logo
Funding anxiety has taken hold of advocates for people experiencing homelessness

Funding anxiety has taken hold of advocates for people experiencing homelessness

Yahoo01-07-2025
Ann Oliva addresses conferees during the National Alliance to End Homelessness annual convention in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Greg Childress)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Anna Oliva, the executive director of the National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH), has never seen advocates for people experiencing homelessness as concerned about the future as they've been the last six months.
The 30-year veteran in the fight to end homelessness told NC Newsline that advocates and others are worried about the current political landscape that has left federal funding for programs for the unhoused fraught with uncertainty.
'Primarily, I would say folks are scared,' Oliva said Monday. 'They're scared — when I say folks, I mean service providers, our leadership, our homeless services leadership, people who are in the system — they don't know what's going to happen.'
Oliva made her comments during an interview with NC Newsline shortly after the NAEH kicked off its annual convention in Washington. More than 2,000 advocates, service providers, nonprofit leaders and people with lived experienced have gathered in the nation's capital to discuss policies and strategies to end homelessness.
'All of this uncertainty is making what are really hard jobs even harder,' Oliva said. 'And it's making the lives of people who are tenants in these programs uncertain in a way that I think is pretty damaging.'
The uncertainty couldn't have come at a worse time. Homelessness in America increased by 18% in 2024, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR). The report found 770,000 Americans — an 18% increase over the previous year — experiencing homelessness on a January night in 2024. It was the largest number recorded since HUD began conducting the counts in 2005.
According to HUD, the number of people experiencing homelessness increased in every category — except for veterans — measured during the department's annual Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. The count is a snapshot of the number of individuals in shelters, temporary housing and unsheltered on a single night.
'I would say that right now folks are, they're nervous about the direction that the country is going and how they might try and figure out how to make up a [funding] gap, right?' Oliva said. 'If there is a gap, if there is a cut that's made from the federal government, if the federal government no longer funds the Continuum of Care (CoC) program, what does that mean for them?'
The CoC to which Oliva referred is a community-based planning process and system aimed at ending homeless by coordinating efforts among various stakeholders to provide housing and services to families and individuals experiencing homelessness. The system is largely funded by HUD.
The NAEH has lobbied against budget cut it believes would negatively impact programs to prevent and end homelessness. It has urged Congress to reject cuts to Homeless Assistance Grants and other safety net resources. The Alliance estimates that cuts to the program would eliminate funding for more than 166,000 units of Permanent Supportive Housing, which is a critical intervention for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.
President Trump's FY 2026 budget proposal calls for $532 million in cuts to the federal government's Homeless Assistance Grants account, the NAEH said in a recent statement.
The conference in Washington is taking place against the backdrop of a Senate debate over President Donald Trump's so-called 'one big, beautiful bill.' The bill stirred controversy in North Carolina over the weekend when U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) voted against it, arguing that it would cause more than 660,000 North Carolinians to lose health care. [The Senate approved the measure in a 51-50 vote late Tuesday morning.]
Trump threatened to run a candidate against Tillis in next year's GOP primary and Tillis abruptly announced that he would not seek reelection.
'What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding's not there anymore, guys?' Tillis said in a floor speech.
Nationally, estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show that the legislation being debated in the Senate would leave nearly 12 million people without health care coverage by 2034. The bill slashes $1.1 trillion from Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare over that period. More than $1 trillion of those cuts coming from Medicaid.
Oliva said if the budget legislation passes, the advocates and service providers for people experiencing homelessness will have a new set of problems with which to contend.
'We're very concerned about how many people are one medical bill away from losing their housing, how many people need those services in order to maintain their housing over time, how many people will be priced out of the rental market if they have to pay medical bills above their rent,' Oliva said 'There's all sorts of questions that we have about what the impact of that would be in communities.'
Oliva said the impact of Medicaid cuts would be widespread.
'All of these social services and policies are connected, and could have a pretty significant impact on the number of people experiencing homelessness in communities nationwide, red communities and blue communities alike, rural communities, suburban communities,' Oliva said. 'Rural and suburban communities rely much more heavily on federal dollars than urban communities do, and they're going to be deeply impacted by these potential changes should they pass.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Judge blocks FTC probe into progressive media watchdog
Judge blocks FTC probe into progressive media watchdog

The Hill

time7 hours ago

  • The Hill

Judge blocks FTC probe into progressive media watchdog

A federal judge temporarily blocked the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) investigation into Media Matters for America on Friday, arguing the agency is likely in violation of the progressive media watchdog's free speech rights. U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, an appointee of former President Biden, ordered a preliminary injunction against the investigation, which was opened in May. 'It should alarm all Americans when the Government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate. And that alarm should ring even louder when the Government retaliates against those engaged in newsgathering and reporting,' Sooknanan said in the 48-page ruling. 'This case presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.' The FTC opened the probe into Media Matters in late May over whether the progressive media group improperly coordinated with advertisers. The anti-trust agency demanded correspondence between Media Matters and advertisers, along with its communications with watchdog groups. In response, Media Matters sued the FTC in June to block the agency's probe, contending the investigation is an example of unlawful retaliation. Media Matters president Angelo Carusone said in a statement Friday that the court's ruling shows the 'importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration.' Carusone said the case is not 'just about the campaign to punish and silence Media Matters, however. It is a critical test for whether the courts will allow any administration – from any political party – to bully media and non-profit organizations through illegal abuses of power. We will continue to stand up and fight for the First Amendment rights that protect every American.' Media Matters was sued by tech billionaire Elon Musk and social media platform X in 2023, arguing that the progressive media watchdog colluded with advertisers as part of an effort to pull advertising dollars from X.

Why Putin Must Be Thrilled With the Alaska Summi
Why Putin Must Be Thrilled With the Alaska Summi

Time​ Magazine

time10 hours ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Why Putin Must Be Thrilled With the Alaska Summi

Vladimir Putin wanted a lot of things from his visit to Alaska. A ceasefire in Ukraine was not one of them. Throughout the summer, his troops have been grinding out advances along the frontline, and they achieved a sudden breakthrough in the days before the Alaska summit. Putin's main objective was to buy time for his troops to continue those advances, all while avoiding the 'very severe consequences' that President Donald Trump promised to impose on the Russians if they refused to call a ceasefire. It appears Putin succeeded on both counts. In his public statements on Friday night, Trump made clear he no longer plans to impose any economic pain on Russia. 'Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that,' he told Fox News after the summit. 'I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now.' In Trump's understanding, two or three weeks is a malleable term, as the New York Times recently noted, 'not a measurement of time so much as a placeholder.' On the battlefield, however, it could mean the difference between holding off the Russians and allowing them to seize another region of Ukraine. The epicenter of the fighting in recent weeks has been the region of Donetsk, where Ukrainian troops were able to stop the latest Russian breakthrough. The latest maps of the fighting indicate that the Kremlin remains determined to seize that region. Another few weeks of Russian infantry assaults could achieve that goal, allowing Putin to negotiate with the U.S. and Ukraine from a position of greater advantage. 'Things at the front are going well for them,' a senior Ukrainian military officer tells TIME. 'Slow but steady.' These gains helped Putin negotiate in Alaska from a position of strength. Ahead of their talks, Trump indicated that he wants the warring sides to 'swap' territories, with Ukraine giving away its own land in exchange for areas Russia has occupied. 'They've occupied some very prime territory,' Trump said a few days before his summit with Putin. 'We're going to try and get some of that territory back for Ukraine.' Trump failed to achieve that in Alaska, and his chances of getting what he calls a 'fair deal' for Ukraine diminish as Russian forces continue to gain ground. For reasons that remain unclear, Trump said he believes that Putin wants to stop the fighting. 'I believe he wants to get it over,' Trump said. 'Now, I've said that a few times, and I've been disappointed.' Alaska marks the latest of these disappointments, but Trump has shown no inclination to change his strategy. He did not even secure some of the easier concessions from Putin that might have given the Americans something to show for the Alaskan spectacle. One of Russia's leading dissidents, Yulia Navalnaya, had urged Trump to secure the release of Russian political prisoners jailed for their opposition to the war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, has urged the U.S. to demand the release of thousands of Ukrainian children that Russian forces have abducted from the war zone. Neither of these issues came up in the official statements in Alaska. Appearing side by side on Friday, Trump gave his guest the floor, allowing Putin to deliver another one of his rambling history lessons, a maneuver that has been likened to diplomatic 'filibustering.' When Trump's turn came to speak, he admitted that the talks had not resulted in a deal. The next step toward peace, he suggested, would be to arrange a meeting between Putin and Zelensky. But the Russian side has given no indication that it would be open to such an arrangement. Instead, at the end of their press conference in Alaska, Putin suggested in English that he and Trump would meet 'next time in Moscow,' an idea that seemed to catch Trump off guard. 'Oh, that's an interesting one,' he replied. 'I'll get a little heat on that one.' This final exchange pointed again to the paltry outcomes of the summit. The two sides had not even agreed on a location or a format for the next stage of the peace process, while Putin came away confident enough to suggest that his capital would be a fitting venue. It was hard to blame him. Given the red-carpet treatment he received in Alaska, Putin had every reason to feel like a winner coming out of those talks. He had, after all, achieved his main objective, and given nothing away.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store