**[Resident Involvement/Self Sufficiency Notes]{.underline}**

**Public Housing Administrative Reform Initiative**

**All-Day Meeting/Conference Call**

**July 24, 2007**

-   **[Attendees]{.underline}**: Chairs: Mae Bradley and Joy Johnson;
    HUD: Marianne Nazzaro (notetaker), Kathryn Greenspan, Melosan Bell;
    Group: Joe Feuerhert, Victor Bach, Jack Cooper, Crystal Palmer, Mary
    Wiggins

-   **[I. Welcome­]{.underline}:** Mae welcomed everyone to the meeting.
    Everyone introduced themselves and briefly described their roles in
    their jobs. Marianne asked everyone in the group to review their
    contact information (posted on the website) and email any
    corrections to Marianne. The group identified a need for training on
    asset management from HUD (and perhaps CLPHA). This training is
    tentatively scheduled for the August 8^th^ conference call. Group
    would like sections of the Statute pertaining to resident
    involvement to be posted on website.

-   **[II. Notes:]{.underline}** July 18^th^ notes accepted.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[III. Recap of 7/18/07 Conference Call]{.underline}** -- The group
    briefly reviewed the flat rent schedule to ensure that the Chicago
    residents concerns were addressed. CHA residents noted that the
    housing authority did not dialogue with the resident community or
    take their comments into consideration when developing the rent
    policies. The group recognized that, as an MTW agency, CHA's
    specific example is unique, but the overarching concern is that
    residents are involved in any discussion regarding changing the rent
    policy from the beginning, not after the policy has been developed.

> [Recommendations]{.underline}:

-   Resident feedback should be solicited from the beginning of any
    discussions regarding change in rent policy, not after the housing
    authority has developed the policy.

-   Resident participation should not be waivable when changing rent
    policy.

> [Action Items]{.underline}:

-   Joe to send language from Housing Innovations Program amendment to
    the SEVRA legislation regarding resident participation. The group
    may want to provide similar language as a recommendation.

-   Marianne and the Chicago group to talk offline about their specific
    experience with the housing authority and resident participation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[IV. Discussion --]{.underline}**

1.  **[FSS Program]{.underline}**: No one on the call had specific
    comments, so the discussion on FSS Program was tabled for now.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **[Right to return after demolition (HOPE VI; tax credit;
    non-H6/mixed income) Issues]{.underline}**:

-   The housing authority may not be able to locate residents that have
    been relocated, so those residents are losing their right to return
    to the revitalized development. Displaced residents do not always
    know how to access satellite offices.

-   Section 8 database (which should have a record of all residents who
    are using vouchers) does not always seem to be linked with the
    housing authority.

-   Residents may not meet the site-specific criteria, and are therefore
    unable to return to the development.

-   Some residents lose their voucher because they are not used to
    living in the community (eg, paying utilities, etc.).

-   Families are not always able to find suitable housing with a
    voucher, and sometimes lose the voucher because it takes so long to
    find a unit.

-   Returning families may earn an income that is above the income
    guidelines for a tax credit unit.

> [Recommendations]{.underline}:

-   Housing authorities should work with residents that are being
    displaced before they are actually displaced and throughout the
    entire displacement process. Housing authorities should either
    provide services themselves, or work with service providers, to
    provide services to residents throughout the entire displacement
    process.

-   Residents should know the site-specific requirements to return
    before they are displaced so they know what to work towards as the
    development is being revitalized.

-   In order for the resident organization to be able to provide
    services and track residents throughout the displacement, they
    should be provided with the off-site addresses of all displaced
    residents.

-   There should be a priority for all previous residents to return to
    the development.

-   Housing authority should demonstrate that they have made their best
    effort to track all of the residents and have provided follow-up
    services. Tracking systems of all resident programs should be
    revisited to determine what works and what are the areas for
    improvement. Resident organizations should be involved in this
    process.

> [Action Items]{.underline}:

-   Mae/Crystal/Kathryn will draft language that addresses any time
    residents are displaced due to HUD redevelopment.

-   Joe sent link to House Financial Services Committee hearing, which
    provides an overview of Congress' view on the right to return.

    -   <http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht0621072.shtml>

-   Joe sent link to Urban Institute Report study on HOPE VI.

    -   <http://www.urban.org/projects/hopevi/index.cfm>

2.  **[Neighborhood gentrification resulting from asset
    management]{.underline}**: City money (CDBG) has been used to build
    homes around public housing, and the public housing residents cannot
    afford the homes, as the value of housing around redeveloped sites
    has skyrocketed. It was noted that residents could organize to deal
    with the City on how it allocates the CDBG funds. A question was
    raised on how to ensure that asset management does not put residents
    in the place of having public housing stay strong and stable as the
    community develops around it. How can residents help this process?
    Public housing should develop with the community, not be swallowed
    by gentrification. One impact of gentrification on asset management
    is that increases the rent. Another impact of asset management is
    that it could force housing authorities to sell off some
    developments, which some members of the group do not support. An
    overarching concern is that HUD subsidies are not enough to keep the
    communities from deteriorating. The underfunding of public housing
    will lead to deterioration and distress.

> [Recommendations]{.underline}:

-   Operating subsidy and capital fund budgets should be fully funded.

-   Asset management should be limited to housing authorities with more
    than 500 units of public Housing and Urban Development.

-   HUD should encourage fungibility across developments. For example,
    when one development has excess funds, the housing authority should
    be able to move this money to other developments.

> [Action Item]{.underline}:

-   Joe sent one-pager of the industry groups' recommendations for the
    successful implementation of asset management.

3.  [**PHA Policies on whether to apply for grants**:]{.underline} Group
    members expressed concern that the housing authorities do not always
    apply for grant opportunities that they are eligible for, or that
    the resident association asks them to apply for. Supportive
    services, such as opportunities for youth, elderly, substance abuse,
    etc., are necessary in order for a family to achieve
    self-sufficiency. How can the resident organization encourage the
    housing authority to apply for such grants, or to support the
    resident association in building partnerships with local community
    providers? The housing authority argues that it is in the business
    of "housing," not "services." Residents should have a right to have
    working relationships with housing authority managers that improve
    the quality of life of its residents.

> [Recommendations]{.underline}:

-   Increase ROSS funding.

-   Bring back the drug elimination program.

-   Fund programs for youth and elderly.

-   HUD should tell housing authorities that as resident councils
    develop concerns and want programs regarding quality of life issues,
    the housing authority should work with the RC.

-   HUD should maximize it efforts to fund and promote services to the
    public housing community, either through the housing authority or by
    service organizations chosen by the resident councils.

-   HUD should build relationships with other federal departments (eg.,
    HHS, Ed, Labor) similar to the relationships that were build under
    the Kemp Administration, to support initiatives to support the
    quality of life of residents.

4.  **[HUD enforcement of regulations]{.underline}**: 24CFR964 provides
    that when a resident council wants to develop bilaws with a housing
    authority, the HA should negotiate. The resident council can ask HUD
    to mediate if necessary. The group discussed the possibility of
    using an MOU as a tool to clarify the relationship between the
    housing authority, the resident council, whether it is site-specific
    or jurisdiction-wide, and the local community.

> [Recommendation]{.underline}:

-   Housing authorities should develop an MOU with resident associations
    that cover all 10 areas listed as sub-groups under the
    administrative reform initiative.
    [www.masslegalhelp.org](http://www.masslegalhelp.org/) provides
    sample MOUs, using the requirements in 24CFR964 and clearly defining
    roles and responsibilities.

> [Action Item]{.underline}:

-   Jack will draft language for the recommendation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **[V. Follow-up:]{.underline}**

    1.  All group members -- review contact information on the website
        and send any changes to Marianne/Ron.

    2.  Marianne -- have relevant sections of the Statute to be posted
        on the website

    3.  Victor - draft guiding principles -- will email to co-chairs and
        facilitators, who will review and send to the group.

    4.  Joe -- send language from Housing Innovations Program amendment
        to the SEVRA legislation regarding resident participation.

    5.  Marianne and the Chicago group - talk offline about their
        specific experience with the housing authority and resident
        participation.

    6.  Joe -- Provided link to Financial Services Committee re HOPE VI
        reauthorization:

    7.  Joe -- Provided Urban Institute Report study on HOPE VI

    8.  Mae/Crystal/Kathryn - Draft language that addresses any time
        residents are displaced due to HUD redevelopment.

    9.  Joe sent one-pager of the industry groups recommendations for
        the successful implementation of asset management.

    10. Jack - draft language regarding the recommendation for housing
        authorities to develop and implement MOUs with resident councils
        and the local community.

    11. Reach out to members of the group that represent the West or
        South.

-   **[VI. Upcoming Meetings:]{.underline}**

**[Wednesday, August 1, 2007]{.underline}** at 10:30 AM-- 12:00 PM EST

Call-in number - 1-866-209-3385; passcode -- 10240749

-   Group members will briefly provide a description of related
    regulations:

    -   24 CFR 964 -- Victor

    -   24 CFR 963 -- Chicago members (Mary Wiggins; Crystal Palmer)

    -   24 CFR 135 -- Mae Bradley

    -   24 CFR 984 - Joy

**[Wednesday, August 8, 2007]{.underline}** at 10:30 AM-- 12:00 PM EST

Call-in number - 1-866-209-3385; passcode -- 10240751

-   (tentative) Asset Management Training with HUD (and perhaps CLPHA)
    staff

**[Wednesday, August 15, 2007]{.underline}** at 10:30 AM-- 12:00 PM EST

Call-in number - 1-866-209-3385; passcode -- 10240752

-   (tentative) Discussion of 24 CFR 964