HUD

PHA AFH Tool updated by HUD

~ Georgi Banna ~ Leave a comment

An updated Public Housing Authority (PHA) Analysis of Fair Housing (AFH) Tool that takes into account public comments HUD received has been posted for public inspection. HUD continues to state that they are committed to issuing an additional AFH Tool specifically for Qualified-PHAs (QPHA.) To that end, the PHA AFH Tool is intended to be used by non-QPHAs and QPHAs that are collaborating with non-QPHAs.

HUD has made a number of updates to the PHA AFH Tool. The NAHRO Policy Team will continue to review and provide additional analysis of this notice. Below is a brief list of the PHA AFH Tool updates:

  1. QPHA Insert – This insert is to be used by QPHAs that collaborate with non-QPHAs and covers the required analysis of the QPHA’s service area.
  2. Contributing Factors – HUD added and made small changes to the descriptions of contributing factors.
  3. Disparities in Access to Opportunities – The number of questions has been reduced and references to PHA waiting lists have been removed.
  4. Disability and Access – Two additional question have been added to the tool that relate to interaction of PHAs and individuals with disabilities.
  5. Instructions – Various sections of the instructions have been updated to provide clarity.
  6. Fair Housing Analysis of Rental Housing – This section only applies to PHAs that administer a Housing Choice Voucher program and not to PHAs that are Public Housing only.
  7. Enhancements for PHAs in the Data and Mapping Tool – Specific maps and date related to PHAs are planned along with enhancing the functionality of the maps.

This notice requests comment be submitted within 30 days of issuance. HUD is requesting comment on the notice generally and on 15 specific questions, listed at the end of the notice. NAHRO members should review this notice and provide their comments to HUD. NAHRO will also be providing comment on behalf of our members.

Public inspection of the updated PHA AFH Tool can be done at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-22594.pdf.

HUD Finalizes Rule to Protect Victims of Harassment

~ Jenny Hsu ~ Leave a comment

HUD has announced that it will publish a final rule titled “Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Environment Harassment and Liability for Discriminatory Housing Practices under the Fair Housing Act” on September 14, 2016. This final rule will formalize the standards for use in investigations and adjudications involving allegations of harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. The rule defines and specifies how HUD will evaluate “hostile environment” and “quid pro quo” harassment claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and clarifies the operation of traditional principles of direct and vicarious liability in the FHA context. The final rule will become effective 30 days after it’s publication in the Federal Register.

During the proposed rulemaking stage of this final rule, NAHRO submitted comments to HUD commending the Department’s objective to protect individuals who experience harassment. NAHRO also expressed concerns over some aspects of the proposed rule, particularly the proposed rule’s definition of “direct liability” and the unintended consequences that may arise from that definition. Under the proposed rule, a housing provider and their employees and agencies would be held directly liable when it fails to “fulfill a duty to take prompt action to correct and end a discriminatory housing practice by a third-party.” NAHRO’s comment letter expressed concern over scenarios where the third party is outside the scope of control of the principal.

Along with the final rule, HUD’s Office of General Counsel is issuing Fair Housing Act guidance on local ‘nuisance ordinances’ that may lead to housing discrimination against survivors of domestic violence and other persons in need of emergency services. HUD’s press release on the final rule can be accessed here.

Deeper analysis of the final rule and guidance will be forthcoming for NAHRO members.

 

HUD to Release Long-Term Outcomes of Family Options Study

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

On October 25, HUD will release the long-term outcomes of the Family Options Study. The study was a “multi-site random assignment experiment designed to study the impact of various housing and services interventions for homeless families.” Homeless families across the nation in twelve communities were assigned one of four possible interventions:

  1. subsidy only;
  2. project-based transitional housing;
  3. community-based rapid re-housing; or
  4. usual care.

Families were tracked for a minimum of 37 months and metrics on housing stability, family preservation, adult well-being, and self-sufficiency were collected.

HUD will be announcing the long term results of the interventions on October 25. The event can be attended in person at the Brooke-Mondale Auditorium at HUD Headquarters or via webcast.

Register for the event here.

HUD Webinar on Housing Mobility Resources and Initiatives

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

I received information from a HUD official about a webinar on Housing Mobility Resources and Initiatives on Thursday, September 22. Here’s the information that I received ( I also linked to information on the web about the panelists).

Housing Mobility Resources and Initiatives

To register, please complete the following steps:

  1. Please visit this link. This will expedite the process of joining the webinar on Sept. 22. The email confirmation of registration will include an Outlook calendar item that you can use to get the event on your calendar.
  2. If you have not used WebEx before, we suggest you install the WebEx Event Center ahead of time so you are ready to go when the event starts. You can do so by clicking on this link.
  3. If you haven’t installed the software ahead of time, it will automatically install when you start the webinar.  Installing it ahead of time will allow you to trouble shoot any problems that may arise ahead of time.
  4. On Sept. 22, before the 1 p.m. webinar starts, visit this link to start the webinar.
  5. You have two options for audio.  You can choose to access audio through the computer by selecting that option after starting the webinar or you can dial-in by phone using this conference line:

1-415-655-0002
Access code: 312 179 805.

HUD to Publish List of Regulatory Waivers Granted for the Second Quarter of CY 2016

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

On Monday, HUD will publish in the Federal Register a list of regulatory waivers that the agency has granted for the second quarter of calendar year 2016.

The pre-publication list can be found here.

(9/12/16 Edit – The published list in the Federal Register can be found here.)

UPCS-V Version 1.5 Released

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

 

upcs-vver1-5logo

HUD REAC’s Oversight and Evaluation Division (OED) has released Version 1.5 of the UPCS-V protocol. NAHRO is still in the process of reading through it, but will continue to provide our membership with additional information and updates on both the UPCS-V protocol and the Demonstration testing the inspection protocol. HUD is seeking feedback at OED@hud.gov.

The protocol can be found on OED’s homepage or can be directly accessed here.

Our prior coverage of the UPCS-V protocol Version 1.0 can be found here. (Members only.)

GAO Study: CDBG Communities Lack Alternative Sources of Income Data for Determining Project Eligibility

~ Jenny Hsu ~ Leave a comment

On September 6, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report examining HUD’s policies related to communities that disagree with their Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) eligibility determinations based on 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data.The findings of the report are based on the GAO’s analyses of ACS data and HUD’s policy guidance to grantees, as well as interviews with CDBG administrators, stakeholders and community development groups, including NAHRO.

In order for a project to qualify for CDBG funding under the objective of providing benefit to low- and moderate-income (LMI) persons on an area basis, HUD instructs communities to use ACS data to show that a majority of the proposed service area consists of LMI residents. Some communities believe the ACS produces inaccurate results due to its smaller sample size and larger error rates. When a community disagrees with an eligibility determination, local income surveys may be used instead.  However, the GAO finds a number of challenges small communities face when conducting local income surveys, including: resource constraints, administrative burdens, and difficulty obtaining a sufficient number of survey responses. Furthermore, alternative ways to demonstrate eligibility are limited because other sources of income data are not as reliable and comprehensive compared to the ACS.

The GAO report does not make any specific recommendations to Congress on the sources of data issue, but it does point out that the Census Bureau is currently exploring ways to use external data, such as data from the Social Security Administration and IRS, to supplement the ACS. These recommendations are expected by March 2017.

Learn more about this GAO report in the September 15, 2016 edition of the NAHRO Monitor.

Handling Conflicts of Interest

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

On September 6, HUD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a bulletin titled “7 Keys to Handling Conflicts of Interest.” Conflicts occur when “officials or staff stand to benefit–either directly themselves or indirectly through business partners or relatives–from the awarding or contracting of grant funds.” The bulletin lists points to remember when handling conflicts of interest:

  1. Know the Requirements;
  2. Train Employees;
  3. Create Procedures to Document Compliance;
  4. Implement the Regulations;
  5. Know the Consequences;
  6. Request an Exception; and
  7. Get Help.

The full bulletin, with examples, can be found here.

NAHRO Attends Two-Day Research Advisory Committee Meeting on MTW Expansion

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

NAHRO attended the two day public meeting of the Moving To Work (MTW) Research  Advisory Committee held on September 1, 2016 and September 2, 2016. While a complete summary of the entire two-day meeting is outside the scope of this blog post, the Committee made some preliminary determinations of the policy interventions for the new MTW cohorts.

Each cohort will receive standard MTW flexibilities, except for where those flexibilities may conflict with a policy intervention being tested. The following policy interventions were the ones that the Committee determined HUD should further examine when moving forward with the expansion:

  1. General MTW Flexibilities – Cohort of 30 agencies (possibly two cohorts of 15 agencies each) which would be given all general MTW flexibilities. Would be restricted to only small agencies and would be compared to a control group of small agencies to test the effects of the “standard MTW package.”
  2. Rent Reform – This cohort would test the efficacy and tenant impact of stepped rent and possibly also flat rent and tiered rent.
  3. Project-Based Voucher Caps –  This cohort would test the effects of removing or increasing PBV caps.
  4. Sponsored-Based Housing – A cohort that would test the effect of sponsored-based housing. It is unclear what specific type of sponsor-based housing or the vulnerable population affected would be. The Committee was split on whether to recommend this.
  5. Landlord Incentives – This cohort would test a “satchel” of flexibilities (e.g., increased payment standards, cash to landlords, inspection flexibilities, etc.) to determine their combined effect. Agencies will be able to pick and choose which tools in the “satchel” they utilize.
  6. Place-Based Model – This cohort would try to measure the effects of place-based strategies towards housing. The was discussed very quickly at the end of the two-day long meeting.

These were the Committee’s recommendations to HUD about how it should move forward, but these policy interventions are not necessarily the ones with which HUD will choose to move forward. Everything is subject to change.

This was my recollection of the end of the two-day long meeting, but if you attended the meeting, either in-person or by phone, and want to add something, please feel free to leave a comment on this post.

Additional information will be posted on HUD’s MTW Expansion website located here.

HUD Publishes Lead-Based Paint Proposed Rule

~ Tushar Gurjal ~ Leave a comment

(9/6/16 Update: The published Federal Register notice can be found here. Comments are due by October 31, 2016.)

Tomorrow, HUD will publish its lead-based paint proposed rule titled “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance; Response to Elevated Blood Lead Levels” in the Federal Register. While NAHRO is still in the process of doing a deeper dive into the proposed rule, here are some of the core requirements being proposed.

  • Program Scope –  The proposed rule will apply to the following 5 sets of programs:
    • Project-Based Assistance Provided by non-HUD Federal Agencies;
    • Project-Based Assistance;
    • HUD-owned and Mortgagee-in-Possession Multifamily Property;
    • Public Housing Programs; and
    • Tenant-Based Rental Assistance.
  • Effective Date –  HUD is considering an effective date of 6 months after publication of the final rule, but is also looking at time periods of either 1 year or 1 month.
  • Elevated Blood Lead Level –  The rule proposes to revise the Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR) to adopt the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) approach to establishing a blood lead level for which the CDC recommends environmental intervention. Currently, CDC guidance defines Elevated Blood Lead Level (EBLL) in children under age 6 to be “based on the blood lead level equaled or exceeded by 2.5 percent of U.S. children aged 1 – 5 years.” The current reference range level is 5 or more micrograms per deciliter of lead in the blood. As the CDC is “tying the reference value to the national distribution of blood lead levels, the reference level will continue to decrease whenever progress is made on reducing childhood lead exposure.”
  • Inspection, Evaluation, and Control Activities –  Depending on the program, lead-based paint inspections, inspections for deteriorated paint, and risk assessments including dust-wipe sampling and soil sampling may be required.
  • Abatement Measures –  Public Housing must perform abatement measures to eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards during comprehensive modernization.
  • Interim controls and Paint Stabilization –  Depending on the program, additional interim controls (measures designed to reduce temporarily human exposure or likely exposure to lead-based paint hazards) or paint stabilization (repairing physical defects and applying a new coating of paint) may be required.
  • Response to Young Children with Elevated Blood Levels –  If a child under 6 has an elevated blood lead level, the owner or other entity must follow a designated protocol (same for all programs, except non-HUD project-based assistance, for which it is narrower) including:
    • Conducting an environmental investigation;
    • Conducting interim control – measures designed to reduce temporarily human exposure or likely exposure to lead-based paint hazards;
    • Controlling other housing-related sources of lead exposure; and
    • Encouraging occupants to address other non-housing related lead exposure sources.
  • Other units –  If the unit where the child resides is in a building or development with other assisted dwelling units covered by the rule, the owner or other entity must provide documentation to the HUD field office that the owner or other entity has complied with the evaluation requirements. If there is no documentation of compliance with the evaluation requirements, the owner or other entity must conduct a risk assessment and conduct interim controls or conduct a visual assessment and paint stabilization–depending on the program.
  • Comments –  HUD has 4 questions for comment each with subparts.

NAHRO will continue to read and analyze this rule and will provide additional, deeper coverage to its members. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The pre-publication proposed rule can be found here.

HUD’s Press Release on the rule can be found here.