Have 1,000 People Transitioned Out of Institutions With Mainstream Category 2 Vouchers? Information Bulletin #335 (7/2011).
It’s been about seven months since HUD awarded its Mainstream Category 2 Vouchers. These were the special vouchers that were intended to be used solely for people with disabilities to transition from institutions to the community. Housing Authorities and other public entities had to apply for these vouchers, and HUD awarded them on a competitive basis.
We know there were a lot of advocates for individuals with disabilities who were very disappointed that their Housing Authorities had not been awarded these vouchers. This was particularly so, after advocates had worked with and encouraged their Housing Authorities to apply.
Okay folks - now is the time to check out if the “winning” Housing Authorities have actually used these Category 2 Vouchers as they were intended - to help people to leave institutions.
Has your State Medicaid agency been actively involved? Has it helped identify people who want to transition out? How has the Housing Authority identified the person who was institutionalized?
Has there been any press regarding the successful transitions? If we want additional vouchers to be similarly targeted in the future, let’s make sure at the least that the 1,000 Category 2 vouchers have worked properly.
If you reside in one of the following 28 locales, please contact the recipient. If you find out, let us know.
Below find, by State, the 28 recipients and the number of Category 2 Vouchers awarded to each winner.
ARIZONA - Pima County c/o City of Tucson | 25 |
CALIFORNIA - Housing Authority of the County of Alameda | 10 |
CALIFORNIA - Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara | 25 |
CALIFORNIA -Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara | 10 |
CALIFORNIA - Orange County Housing Authority | 50 |
CALIFORNIA- Pasadena Community Development Commission | 40 |
FLORIDA - Collier County Housing Authority | 25 |
GEORGIA - Housing Authority of the City of Decatur, Georgia | 35 |
ILLINOIS - Housing Authority of the Village of Oak Park | 15 |
ILLINOIS - Springfield Housing Authority | 10 |
MASSACHUSETTS - Lynn Housing Authority & Neighborhood Development | 35 |
MARYLAND - Baltimore County Department of Social Services Housing Office | 50 |
MARYLAND - Housing Authority of Baltimore City | 40 |
MARYLAND - Howard County Housing Commission | 10 |
MARYLAND - Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development | 12 |
MICHIGAN - Traverse City Housing Commission | 10 |
NORTH CAROLINA - Housing Authority of the City of Wilmington, N. C. | 5 |
NEW JERSY - New Jersey Department of Community Affairs | 100 |
NEW YORK - Belmont Shelter Corp. as agent for Erie County PHA Consortium | 20 |
OHIO - Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority | 100 |
OHIO - Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority | 60 |
PENNSYLVANIA - Housing Authority of the County of Dauphin | 10 |
TEXAS - Housing Authority of the City of Austin | 36 |
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of Snohomish County | 50 |
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of the City of Longview | 35 |
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of the City of Yakima | 15 |
WASHINGTON - Housing Authority of the County of Clallam | 15 |
WASHINGTON -Housing Authority of the City of Tacoma | 100 |
Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues
Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at http://www.stevegoldada.com
with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects.
As of August, 2010, Information Bulletins will also be posted on my blog located at http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/
To contact Steve Gold directly, write to stevegoldada@cs.com or call 215-627-7100.
OC HA has made no efforts at accessible housing for non Olmstead disabled like me.
ReplyDeleteSadly as OC HA and the CIL does not list or help locate accessible units for other people wiht disabilities This likely means 50 other disabled people will stay homeless or in not accessible housing.
I imagine as there was no access supports or advocacy in N cal either that it is an issue all over?