Department of Social Services Human Resources ‘aminstration Department of Homeless Services ‘Steven Banks Commissioner 150 Greenwich Street ‘Now York, NY 10007 929 221 7315 March 13, 2018 Nancy J. Williams LCSW-R Commissioner Broome County Department of Social Services 36-42 Main Street Binghamton, NY 13905 Dear Commissioner Williams: We write in response to the allegations Broome County officials have made both to my staff and to the press regarding the New York City Special One Time Assistance (“SOTA”) program. Specifically, citing five cases, you have alleged that New York City is illegally sending homeless families to Broome County for the purpose of shifting the responsibility for their care to Broome County. This allegation is patently false. As part of your consideration of this matter, please be aware that a search of our records indicates that there are 20 households (53 individuals) currently residing in our shelter system who have a last known address in Broome County. As! am sure you are also aware, the costs of providing such shelter are significant. However, like the five families you cite who chose to relocate from New York City to Broome County, the 20 Broome County households in the New York City shelter system exercised their right to travel outside of Broome County. The right to travel is firmly enshrined in the United States Constitution and provisions that improperly restrict that right have been consistently held to be unconstitutional. In Brown v. Wing, a New York State court held that Social Services Law Section 131-a(3)(d), limiting the assistance a household could receive for their first six months of residence in New York to that which they could receive in their prior place of residence, violated both Article XVII of the State Constitution requiring care of the needy and the Federal Constitution’s, right to travel. Relying on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Shapiro v. Thompson, the Brown court concluded that “neither deterrence of indigents from migrating to the State nor limitation of welfare benefits to. those regarded as contributing to the State is a constitutionally permissible state objective.” Brown v. Wing, 649 N.Y.S.2d 988, 994 (Sup. Ct., MonroeCounty 1996) (quoting Shapiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 618, 631-633 (1969)).” The constitutional right to travel does not apply only to travel between states, but clearly encompasses the right to travel within New York State. See City of New York v. Andrews, 719 N.Y.S.2d 442, 452 (Sup. Ct., Queens County 2000) (explaining that “[t]here can be no doubt that our State Constitution, no less than the Federal Constitution, supports the right to travel freely within the State”). ‘Anumber of the 20 Broome County households in the New York City shelter system have indicated that the reason for their homelessness was eviction. Please advise us whether your county has a program in place to pay for anti- eviction legal services and for rent arrears to prevent evi families are made aware of the avai information will enable us to connect Broome County families who seek shelter in New York City to such services in the event that their prior Broome County housing may still be viable. In New York City, we have made great progress in preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place by implementing Universal Access to Counsel in Housing Court and the Homebase homelessness prevention program. Our emergency rent arrears grants are also keeping people in their homes. As we have implemented these reforms, evictions have decreased by 27% in the last four years — and by 5% in 2017 alone — with more than 70,000 New Yorkers avoiding losing their housing since 2014, Asa result of reforms that we are implementing, when homelessness cannot be prevented through our “prevention first” programs, families and individuals in shelter are provided with a full range of social services to help them get back on their feet and transition from shelter to stable housing in the community. For example, more than 71,000 New Yorkers have exited or avoided shelter in the first place with the help of our rental assistance and rehousing programs. Dating back to the Koch Administration, the City has used a range of one-time assistance programs to help families and individuals get back on their feet and move out of shelter, including by exercising their right to travel within and beyond the five boroughs of New York City. These programs have ranged from * see also Gaddis v. Wyman, 304 F. Supp. 717 (N.D.N.Y. 1968) (striking down Social Services Law Section 139-2, a provision denying public assistance to any person who came into the state solely to secure public assistance, and stating that “budgetary factors, troublesome and important as they are for the people of New York, cannot validate a state's attempt to inhibit the American citizen's long established constitutional right to travel from state to state and. reside where he pleases"), aff'd per curiam sub nom. Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U.S. 49 (1970) ‘overruled on other grounds by Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974); in re Paul & Mark, 315, N.¥S.2d 12 (Fam, Ct,, NY County 1970).paying travel expenses to paying rent in advance to secure housing in New York City and other parts of New York State and the country as a whole. ‘The SOTA program is a recent refinement of these efforts. The purpose of the SOTA program is to assist eligible households to transition to permanent housing, whether that housing is located within or outside of New York City. Approximately one-third of SOTA participants (hundreds of households) have used the assistance to remain in New York City, 10% have relocated within New York State and the remainder outside New York State. Under the program, the Department of Social Services (DSS) pays one year of the household's rent upfront directly to the landlord to help facilitate the household's transition to their new home. Assistance is only provided to households whom DSS has determined will have the future ability to pay the rent once they are obligated to begin making rent payments in 12 months. Households must have income from employment, Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability benefits and a rent that does not exceed fifty percent of that current income. Of course, this program could be improved by enactment of the Home Stability Support program (A8178 2017) that would establish a portable state-funded rental assistance benefit. The five families whose information your staff disclosed to the New York Post on Friday were determined to be able to assume their ongoing rent obligations 12 months after their voluntary moves.” You have indicated that the five households who relocated to Broome County are receiving benefits through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid and utility assistance. The payment of these benefits is hardly a burden on a local social services district. For example, as you know, SNAP is entirely funded by the federal government, with the local county responsible for only 50 percent of the administrative costs — and five families certainly cannot be viewed as impacting those existing administrative costs. For Medicaid, the local program costs are capped so that they will not change even if expenses or the number of program participants rises. The administrative costs are reimbursed 100 per cent up to a cap. The concern that these families could become a burden on Broome County unfortunately fuels the shocking stereotyping of the clients we are both charged to serve as social services officials. Furthermore, contrary to your claims, nothing in the SOTA program or the choice by individual families to voluntarily move from New York City to Broome County violates Social Services Law Section 148 or any other provision of law. * Even without disclosing the names of the families, please note that there is now a risk that these families will be identified based on the information that was provided, thereby depriving them of the protections of Social Services Law Section 136.Social Services Law Section 148 and similar provisions were derived from the archaic Poor Laws that were intended to deprive indigent persons of the freedom to travel. Under Shapiro and Brown, Section 148 could not withstand a constitutional challenge. Even assuming Section 148 is valid and enforceable, which it is not, DS's operation of the SOTA program would not run afoul of the statute. As noted above, SOTA was not created for the purpose of avoiding responsibility for care, but rather to provide families who have found affordable housing with the extra support needed to transition back to stability and independent living, whether within the five boroughs or beyond. The program does not incentivize moves outside the district. Indeed, as noted, hundreds of families have exited shelter to permanent housing in New York City with a SOTA grant. Moreover, a key program element is an ability to pay the rent going forward. All New York State residents have a right to seek housing where they can afford it and employment where they can find it ~ within New York City or elsewhere. If residents are in need of assistance and entitled to those benefits, it is the obligation of all local social services districts to provide them with any benefits they are entitled to receive. When homelessness cannot be prevented, both Broome County and New York City are mandated by law to provide temporary shelter to every eligible homeless family and individual who seeks it. We assume that Broome County has sufficient shelter capacity to meet the needs of all eligible families and individuals. In the event that any of the 20 Broome County families in New York City shelters wish to return to shelter in Broome County, we would expect you to accommodate their needs. We are available to discuss these matters with you and your staff as we have been since you first brought this to our attention before you chose to attack these families and a program designed to help them in your media blitz. Commissioner