Policy

HUD Now Accepting Applications for MTW Expansion Cohort #1

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

Late last week, HUD published a notice–titled “Request for Letters of Interest and Applications under the Moving to Work Demonstration Program for Fiscal Year 2019: COHORT #1 – Overall Impact of Moving to Work Flexibility” (PIH-2018-17)–inviting applications for the first cohort of the Moving to Work (MTW) Expansion. The first cohort of the MTW Expansion will include 30 PHAs with 1,000 or fewer aggregate units (including special purpose vouchers).

In addition to laying out the application process for the first cohort of the MTW Expansion plan, the notice also notes the research topic each cohort will examine. The first cohort will examine the overall impact of MTW flexibility, while future cohorts will examine rent reform, work requirements, and landlord incentives. Applying for MTW status with the first cohort is a two-step process including submitting a letter of interest (due January 11, 2019) and submitting a MTW plan and application.

NAHRO will host a MTW application e-briefing for potential first cohort applicants on Wednesday, November 7th from 1:30 to 3 pm ET. Registration for the e-briefing can be found here.

The MTW Operations Notice can be found here.

The first cohort application notice can be found here.

Click below for additional information on the application process.

Continue reading →

NAHRO Submits Comments on AFFH Rule Streamlining

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

Earlier this week, NAHRO responded to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s or the Department’s) request for comments on streamlining the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule by submitting a comment letter. The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials remains committed to following through on the promise of the Fair Housing Act and its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. At the same time, NAHRO believes that to create a workable rule that delivers results while appropriately balancing the goals of the Fair Housing Act with the limited resources found in communities throughout the United States, certain principles should be followed in refining the AFFH rule.

These general principles are as follows:

  • Entities should not be forced to complete analyses on non-housing factors;
  • Entities should not be forced to complete analyses outside their jurisdiction;
  • Additional funding is required to properly conduct fair housing assessments;
  • Housing agencies should be able to complete any required assessments without having to hire a consultant;
  • The Department should accept and approve assessments for entities that have made a good faith effort to comply with the assessment process;
  • The Department should provide clear, regularly updated guidance for completing assessments;
  • The assessments should provide a greater emphasis on place-based solutions; and
  • The Department should closely follow all requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and any other process requirements required by law.

The comment letter–after providing background on how HUD substantially deviated from modest recommendations of prior technocratic reports by HUD and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2009 and 2010 respectively–responds to specific inquiries requested by HUD. The comment letter also recommends changes to the definition of “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” and “Qualified PHA.”

The full comment letter can be found here.

New ACC Update – New ACC Rescinded

~ Georgi Banna ~ Leave a comment

NAHRO is happy to announce it has received information from HUD that HUD will be rescinding the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) (Form HUD-53012, OMB Approval No. 2577-0075) that took effect in May of this year. Agencies that have executed this new ACC will revert back to their prior ACC. Agencies will receive a communication from HUD in the coming days that will document the rescission of the new ACC.

It is anticipated that HUD may revisit a new ACC in the future and allow for additional input from the affordable housing stakeholders.

NAHRO thanks all of the agencies that have shared their thoughts and concerns about the new ACC with us. Additionally agencies, the industry groups (NAHRO, PHADA, and CLPHA) along with industry attorneys worked in unison to advocate for the importance and fairness of the agency/HUD relationship. NAHRO will continue to follow the ACC issue and will provide updates as additional information becomes available.

Fair Housing Webinar – Tuesday, 9/11/2018

~ Georgi Banna ~ Leave a comment

Housing Rules e-Briefing Series

 Fair Housing Discussion –

An AFFH Update & Commenting to HUD

September 11, 2018

1:30 p.m. – 3 p.m. ET

Register Now Button

There have been a lot of new developments surrounding Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) in recent weeks. Join the NAHRO Policy Team as they discuss the lawsuit against HUD concerning the AFFH Tools and HUD’s decision to reopen the AFFH rule. HUD is also seeking input from the public and stakeholders on what the new, updated AFFH rules should contain and address. NAHRO encourages all members to share their first-hand knowledge and experience in affirmatively furthering fair housing. The NAHRO Policy Team will also provide an overview of how to prepare an effective and persuasive comment letter to HUD.

$95 Members / $195 Nonmembers

Register Now Button

e-Briefings are different from our online courses in that not every person watching must be registered.

We require only one registration per device.

Registration closes at 11:59pm eastern time Monday, September 10, 2018.

Vera Expands Opening Doors to Public Housing Initiative

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

Last week, the Vera Institute of Justice, announced the expansion of its Opening Doors to Public Housing Initiative. The initiative is a “national project that aims to substantially change public housing admissions policies and reduce barriers that prevent people from safely and successfully reentering their communities once released from prison or jail.” Two individual PHAs and two consortia entities were selected after a competitive selection process: Lafayette Housing Authority; Oklahoma City Housing Authority; the Housing Authority of the County of San Diego in collaboration with five other housing authorities; and a consortium of five agencies led by the Delaware State Housing Authority.

These housing authorities will receive up to 12 months of technical assistance to conduct the following activities:

  • “Safely increase access to housing for people with conviction histories or juvenile records to improve reentry outcomes and reduce recidivism rates.
  • Improve the safety of public housing and surrounding communities through the use of reentry housing strategies.
  • Promote collaboration between public housing authorities, law enforcement agencies, and other criminal justice stakeholders to effectively reduce crime and improve reentry outcomes for people leaving prisons and jails.”

Vera’s full press release can be found here.

Vera’s Opening Doors fact sheet can be found here.

 

HUD Increases HCV Administrative Fee Proration to 80%

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday, HUD’s Housing Voucher Financial Management Division sent a letter to PHA Executive Directors and certain Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program Representatives announcing that the 2018 administrative fee will increase from 76 percent to 80 percent. The Department notes that the final number may change again based on national leasing behavior and finding additional funding. The additional administrative fee funding will be obligated during September 2018. The Department also notes that for portability, it is recommended that PHAs continue to use the original estimated 76 percent proration from January to July and begin to use the new 80 percent proration in August.

While NAHRO is pleased that HUD has found the funds to increase the administrative fee proration to 80 percent, we will continue to stress to decision-makers in Washington, D.C., the importance of fully funding this account.

The full letter can be found here.

HUD Publishes FY 2019 FMRs

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

In a notice titled “Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy, and Other Programs Fiscal Year 2019,” HUD announced the publication of its Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Fair Market Rents (FMRs). Comments on the FMRs are due by October 1, 2018. The effective date of the FMRs are October 1, 2018.

The methodology used to calculate these FMRs remain the same as it was for the FY 2018 FMRs. The methodology used to calculate these Small Area FMRs remain the same as it was for the FY 2018 Small Area FMRs. The Department is continuing to implement certain changes (which NAHRO commented on) made in calculating FY 2018 Small Area FMRs. Additionally, as mandated by the Small Area FMR rule, HUD is limiting the amount a FMR or Small Area FMR may decrease to no greater than 10 percent.

The notice also discusses the calculation of Renewal Funding Inflation Factors (RFIFs)–the annual inflation factor by which voucher renewal funding is increased. The Department was considering changing how it calculates RFIFs. The Department notes that most comments “directed HUD to continue using FMR surveys in the calculation of RFIFs.” (Read NAHRO’s RFIF comments here.) The Department is still contemplating how best to incorporate research surveys into the calculation of RFIFs.

FY 2019 FMRs can be found here.

FY 2019 Small Area FMRs can be found here.

The notice announcing the publication of the FMRs can be found here.

HUD Creates New Landlord Task Force

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

Earlier today, HUD published a press release announcing that it would create a new Landlord Task Force. The task force is being created as a response to two new studies which found that most landlords do not accept vouchers and, in those instances where landlords do accept vouchers, the landlords are dissatisfied with the administrative burdens associated with the vouchers. The Department will begin a landlord engagement campaign on September 20th in Washington DC, where it will present findings from the two studies. There will also be landlord forums in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, and Salem, Oregon. After receiving feedback from these forums, the task force will provide policy recommendations to the Secretary to increase landlord participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program.

The two studies which served as the impetus for the creation of the task force are titled “Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance in the Housing Choice Voucher Program” and “Urban Landlords and the Housing Choice Voucher Program: A Research Report.” The former study will be released in a month and looked at five cities: Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Fort Worth, Newark, and Washington, D.C. It found that many landlords did not accept vouchers, especially in high opportunity areas. The latter study examined three areas: Baltimore, Cleveland, and Dallas. It found that while many landlords appreciated the reliable rent payments of the Housing Choice Voucher program, they were frustrated with inspections and how housing authorities handle tenant disputes.

A summary of Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance in the Housing Choice Voucher Program can be found here. (The full study will be released next month.)

The Urban Landlords and the Housing Choice Voucher Program: A Research Report can be found here.

The Department’s press release on the new task force can be found here.

Federal Judge Dismisses AFFH Suit

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

In an opinion published on Friday, a federal judge dismissed a suit brought by several fair housing organizations. The fair housing groups wanted HUD to reinstate the local government assessment tool as part of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) process. The court found that the groups did not meet the requirements to sue and that even if they did, HUD should not be required to reinstate the local government tool.

After providing background information and describing the relevant law, the opinion discussed three issues. First, whether the fair housing groups had standing (i.e., met the legal requirements to sue); second, whether the fair housing groups were entitled to a preliminary injunction reinstating the assessment tool for local governments; and third, whether New York State could join the suit. The court found that the fair groups lacked standing (i.e., did not meet the legal requirements to bring suit); that even if they had standing, they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction ordering that the local government tool be reinstated; and that New York State could not join the suit.

Fair Housing Groups Lack Standing

The court found that the fair housing groups lacked standing and could not bring a suit. Although the court found multiple reasons why the fair housing groups lacked standing, the court focused most of its analysis on how there was a lack of injury to the fair housing groups by the withdrawal of the local government tool. The court found that the withdrawal of the local government tool did not impair the mission of the fair housing groups because many aspects of the AFFH rule remain in place, including the new community participation requirements, which give the fair housing groups continuing opportunities to participate in a more robust Analysis of Impediments (AI) process. The court also found that withdrawal of the local government tool did not cause a drain of the fair housing groups’ resources because they are engaged in the same types of activities that they were undertaking before the withdrawal of the local government tool and because withdrawal of the tool does not require that the groups spend more on operational costs. Finally, the court also found that the fair housing groups lacked the other elements of standing–causation and redressability.

Fair Housing Groups Not Entitled to a Preliminary Injunction

The court found that even if the fair housing groups had standing, they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. Again, although there were several reasons why they were not entitled to a preliminary injunction, the court focused its analysis on showing why the fair housing groups were unlikely to succeed on the merits of the case. First, the court noted that withdrawal of the local government tool did not require notice-and-comment procedures (these are the procedures used in the informal rulemaking process when an agency is creating a regulation) because the local government tool is properly characterized as an “information collection” and not subject to notice-and-comment procedures. Second, the court found that the withdrawal of the tool was not arbitrary or capricious because HUD provided adequate reasoning for its decision to withdraw the local government tool (HUD noted the high failure rate of program participants to submit acceptable first-time submissions and the high costs of scaling up technical assistance for future submissions). The court also did not find the other factors needed for a preliminary injunction including a risk of irreparable harm, a balance of equities in favor of the fair housing groups, or an accord with the public interest.

New York State May Not Join the Suit

The court found that New York State may not join the suit because, like the fair housing groups, it lacked standing because of a lack of injury.

The full opinion can be found here.

HUD Files Complaint Against Facebook

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

On Friday, HUD published a press release announcing that it was filing a housing discrimination complaint against the social networking site Facebook. The Department claims that Facebook has a series of options which allow advertisers to control which groups can see their advertisements. By allowing advertisers to restrict certain groups–defined by protected characteristics–from viewing advertised housing, HUD believes that Facebook is discriminating.

For example, advertisers may restrict the viewing pool of users based on protected characteristics like race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability. Facebook mines data on its users and classifies its users based on protected characteristics. Advertisers may then choose to restrict which groups see their advertisements based on those groups’ interests. The Department found that Facebook allows the following:

  • Advertisers to discriminate based on sex by showing ads only to men or women;
  • Advertisers to discriminate based on disability by not showing ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in things like assistance dogs or mobility scooters;
  • Advertisers to discriminate based on familial status by not showing ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in things like child care or parenting;
  • Advertisers to discriminate based on national origin by not showing ads to users whom are interested in certain countries or geographical regions like Latin America or China; and
  • Advertisers to discriminate based on race or color by allowing advertisers to advertise to certain zip codes.

The Department’s press release can be found here.

The Department’s complaint can be found here.