BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
JEFF DENHAM, CHAIRMAN
Bill No: SB 595
Author: Cedillo
Version: As Introduced
Hearing Date: April 14, 2009
Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: Donald E. Wilson
SUBJECT OF BILL
2010 Homeless Veterans Housing and Supportive Services Act
PROPOSED LAW
Sell "one billion five hundred million $1,500,000,000" in
bonds for the purpose of building "supportive housing
projects for homeless veterans, or veterans at risk of
homelessness, with incomes below limits determined by the
Department of Housing and Community Development."
EXISTING LAW AND BACKGROUND
At the end of WWI, all states gave some sort of
compensation to their returning veterans. Compensation
took several forms including cash bonuses. California was
one of five states that decided home ownership for veterans
would be the chosen program. So in 1921 a home loan
program was established to encourage ownership.
The standard veterans' bond authorization is the language
from the 1943 veterans bond act. Since 1943 California has
passed 23 Cal-Vet home loan bond authorizations.
Part of what makes Cal-Vet home loans advantageous to
veterans is the bonds are sold under terms and parameters
set by the federal government that allow veterans to pay a
lower interest rate thereby making the home more
affordable. Because more affordable loans are given to
veterans rather than loaning money to veterans who would
otherwise be a bad credit risk the Cal-Vet home loans have
never impacted the general fund: the interest on the bond
is paid by the veteran paying the mortgage.
Stories started appearing years after the Vietnam War that
a disproportionate number of veterans were within the ranks
of the homeless population. These veterans were diagnosed
with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but in many
cases were diagnosed ten years after their service had
ended.
In order for a veteran to be accepted into the Veterans
Administration (VA) medical system he had to be diagnosed
within two years of the date of separation from the
military. Hence an entire wave of veterans with PTSD was
left without medical care.
As veterans return from the present war on terror with not
only PTSD but many also suffering from Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI), people fear we will have another wave a
veterans like those from Vietnam.
There was an attempt last year by the Assembly to take
funds from the Cal-Vet home loan program to build
multi-family housing for veterans' transitional care. The
parameters set by the Federal Government for the post WWI
program do not allow for the funds of the Cal-Vet home loan
program to be used for the purposes of multi-family housing
since the program's thrust was ownership and not rental.
The most recent statistics on homelessness from 2008
declare that nationwide there are 154,000 homeless veterans
and 29,400 of them reside in California.
COMMENT
1. This bill is a major shift in emphasis for
California Veterans' policy. Does the state want to
enter the veterans' rental market?
2. Supportive housing is "housing with no limit on
length of stay". Transitional housing has a 24-month
limit and is only for the recently homeless, which
would exclude Vietnam Veterans by definition.
3. The state already is building a network of homes
for those veterans that need housing with "no limit of
stay." The state is presently finishing the homes in
Page 2
Ventura and Lancaster, constructing a Los Angeles
home, and will start construction on the Fresno and
Redding homes in 2010. In the next few years the
state veterans' home system will have grown from three
homes to eight at a cost to the Federal and state
governments of over half a billion dollars.
4. Should we this soon spend another $1.5 billion when
we have not seen how the first half billion worked?
If the vast majority of chronic homeless are Vietnam
Veterans, is it better to spend this money on more
homes where all levels of medical care are available
on site or is supportive housing the way to go?
5. If the state decides that this form of supportive
housing is the better route to go, this bill should
include some safeguards since there are likely to be
special considerations for these housing projects.
A) Because of the strong correlation between
veteran homelessness and PTSD there needs to be
ample mental health support where these homes
will be built, which is largely a county
responsibility.
B) Another strong correlation is between
veteran homelessness and drug and alcohol abuse,
again a priority that will likely draw on county
resources.
C) Federally run facilities for veterans
have a restriction on individuals with criminal
records, which many with PTSD do have. If the
state seeks to serve these individuals and does
not have a similar prohibition then there will be
a demographic factor in the state run programs
that does not exist in federal level programs.
Again, this would draw on county resources for
such things as probation
D) Counties are not uniform in the way they
fund mental health programs whether dealing with
PTSD or drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
Page 3
E) Therefore, there should be some
requirement that before funds from this
proposition can be used to build housing that the
trust fund committee shall have verified that the
county in question has the resources available to
properly support such a home.
6. Using Housing and Community Development funds from
Prop 46 and Prop 1C as a model, then $1.5 billion
should build around 20,000 beds for homeless veterans.
7. Determining the exact number of homeless veterans
is always in the end a guessing game. The best
numbers presently available come from the US Veterans'
Administration. Nationwide there are 154,000 homeless
veterans and 29,400 of them reside in California.
8. Do we know how many of these veterans are already
being serviced by county and state programs that are
not veteran specific?
9. Gauging the future need for this type of veterans'
housing is difficult at best. Many factors have
changed from previous conflicts.
A) Contrary to popular myth, California is
unlikely to have a massive wave of returning
veterans who fell through the cracks similar to
the post- Vietnam era.
B) The concern is not the number of
veterans but the severity of damage to those
veterans.
C) California's veteran population is
decreasing at a rapid rate as the WWII generation
is now over 80 years of age. California has lost
approximately half a million veterans in the last
four years.
D) With the incredible leaps that medical
technology has taken in recent history, more
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are
surviving wounds they never would have survived
Page 4
in previous conflicts.
E) What the state is likely to see in the
future is not a massive wave of veterans, but a
small wave of massively damaged veterans.
F) Unlike at the end of WWII, Korea, and
Vietnam, waves of veterans will not be coming
home to California and then deciding to stay the
way those who fought in the Pacific Theatre did.
A veteran returning from Tokyo or the Philippines
at the end of WWII who was discharged at 32nd
street, Novato AFB, or March AFB may have stayed
in San Diego, San Rafael, or Riverside. The
Korea or Vietnam Veteran who was discharged at
Travis similarly may have stayed in Fairfield or
Vacaville.
With the BRAC rounds that have devastated
California defense
bases -and the medical care that goes with
those installations-
veterans are unlikely to return to this state
after deployment from
the Middle East. There is not much reason for
a returning veteran
to come to California unless he is a native
Californian.
G) Veterans now are screened for PTSD.
Whereas the military did not know to look for it
at the end of Vietnam, it does look for it now.
In addition, it also knows to look for TBI.
These screening processes catch veterans that
were previously missed and inputs them into the
VA medical system unlike at the end of the
Vietnam War.
H) Because of the nature of wounds and the
backlog of cases at the Federal level, the VA has
extended the window for proving service-connected
damage to five years for the present conflict,
which means even more cases than normal will be
caught.
Page 5
I) In summary, California has rapidly
declining veterans' population, returning vets
are more likely to need medical care than in the
past, and in conjunction with the Federal
government is already spending over half a
billion dollars to increase its permanent housing
capabilities.
10. Indian tribes under this bill can apply
for funds. Indian tribes often say they are sovereign
nations not bound by all California laws. Will
homeless veterans be shipped off to the reservation
without all the protections of California citizens
after they fought to preserve our rights or are there
already regulatory provisions in place to prevent this
from happening?
11. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
A) Include a safety mechanism that verifies
the home can be supported in the region it is
planned to be built in. Have a requirement that
before the bonds can been sold that the county in
question has the mental health capability to
service the home. And if there is not to be a
prohibition on those with a criminal record that
the county in question has the probation
resources available to service the home. To
build these homes in areas where there is not
enough support for the veterans once the homes
are built would defeat the very purpose of these
homes.
B) Strike section 7 of the bill. SB 1689 of
2006(Perata) does not contain this language;
therefore, it is likely not legally required.
SUPPORT
Western Center on Law and Poverty
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Page 6
OPPOSE
None received
Page 7