HAC News: December 10, 2014

December 10, 2014/in HAC News

HAC News Formats. pdf

December 10, 2014
Vol. 43, No. 24

• Congress nears final action on 2015 spending • House passes NAHASDA reauthorization • New appropriations panel chairs announced • Mensah sworn in at USDA • USDA issues limited English proficiency guidance • VA adopts final HISA program regulation • HUD extends deadline for 202/811 comments • Email list for USDA direct single-family housing loan programs launched • HAC honors rural housing leaders • HAC Rural Housing Conference materials available • Rural Voices covers poverty in rural America • New HAC report examines senior housing

December 10, 2014
Vol. 43, No. 24

CONGRESS NEARS FINAL ACTION ON 2015 SPENDING. A wrap-up spending bill for FY 2015 was unveiled by House appropriators on December 9. The bill (H.R. 83) has been labeled a “cromnibus” because it provides a continuing resolution (CR) for the Department of Homeland Security through February 27 and an omnibus for the rest of the government, including USDA and HUD, through September 30. Republicans opposed to the President’s recent actions on immigration will look further at that issue in DHS appropriations when the new Congress convenes in January. The House is expected to pass the bill this week but the current government-wide CR expires December 11, so another two- or three-day CR may be needed for final Senate consideration. Check HAC’s web site for updates.

USDA. Rejecting most of the Administration’s FY 2015 budget proposals, H.R. 83 retains funding for Section 502 direct loans and the Rural Community Development Initiative and increases Section 523 self-help. It does not adopt the Administration’s request for minimum rents but does prohibit renewal of RA contracts that use up their funding before their full 12-month terms, and directs USDA to report on RA implementation by June 1, 2015. The bill also continues the pilot packaging program for Section 502 direct loans. The table below has details. [tdborder][/tdborder]

USDA Rural Dev. Prog. (dollars in millions)	FY13 Approp.^a	FY14 Approp.	FY15 Admn. Bdgt.	FY15 Hse. Bill H.R. 4800	FY15 Sen. Bill S. 2389	FY15 Final H.R. 83
502 Single Fam. Direct Self-Help setaside	$900 5	$900 5	$360 0	$1,042 5	$900 5	$900 5
502 Single Family Guar.	24,000	24,000	24,000	24,000	24,000	24,000
504 VLI Repair Loans	28	26.3	26.3	26.4	26.3	26.3
504 VLI Repair Grants	29.5	28.7	25	27	28.7	28.7
515 Rental Hsg. Direct Lns.	31.3	28.4	28.4	28.3	28.4	28.4
514 Farm Labor Hsg. Lns.	20.8	23.9	23.9	23.6	23.8	23.6
516 Farm Labor Hsg. Grts.	7.1	8.3	8.3	8.3	8.3	8.3
521 Rental Assistanceb	907.1	1,110	1,089	1,089	1,094	1,089
523 Self-Help TA	30	25	10	30	25	27.5
533 Hsg. Prsrv. Grants	3.6	3.5	0	0	3.5	3.5
538 Rental Hsg. Guar.	150	150	150	150	150	150
Rental Prsrv. Demo. (MPR)	17.8	20	20	20	20	17
542 Rural Hsg. Vouchers	10	12.6	8	8	8	7
Rural Cmnty. Dev’t Init.	6.1	6	0	5	6	4
a. Figures shown do not include 5% sequester or 2.5% across the board cut. b. The final FY13 appropriation for RA included a $3 million 514/516 setaside; the final appropriations for FY14 and FY15 have no setasides.

HUD. The bill reduces funding for some HUD programs and provides level funding for others. Only Section 202 receives an increase. CDBG, HOME, rental assistance, and public housing have mostly small reductions below FY14 appropriated levels. SHOP, VASH vouchers for homeless veterans, Native American housing, AIDS housing, and lead hazard control all received the same levels as in 2014. The table below has details.

HUD Program (dollars in millions)	FY13 Approp.^a	FY14 Approp.	FY15 Admn. Bdgt.	FY15 Hse. Bill H.R. 4745	FY15 Sen. Bill S. 2438	FY15 Final H.R. 83
Cmty. Devel. Fund CDBG	3,308 2,948	3,100 3,030	2,870 2,800	3,060 3,000	3,090 3,020	3.066 3,000
HOME SHOP setaside	1,000 b	1,000 b	950 10	700 10	950 b	900 b
Self-Help Homeownshp. (SHOP)	13.5	10	b	b	10	10
Tenant-Based Rental Asstnce. VASH setaside	18,939.4 75	19,177.2 75	20,100 75	19,356 75	19,562 75	19,304 75
Project-Based Rental Asstnce.	9,339.7	9,516.6	9,346	9,346	9,346	9,330
Public Hsg. Capital Fund	1,886	1,875	1,925	1,775	1,900	1,875
Public Hsg. Operating Fund	4,262	4,400	4,600	4,400	4,475	4,440
Choice Neighbrhd. Initiative	120	90	120	0	90	80
Native Amer. Hsg. Block Grant	650	650	650	650	650	650
Homeless Assistance Grantsc	2,033	2,105	2,406.4	2,105	2,145	2,135
Hsg. Opps. for Persons w/ AIDS	334	330	332	303	330	330
202 Hsg. for Elderly	377	385.3	440	420	420	436
811 Hsg. for Disabled	165	126	160	135	135	135
Fair Housing	70.8	66	71	56	66	65.3
Healthy Homes & Lead Haz. Cntl.	120	110	120	70	110	110
Housing Counseling	45	45	60	45	49	47
a. Figures shown do not include 5% sequester. b. In FY13 and FY14 SHOP was funded under the Self-Help & Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program account. For FY15 the Administration’s budget proposed making the program a setaside in HOME. The final FY15 bill specifically rejects that proposal. c. Includes the Rural Housing Stability Program, which is not yet operational.

HOUSE PASSES NAHASDA REAUTHORIZATION. H.R. 4329 would authorize housing programs for Native Americans and Native Hawaiians through FY18, but would limit funding each year to not more than the current $650 million level. The Senate bill (see HAC News, 8/6/14) does not cap funding.

NEW APPROPRIATIONS PANEL CHAIRS ANNOUNCED. For the new Congress convening in January, Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) continues in another term as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) continues as chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) will be the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation-HUD.

MENSAH SWORN IN AT USDA. On December 5, Lisa Mensah was sworn in by USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack as the new Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development.

USDA ISSUES LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY GUIDANCE. The guidance is intended to help recipients of USDA funding ensure they do not discriminate against LEP persons. Contact Anna G. Stroman, USDA, 202-205-5953.

VA ADOPTS FINAL HISA PROGRAM REGULATION. The Home Improvements and Structural Alterations program serves disabled veterans. (See HAC News, 12/4/13.) Contact Shayla Mitchell, VA, 202-461-0366.

HUD EXTENDS DEADLINE FOR 202/811 COMMENTS. A notice in the December 11 Federal Register will move the deadline for comments on suggested regulatory changes (see HAC News, 10/17/14) to January 15. A HUD webinar about the proposal is posted online. Contact Alicia Anderson, HUD, 202-708-3000.

EMAIL LIST FOR USDA DIRECT SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING LOAN PROGRAMS LAUNCHED. USDA will use the list to distribute information about Section 502 direct, 504, and 523. Sign up for this or for lists covering the Section 502 guarantee program at https://www.rdlist.sc.egov.usda.gov/listserv/mainservlet.

HAC HONORS RURAL HOUSING LEADERS. At the HAC Rural Housing Conference, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) received the Henry B. González Award for elected officials. The Clay Cochran/Art Collings Award for national service went to former Sen. Kit Bond. Recipients of the Skip Jason Award for community achievement were Brad Bishop, Self-Help Homes, UT; Martha Mendez, Coachella Valley Housing Coalition, CA; Retha Patton, Eastern Eight Community Development Corporation, TN; and Andres Saavedra, Rural LISC, DC.

HAC RURAL HOUSING CONFERENCE MATERIALS AVAILABLE. The conference app will remain active for at least six months, offering materials from each workshop, lists of attendees and speakers, and more. Videos of the plenary sessions, as well as photos taken throughout the event, will be posted soon. Check HAC’s website for updates.

RURAL VOICES COVERS POVERTY IN RURAL AMERICA. A special edition of HAC’s quarterly magazine asks what has changed since the War on Poverty was declared 50 years ago, what has not, and what can be done. Sign up online for email notices when new issues are published.

NEW HAC REPORT EXAMINES SENIOR HOUSING. Housing an Aging Rural America: Rural Seniors and Their Homes looks at the demographic characteristics of rural elders and considers ways to provide quality, affordable housing for them.

Revisiting Poverty in Rural America

November 28, 2014/in Rural Voices High Need Regions, Housing Affordability, Persistent Poverty, Vulnerable Populations

Where are we 50 years after the war on poverty began?

In the 2014 special edition of Rural Voices magazine, HAC revisits the issue of rural poverty with frank questions, informed viewpoints, and honest assessments. Experts and contributors from across the nation help provide a better understanding of this complex issue and its intersection with housing in rural communities.

Where are we 50 years after the war on poverty began?

In the 2014 special edition of Rural Voices magazine, HAC revisits the issue of rural poverty with frank questions, informed viewpoints, and honest assessments. Experts and contributors from across the nation help provide a better understanding of this complex issue and its intersection with housing in rural communities.

FEATURES

Rural Poverty, Before & After the War
by James P. Ziliak, Center for Poverty Research and Department of Economics, University of Kentucky

The 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty has generated scores of articles, books, and radio and television reports. Lost in much of this coverage is the acute hardship facing rural America at the dawn of the 1960s, and the role this played in shaping the nation’s response to poverty.

A Frank Discussion on Persistent Poverty in Rural America

Forgotten or hidden from mainstream America, several rural areas and populations are isolated geographically, lack resources and economic opportunities, and have suffered through decades of disinvestment and double-digit poverty rates. Persistent poverty is most evident within several rural regions and populations, including the Lower Mississippi Delta, the rural Southeast, Central Appalachia, Native American lands, the colonias along the U.S. Mexico border, and migrant and seasonal farmworkers.

Among the most economically depressed areas in the country, addressing social, economic, and housing problems has proved challenging. To help better understand this issue, Rural Voices spoke with five housing experts, each with decades of experice providing housing and working with low-income familes in persistent poverty areas. Their firsthand knowledge presents an unparalleled view into the harsh reality of families and communities grappling with long-term poverty. These experts offer their insights, passion, and commitment to help solve what is often considered an intractable problem.

Bill Bynum is the CEO of Hope Enterprise Corporation/Hope Credit Union (HOPE). Bill has worked with HOPE for over 20 years providing banking opportunities to low-income individuals and families in the Mid South.
Tom Carew is the Executive Vice President of Membership and Advocacy at the Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises (FAHE). Tom has more than 34 years of experience providing affordable housing in Central Appalachia.
Ann Cass is the Executive Director of Proyecto Azetca and has over three decades of experience working in the Texas border colonias.
Emma “Pinky” Clifford is the Executive Director for the Oglala Sioux Tribe Partnership for Housing (OSTPH). As a tribal member of the Oglala Sioux, Pinky has worked to improve access to safe, affordable housing with OSTPH for the past two decades.
Selvin McGahee is the Executive Director of Florida Non-Profit Housing, Inc. and has spent his career working to provide affordable housing in the rural Southeast and farmworker housing.

Decline in Senior Poverty: A Success Story…
by the Housing Assistance Council

One of the biggest successes in reducing poverty has been among older Americans.

…With a Cautionary Outlook
by Kim Datwyler, Executive Director, Neighborhood Nonprofit Housing Corporation (NNHC)

Staying Housed on a Fixed Income: The Importance of Available Affordable Housing for Seniors

From a Spare Bedroom to a Home of Her Own
by Stacey Howard, Dream$avers IDA Program Director, NeighborWorks Umpqua

A Single Mother’s Struggle Out of Poverty to Provide a Better Life for Her Son

Innovative Approaches to Reducing Poverty Locally

The problem of poverty is often viewed from a national or regional perspective. But success in moving people out of poverty can emanate from community-specific innovation and solutions.

Job Skills through Housing Development – Motivation, Education, Training, Inc. (Texas)
Combating Poverty in Puerto Rico with Job Training & Economic Development – Pathstone (Puerto Rico)
IDAs Help Low-Income Families Save for Increased Opportunities in Rural Oregon – NeighborWorks Umpqua (Oregon)

A VIEW FROM WASHINGTON

“The People Left Behind” Are Today the People Still Behind
by Joe Belden and Lance George

Additional Content

Poverty in Rural America

Approximately 45 million Americans, or 15 percent of the population, had incomes below the official poverty rate in 2012. In rural America, the poverty rate is above 17 percent with more than 10 million people living in poverty.

Rural Voices would like to hear what you have to say about one, or all, of these issues. Please feel free to comment on this story by sending a tweet to #RuralVoicesMag, discuss on the Rural Affordable Housing Group on LinkedIn, or on our Facebook page.

Lisa Mensah Sworn in as USDA Under Secretary

November 21, 2014/in Announcements

UPDATE: Lisa Mensah was sworn in on December 5, 2014.

On November 20, 2014 the Senate confirmed Lisa Mensah as Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development. Mensah has served as Executive Director of the Aspen Institute’s Initiative on Financial Security.

Conference program now available

November 20, 2014/in National Rural Housing Conference

The HAC Rural Housing Conference is only 12 days away! Get a preview of what to expect at the conference by downloading the newly released Conference Program. Review the conference activities ahead of time and make sure to download the HAC Trainings App so you can access a more expansive and dynamic program.

Discussion Paper, Next Generation

November 19, 2014/in National Rural Housing Conference

RECRUITING AND RETAINING THE NEXT GENERATION OF RURAL HOUSERS

Continue the Discussionby Matt Huerta, Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon Valley, CA, and Karen Jacobson, Randolph County Housing Authority and Highland Community Builders, WV

Background

Public and private investment is increasingly being focused in urban or suburban neighborhoods while rural areas continue to have high needs for infrastructure support in housing and other basic services. It can be exceedingly challenging to compete for talent with our urban counterparts. Meanwhile, our current workforce is aging and many rural areas are experiencing a “brain drain” of college educated residents. The young professionals that we have been fortunate enough to recruit can be equally challenging to retain. Rural housing professionals typically work across many disciplines and program areas in order to develop their projects and programs. Within a few short years, rural housing professionals have acquired unique but transferrable skillsets. These could include developing financial pro formas, managing projects, navigating land use entitlements, leading community engagements, and many other highly specialized and valuable skills. It is important for rural housing organizations to retain these competencies for as long as possible. How do we recruit, nurture, and maintain rural housing professionals, particularly in an environment that seems hostile to our mission?

Issues and Challenges

Most, if not all, rural housing organizations aspire to have workforces that reflect the diverse populations within the communities they serve.

This is critical to maintain credibility and program impact. Many rural groups continue to experience challenges in recruiting and retaining talented staff who may be drawn to positions in urban areas because of the potential for higher earnings, a perception that “rural work” is less important or innovative, and better access to training programs or networking opportunities. Once young professionals acquire some initial work experience or complete their advanced degrees, what will incentivize them to stay at a community organization focused on rural housing?

Discussion Questions

What specific challenges is your organization experiencing with recruiting or retaining younger professionals?
What is your organization doing to address this critical issue?
What are some examples of model recruitment tactics or training programs that can be replicated?
Are there community-wide efforts that rural housing groups can join or initiate that would help address this challenge? Housing organizations are not the only employers that are affected by “rural brain drain.”
What role might a local college, community college, or university play in solving this issue?

Discussion Paper, Adaptation

November 19, 2014/in National Rural Housing Conference

CHANGE OR DIE? ADAPTATION FOR SURVIVAL

Continue the Discussionby Lenora Jarvis-Mackey, River City Community Development Corporation, NC

Background

In these tough economic times, rural housing nonprofits cannot simply continue to do what we have done in the past and hope things will get better. Nonprofit organizations, like for-profit companies, are facing a rapidly changing environment. Funders want more for less and private organizations are competing on what was traditionally seen as nonprofit territory. Sustainability is a constant worry.

Historically, nonprofits gauged our success by keeping good records on the number of people we served; the impact on poverty reduction; facilitating or building safe decent and affordable housing; and our advocacy for clean water, sanitary sewer, the provision of livable wage jobs and many other issues not properly addressed by the private sector or by state and federal government agencies. In today’s environment, however, cataloguing success is not enough to ensure continued funding for a nonprofit. Funders are more selective. Track records are important but are not ultimately determinative to long term funding and survival of a nonprofit.

Even with positive track records, nonprofits must remain keenly aware of the need for continued innovation and creativity to sustain our business models and to continue to provide services for our beneficiaries. “Operating like a nonprofit” has somehow evolved into a perception of being overworked, underfunded, and tax exempt. To stay alive and relevant we must operate more like traditional businesses and become more quantumly responsible to survive.

Harold Barnes, president of the Center for Quantum Leadership, defines “quantum responsibility in business” as:

The active process of the business, the leadership and employees holding themselves accountable to each other for the direction and success of the organization. This accountability will lead to the exponential positive growth of the organization and will encourage and facilitate innovation, creativity and productivity such that all segments of the organization will have the opportunity and tools to make a significant leap forward.

Issues and Challenges

Ensuring nonprofit survival and ongoing viability presents an array of issues and challenges. To keep nonprofits functional, nonprofit leaders must appreciate and value the best of what is, as well as envisioning what might be and how to get there. We must read the signs that predict imminent changes in economic trends and make decisions before circumstances are out of control. Useful techniques may come from many sources, including for-profit entities.

Discussion Questions

When and how often should we evaluate our organizations?
How do we systematically discover what gives life to a nonprofit?
When is a nonprofit most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable of serving its customers?
How can nonprofits best innovate, adapt, and create the kinds of organizations that are sustainable into the future?
How do we go about implementation of quantum responsibility?

Discussion Paper, Outreach and TA

November 19, 2014/in National Rural Housing Conference

OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DELIVERY TO RURAL AND TRIBAL COMMUNITIES

Continue the Discussionby Stan Keasling, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, CA, and Blair Sebastian, New York State Rural Housing Coalition

Background

Nonprofits, local governments, and tribal governments are working individually and collectively to improve the quality of housing and community infrastructure in rural areas. The technical assistance (TA) needs of rural groups vary widely and often require very different approaches. Rural communities’ TA needs may also differ substantially from the TA needs found in more urbanized places. What are the needs, and where are opportunities and methods, or approaches, to improve the outreach to these entities and the effectiveness of TA delivery in rural America?

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities

Over the past few years there have been significant changes to the resources available for the rural technical assistance delivery system. HUD has introduced the Community Compass (formerly OneCPD) system of technical assistance, and Congress has required new competitions for Rural Capacity Building and NAHASDA TA funding. In addition, USDA is still considering the utility of the intermediaries in the Section 502 packaging demonstration, and planning for a community facilities support system. These changes have meant that the intermediaries and other TA providers are often trying to suggest new strategies to the funding agencies in order to enhance their competitiveness, rather than pursuing outreach and TA practices that have been successful in the past.

While some federal initiatives have focused on providing technical assistance to rural and tribal communities, the approach has not been well synchronized. Rural and tribal communities generally must find and request TA themselves. Much of the available TA is provided through programs that are ‘siloed’, not coordinated. In addition – aside from the former Rural Housing and Economic Development and Rural Innovation Fund, Rural Capacity Building TA, and NAHASDA TA – HUD-funded TA is most often delivered to formula grantees. Assistance from USDA is also requested through specific programs such as Self-Help Technical and Management Assistance, and not all USDA programs have a TA component.

Given the vast number of rural and tribal entities and the lack of direct federal department/agency contact with many smaller communities, mechanisms are needed to allow them to identify and secure technical resources in the most appropriate manner for them. TA providers are interested in prioritizing the greatest needs of rural and tribal communities and identifying the best methods of delivering that assistance to ensure that the array of federal technical resources are directly available to the local jurisdictions, organizations, businesses, and families.

Discussion Questions

What technical assistance services do rural housing and community development organizations need to be more productive?
What are the best ways to inform local rural organizations about available TA?
What are the challenges facing local and tribal governments in trying to manage federal funds and design effective strategies for community development?
What support do the state grantees, including PJs, need to be more effective at administering federal pass through funds and coordinating with federal agencies to maximize impact?
What processes should be used to identify needs at the local level in rural America?
Are there changes federal departments/agencies should consider making to their system of identifying TA needs and allocating resources to local rural and tribal efforts?

Discussion Paper, USDA

November 19, 2014/in National Rural Housing Conference

REDUCED USDA PRESENCE AND RESOURCES – HOW CAN RURAL HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS ADAPT?

Continue the Discussionby Tom Collishaw, Self Help Enterprises, CA, and Selvin McGahee, Florida Non-Profit Housing, FL

Background

USDA budgets and allocations for major housing production programs have trended downward since the late 1970s. In recent years, even the agency’s physical presence in rural America has lessened dramatically. Historic core housing production programs have been cut so much that, for example, Section 515 Rural Rental Housing has been reduced to little more than a maintenance and repair effort. Single-family direct lending through the Section 502 mortgage program has likewise been a dwindling resource. It feels as if the current administration, given the choice, would focus entirely on mortgage insurance (502 guaranteed loans) and maintenance efforts (Rental Assistance) and call it “Rural Housing.” The current level of funding for USDA’s housing programs is due largely to the efforts of rural housing advocates from throughout the country and their lobbyists going directly to Congress.

Given this sobering reality, rural housing development organizations have adapted by accessing a broader range of assistance, ranging from Low Income Housing Tax Credits and federal HUD programs such as HOME, FHA and CDBG, to non-governmental resources such as LISC, Enterprise, and NeighborWorks®, and a variety of state and local programs. Many of these sources have also been cut or depleted, most notably HUD allocations, intensifying the resource-deprived and competitive environment for rural housing providers.

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities

With dwindling resources as a backdrop, a central question is whether rural housing organizations should continue to focus their primary federal advocacy efforts on USDA or expand them to include other agencies. Are there opportunities being missed, for instance, with the Affordable Care Act? There is a growing movement around health (both individual and community environmental health) and its relationship to housing, which may create new avenues to resources and relationships. How would we preserve a dedicated slice of this pie for rural communities?

On the non-governmental front, there is increasing evidence that “impact investing” is a largely untapped resource for nonprofit housing organizations, who might benefit from favorable lending rates in return for providing investors with social impacts they believe in. Also, the world of social media and crowdsourcing has opened up new possibilities for fundraising.

Discussion Questions

Are USDA programs worth fighting for or are they a lost cause in the long run?
What other federal agencies or programs should rural housers pursue as partners?
Are there examples of collaboration with other community health or improvement efforts that have been useful in expanding resources for rural housing?
What other tactics have been successful?

Discussion Paper, Partnerships

November 19, 2014/in National Rural Housing Conference

PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION FOR RURAL HOUSING

Continue the Discussionby David Haney, Wyoming CD Authority, and Marcia Erickson, GROW South Dakota

Background

Resources for community and economic development – both human capital and dollars – continue to dwindle across rural America. As rural housing organizations seek ways to continue their work, one strategy that seems to have promise is creation of effective partnerships. Those engaged in rural housing development need to be appropriately partnering and aligning with those who focus on other elements such as telecommunications, transportation, education, and healthcare. When various parties can reach consensus about the most important priorities, the multiple voices of conflicting interests can speak more clearly and with greater impact.

Regionalization also has considerable merit. Gathering a number of small diverse rural communities together into a louder and more consistent voice can increase impact. Best practices can be shared or integrated.

Affiliated organizations may consider merging to reduce redundancy. For example, consolidation of core operating functions can cut costs.

Issues and Challenges

Partnerships may be very formal or informal or can be as simple as sharing, but they are not always easy. Numerous issues may arise. For example, frequently participants lay claim to their own specialty or territory, making it extremely difficult to create a successful consensus or collaboration. In addition, one partner may bring greater financial or leadership resources to a collaboration that creates an imbalance of power. It can be challenging to break down traditional silos that exist between organizations and to move beyond an “us vs. them” mentality. For partnerships to be effective, each partner organization must understand not only its own strengths, but the strengths of the associated organizations as well.

Regionalization can be an effective way to partner, although it requires significant effort on the part of all organizations involved. Effective partnerships must maintain mutual trust and respect. This requires any imbalances, including those in financial or leadership resources, to be addressed. Organizations must work together to effectively prioritize needs and goals so that they may share accountability, an effort that can be challenging if the partners do not share core missions and goals.

Discussion Questions

What capacity building is needed? What role can HAC play in furthering constructive partnerships?
How do we prioritize needs, while still maintaining an inventory of future issues, to avoid missing key priorities?
Can you identify best practices from your region or community?
Are there trends at the state or federal level that are promoting collaboration, partnerships, or mergers?

Discussion Paper, Policy

November 19, 2014/in National Rural Housing Conference

RURAL HOUSING AND PUBLIC POLICY

Continue the Discussionby Joe Myer, NCALL Research, DE

Background

Rural areas are often at a disadvantage when addressing housing and community development needs because they experience lower median incomes than cities and suburbs, more substandard housing, substantial affordability gaps, less housing infrastructure and capacity, and minimal access to resources, financing, and capital. Also, politically, rural areas can be viewed as less important because of their smaller, more dispersed populations. Yet their needs are often greater or different, and affordable housing can be more difficult and sometimes more costly to deliver because of the above conditions. USDA has been the primary source of rural housing assistance for decades; however, in recent years the agency has not made its housing programs a priority, and budgets and attention have suffered. Each year Congress has had to save Section 502 direct, self-help housing, farm labor housing, and other programs. Meanwhile financing for new rental construction and rental assistance has disappeared, at a time when affordable rentals are in demand. USDA’s fine, well-proven, and cost-effective housing programs are at risk from year to year. In addition, HUD pays attention to rural only sporadically.

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities

Given the disparity between needs and resources, it has become increasingly difficult to ensure that adequate state and federal resources are allocated for rural housing and community development. Yet affordable housing, and particularly rural housing, competes with many varied interests for local, state, and national attention and resources.

To assure adequate, sustainable resources for ongoing program operations and housing financing, decision and lawmakers and federal and state agencies must understand the needs of rural communities, yet too often they do not.

The annual fight for funding of USDA’s housing programs does not address the need for longer-term stability for developers and service providers to deliver programs and products.

Discussion Questions

How can we as practitioners and advocates communicate better with policy makers?
What are the themes we should use to resonate with policymakers at state and national levels?
How can we invest sufficiently in advocacy and public policy to be sure rural housing has a voice that is heard at state and national levels?
Are there new models of advocacy and public policy that could be employed? If so, what?

Tag Archive for: Rural Housing

HAC News: December 10, 2014

Revisiting Poverty in Rural America

Where are we 50 years after the war on poverty began?

Where are we 50 years after the war on poverty began?

FEATURES

Lisa Mensah Sworn in as USDA Under Secretary

Conference program now available

Discussion Paper, Next Generation

RECRUITING AND RETAINING THE NEXT GENERATION OF RURAL HOUSERS

Background

Issues and Challenges

Discussion Questions

Discussion Paper, Adaptation

CHANGE OR DIE? ADAPTATION FOR SURVIVAL

Background

Issues and Challenges

Discussion Questions

Discussion Paper, Outreach and TA

OUTREACH AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DELIVERY TO RURAL AND TRIBAL COMMUNITIES

Background

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities

Discussion Questions

Discussion Paper, USDA

REDUCED USDA PRESENCE AND RESOURCES – HOW CAN RURAL HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS ADAPT?

Background

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities

Discussion Questions

Discussion Paper, Partnerships

PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION FOR RURAL HOUSING

Background

Issues and Challenges

Discussion Questions

Discussion Paper, Policy

RURAL HOUSING AND PUBLIC POLICY

Background

Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities

Discussion Questions

GET THE HAC NEWS!

50 Years for Rural America