Mayor Adams Left Red Faced As Homeless Vouchers Remain Unused
New York City Mayor Eric Adams recently garnered attention by announcing that the city’s homeless voucher program, originally intended to assist the homeless within the city, could now be utilized statewide. The primary objective, according to the mayor, was to relieve the strain on the city’s overcrowded shelters, exacerbated by the ongoing migrant crisis, which has placed immense pressure on the city’s mandated safety net.
This expansion plan, contingent on approval from Governor Kathy Hochul, faced significant opposition from upstate counties. Some of these counties were already embroiled in legal battles over the city’s haphazard relocation of homeless migrants to their communities. These regions were grappling with an affordable housing crisis, stretching their social services and resources thin.
County executives now grapple with a crucial question: Will the implementation of New York City’s homeless voucher plan result in an influx of individuals with limited resources?
A potential answer to this question can be found in a comparable state voucher program, which, during its inaugural year, struggled to disburse a meager $3 million out of a potential $100 million fund, as per state data obtained by the Times Union.
The initial six months of the program saw only $195,000 distributed across 156 families, an amount that significantly improved during the first full year.
An October 2022 report from the Office of Temporary Disability and Assistance to the state Legislature expressed optimism that the program’s outcomes would become more robust as additional districts implemented their initiatives.
This program, adopted by the Legislature in 2021 and launched the following year, aimed to provide temporary rent coverage for homeless or at-risk individuals, regardless of immigration status, while they sought employment with a livable wage.
The challenge faced by local officials mirrored that of New York City—a scarcity of affordable housing coupled with a program that didn’t sufficiently cover rent relative to prevailing market rates.
In Albany County, for instance, approximately half of the $1.1 million allocated for the previous year remained unspent due to an inability to find affordable housing locally. County officials acknowledged the need for a plan to utilize the full allotment, given the rise in rents and homelessness.
While some counties, such as Cattaraugus, Oneida, and Schenectady, experienced success in administering the program through local nonprofits and shelters, along with an adequate supply of housing, others faced challenges.
Rensselaer County, for example, had spent a relatively low amount of its allocation by the end of March, despite St. Paul’s Center, a homeless shelter responsible for administering the program, successfully allocating most of its nearly half-million-dollar allotment.
St. Paul’s Center reported a significant reduction in the average length of stay for shelter residents, from 90 days to 43 days, since the program’s introduction. However, the success of the program depends on available housing matching the demand.
Governor Hochul asserted that there would not be a mass transfer of people from the city to upstate counties and emphasized that the vouchers were intended for those already in shelters. The Adams administration aimed to create openings in shelters for incoming migrants, who had been relocated to upstate hotels at considerable cost.
However, the New York Association of Counties expressed concerns about the program, calling for its reversal and highlighting potential problems arising from shifting the issue from one part of the state to another.
Counties such as Oneida, embracing the state’s voucher program for undocumented immigrants, issued orders to block the use of New York City vouchers within their communities, citing capacity issues and concerns about housing markets.
The Adams administration maintained that the program primarily targeted long-term homeless residents rather than migrants, aiming to open shelter beds for incoming migrants who continue to arrive in the city.
Despite similarities between the two voucher programs, nuanced differences exist in their eligibility criteria and rental rate coverage, with both grappling with the challenge of addressing homelessness and affordable housing shortages.
Post Comment