Reining in interim relief's cottage industry: a call to resolve Jiggetts.

• Author: Mozian, Matthew

1. INTRODUCTION

   The history of New York City's homeless is a well-documented problem.(1) There are, and always will be, homeless people in New York City; however, the policy of how to deal with the homeless is constantly changing. Currently, the Safety Net Program(2) and the Family Assistance Program(3) are two programs that New York City operates under the supervision of New York State to provide shelter allowances for its needy citizens.(4) In 1987, the Legal Aid Society brought suit in New York State Supreme Court challenging the adequacy of the shelter allowances under the Aid to Families with Dependant Children Program (currently renamed as Family Assistance)(5) The lawsuit pitted New York State's Social Services Law(6) and Article 17 of the New York State Constitution(7) against the "wholly inadequate"(8) shelter allowances provided by New York State's Department of Social Services (DSS).(9) The case has spent the past thirteen years winding its way through New York State's court system, and has ended with the New York State Court of Appeals denying the state's motion to appeal,(10) thereby leaving intact an interim shelter allowance for qualifying Family Assistance recipients.(11) This interim shelter allowance went into effect shortly after the Court of Appeals handed down their 1990 ruling.(12)

   This essay will argue that the Jiggetts lawsuit needs to be resolved for two reasons. First, the current shelter allowance should be changed to reflect the current costs of New York City housing.(13) Second, this note will argue that due to Jiggetts interim relief, a cottage industry in the New York City Housing Courts has been created.(14) This cottage industry is wasteful and counterproductive for taxpayers, the government, and the advocates for the homeless.(15) Part II of the paper will outline the problem of New York City's homeless.(16) Part III will discuss the Jiggetts case.(17) Part IV will discuss the inadequacy of New York City's existing shelter allowance.(18) Part V will delve into the political opposition to increasing the shelter allowance as a means of resolving the Jiggetts case.(19) Part VI will discuss the benefits of permanently adjusting the shelter allowance.(20)

2. HOMELESSNESS IN NEW YORK CITY

   Homelessness in America, and particularly in New York City, is not a new phenomenon.(21) The homeless have existed since the dawn of this country, and the problem is likely to continue.(22) Therefore, an efficient and cost-effective means to deal with the homeless problem is simply good social policy. New York City's continual shortage of housing aggravates the problem even more.(23)

   The trials and tribulations of New York City's various attempts to deal with its homeless people are well documented.(24) Specially built dormitory style accommodations for the homeless, called Tier I and Tier II housing, have been used to temporarily house the homeless.(25) In addition, homeless families have been placed in commercial hotels when the usual accommodations are full.(26) However, the end result is that these various means of temporary housing are extraordinarily expensive ways to house the homeless. Moreover, these are short-term, ad hoc solutions to a perennial problem of inadequate supplies of affordable housing in the New York City area.

   The city's attempt to house the homeless in permanent homeless shelters and/or homeless "hotels" is fraught with its own difficulties. Homeless shelters are frequently neglected, forlorn buildings with numerous health violations.(27) Furthermore, the transient nature of these homeless shelters does not provide a stable domestic life for young children.(28) Studies have shown that homeless children have poorer nutrition, higher levels of lead in their blood, and higher incidences of virtually every kind of physical disorder occurring at twice the rate of similar ambulatory patients.(29) Lastly, it also is apparent that a child from a homeless family may suffer from an inability to flourish in an educational environment.(30)

   In sum, New York City has a serious dilemma dealing with its homeless. Temporary solutions to ongoing problems have not only proved extremely expensive,(31) but also fail to provide an environment that is conducive to sustaining a healthy family life.(32) With these two particular problems in mind, the current interim shelter allowances provided by the Jiggetts case are a means to an end of housing families in long-term, cost-effective, and ostensibly healthier family environments. However, as this essay will argue, the current "solution" is not cost-effective for taxpayers, and should be resolved as quickly as possible by establishing reasonable shelter allowances to eliminate many wasted tax dollars.(33)

3. THE JIGGETTS DECISION

   The legal basis of the Jiggetts decision is simple. Article 17 of the New York State Constitution provides that "[t]he aid, care and support of the needy are public concerns and shall be provided by the state...."(34) The New York State Social Service Law governing Family Assistance provides that, "[a]llowances shall be adequate to enable the father, mother or other relative to bring up the child properly, having regard for the physical, mental and moral well-being of such child...."(35) Based on these two provisions, the plaintiffs in the Jiggetts suit argued that the state and city have a "statutory and constitutional duty to provide `adequate' shelter allowances" for recipients of Family Assistance.(36)

   The Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs' argument, stating that "[t]he provision of assistance to the needy is not a matter of legislative grace but is specifically mandated by the New York State Constitution."(37) The court held that it was the province of the legislature to make shelter allowances adequate to pay for housing needs, and to do this the legislature imposed a duty, as opposed to a discretionary power, on the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services (DSS).(38) Therefore, the court remanded the case to the trial court,(39) holding that whether or not the legislature actually approved increased funding for adequate shelter allowances, the Commissioner had a duty "to establish a schedule reasonably calculated for that purpose."(40)

   Although the case was remanded in April of 1990,(41) it wasn't until seven years later, in 1997, that New York State Supreme Court Justice Karla Moskowitz issued a decision holding that the current shelter allowance does not bear a reasonable relationship to the current housing costs in New York City.(42) In the decision, Justice Moskowitz did not prescribe what "adequate" shelter allowances should be; rather, she left it up to the DSS Commissioner, and provided for Jiggetts interim relief to continue until a permanent solution can be found.(43)

   In what possibly could have been the final chapter in the now thirteen year Jiggetts litigation, the first department of the appellate division affirmed Justice Moskowitz's decision on remand.(44) Indicating perhaps the last of judicial tolerance for Jiggetts litigation, the court's holding was a one-page per curiam decision which held that Justice Moskowitz's decision was a "fair interpretation of the evidence."(45) Therefore, it seems that the interim shelter allowances are not going away in the near future.

   It is important to realize that Jiggetts relief is not available for everyone on public assistance, only to those with dependent children under the age of eighteen living in the home.(46) Currently, there are approximately 21,000 Jiggetts cases open.(47)

4. INADEQUATE SHELTER ALLOWANCE

   The creation of a permanent program that provides for an adequate shelter allowance, akin to current Jiggetts interim relief, is a logical and cost-efficient option.(48) Essentially, the Jiggetts interim relief system has replaced the old, judicially characterized "inadequate" shelter allowance schedule with a new viable set of numbers set by the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (TADA) for the New York City's five boroughs:(49)

   Household Size Monthly Shelter Monthly Jiggetts Allowance Maximum 1 $215.00 $450.00 2 $250.00 $550.00 3 $286.00 $650.00 4 $312.00 $700.00(50) This revised and temporary shelter allowance schedule is fairly self-explanatory. Whereas a family of three would have received $286.00 under the old schedule, that same family now receives a maximum of $650.00 per month to pay their rent.(51)

   In 1991, it was reported that since 1975, when the shelter allowances were first established, New York City rents had increased by 150%, whereas the shelter allowance had only increased by 40%.(52) Since these 1991 figures, rents in New York City have continued to skyrocket,(53) while the shelter allowance has not increased? In fact, this is not news to the City of New York. In 1988, a report issued by the Committee on Legal Problems of the Homeless outlined many deplorable truths about New York City's then severe deficiency in shelter allowances as compared to its high rent prices.(55)

   Now, thirteen years since the commencement of the Jiggetts suit, in the midst of a tremendous economic boom that has seen housing prices in the five boroughs sky-rocket,(56) the archaic shelter allowance is all the more egregious. Therefore, it is painfully obvious that the shelter allowances are due for a serious overhaul. As is often the case, if the political process fails to make these changes, people are left to turn to the courts for justice.

5. POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO THE JIGGETTS CASE

   For different reasons, Mario Cuomo, George Pataki, and current New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have each tried various means to directly or indirectly quash the Jiggetts lawsuit.(57) Neither Governor Cuomo, nor Governor Pataki, believed that the interim system set up by the suit was accomplishing a positive end, and, therefore, both have tried to do away with it.(58) Whereas each governor had his own political reasons for doing so...