Counties report start‑up delays, administrative gaps for new SAFE arrears program; urge larger allocations

State and county officials told the Senate hearing that the newly created Shelter Arrears Eviction For Installment program (SAFE) can prevent evictions and preserve subsidies — but counties need time, clearer rules and more administrative funding to make it work at scale.

The program aims to pay rental arrears for households facing imminent eviction where other emergency programs are unavailable or unsuitable. Andrea Reid, deputy commissioner at New York City DSS, urged that New York City be allowed to participate: “New York City, DSS would encourage that this bill be amended to include New York City. Currently, we are excluded from that bill.” She argued the city’s experience shows arrears assistance prevents evictions and that city resources are best used alongside a statewide tool.

County experiences: Erie County Commissioner of Social Services Karen Rybicki said the local pilot showed clear results but flagged administrative friction. In her written and oral testimony she highlighted three practical issues: limited startup time, a heavy data and documentation requirement and a tight cap on administrative expenses. "To date, we approved disbursement of 12% of our allocation, and that averted evictions and potential homelessness for 44 households," Rybicki said, adding that "90% of those approved applications were for minority households and 88% of those referred were unable to pay the cost of ongoing rent." She urged a larger allocation and more administrative flexibility in future rollouts.

Legal‑services and nonprofit perspective: Legal aid and statewide providers confirmed SAFE reaches people who would otherwise fall through existing emergency‑assistance rules. Nick Rangel of Legal Aid Society for Northeastern New York and other legal advocates said many counties were still standing the program up and that limited allocations will run out quickly unless more funding is provided. Several witnesses urged raising the eligibility definition in some regions to a percentage of Area Median Income to better match local housing costs.

Operational tradeoffs: Counties and advocates urged simplifying reporting requirements and, where possible, enabling operator portals or other ways for landlords to submit verification directly to local districts so assistance can flow faster. Karen Rybicki explained that the program’s requirement to collect many data points plus a 10% cap on administrative costs constrained counties that lacked ready IT or case‑management capacity: “counties were not provided with an information system to be able to capture that required data…this left our county responsible to develop all the programming infrastructure required to begin issuing the allocated funds on only 10% of an administrative cost.”

Policy takeaways: Senators heard broadly that SAFE payments can be cost‑effective when they prevent families from entering the shelter system, but that the state should consider larger initial funding, clearer guidance to counties and modest administrative allowances so local programs can be stood up quickly and sustainably.

Next steps: County commissioners asked the legislature to expand funding in the FY2026 budget and to work with OTDA on administrative improvements to reduce delays and increase the program’s reach.

Ending: For counties with small allocations the program averted small batches of evictions; counties and advocates said that with more funding and streamlined administration, SAFE could have a much larger impact statewide.