Single-Loop Learning, Double-Loop Learning and Homelessness – Part II – Rethinking Our Investments

The idea of single-loop learning and double-loop learning can be further useful in thinking about how we, as a nation, have decided (implicitly and explicitly) to address the modern homelessness crisis.

All one needs to do is look at how much we spend on the main federal program to house the homeless, the Continuum of Care Program: $2 billion. That may sound like a lot of money, however, out of a budget of $4 trillion, it is a drop in the bucket. One aircraft carrier, for comparison, costs $13 billion.

Especially over the last decade, we have become extremely skillful at building systems that maximize the impact of these $2 billion. However, as a nation, we have not explored the idea of significantly adding to that funding. We have accepted the governing variable that around $2 billion, in 2017 dollars, is enough to defeat a social ill that has been with us for forty years and counting.

Underinvestment in housing for those who are in critical need of help is not confined to the fight to end homelessness. We see this also in what the federal government calls “worst case housing needs.” “Worst case needs are defined as renters with very low incomes – no more than 50 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) – who do not receive government housing assistance and who pay more than one-half of their income for rent, live in severely inadequate conditions, or both.” While those experiencing homelessness at any one time, number around 554,000 persons, this other category includes around 8.3 million households! 

It’s not that we don’t invest in housing, in aggregate; it is just that federal support for housing is heavily skewed towards those on the upper rungs of the economic ladder. Will Fischer and Barbara Sard present this in a strikingly visual way. Here are just two of their charts:

 

 

They further clarify that, “The federal government spent $190 billion in 2015 to help Americans buy or rent homes, but little of that spending went to the families who struggle the most to afford housing… Federal housing expenditures are unbalanced in two respects: they target a disproportionate share of subsidies on higher-income households and they favor homeownership over renting. Lower-income renters are far likelier than homeowners or higher-income renters to pay very high shares of their income for housing and to experience problems such as homelessness, housing instability, and overcrowding. Federal rental assistance is highly effective at helping these vulnerable families, but rental assistance programs are deeply underfunded and as a result reach only about one in four eligible households.”

Of course, this is still only part of the story. Dr. Barbara DiPietro, who shared these charts with us, also shared this fascinating video, which clarifies the larger picture of income inequality in America, and how it is driven by policies we, as a nation, have put in place:  

 

Barbara urged us to think about all the policy decisions we have made as a nation. Nothing is preventing us, as a society, from investing more in ending homelessness. Nothing is preventing us from investing more in housing for those on the lower rungs of the economic scale, than we do for those on the upper rungs. Nothing is preventing us from enacting policies that will make all the investments we make, as a nation, in a more equitable manner. We can create a more equitable society, with much less income and wealth inequality.

 

 

However, there is only one way we will get there. We can’t just engage in single-loop learning. We can’t just adjust what we do. Different strategies and actions alone will not help. We need to break out of our current paradigms, and engage in double-loop learning. We need to question the values and beliefs that led to the current crises, in which we find our nation. We need to change the governing variables, and act upon them. Will we have the courage to do so?

Not So Fast - The Final Part of Our Series on Source of Income Discrimination

As we discussed in the last posting in this series, there remain tremendous challenges in resolving the macro issue that inhibits those with little means from renting apartments – the lack of adequate affordable housing stock. However, it would seem that the micro challenge – allowing landlords to discriminate against low income renters, based on the source of their rental payments – could be and was on its way to being resolved in one if not two major Texas cities. Austin had passed an ordinance prohibiting such discrimination, and Dallas had committed to considering such an ordinance.

One of the principals of American government is that, generally, federal legislation preempts and overrides state legislation. State legislation, in turn, perhaps without need for the “generally” caveat in the previous sentence, preempts and overrides local government legislation. This last legislative session, with regard to this very issue, the legislature stepped in and legislated in this very area in SB 267. The operative section of this legislation had three paragraphs (Once again, any interpretation should be taken with the obvious disclaimer that I am not an attorney, certainly not one licensed in Texas, and this is my simple lay explanation):

Section 1 (a) prohibits local governments from prohibiting source of income discrimination, in general: “A municipality or county may not adopt or enforce an ordinance or regulation that prohibits an owner, lessee, sublessee, assignee, managing agent, or other person having the right to lease, sublease, or rent a housing accommodation from refusing to lease or rent the housing accommodation to a person because the person's lawful source of income to pay rent includes funding from a federal housing assistance program.” The “double negative” can be confusing – the state prohibits prohibiting. Basically, landlords may discriminate against those holding vouchers, and local governments cannot stop them from doing so. 

Section 1 (b) allows local governments to prohibit source of income discrimination, if the renter is a veteran: “This section does not affect an ordinance or regulation that prohibits the refusal to lease or rent a housing accommodation to a military veteran because of the veteran's lawful source of income to pay rent.”

Section 1(c) allows local governments to incentivize and encourage landlords to voluntarily accept housing vouchers: “This section does not affect any authority of a municipality or county or decree to create or implement an incentive, contract commitment, density bonus, or other voluntary program designed to encourage the acceptance of a housing voucher directly or indirectly funded by the federal government, including a federal housing choice voucher.”

With this new law in place, Austin could not enforce its ordinance, and Dallas certainly could still consider such an ordinance, but could not meaningfully address this issue, with regard to non-veterans. What can local governments, particularly in our geographical area of concern, Greater Dallas, still do? It would seem that they are left with two main options for veterans and non-veterans respectively.

First, local governments could pass ordinances prohibiting source of income discrimination in the case of veterans. As we heard from Shavon Moore, MDHA Continuum of Care (CoC) Program Coordinator, at the last regular CoC Assembly meeting, currently 120(!) veterans experiencing homelessness have housing vouchers, but not even one of them find housing. Most likely, many and perhaps most of these veterans, could be housed quickly, if landlords could no longer discriminate against them, refusing to accept their vouchers.   

 

Second, local governments could create programs to educate landlords about the positives and dispel myths and preconceptions about the negatives of accepting renters holding housing vouchers. To complement this education, local governments could grant incentives, perhaps through actual expenditures or tax expenditures to encourage landlords to accept vouchers.

Isabelle Headrick, Executive Director of Accessible Housing Austin

(Courtesy of Accessible Housing Austin)

With such education, landlords could arrive at the realization voiced by Isabelle Headrick, Executive Director of Accessible Housing Austin, “As someone who has leased properties to voucher holders for twelve years, I have found that Section 8 and other voucher programs make my job substantially easier, not harder… these are actually very well-run programs that put money into my organization’s bank account like clockwork every month and allow me to serve tenants who are very stable and stay for years.”