JFActivist

Justice Department Settles Discrimination Case with Connecticut Landlord

________________________________________________________________________

 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SETTLES DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CASE

WITH CONNECTICUT LANDLORD FOR $115,000

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today announced a $115,000 consent decree settlement to resolve a lawsuit alleging that a Windsor Locks, Conn., landlord violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a tenant’s requests for a reasonable accommodation.

The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 1, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleges that Mahmoud M. Hussein refused to grant a reasonable accommodation from his no-pets policy so that his tenant’s minor daughter could work with an assistance dog to help with her cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, and depression.  The lawsuit further alleges that Hussein retaliated against the mother and daughter after they attempted to exercise their rights under the Fair Housing Act by refusing to renew their annual lease and beginning eviction proceedings.  The tenant and her daughter filed a separate lawsuit that also will be resolved by the consent decree.

Under the consent decree, which is pending approval by the court, the defendant will pay $115,000 in monetary relief, including $102,000 to compensate the tenant and her daughter and $13,000 in attorneys fees.  Additionally, the defendant will attend fair housing training;  implement a reasonable accommodation policy; and comply with notice, monitoring and reporting requirements.

“In this case, a child with severe disabilities was denied an assistance animal,” said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We are pleased that this settlement will compensate the child’s family and protect their housing rights.”

The lawsuit arose as a result of a complaint filed by the tenant on behalf of herself and her daughter with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). After an investigation of the complaint, HUD issued a charge of discrimination, and the complainant elected to have the case heard in federal court.   

The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status.  Since Jan. 1, 2001, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has filed 247 cases to enforce the Fair Housing Act, 117 of which have alleged discrimination based on disability.  More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt.  Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of housing discrimination can call the Housing Discrimination Tip Line (1-800-896-7743), email the Justice Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov, or contact the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at 1-800-669-9777.   

# # #

2006 Low Income Housing Tax Credits

From Steve Gold:

2006 Low Income Housing Tax Credits and the Lowest-Income Persons with Disabilities

Information Bulletin #245

Progress is slow but steady. In previous Information Bulletins, we explained how the Low Income Housing Tax Credits were NOT being targeted to people with the lowest incomes. Don't get too excited, because nirvana has not YET been achieved, but the 2006 data shows some small progress. However, once again, there are tremendous discrepancies among the states.

As background, each year each State's Housing Finance Agency receives a per capita amount of housing tax credits from the IRS that a State can award. Each year, each State must publish a "Qualified Allocation Plan" in which "points" are awarded to developers of rental properties who bid to receive the LIHTC.

Please remember that the "demand" for LIHTCs exceeds the supply by two to three to one. Therefore, each State could [if the State wanted to] award "points" for projects that "target" units to persons whose incomes are either at the SSI level (Pennsylvania, for example, does that) or at < 30% AMI. Clearly, developers want these LIHTC so badly and they are so competitive that developers will agree to target to the lowest income people IF the State Housing Finance Agency provides an incentive to target the lowest income people! [Remember, SSI is at about 18% of the AMI, so we really need to target at the SSI level.]

Advocates: whether a State Housing Finance Agency awards points depends on your advocacy skills! If your State's QAP does not award extra points to developers who agree to target a percentage of the units to the lowest income [and agree to make those units fully accessible], then developers will not do it.

Here is the list by State [from the 2006 NCSHA Annual Survey Results] and the % of the units targeted < 30% of the AMI:

...Read the rest of Steve's bulletin.

Advocates Sue NJ Dept. of Human Services for Failing to Provide Community Housing

From The Star-Ledger:

State is sued over housing for developmentally disabled
Advocates say many have been kept on waiting list for a decade

Thursday, April 17, 2008
BY SUSAN K. LIVIO

A legal advocacy group and a prominent law firm yesterday sued the Department of Human Services, saying 8,000 developmentally disabled people have had their rights violated because they have been waiting -- some for a decade -- to move into government-sponsored community housing.

The federal lawsuit alleges the state is failing to meet its legal responsibility to provide housing for people who want or need to live outside of their family homes. The department has established a waiting list, but few ever leave it unless...

...Read more.

Making the Case to Increase 504's Minimum Housing Accessibility Requirements

From Steve Gold:

Increasing Section 504's Minimum 5%/ 1%/ 1%. 
Information Bulletin #244 (4/08)

In earlier Information Bulletins, we explained that HUD's regulations for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require that a minimum of 5% of housing units (which receives federal financial assistance) must be accessible to persons with mobility disabilities and another 1% each forpersons with hearing and visual disabilities.

The 5%1%/1% minimum was established in 1988 when HUD promulgated its Section 504 regulations and has never been revised or updated.  This minimum is no longer in tune with current statistics or data.

We need to request and demonstrate to HUD that it must increase the 5%/1%/1% for accessible housing in all federally funded programs (HOME, CDBG, and public housing) in your geographic area. There is a federal regulation that authorizes this increase.  24 Code of Federal Regulations section 8.22 (c), states that HUD "may prescribe a higher percentage[than 5%] ... upon request... by any affected recipient ... or agency ...based upon demonstration to the reasonable satisfaction of HUD of a need for a higher percentage ... based on census data...."

Here's how we can demonstrate the need for a higher percentage of accessible units than 5%/1%/1% so that your local Section 504 minimum requirements will more accurately reflect the number of persons with mobility disabilities who require accessible units. Go to http://factfinder.census.gov, click on data sets, then the 2006 American Community Survey, select your geographic location, then click on Subject Tables, then disability characteristics.

As an example, I will use data for the entire United States as an example. Please keep in mind that both the census and the American Community Survey data includes only the "noninstitutionalized" population, i.e., it does not include any people in nursing homes or in intermediate care facilities for those with [Moderator: intellectual disabilities].

First, in the U.S., the entire population 5 years and older is about 274 million people, of whom 6.8% (18.6 million) have one disability and another 8.3% (22.7 million) have two or more disabilities.  Yes, the 2006 Census identifies 15.1%.  That is a total of the 41.3 million noninstitutionalized people five years and older identified by the 2006 Census' American Community Survey update as having at least one disability.

Looking at persons five years and older with a "physical disability",there are about 26 million people - that's 9.5% of the population.  People five years and older with a "sensory disability" are 11.5 million - nearly 4.2%. These figures include people at any income level, not just lower income people who would qualify for federally funded housing - and do not break down "physical disability" by type.

Second, the 2006 Census' American Community Survey breaks this data downby "poverty."  In 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services defined poverty for one person to be $10,400, two persons $14,000, and four persons $21,200.  Therefore, every individual receiving SSI ($637 federal minimum in 2008) is in poverty and every couple receiving SSI($959 federal minimum) is in poverty.  These people are noninstitutionalized and should be factored in to the minimum Section 504 accessible units necessary in your area.

Of the total people with incomes below the poverty level and with one ormore disabilities not in institutions, there were about 21.5% of the 5-year and older population - nearly 9 million disabled persons.  (Compare that with 11.2% of the population without a disability who were below the poverty level.  If you're in poverty, you're nearly twice as likely to be disabled.)

Third, since about 60% of the persons in nursing homes (institutionalized and therefore not included in the 2006 Census American Community Survey) are on Medicaid, they are nearly all in poverty. These people and disabled persons in ICF-MRs are not included in the ACS 9 million persons with disabilities in poverty. (You can find the number of people in nursing facilities in your state by type of disability in the CMS Minimum Data Sets and the number in ICF-MRs in Braddock "State of the States.")

Many of these institutionalized people are there because they cannot find affordable, accessible housing. These institutionalized people must be included when you're computing the minimum Section 504 accessible units required in your area.

Fourth, we know from the 2006 Census American Community Survey there are 5.5 million people in the United States with a physical disability and in poverty, and another 2.3 million with a sensory disability and in poverty (again, institutionalized people are not included in these figures).  Find out the information for your area and use it to demonstrate the need for more than the 5%/1%/1% minimum of 1988.

Fifth, keep in mind that most federally funded housing programs are no longer only for, or even primarily for, persons whose income places them in poverty.  Housing Authorities can rent to persons up to 80% of Average Median Income and HOME rental funds can be used for persons at 60% AMI.  The accessibility needs of people with incomes up to the relevant specific housing program should also be included, again increasing the number and percentage of accessible units that far exceed 5%.

Sixth, we know from HUD's CHAS 2000 census data (it is available by state, city or county) that for families who are renters and whose family income is < =30% area median income, about 28 - 31% have a "mobility and self-care impairment."  They need accessible units!

Therefore, with the SSI level at about 15% of the AMI and at only 74% ofthe poverty level, with the "poverty" level at only about 40% of the AMI, with federally financed housing programs targeting persons far above the poverty level, and with the CHAS data demonstrating nearly 30% of people below 30% of the AMI have a mobility and self care impairment, the Section504 minimum is far, far lower than the 2006 Census American Community Survey's "poverty" findings and far lower than the 2000 CHAS data.

Yes, there are a number of steps and yes, it is complicated.  Nevertheless, here' the process to use in requesting HUD to increase the 5%/1%/1% Section 504 minimum.

~Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues

HUD's Consolidated Plans and Housing "Cost Burdens"

From Steve Gold:

HUD's Consolidated Plans and Housing "Cost Burdens"
Information Bulletin #241

In March 2006, HUD promulgated new Consolidated Plan requirements in the Federal Register. Participating jurisdictions that receive federal HOME Investment Partnership funds and Community Development Block Grant funds must complete Consolidated Plans.

The "new" Consolidated Plan requirements emphasize identifying "need" and assigning a "priority" to each need. After these have been identified, jurisdictions that receive HOME and CDBG funds must indicate, for five years, how much money from these funds will be allocated to meet the identified "needs" and "priorities."

For example, if renters whose household incomes are at or below 30% of your area's "area median income" (aka "median family income") are identified as having a housing need and it's a "high" need, then some of the HOME and/or CDBG funds should address them. If they're not identified as having a very high need, then shame on you; your advocacy should be reexamined.

Here's one idea how disability housing advocates might use the Consolidated Plan process to increase HOME's tenant-based rental assistance, aka housing subsidies in your area. It's a two-stepper.

First, HUD instructs jursidictions that to determine housing need in the ConPlan they should use data from HUD's SOCDS:CHAS, i.e.,State of the Cities Data Source: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy.

Second, HUD also defines that households should pay approximately no more than 30% of their income on housing costs, i.e., for renters that's both the rent plus utilities. For households which pay more than 30% of their household incomes on housing costs, they have, according to HUD, a "cost burden."

Go to the State of the Cities Data Systems website (or by going to HUD User website, click on CHAS Data and then click on the "nonframe version of CHAS.") Under "housing problems," click on your State and then the specific jurisdiction you want. You can then see, e.g., for "All Renters" whose incomes are at or below the 30% of the AMI/FMI, the percentage of renters which spend MORE than 30% of their incomes for rent and utilities b they have a "cost burden." You can also see the percentage who pay MORE than 50% of their incomes for rent and utilities. They have a really big "cost burden." (The annual "Priced Out" reports from TAC, Inc., are also very helpful and should also be used.)

The larger the percentage of the lowest income families with severe "cost burdens," the great the housing need in your jurisdiction!  If your ConPlan does not use the CHAS information to identify as a priority need the percentage of households that have "cost burdens" and/or then does not allocate a reasonable portion of their HOME/CDBG for rental assistance for persons whose family incomes are at or below 30% of the AMI/FMI and whose "cost burdens" exceed 50% of their incomes, you should be asking HUD to not approve the ConPlan.

How could HUD approve a ConPlan where there is a significant percentage of the lowest income households (i.e., incomes at or under 30% of the AMI) with significant "cost burdens," but the ConPlan does not either identify this as a need and/or does not allocate rental assistance to alleviate that need?

New Jersey Housing Waiting List Exceeds 8.000

From the Star-Ledger (February 10):

N.J. fails to fulfill promise to house disabled
Waiting list for aid grows to more than 8,000 instead of being eliminated

BY SUSAN K. LIVIO

This was supposed to be the year of hope for thousands of families raising children with developmental and intellectual disabilities.

A state law enacted more than a decade ago promised a group home or apartment for disabled adults who longed for independence or whose parents needed respite after decades of physically and emotionally draining care.

With careful planning and steady investments, the law said, the waiting list of 4,700 people could be eliminated by 2008. Without it, the list would escalate to a staggering 7,500 people.

As of January -- the month the list was to have been eliminated -- there were more than 8,000 people waiting for housing assistance, according to budget records and state Department of Human Services statistics...

...Read more.

2006 Data for ILCs and Relocating People from Nursing Homes

From Steve Gold:

2006 Data for ILCs and Relocating People From Nursing Homes. 
Information Bulletin # 230 (12/07)

Earlier this year, we provided a breakdown by Independent Living Centers of the number of persons in 2005 that each center successfully relocated from nursing homes. We also provided national data for 2004.

Some ILCs questioned the accuracy of the data and RSA's reporting process.

Some were upset that we published the name of their ILC with the low numbers. Some thought that the ILC movement should not publicly provide the data. Please be very assured that my purpose of providing such data is to push a debate - not editorialize nor imply opinions - regarding the role of ICLs, and to move beyond whether we should be getting people out of nursing homes.

To recap, in 2004, there were 2,864 people ILCs reported to RSA, the federal funding agency, who were "successfully relocated" from a nursing facility to the community. In 2005, there were 2,867.

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, we obtained RSA data for 2006.

Even though we have this information by state and by ILC, we decided to summarize the data, instead of providing it by ILC.

These results are for only federally-funded ILCs as they reported the information to RSA.

The national total for 2006 was 2,631 people whom federally-funded ILCs relocated from nursing homes.

RSA had requested each ILC to set a goal of the number of people the ILC hoped/planned/set as a goal to relocate from the nursing homes. It also requested the actual number that the ILC relocated.

These 2,631 people represent 54% of the total number (i.e., 4,894) that the 354 federally-funded ILCs had hoped to relocate and had set as their goal. Here are the results.

17% of the ILCs had set a goal of relocating zero nursing home residents.

18% had set a goal of relocating one or two nursing home residents. 18% had set a goal of three to five. 10% had set a goal of six to nine. 18% had set a goal of ten to twenty. 19% had set a goal of twenty-one or more relocations.

If these goals had been met, then the ILCs would have relocated 4,894 people from nursing homes.

The actual accomplishments show that:

21.5% of the ILCs each relocated zero nursing home residents.

23.6% of the ILCs relocated one or two nursing home residents.

15.7% relocated three to five nursing home residents.

17.5% relocated six to nine residents.

11.5% relocated ten to twenty residents.

10% relocated more than 21 nursing home residents.

The ILCs in 2006 relocated a total of 2,631 people from nursing facilities.

These percentages present a number of questions:

1. Is there a correlation between the size of the ILCs and either the goals or their actual accomplishments? A correlation between amount of ILCs budgets and accomplishments?

2. Are ILCs who relocate more people making this a budget priority regardless of size of budget? Making this a primary service and providing the "core" required service to this population?

3. What is the relationship between a State's Medicaid "targeted case management" funds and the ILCs? Do ILCs contract with the Medicaid office who receive and use these funds relocate more people than ILCs that do not?

4. Is "success" even related to the numbers? Is it fair to use data? Is it fair or reasonable to presume that ILCs should be relocating persons from nursing homes?

5. What assistance would an ILC in your State need or want in order to increase their outreach to nursing home residents? Assistance in working with their Medicaid offices? Increasing affordable, accessible housing in existing federally funded programs?

6. Is it unfair to focus on this issue without also providing data for ILCs regarding, e.g., assistance in finding employment or housing, or in diverting people from going into the institutions and staying out?

7. What would it take to increase the numbers substantially?

8. What practices are the ILCs which relocated ten or more people doing that they can share with other ILCs? What barriers have they faced? What successes did they have? What is the forum for this dialogue to take place?

9. Why isn't there a national focus on this? What has happened to the Rehabilitation Act making this a "core" service?

~Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues