/ on 12/10/2014.

Mansell, J. & Beadle-Brown, J. (2009). Dispersed or clustered housing for adults with intellectual disability: a systematic review. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, Vol. 34 (4), p. 313-323.

Metzel, D. & Walker, P. (2001). The Illusion of Inclusion: Geographies of the lives of people with developmental disabilities in the United States. Disability Studies Quarterly, Vol 21 (4), pg. 114-128.

Background Research

N.a. (2008). How does affordable housing affect surrounding property values?

Housing Research Synthesis Project, Research Brief No. 1, p.1-3.

N.a. (2009). Does mixed-income housing affect surrounding property values? Housing Research Synthesis Project, Research Brief No. 3, p. 1-3.

N.d. Housing Capacity Building Initiative for Community Living Sustainable Learning Curriculum (SLC). Retrieved from http://www.neweditions.net/housing/SLC/index.htm.

Reisacher Petro & Associates. (2010). Board & Care Quality Forum. St. Louis L’Arche, Vol 13 (1), pg.1-5.

Rubin, B. (2013, January 23). Parents create housing alternative for disabled adult children, Chicago Tribune.

Vaughn, J. (2011). The State of Housing in America in the 21st Century: A Disability Perspective. Natoinal Council on Disability. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2010/Jan192010 on April 1, 2014.

Background Research