Misappropriation of HPRP Funds

I called about the HPRP regulations and the same people who are supposed to use their grant monies correctly, are using their positions to misappropriate funds.

There is a new housing program which Obama signed into law following the Economic Recovery Act, formally known as The American Recovery and Reinstatement Act (PL 1115) or, abbreviated, ARRA.

This housing program is known colloquially as the "Rapid Re-housing" program and is known, abbreviated, as the HPRP.

This is not a program which is for low income only but for anyone who has gone through a shift in economic dynamics for the economy. Corporations got their massive bail-outs and welfare, and a few smaller programs were signed into law to help the average citizen.

It is basically program to help those whose housing or financial situations have been affected by the loss of employment opportunities or even loss of their own home ownership. The entire purpose of the bill or act, (program), is to specifically PREVENT homelessness and homeless shelters. It is money set aside to put people into apartments, or houses, or even hotels, for a specific length of time and within a bracket of money which is allotted to each person who qualifies.

So, for example, each person gets $8,000, just for demonstration, and this money can either be used to pay for a cheaper room for rent up to 18 months (that is the longest the program can be extended) or they might choose to rent a house that is upwards of $2,500 for a shorter length of time.

Once someone qualifies, this money is to be used at their disposal, to prevent any kind of homeless situation, at all costs. This is why they named it "rapid rehousing" because it is designed and intended to put people into hotels, if necessary, until other accomodations can be made, rather than on the street or at a homeless shelter or transitional place.

The purpose and intent is to provide some semblance of normalcy and stability in a rough period.

The federal law outlines how the money is to be used. It is for prevention of homelessness or homeless shelters. It is not money which can be used for car repairs, or insurance, or anything other than housing, and even when it comes to housing, it is not supposed to be directly used against foreclosure processes.

States may decide in what way they would like to use the monies to some degree, but the strategy of the state must allign with, and not contradict, the intention of the federal law.

When the federal government is handing over grant money to certain organizations who have decided to apply for the money, they cannot go against the intent and purposes of the federal law, although in keeping with the original goal, they are allowed some flexibility with the way in which they choose to select those who might qualify.

The objective, is to provide, hopefully, normal housing to families that qualify and are in a period of getting back on their feet. It is a program which is open to anyone and everyone and there is no allowance for discrimination of any form.

If an apartment or house cannot be found, the money is to be used in hotel vouchers to pay for whatever extended period one might need in order to have secure housing until an apartment or house opens up.

The point of the program is not to put people back on the street, at any time, nor is it to put people in homeless shelters. It is to get people OUT of this kind of transitional housing.

In my situation, what I find perplexing, is the kind of discrimination I have faced, in accessing the provisions that the federal government has already granted me and others as well. I have already qualified for the program. However, the intent and purposes of this local agency which was given grant money, it seems, is to leave people in the lurch.

Or, I don't know...Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's just who you know in this town.

This is what I have come up against, at a time when I should not have to worry about housing...

Since receiving an eviction notice (after certain events unfolded), I began looking in earnest for a new apartment or house. I called on every single place ranging from $300/mo. for a room for rent, to $2,500/mo. for a 4 bedroom house. I called on everything that was in town and either didn't receive return calls, or when I did, discovered something wasn't going to work out. I went out and looked at several places and by the end of the month, had nothing.

So, having exhausted all options, the other alternative is simple housing in a hotel until an apartment or other house is secured. Housing in a hotel, even if it's for a month, would still be less money than housing at some of the other places I looked at.

So I brought this up and I was told hotels didn't count. I said over the phone that I had made a good faith effort to secure other housing and it hadn't happened yet, so having exhausted all options, what was I to do? I was told, "You could stay in a homeless shelter behind the 'Christopher House'." I reminded her that the point of the program was not to put people in homeless shelters. It was to get people OUT of homeless shelters. She claimed the mandate came from the Seattle, Washington Department of Commerce.

So I asked to see this in writing. Then she said I hadn't looked hard enough. I said I had and it is no secret I've been blacklisted in this town, and not being able to get a normal apartment is proof enough for me. She said, "What have you done?" and I began to tell her and she cut me off. So I said, "You asked me a question, and the fact that you don't want to hear my answer indicates to ME, that you have no real interest in whether or not I have made a good faith effort." So I asked her to allow me to finish and I told her I had gone through every single listing on Craigslist and I had gone through the Nickel ads as well.

She said she'd check into things but I called today and she had gone home early. So I checked with the other woman who runs this program and she said they had nothing. They all know I am to be out by the end of the day, or next day. They had made, to my knowledge, no effort whatsoever, in trying to accomodate for the entire purpose of the program--"rapid re-housing". When I brought up the fact that the federal government provides for hotel costs indefinite, until an apartment or house is secured, I was told who said this. It's right there in the law. So I asked again, today, to see something in writing from the Department of Commerce for the State of Washington. I don't know how it reads, for one thing, and for the other thing, I don't even know if it's lawful, if there is any law in place which basically obliviates the entire point of the grant money to begin with.

Then she says, at the last minute, to bring proof I had exhausted all other remedies or that I had, in good faith, tried to diligently obtain housing. So I said I would. What disappoints me, is that I was told to bring this evidence in last minute. It would also be disappointing to discover the state mandates are somewhat vague and have no exclusionary clause for hotel costs.

At one point, I was laughed at and I said, I would not be so selfsure that no one will be interested in how this money is being used. It may appear everyone is against me, and that I have problems even with federal workers, but that is not to say no one is looking over my shoulder, and, I said, I know for a fact that the hospital in the area lost it's status for higher classification after I was repeatedly refused treatment for migraine. Someone came in and stripped them of their rank. It was ironic, because they lost that status for not having sufficient neurologists on board to meet the demands of head injuries, migraine, and anything else which involved neurology. Now, people have to be flown out to Seattle or Spokane, and rightly so, for serious things, until steps are made to ammend.

I do not believe anyone looks favorably upon an institution or organization which requests monies and the trust of the public, and then misuses and abuses that grant and trust.