Implications of Project Size in B§ïLÅŒLÅŒ BOOKMOBIÿÿÿ. / Æ )Æ 9Æ IÆ YÆ iÆ yÆ ‰Æ ™Æ ©Æ ¹Æ ÉÆ ÙÆ éÆ ùÆ Æ Æ )Æ 9Æ IÆ YÆ iÆ yÆ ‰Æ ™Æ ©Æ ¹Æ ÉÆ ÙÆ éÆ ùÆ Æ Æ )Æ 9Æ IÆ YÆ iÆ yÆ ‰Æ ™Æ ©Æ ¹Æ ÉÆ ÙÆ éÆ ùÆ íè . MOBI ýé36ÄJ
implications of project size IN SECTION 811 AND SECTION 202 ASSISTED PROJECTS FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research
Acknowledgements The authors of this report, Gretchen Locke, Caryn Nagler, and Ken Lam, wish to acknowledge the assistance provided to this study by a variety of individuals and organizations. First, we appreciate the guidance and support of the task order’s Government Technical Monitor, Dr. Cheryl Levine. Mrs. Gail Williamson in HUD’s Office of Housing provided valuable assistance in helping us assemble data for sample selection and select site visit locations; she also contributed helpful review and comments on our reports. We also wish to recognize the members of the study’s advisory group who provided insightful review during the study’s design phase and in the preparation of the final report. The group’s members were: Moe Armstrong, Ethel Elan, Suellen Galbraith, Bill Henning, Betsy Lieberman, Kathleen McGinley, Ann O’Hara, Anthony Penn, Susan Procop, Patrick Rafter, Liz Savage, Andrew Sperling, Becca Vaughn, Susan Weaver, Linda Williams, and Tony Zipple. Perhaps most importantly, thanks are due to the property sponsors from the HUD-assisted study properties for volunteering their time and sharing their experiences with the Abt research staff. We also thank the Section 811 project residents who spoke with us during our site visits. Their insights greatly enriched this research. We are indebted to the local service providers for persons with disabilities who shared their time and expertise on the issues associated with project size in housing for persons with disabilities. We appreciate the assistance provided by state policymakers in agencies serving persons with disabilities for their input in clarifying issues surrounding approaches to providing affordable housing for persons with disabilities. At Abt Associates, a number of staff members played important roles on this task order. Dr. Jill Khadduri provided thoughtful and constructive technical review throughout the design, data collection, and report writing. Technical advisor Dr. Raymond Glazier also provided valuable assistance in designing the resident interview protocols and training site visitors for the resident interviews. Site visitors Jean Amendolia, Larry Buron, Ty Hardaway, Debi McInnis, Linda Pistilli, Claudia Solari, Kristin Winkel, and Michelle Wood carried out the site visits with efficiency and thoroughness. Under the supervision of Debi McInnis, Esther Tan, Hong Ly, and Rudy Sabogal conducted the telephone surveys and assembled the survey data with attentiveness and care. Jessica Bonjorni provided programming support for the survey data analysis, and Michele Robinson produced the report. We thank them all for their diligent efforts.
Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................iii Background.....................................................................................................................................iii Research Design ..............................................................................................................................v Key Findings....................................................................................................................................v The Role of Project Size in Housing and Service Delivery ........................... ...........................v Project Size and Neighborhood Relations...............................................................................vii Resident Experiences in Section 811 Projects........................................................................viii Project Size and Development and Operating Costs................................................................ix Policy Implications .........................................................................................................................ix Chapter One Background and Methodology.....................................................................................1 Background......................................................................................................................................1 Research Design ..............................................................................................................................4 Telephone Discussions with State Policymakers ......................................................................5 Telephone Survey of a Nationally Representative Sample of Project Sponsors.......................5 Site Visits ..................................................................................................................................8 Organization of the Report...............................................................................................................9 Chapter Two Project Size and Housing/Services Models...............................................................10 Characteristics of Section 811 Projects and Their Residents.........................................................11 Role of Federal, State, and Local Government Regulations on Project Size and Service Approach Characteristics of Section 202 (Direct Loan) Projects for Persons with Disabilities and Their Project Size and Service Delivery in Section 202 (Direct Loan) Projects for Persons with All Projects..............................................................................................................................12 Project Size and Service Delivery in Section 811 Projects............................................................13 Project Size and Severity of Disability in Section 811 Projects ....................................................15 De-linking Housing and Services ..................................................................................................16 Sponsors’ Views of Resident Preferences .....................................................................................17 .......................................................................................................................................................18 Residents........................................................................................................................................19 Resident Characteristics ..........................................................................................................21 Disabilities .....................................................................................................................................21 Summary........................................................................................................................................22 Chapter Three Project Size and Neighborhood Relations..............................................................24 Project Sites ...................................................................................................................................25 Neighborhood Acceptance.............................................................................................................25 Social and Economic Integration ...................................................................................................27 Summary.......................................................................................................................... ..............28 Chapter Four Resident Experiences in Section 811 Projects .........................................................29 Resident Characteristics.................................................................................................................29 Resident Satisfaction......................................................................................................................31 Residents’ Housing Preferences ....................................................................................................33 Service Needs and Preferences ......................................................................................................35 Table of Contents i
Community Integration..................................................................................................................36 Summary........................................................................................................................................37 Chapter Five Factors in Operating and Development Costs..........................................................38 Total Operating Costs ....................................................................................................................39 Administrative Expenses ...............................................................................................................42 Operating & Maintenance Expenses..............................................................................................44 Taxes & Insurance Expenses .........................................................................................................45 Utilities Expenses ..........................................................................................................................46 Total Development Cost ................................................................................................................47 Summary........................................................................................................................................51 Chapter Six Summary of Findings and Policy Implications ..........................................................52 Policy Implications ........................................................................................................................53 Appendix A Projects Selected for Site Visits...................................................................................55 Table of Contents ii
Executive Summary In recent years, there has been growing interest among different sectors representing and serving persons with disabilities in providing more mainstream housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. The purpose of this research is to investigate the social and economic implications of project size in Section 811 and Section 202 (direct loan) projects for persons with disabilities, their residents, and the immediate neighborhoods. A congressional mandate requires that this study look specifically at: 1 • The benefits and problems associated with providing Section 811 housing in projects that have 7 or fewer units, 8 to 24 units, and more than 24 units; and • The benefits and problems associated with providing housing for non-elderly persons with disabilities under the Section 202 (direct loan) program, in projects having 30 to 50 units, 51 to 80 units, 81 to 120 units, and more than 120 units. This report presents the study’s findings. Background In the mid-1960s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began providing funding for housing for persons with disabilities through the Section 202 Direct Loan Program for the Elderly as a result of Congress expanding the definition of elderly to include people with physical disabilities. The program became known as the Section 202 Direct Loan Program for the Elderly or Handicapped. In 1974, people with developmental disabilities became eligible under the program, and after a three-year joint HUD/HHS Demonstration Program for Deinstitutionalization of the Chronically Mentally Ill from 1978 through 1980, people with chronic mental illness became eligible for the regular Section 202 Direct Loan Program in 1982. HUD funded more than 2,100 projects totaling over 36,000 units for persons with disabilities under the Section 202 Direct Loan Program from 1964 through 1990. During this time period, the types of projects being developed evolved from large congregate dwellings, which offered a less restrictive setting than hospitals or nursing homes, and shifted to much smaller, community-based projects. Also, project size limits shifted to no more than 40 units if a project was an individual living complex, and a maximum of 15 residents if the project was a group home. In the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, Congress changed the Section 202 program from a direct loan program with Section 8 rental assistance to a capital advance program with project rental assistance contract (PRAC) funds and restricted eligibility to the very low-income elderly. Congress also created a similar program, the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons Section 524 of Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation Act (H.R. 2684; P.L. 106-74). Executive Summary 1 iii
with Disabilities Program, to address the housing needs of very low-income adults with disabilities (18 years of age or older) by providing funding primarily for independent living projects of no more than 24 residents and small group homes of up to eight persons with disabilities, with an exception provision for both. Supportive services are to be made available to residents of Section 811 housing, but beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, receiving supportive services cannot be a condition of occupancy. Services may be provided on- or off-site to assist residents in living as independently as possible. Over the 14-year history of the program, there has been a trend towards reduction in project size limits. As of FY 2003, project sizes were limited to 14 persons with disabilities in an independent living project with an opportunity to request an exception and 6 persons per group home with no exceptions. The continued reduction in the maximum project size limits is attributed to recommendations from national disability advocacy organizations as well as changes in state policy regarding the provision of supportive services in residential settings. At the time this research project began in 2001, 65 percent of the almost 1,600 projects (totaling 15,500 units) funded since the beginning of the Section 811 program in FY 1991 contained between 8 and 24 units. Most of the remaining projects (32 percent) have fewer than 8 units. While persons with disabilities have more housing options today than they did thirty years ago, there continues to be an ongoing debate over the appropriate size of projects for this population. Some advocates contend that persons with disabilities prefer, and are more independent, living in small developments that blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Others have argued that larger projects are less expensive to build and operate, an issue that must be carefully weighed given the significant need for affordable housing for this population. Another point of view suggests that there should not be any housing specifically for persons with disabilities and that an increase in the provision of housing vouchers for this population would better serve the housing needs of persons with disabilities. This study provides an important opportunity to explore the implications of project size with housing sponsors, state policymakers, service providers, and residents of assisted housing projects for persons with disabilities. The main issues we explore are: • What are the characteristics of Section 202 (direct loan) and Section 811 projects and their residents? • What role does pro ject size play in the types and locations of services provided to residents? • How does project size affect neighborhood relations, both before the project is developed and after it is occupied? What are the economic and social relationships between projects and the immediate neighborhoods? • What are residents’ experiences in Section 811 housing? • What is the role of project size in project development and operating costs? Executive Summary iv
Research Design While this study responds to the congressional mandate that the research include Section 202 (direct loan) projects for persons with disabilities, these properties represented a smaller part of the overall study because advocates and policymakers appear to have concluded already that very large developments are not well suited for most persons with disabilities. Thus, it was agreed early in the research that the study would give limited attention to the larger Section 202 (direct loan) projects and greater attention to the benefits and challenges of the smaller Section 811 projects. The key data collection activities were: • Telephone survey of a nationally-representative sample of Section 202 (direct loan) and Section 811 sponsors; 2 • In-depth site visits to 49 Section 811 projects located in 10 metropolitan areas across the country; • Telephone discussions with state policymakers to obtain a broad range of views on housing for persons with disabilities; and • Limited analysis of operating and development costs in the site visit projects, based on administrative data obtained from HUD. Key Findings The Role of Project Size in Housing and Service Delivery The research literature on housing preferences among persons with disabilities emphasizes themes of consumer choice and independence, while the same literature claims that project sponsors’ choices about the social setting and design of supportive housing facilities are driven by cost-efficiency and access to certain funding streams. There is also an assumption that more services can be provided more efficiently in larger projects. Researchers and practitioners acknowledge, however, that other factors may play a role in determining project size and the types and location of services, including the service needs and preferences of residents, the structure of service delivery systems, and regulatory and licensing requirements. Our findings with respect to housing and service delivery include: Projects funded under both the Section 811 program and the Section 202 (direct loan) program are important sources of affordable housing in their communities. Sponsors reported that their projects The term “sponsor” refers to the nonprofit entity responsible for developing and operating the project. Sponsors of Section 811 and Section 202 (direct loan) projects include nonprofit housing developers as well as agencies and organizations serving persons with mental illness, physical disabilities, and developmental disabilities. Executive Summary 2 v
are in demand and vacancies are rare. New residents generally come either from living with other family members or from another specialized residential setting. Section 202 (direct loan) sponsors tend to view their projects as independent living apartments. Project residents are most commonly persons with physical disabilities who moved to the Section 202 (direct loan) project from a variety of previous residences, including subsidized or private market apartments. They presumably moved to their Section 202 (direct loan) projects in part for the accessibility features the project offers. Because Section 202 (direct loan) projects are larger, it might be expected that they would have space to offer services, but this was not the case. About one third of the Section 202 (direct loan) sponsors we interviewed reported they play little or no role in either providing or c oordinating services for residents because residents arrange their own services. Sponsors of Section 811 projects, by contrast, are more frequently part of a service system within which Section 811 projects may be one of a number of housing options. Section 811 project residents more frequently moved to the Section 811 project from another specialized residential setting or from living with family, and were referred through supportive service systems. While sponsors of Section 202 (direct loan) developments tended to be mainly housing providers, sponsors of Section 811 developments often provided services for persons with disabilities in addition to managed housing. For this reason, Section 811 developments tended to offer more resident services, even though they tended to be smaller than the Section 202 developments. Project size does not determine the level of assistance provided. The ways services are delivered – where, by whom, and the extent of choice persons with disabilities have in service provision – are unrelated to size. That is, within the Section 811 program, larger projects can offer more or less assistance, as can smaller projects. Most project sponsors do play a role in coordinating services for project residents, but project size is not the main factor in sponsors’ decisions about what services will be provided or where. Residents’ needs and preferences, sponsors’ organizational philosophies about services, and regulatory and service system requirements are more important than project size. Service delivery is primarily a function of the policies, programs, and funding sources for servicing the particular population of persons with disabilities. State policies may set guidelines or more formal constraints on size, but sponsors often have some flexibility within state policy. Regardless of project size, the majority of sponsors prefer that on-site services be limited to those that residents need to live as independently as possible in their homes and that residents go elsewhere for services that are available and accessible at other locations. The services provided on-site often (but not always) include some assistance with activities of daily living, including dressing, bathing, meal preparation, and housekeeping. Therapeutic services, such as physical or occupational therapy or medication management, are more often provided off-site. This approach has more to do with sponsors’ missions and philosophies about services than with the physical availability of space or the economics of securing services. The small number of sponsors who said size is important in service delivery were associated with larger projects. These sponsors all reported that efficiencies in on-site support are influenced by project size; that is, larger projects allow them to provide sufficient on-site support for the residents. Executive Summary vi
There does not appear to be a direct relationship between project size and the severity of disability of the residents. We visited larger projects housing residents with more severe disabilities, as well as smaller ones. Sponsors of larger projects cited efficiencies in support and service delivery as important advantages of housing people with more severe disabilities in larger settings. By contrast, the sponsor of a three-bed group home for people with physical disabilities said that this small setting in a residential neighborhood was ideal for its residents, all of whom had other disabilities in addition to severe mobility impairments (specifically, one had physical health problems and the other two had behavioral and mental health issues). The sponsors we visited said that on-site support does depend largely on the severity of disabilities of the residents. Projects serving residents with less severe disabilities had limited on-site support, with little or no overnight support. Projects housing residents with more severe disabilities had awake, overnight support and more daytime coverage. Project Size and Neighborhood Relations As the number of supportive housing developments sponsored by HUD and others has increased, community concerns about project siting, scale, and management have grown, and in some cases, these concerns have led to vocal community opposition. During the site visits for this study, we explored both community acceptance of the projects at the planning and development stages and also the on-going economic and social ties between projects and neighborhoods once the Section 811 project is occupied. Our findings regarding project size and neighborhood relations include: For the most part, the projects visited for this study fit in well with the size, scale, and land use of the surrounding neighborhoods. Site selection often includes such factors as proximity to public transit, supportive and commercial services, and other neighborhood amenities that would enhance the quality of life for residents. Yet, in about one-third of the projects visited for this study, site visitors noted concerns primarily associated with isolation of the developments from shopping and services or criminal activity in the neighborhood. A few sponsors we visited developed larger projects in terms of total units, but located the units on multiple sites. This helped maximize the number of units produced while keeping the scale of each project smaller. Section 811 project sponsors typically provide advance notification to neighboring residents and businesses of the proposed development, and neighborhood acceptance of these projects is high. Where there have been “NIMBY” (Not in My Back Yard) concerns, they appear to have been mitigated through additional communication and neighborhood input into project design or other facets of the program. Economic integration between the projects and the surrounding neighborhoods is modest. Although many residents use local businesses, there is little use of local vendors by project management, and almost no neighborhood residents are employed by the projects. Executive Summary vii
Resident Experiences in Section 811 Projects We interviewed a small number of residents in each of the Section 811 projects we visited. Resident interviews covered a broad range of topics, including housing choices and preferences, supportive services, community integration (with other residents in the development as well as neighbors in the surrounding community), and residents’ overall perceptions of their current living situation. Findings about resident experiences include: Resident satisfaction is high among the individuals interviewed. Overall, 65 percent of respondents reported being very satisfied with their current living situation. Another 29 percent are somewhat satisfied or between somewhat and very satisfied. Six percent of the residents interviewed are not satisfied with their current living situation. The main reasons cited for dissatisfaction include interpersonal conflicts with other residents or staff (such as excessive noise, stealing food, or gossiping). Residents said they like the independence, privacy, and quality of their Section 811 housing. Of those who cited things they dislike, problems with other residents were the most frequently mentioned issue. Project sponsors said that interpersonal conflicts are a bigger problem in larger projects. In the resident interviews, however, residents in smaller projects were more likely to mention problems with other residents or staff. Residents expressed a slight preference for smaller projects over larger ones, but a substantial number expressed no preference. Nearly half of the residents said they would prefer to live in projects with fewer than eight units, while about 30 percent expressed a preference for developments with more than eight units. The remaining 20 percent had no preference. Residents’ opinions are also mixed on w hether they prefer to live with other persons with disabilities or with people who do not have disabilities. When asked whether they prefer to live with persons with disabilities or with people without disabilities, half of the residents expressed no preference. Of the remainder, about 30 percent would prefer to live with others with disabilities and 20 percent stated a preference for living with others who do not have a disability. Sponsors reported that project sites are often selected to promote community integration, but residents reported little interaction with neighbors outside the Section 811 project. Residents do seem to have some sense of community within the Section 811 projects, but integration with the neighborhoods has been elusive. Some 60 percent of residents said they have no interaction at all with neighbors outside the Section 811 project. Among those residents who noted specific barriers to neighborhood interaction, the most common is that their disability prevents them from getting out into the neighborhood (or they need assistance in doing so) or prevents them from being understood. Other common reasons for limited neighborhood interaction are concerns about crime and safety, not knowing the neighborhood residents, or simply being busy with their own lives. Executive Summary viii
Project Size and Development and Operating Costs One argument for building larger projects is that per unit operating and development costs are reduced if costs are spread across more units. In this exploratory analysis of development and operating costs, we found evidence of economies of scale in some regions. The effect is strongest in lower cost regions of the country (the Midwest and South) compared to more expensive regions (the Northeast and West). A more complete analysis of operating costs would need to account more fully for project support costs. Our quantitative cost analysis was limited to costs captured in HUD’s reporting systems, which include only those costs covered by the Section 811 program. Support costs, which are an important operating cost category for Section 811 projects but are not covered by the Section 811 program (and are therefore not reported to HUD), vary by size in more complex ways, according to project sponsors. Policy Implications The Section 811 program and projects funded under the Section 202 (direct loan) program provide important sources of affordable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities. The Section 811 projects that are the main focus of this study are generally located in residential or mixed residential and commercial areas selected to provide residents with access to services in an integrated setting. Project size does not determine the availability of services. Some of the policy implications of the study’s findings include: • Given that neither costs nor service availability is strongly influenced by project size, HUD should continue to encourage the development of smaller projects. Projects with fewer units are easier to site in appropriate settings and residents express high rates of satisfaction with smaller projects. • HUD should also maintain flexibility to permit sponsors to develop larger projects where suitable sites are available and sponsors can demonstrate the demand for the housing. • Privacy is an important concern for both sponsors and residents. Project design should maximize privacy. Several sponsors noted design features of their projects that promote privacy and autonomy and mitigate interpersonal problems. For example, in a group home for four people with developmental disabilities and behavioral issues, a small setting with lots of space is critical because interpersonal issues, noise, or distraction can overwhelm the residents. Individual entries rather than common hallways in an independent living project define individual space and give residents a greater sense of autonomy an d privacy. One sponsor noted that clusters of six units with individual entries give residents privacy, but allow them to live “interdependently,” watching out for each other. • The cost analysis shows some evidence of economies of scale in both development and operating costs for the small sample of projects we analyzed, but further research is needed to explore costs more fully. A more comprehensive cost analysis should assess Executive Summary ix
costs in a larger sample of projects and look at housing and services costs together. In addition, a broader exploration of how financing mechanisms for affordable housing could be combined and leveraged with those for housing for persons with disabilities to create mixed residential developments would be useful. • Further analysis of the cost effectiveness of using the Section 811 program to acquire condominiums is also warranted. The small number of condominium project sponsors we visited have high acquisition and operating costs and share some of the same interpersonal problems among residents that are found in group homes and independent living projects. There seem to be few cost advantages to having the sponsor own these units compared to assisting residents with tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers. Using tenant-based vouchers may pose challenges as well, including discrimination by landlords against persons with disabilities and a lack of affordable and accessible rental housing for voucher recipients in many housing markets. Executive Summary x
Chapter One Background and Methodology In recent years, there has been growing interest among different sectors representing and serving persons with disabilities in providing more mainstream housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. The purpose of this research is to investigate the social and economic effects of project size in Section 811 and Section 202 (direct loan) projects for persons with disabilities, their residents, and the immediate neighborhoods. A congressional mandate requires that this study look specifically at: 3 • The benefits and problems associated with providing Section 811 housing in projects that have 7 or fewer units, 8 to 24 units, and more than 24 units; and • The benefits and problems associated with providing housing for non-elderly persons with disabilities under the Section 202 (direct loan) program, in projects having 30 to 50 units, 51 to 80 units, 81 to 120 units, and more than 120 units. These study objectives were addressed within the context of a broader goal: helping HUD to identify the most effective project-based housing options that the federal government can provide for low- income persons with disabilities. This report presents the study’s findings. Background The need for affordable housing for low-income persons with disabilities has been clearly documented. Across the United States, the presence of a disability is generally associated with lower levels of income and an increased likelihood of living in poverty. Among persons 25 years old and over, 27.9 percent of people with a severe disability live below the poverty line, compared to 10.4 percent of people who do not have a disability. 4 According to 2004 data, some 3.9 million adults (age 18 to 64) with disabilities receive Social Security Income (SSI) benefits. 5 Nearly two-thirds of SSI recipients have no other source of income, 6 yet SSI benefits are comparable to an hourly wage rate of just $3.43, almost $2 per hour below the federal minimum wage. Given their low incomes, housing costs pose a serious burden to low-income persons with disabilities. In every county and metropolitan area in the country, a person whose income is limited to SSI must pay more than 30 percent of monthly income to rent a one-bedroom apartment at HUD’s Fair Market 3 Section 524 of Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriation Act (H.R. 2684; P.L. 106-74). 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Americans with Disabilities: 1997 – Table 3. 5 Social Security Administration, February 2004. 6 SSI Annual Statistical Report 1998, Social Security Administration. Chapter 1 – Background and Methodology 1
Rent (FMR). In 2002, for the first time, the average national rent was greater than the total monthly income received by SSI recipients. 7 Housing for persons with disabilities funded through HUD can be traced back to 1964 when Congress expanded the definition of elderly for the Section 202 Direct Loan Program for the Elderly to include persons with physical disabilities. Section 202 (direct loan) projects could be developed for the elderly or for people with physical disabilities. In projects for the elderly, ten percent of the units had to be accessible and could be occupied by either elderly or nonelderly people who required the accessibility features of the unit. These projects were primarily large congregate settings. At that time, it was thought that the elderly and persons with physical disabilities had similar housing and supportive services needs that could be met in such a setting. In 1974, Congress again amended the eligibility definition for the Section 202 (direct loan) program to include persons with developmental disabilities. The project type of small group home was first created for this population. The “Deinstitutionalization Movement” began in the 1970s with the closing of many state hospitals forcing persons with disabilities, primarily persons with chronic mental illness, into the community before there were appropriate community-based residential settings. In 1978, Congress directed HUD to initiate a joint three-year demonstration program with HHS entitled, “Demonstration Program for Deinstitutionalization of the Chronically Mentally Ill.” Congress also indicated that it was never their intent to exclude this population from being eligible for the Section 202 (direct loan) program. In 1982, HUD made persons with chronic mental illness eligible for the regular Section 202 Direct Loan Program. Over time, as a result of the “Deinsititutionalization Movement” and the recommendations of disability advocacy groups, it became apparent that the larger congregate projects that were first developed for people with physical disabilities in the Section 202 (direct loan) program tended to isolate persons with disabilities from the surrounding community. It was also recognized that the housing and supportive services needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities were not the same and, overall, neither population wanted to live with the other. Through changes in HUD regulations, project size decreased gradually from projects that could contain over 100 units to independent living projects that could be no larger than 40 units and group homes that could house no more than 15 persons. Between 1976 (the first year data was collected) through the end of the Section 202 (direct loan) program for the Elderly or Handicapped in 1990, HUD provided funding for over 2,100 projects comprising over 36,000 units for persons with disabilities. In 1990, through the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Congress changed the Section 202 program from providing direct loans with Section 8 rental assistance to providing capital advances (which do not have to be repaid as long as the housing remains available for the intended occupants for at least 40 years) with project rental assistance contract (PRAC) funds. The other major Priced Out in 2002, Technical Assistance Collaborative and Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force, May 2003. Chapter 1 – Background and Methodology 7 2
change was that the Section 202 (direct loan) program could only serve the elderly (62 and older). Congress created a separate program called “Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities&r