NCIL Response to Request for Comments on HUD\'s Draft Section 504
Self-Evaluation Report on HUD-Conducted Programs and Activities

July 22, 2005

Re: Docket No. FR-4994-N-01; HUD-2005-0012

NCIL submits the following comments in response to the above-referenced
notice. This is by no means a thorough treatment of the issue. As other
groups have noted, the unusually tight timeframe for comments rendered
it virtually impossible to prepare a comprehensive response.

The National Council on Independent Living, as a membership
organization, advances independent living and the rights of people with
disabilities through consumer-driven advocacy. Our organization strives
to realize a world in which people with disabilities are valued equally
and participate fully.

We do not believe that the report is comprehensive. Appendix III, which
should include the sample worksheet used by Section 504 evaluation teams
is missing. Information on action plans from the regional offices in
Atlanta and Fort Worth were omitted. HUD failed to include any
information on its field offices.

HUD's reasonable accommodation policy was referenced in the report, but
not explicitly stated in the report. Rather readers were referred to the
HUD website and some commenters had difficulty finding it. In our view,
that is unacceptable. HUD's reasonable accommodation policy should be
spelled out in this report and in communications with grantees, public
housing authorities and others who are expected to comply with the
requirements of Section 504.

We object to the suggestion that procurement policies such as FAR and
HUDAR take precedence over the goals of accessibility and inclusion that
are at the core of Section 504.

In addition, we do not understand why HUD has narrowly tailored its 504
self-evaluation to the internal operations and physical structure of its
headquarters and regional offices. Why has HUD failed to examine the
policies, procedures and operations of programs under the agency\'s
jurisdiction such the policies around multi-family housing for people
with disabilities under Title VI-D, when these policies and procedures
were the focal point of the Section 504 complaint filed against HUD in
early 2001? In this self-evaluation HUD has also failed to devote
appropriate attention to the compliance of public housing authorities
and other HUD grantees with their requirements under Section 504.

Furthermore, we object to the fact that many of the corrective action
plans that are provided in the self evaluation defer needed changes to
HUD's physical plant for several years. The self-evaluation itself was
long overdue. It is time for HUD to face up to its responsibilities and
take the prompt and decisive action required to make the policies,
procedures and physical plant of HUD compliant with Section 504.

As you consider your next steps, we also encourage you to review the
recommendations of NCIL's housing policy position paper, which is
available online at
<http://www.ncil.org/advocacy/positions/housing.html>.

Finally, NCIL respectfully requests that you provide a 60-day comment
period, which should begin upon the release of a more comprehensive
report, including the omitted Appendix III worksheets and the missing
action plans from the Atlanta and Fort Worth Regional Offices.

Submitted by Daniel Davis

Policy Analyst

National Council on Independent Living

1916 Wilson Blvd Suite 209

703-525-3406 ext 26

e-mail <Daniel@ncil.org>