From GPD to DHS: How Misclassification, Mismanagement, and Policy Shifts Are Failing New York City’s Veterans
Veterans Showed Up for New Yorkers. No One Showing Up for Them.
New York City - New York City’s veteran transitional housing system is not simply failing to stabilize veterans—it is actively placing them into a cycle of displacement, misclassification, and increased vulnerability. At the center of this issue is the Borden Avenue Veterans Residence, designated as a MICA (Mentally Ill/Chemical Abuse) facility, a classification that carries lasting consequences far beyond initial placement.
Veterans seeking access to the VA Grant and Per Diem (GPD) program are often required—either directly or through systemic pressure—to accept a mental health or substance use designation. This label does not remain limited to Borden Avenue. It precedes them throughout the shelter system, shaping future placements before they even occur. When a veteran is discharged or removed, the MICA designation follows them into the next placement decision, narrowing their options and often steering them into more restrictive or high-risk environments.
When veterans are expelled from Borden Avenue—frequently for minor infractions or an inability to tolerate unsafe conditions—they are not transitioned into safer housing. Instead, they are routinely sent into the general Department of Homeless Services shelter system, where violence, substance use, and instability are more prevalent. Because the MICA label precedes them, it acts as a filter on placement, increasing the likelihood that they will be routed into volatile congregate shelters rather than appropriate transitional or supportive housing.
At the same time, veterans currently housed at Borden Avenue report that dozens of cubicles remain vacant, raising serious questions about capacity and utilization. Despite this available space, Manhattan VA Homeless Services has reportedly refused to refer VA-eligible veterans to the facility, citing “funding” issues tied to the management of Veterans Affairs resources. This contradiction—empty beds alongside unmet need—points to deeper concerns about mismanagement and lack of coordination between city and federal systems.
Concerns about funding further intensify the issue. Millions of dollars—reportedly in the range of $5 million tied to services and operations—are allocated toward programs intended to support vulnerable veterans. Yet the conditions experienced by veterans suggest a disconnect between funding and outcomes, with persistent reports of unsafe housing and inadequate oversight.
Compounding these concerns are recent comments by Councilmember Vickie Paladino, which some believe may be setting the stage for a broader structural shift—potentially phasing out the Grant and Per Diem program altogether. Such a shift could result in veterans being absorbed into the Department of Homeless Services system while existing federal funding streams remain in place. If realized, this would represent a fundamental departure from the GPD program’s intent, effectively replacing a federally designed transitional housing model with a general shelter system that has already demonstrated significant shortcomings.
Equally troubling are conditions within Veterans Affairs hospitals. Veterans seeking care often encounter facilities that are overcrowded, poorly maintained, and, at times, unsanitary—conditions that undermine recovery rather than support it.
This reality stands in direct contrast to the purpose of the GPD program, which is meant to provide safe, structured, and supportive housing that leads to independence. Instead, the system allows labels to follow veterans, resources to go underutilized, and unsafe conditions to persist—turning what should be a pathway to stability into a cycle of continued hardship.