Testimony of Comptroller Brad Lander Before the Committee on General Welfare on Humanitarian Emergency Response and Relief Centers and Right to Shelter for Asylum Seekers
Thank you, Chairperson Hanif and Chairperson Ayala, for calling an important hearing on the oversight of the Emergency Shelters and Humanitarian Emergency Response and Relief Centers (HERRCs) that have been opened over the past year to address the influx of recent arrivals to New York City. As of June 12, the City had opened 171 emergency sites, including 11 HERRCS and there were approximately 48,100 asylum seekers housed by the City.
New York’s right-to-shelter is a longstanding legal obligation that makes New York City a safer, more humane place for people without a home of their own. We do not need to roll shelter safety protections back, and we should not. With more support from Albany and Washington, and with overdue action from the Adams Administration to provide the assistance that will help asylum seekers get on their feet and move out of shelter, we can face this challenge with both compassion and common sense.
New York City did not always have a right to shelter. The modern crisis of homelessness in New York City, and other major cities across the United States began in the late 1970s. To address the crisis, a system of emergency shelters emerged, but they were frequently filled to capacity, were not always located within the five boroughs, and had notoriously deplorable conditions. Deaths and injuries within the unhoused population were commonplace, with New Yorkers frequently dying from cold-related deaths and communicable diseases such as tuberculosis.
Following a lawsuit brought on behalf of Robert Callahan, a homeless Korean war veteran, a New York State Supreme Judge ordered the City to provide shelter to all homeless men. After a few years of negotiations with the City and State, the 1981 Callahan v. Carey consent decree enshrined the legal right to shelter for homeless individuals, and in the years following, the right to shelter was expanded to women, children, and families. The consent decrees significantly improved the options available to New Yorkers experiencing homeless, and through persistent organizing and advocacy work over the past 40 years, expanded protections and rights have been put into place. Two key advocacy partners, the Legal Aid Society and the Coalition for the Homeless, have been consistent monitors – regularly bringing lawsuits to resist attempts by the City and State to lessen their obligations and insisting that New York City shelter meet health and safety standards.
Today, the right-to-shelter distinguishes New York City from our peers when comparing the rate of unsheltered homelessness. Los Angeles County, which faces similar challenges with housing unaffordability, had an unsheltered homeless population of 48,000 people in 2022.1 New York City had 3,400 homeless people sleeping on the street. To put that into additional context, over 70% of Los Angeles’ homeless population is living on the streets, while less than 6% of New York’s homeless population are unsheltered. Smaller cities facing similar housing affordability and homelessness crises also have a high proportion of unsheltered homeless people. In San Francisco, 57%, of the unhoused population are living on the street rather than in shelter. That number is similar in Phoenix (56%) and Las Vegas (51%).
Let’s be clear: when individuals sleep on the street, instead of in shelter, they are more likely to struggle with drug addiction and untreated mental illness, more likely to remain chronically homeless, and more likely to die. That’s the difference the right-to-shelter makes. The Adams Administration’s attempt to erode the right-to-shelter undermines the foundation of the social safety net in this city.
To be sure, providing shelter to arriving asylum seekers is a massive undertaking that stretches the City’s financial and logistical capacity. We must continue to demand and work strategically to insure that the State and Federal governments step up to meet their obligations and provide their fair share of the funding required.
The obligation under international law to provide the opportunity for people to safely seek asylum is an obligation of the Federal government. That is why we must continue to demand that Washington allocate additional funding to jurisdictions like New York that are providing shelter and services. In addition, the federal government must show leadership in expanded temporary protected status program and expanding the number of work permits for those arriving from Venezuela, Columbia, and other South American countries as it has done for recent arrivals from Afghanistan and Ukraine.
At the State level, the Adams Administration is failing to seize a clear opportunity: Rather than seeking to circumvent the New York State constitutional requirement to provide safe and dignified shelter, the Mayor should work with advocates to appeal to the court to clarify that it applies to all municipalities and counties in New York State. After all, the right-to-shelter is a requirement found in the New York State constitution; it does not only apply here. With that simple clarification, the other 57 counties across the state would legally share the obligation with us. At that point, the State government would surely step up as well, and we would have more allies in Washington, too.
In the meantime, however, we cannot wait for Washington and Albany. Given the urgency of the challenge, New York City must move forward both prudently and compassionately.
I want to thank Council Members Bottcher, Hanif, Hudson, Lee, Narcisse, Schulman, and Stevens for putting forth a thoughtful package of legislation that seeks to uphold the City’s critical right to shelter, ensuring the City’s emergency shelters meet basic habitability requirements set forth in the Callahan consent decree and that push the City to improve conditions and services in our shelter system.
The City should avoid creating a further fragmented system of shelter and support services, subject to different regulatory standards and managed by different City agencies and ensure that there is a basic habitability standard and level of care for any individual and family seeking temporary refuge in our City’s shelter system. Finally, but most urgently, we must turn our attention towards helping recent arrivals apply for asylum within one year of their arrival. Once individuals file their asylum application, even if their hearing is not scheduled for years, they nonetheless become eligible for work authorization in six months. This is the fastest and most cost-effective way for the City to help families get on their feet, become able to provide for their families, and move out of shelter.
According to a survey by Make the Road New York, 93% of respondents have not been able to get any legal assistance or started the application process. This is not surprising, since over 99% of the City’s spending on asylum seekers has gone for shelter and related costs (e.g. food, security), with far less than 1% on legal and support services.
Yesterday’s announcement by the Administration of a new coordinated effort to connect new arrivals with pro-bono legal assistance is a welcome start. Pro se clinics can empower newcomer migrants by providing them information on the U.S. immigration process, eligibility requirements for asylum and work authorization, and advice on how to complete relevant application forms.
But we must act with much more urgency, and much more funding. If we don’t act, many families will go past their one-year deadline for filing their asylum applications, and thus become undocumented while remaining residents of the shelter system.
That’s why it is so critical for the City Council to insist that the Administration add $70 million to the Fiscal Year 2024 budget for outreach, pro-se clinics, and expanded legal services. By adequately funding both legal advice and full legal representation, the City will enable legal service providers, working in partnership with the pro-bono assistance of the firms announced yesterday, to serve the widely varying needs and capacity of individuals navigating the byzantine immigration system. Additionally, staff can help tackle the numerous needs of these communities that extend beyond immigration application assistance and work to ensure that all are protected from discrimination and abuses in the labor and housing market and receive access to medical or other benefits.
In addition to considering today’s legislation, we therefore continue to urge the Council to insist that the Administration add at least an additional $70 million to Fiscal Year 2024’s budget for outreach, pro-se clinics, legal representation, and case management for asylum seekers. This is not only the most compassionate path; it is also the most cost-effective one.
Thank you again to Chairs Ayala and to Hanif for your leadership on these critical issues – I look forward to continuing to partner with you both to advocate for the resources needed to respond with the compassion and care these asylum seekers deserve, and with the competence and prudence that this crisis requires.
###