Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 to modify the eligibility requirements for entities collaborating with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide case management services to homeless veterans under the Veterans Affairs supported housing program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Description: This bill creates additional eligibility requirements for entities to enter into contracts or agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide case management services to certain veterans participating in the Department of Housing and Urban Development-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program. In addition to existing requirements, an eligible entity must have demonstrated experience in providing case management services to veterans for obtaining suitable housing at varying locations nationwide, or in the area or areas similar to where the services will be provided under the relevant contract or agreement.
Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-53]
Target Audience
Population: Homeless veterans participating in the HUD-VASH program
Estimated Size: 100000
- The HUD-VASH program serves homeless veterans by providing housing vouchers and case management support.
- Approximately 40,056 veterans are homeless in the United States according to recent reports by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
- The total number of veterans in the HUD-VASH program is estimated to be around 100,000, although not all veterans in the program are currently homeless.
- The bill specifically impacts service providers who manage cases for homeless veterans seeking housing.
- It adds criteria for these service providers, necessitating experience in managing veteran cases to be eligible to collaborate with the VA.
Reasoning
- The HUD-VASH program is designed to assist homeless veterans by providing housing vouchers combined with case management assistance to ensure this population stabilizes and does not return to homelessness.
- The policy imposes additional requirements on service providers contracting with the VA, primarily to ensure high-quality case management that aligns with the needs of veterans seeking stable housing.
- The policy impacts entities providing services rather than the veterans themselves, potentially impacting the quality and accessibility of case management services provided.
- The budget constraint highlights the need to optimize program delivery and vet the quality of service providers as the demand from around 100,000 veterans continues.
- Given that the HUD-VASH program is targeting a specific population within veterans, the change in policy is expected to only indirectly affect the well-being of these veterans—through the change in quality and efficiency of services provided.
Simulated Interviews
Veteran receiving HUD-VASH assistance (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new requirements for service providers sound good because experience is really important.
- I'm hopeful that we will receive better service, but I'm concerned about possible interruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Case Manager, HUD-VASH (Dallas, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps ensure only qualified case managers work with veterans, a step in the right direction.
- I am worried about the transition and re-confirmation of contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Army Veteran, potential HUD-VASH participant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need consistent support, so having experienced case managers would be beneficial.
- I hope this change means I'll get the housing support quicker and more efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
CEO of a Non-profit organization (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our goals—we have always prioritized experienced case management.
- I'm worried new requirements will limit help in underserved areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Recently discharged veteran, considering HUD-VASH (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm new to this, but knowing experienced people might help me stabilize is comforting.
- Requiring experience might reduce the available support quickly, making it less accessible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
HUD-VASH Case Manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More scrutiny on case management can improve veteran outcomes, though it might stretch resources.
- I trust that the policy will bring experienced professionals into the fold.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Veterans Affairs Officer (Denver, CO)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might refine the quality of our partners, but we must watch for any gaps in services.
- Implementing this policy efficiently will depend heavily on existing provider relationships.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Veteran, participating in HUD-VASH (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If service providers are more experienced, I might get more reliable help.
- I worry about what happens if agencies can't meet these new standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Policy Analyst, Veterans Affairs (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for maintaining high-quality case management.
- The critical factor will be ensuring that these additional requirements don't limit service availability in critical areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Volunteer at a local veteran support group (Miami, FL)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Service providers with specific experience can truly make a difference for the program's success.
- I hope the shift is smooth, especially for regional offices that depend on varied support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $8500000 (Low: $5500000, High: $12500000)
Year 3: $8500000 (Low: $5500000, High: $12500000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $13000000)
Year 10: $9500000 (Low: $6500000, High: $13500000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $6800000, High: $14000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness in achieving cost savings depends on how well service providers adapt to eligibility requirements.
- Potential challenges include the resistance of current providers to new regulations and the availability of experienced entities.
- The cost increase will be initially met by administrative and training overheads.