Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing agency defends use of national consultant on supportive‑housing projects after pushback over 'inspiration' claims
Summary
Kentucky Housing Corporation officials defended a multi‑year relationship with the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH), saying federal Home ARP funds and technical assistance are being used to build permanent supportive housing; some lawmakers moved to disapprove the contract citing concerns about the group's stated inspirations, but the motion failed and the contract was approved.
Kentucky Housing Corporation officials told the committee they used federal Home ARP funds awarded during the pandemic to contract with the Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) for technical assistance on permanent supportive housing projects.
KHC said CSH helped underwrite projects, train developer/property‑management/service teams, and provide ongoing support to projects in Maysville, Covington, Louisville and rural counties like Owsley. KHC staff said the work helps structure projects that combine housing, on‑site services and security to reduce chronic homelessness and the resulting strain on emergency and criminal‑justice systems.
Representative Bauman moved to disapprove the contract after raising language he said he found on CSH’s website describing an initiative “inspired by the critical race theory concept of racial equity.” KHC representatives responded that the work funded in Kentucky is focused on underwritings, project design and operational supports for permanent supportive housing and that the contract is federally funded (Home ARP) rather than supported by state general funds.
Officials said CSH was one of the few—or sole—respondents to the 2021 RFP and that the longer relationship aimed to preserve continuity for development teams that have worked with CSH for several years. Committee members pressed KHC on whether the contract should have been competitively rebid; KHC said the board approved a not‑practical‑to‑bid approach because of the specialized, multi‑year nature of the technical assistance and the requirement for continuity across project phases.
The committee voted on a motion to disapprove; the motion failed and the committee ultimately considered the contract reviewed without objection and approved it on roll call. Members asked for follow‑up materials and contacts to evaluate whether CSH’s other work constitutes the political or educational agenda alleged by critics.
