Testimony presented by: John Thomas, Deputy Director, The Arc of Massachusetts
Date: October 18, 2002
Subject: Housing - C40B
Arc Massachusetts Comments in Regard To
amendments to regulations, M.G.L.
c.40B
proposed by the Department of
Housing and Community Development
October 18, 2002
John Thomas
Persons
with mental retardation are disproportionately affected by the state’s
affordable housing crisis. Most
individuals served by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Retardation rely
upon Supplementary Security Income as their primary - and, in many cases, sole
- source of income. The monthly average
SSI income for a person in Massachusetts
is $626. The average rental for a
one-bedroom apartment in Massachusetts ends up costing an individual 92% of
their monthly SSI benefit.*
Arc Massachusetts has been
very supportive of Chapter 40B and the incentives it provides for development
in those communities with less than 10% affordable housing stock. The idea of counting DMR and DMH housing
towards this goal is disingenuous for a number of reasons:
- The premise that
DMR/DMH [Department of Mental Retardation / Department of Mental
Health]-funded housing is "affordable" is inaccurate.
The word “affordable”
suggests a rental rate below the median for a given community, with no more
than 30 percent of an individual’s income set aside for rent. The vast majority
of individuals served residentially by DMR pay 75 percent of their income
towards fees charged by a contracted-provider agency that, in turn, pays the
rent or property mortgage at a competitive,
market rate. Furthermore, under the
federal Medicaid Omnibus Waiver program, 40 percent of the cost-per-individual
served by DMR goes into the state’s general fund and does not necessarily flow
back into the DMR budget. In fact,
these funds may turn up in the form of local aid or education funding to cities
and towns.
- Inclusion of
DMR/DMH units would allow many cities and towns to achieve their 10%
housing goal without having actually created any additional units.
Statewide, some 7,700 DMR and 6,000 DMH consumers live in community-based residential settings,
excluding state institutions. The recentBoulet v. Cellucci settlement will
result in the creation of 3,500 additional housing opportunities through
DMR. Taken collectively, these
individuals comprise a staggering number of residential units that could
suddenly be defined as “affordable” on paper under these regulations.
- Municipalities have voiced concern that increased affordable housing creates a fiscal hardship for local budgets.
There is concern that tax revenue generated by affordable housing cannot keep pace with the
demands that lower-income families place upon schools. This argument has no
bearing on the DMR population since these individuals are adults who have aged
out of the education system and place no burden on local schools. In addition,
DMR consumers utilize relatively few municipal services due to accessibility
issues.
- Definition of "Group Home Units" is too vague given realities of current models
“Group
home” is a term that describes a model of residential service no longer being
produced in significant numbers. In fact, there are numerous other types of
residential supports provided to DMR consumers, aside from individuals
receiving funding through State Budget Line Item 5920-2000 (DMR Community
Residential Account). Will DMR-eligible adult consumers receiving respite
funding while residing with their parents be counted? Will high-functioning
individuals receiving no residential funding through State Budget Line Item
5920-2000, who work for competitive wages, that only have contact with a DMR
Service Coordinator once per year, be counted? A further concern is that under
these regulations, two EOHHS agencies have sole discretion over determining which
individuals shall be selected for inclusion in each community's "DMR/DMH
Group Home Units" count. Without further clarification as to what
constitutes "DMR/DMH Group Home Units," Arc Massachusetts suggests there is far too much
latitude given to DMR and DMH in determining these numbers. The presumptive
prohibition of any outside audit due to the understandable privacy concerns of
DMR and DMH consumers makes this aspect of the regulations even more
troublesome.
- C40b encourages development of accessible housing
The ability for individuals to continue living in their
own communities will become increasingly difficult if incentives are removed by
regulatory changes to C40B. Yet the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Supreme Court’s recent Olmstead
decision, and Massachusetts’ recently approved Olmstead Plan provide powerful
obligations for the state to specifically assist those with disabilities who
wish to live in their communities. Obtaining affordable housing in many areas
of Massachusetts
is challenging, but imagine what it takes to find affordable, accessible
housing? By giving communities a greater
capacity to “get out from under” C40B, such as allowing for comprehensive
permit exemption when certain percentages of growth are demonstrated, DHCD is
reducing, not enhancing inclusionary housing, contrary to the ADA and Olmstead.
Arc Massachusetts
will continue to support C40B and all other housing statutes and regulations
that increase affordable housing choices for persons with mental retardation
living within the Commonwealth. For
this reason, we oppose the inclusion of DMR consumers in affordable housing
counts. It does such individuals and
their families no service to use them as statistical pawns in an effort to
regain "control" over development.
_____________________
* Technical Assistance
Corporation & Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force,
report, 2001.