----

**Equal Housing Opportunities inNew York: An Evaluation of Section 8 Housing Programs in Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse**

----

**Chapter 8**

**Findings andRecommendations**

----

Accordingto information gathered at the factfinding meetings in Buffalo, Rochester, andSyracuse, the Section 8 rent subsidy program succeeded in assisting manyminorities in affording their homes, but failed in helping minorities to moveout of areas of high poverty or minority concentration. Contrary to therequirements of the Fair Housing Act, the Section 8 rent subsidy program inthese three regions of upstate New York has not been administered in a mannerthat �affirmatively furthers� fair housing.

Basedon the data presented at these factfinding meetings and gathered subsequently,the Committee drew the following findings of fact and developed appropriate,remedial recommendations.

 

**1. HUDAdministration of Section 8**

***Findings***

Underits regulations, HUD is required to review Administrative Plans submitted byeach housing jurisdiction regarding how it intends to provide housingopportunities outside of low-income and minority-concentrated areas. HUD hasfailed to review these plans. When viewed in light of the unusually high degreeof racial segregation in these three metropolitan areas, HUD�s failure toensure that the Section 8 program affirmatively furthers fair housing isconsequential and takes on added significance. 

Before1995, all Housing Authorities (HAs) were required to submit for HUD approval anEqual Opportunity Housing Plan (EOHP) that included four regulatorily requiredobjectives to ensure nondiscrimination in their Section 8 programs. Since the1995 revision, however, the HAs are required to submit only an AdministrativePlan containing the same objectives. These objectives, though included in theplan, do not have the same regulatory enforceability as the EOHP.

HUDpublished a proposed regulation on December 2, 1996, to implement a mechanismfor systematic analysis of Section 8�s progress in assisting families inmoving to areas of lower poverty concentration. This mechanism called theSection 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) includes a requirement for�geocoding� or mapping of the location of current Section 8 apartments withrace and poverty data. Although such a mechanism would be helpful to address theconcerns identified in the Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse regions, theregulation is yet to be finalized and implemented.

Thereappears to be a conflict between two sets of regulations, a New York State lawand HUD�s �portability� regulations. New York State law allows publichousing authorities to administer Section 8 programs outside of their ownmunicipal boundaries, while HUD maintains a stricter standard. While the Buffaloand Rochester programs, with HUD�s acquiescence, routinely let subsidy holdersuse their subsidies throughout the region, as the State law allows, the Syracusearea programs invoke the far more burdensome requirement of the HUD portabilityregulations. This unresolved ambiguity between the HUD and State regulations hascaused a regional variation, creating sometimes an additional and unnecessarybarrier for Section 8 families that may significantly impede them from movingoutside of the city.

***Recommendation 1.1***

-  As    required by its regulations, HUD should conduct a thorough review of all    Administrative Plans to determine whether agencies are in compliance with    HUD fair housing regulations. This review should include a systematic    evaluation and monitoring of the compliance of the local administrator�s    Section 8 program, including outreach to landlords, testing for exclusionary    admissions policies, and providing affirmative mobility counseling.  Those    agencies not in compliance with HUD�s regulations, statutes, or grant    requirements should be sanctioned, including but not limited to conditioning    further HUD funding on substantial progress in meeting the statutory    requirement to affirmatively further fair housing, or when necessary, moving    the program funds to another organization that can demonstrate it will    promote fair housing.
***Recommendation 1.2***

HUDshould reinstate the Equal Opportunity Housing Plan as a regulatory requirementin order to ensure its enforceability. Alternatively, HUD should require thateach Section 8 program administrator prepare a �mobility plan� to beincorporated into its Section 8 administration contract with HUD. The housingadministrator should be obligated to evaluate critically mobility impedimentsand describe steps that will be taken to overcome them, including cooperatingwith other Section 8 housing agencies in the region.

***Recommendation 1.3***

HUDshould finalize the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) regulationswithout shying away from �geocoding� and other pertinent performancecriteria. Specifically, housing administrators should be required to preparemaps illustrating where Section 8 subsidies are being used along with race andpoverty census tract data in order to identify whether additional landlordoutreach and tenant counseling activities are necessary.

***Recommendation 1.4***

HUDshould consider relaxing its portability regulations to be more in line with NewYork State regulations that allow public housing authorities to administerSection 8 programs outside of their own municipal boundaries rather thantransferring subsidies or cross-billing each other if a subsidy holder movesfrom the primary service area of one program to that of another.

 

**2.Residency Requirements**

***Findings***

Ofthe 11 housing agencies that administer Section 8 programs in the three citiesstudied, 7 maintain residency requirements for their programs. The impact ofthese requirements is to deny inner-city minorities access to housing subsidiesavailable to suburban residents, consequently denying them access to housingopportunities equal to those of nonminority suburban families

HUDhas failed to conduct a required statistical analysis of the local residencypreferences in *any*of the three regions (either before or afterimplementation of the suburban residency preferences) to determine whether thoseresidency preferences have racially exclusionary effects. Because of theracially exclusionary, segregative impact of residency requirements, HUD may befailing to ensure that the Section 8 program affirmatively furthers fairhousing.

Residencypreferences used for the Belmont program are an impediment to housing choice forminorities. The provisions of the *Comer* consent decree do not eliminatethe residency preferences for the Belmont program, but only suspend them for aperiod of 5 years.

***Recommendation 2.1***

Currentresidency preferences in the suburban Section 8 programs should be eliminated inorder to give low-income minority families from high-poverty urban areas accessto the same housing opportunities available to the low-income, nonminorityresidents of the suburban areas.

***Recommendation 2.2***

HUDshould conduct a statistical analysis to test for racially discriminatoryeffects of current residency preferences prior to approving any new preferences.HUD should review preferences already in place, beginning with metropolitanareas characterized by high degrees of residential segregation. For newpreferences, HUD should compare the percentage of eligible minority Section 8renters in the region as a whole with the percentage of eligible minorityhouseholds in the geographic area that would benefit from the residencypreference. Based upon the results HUD should disapprove or invalidate anypreference that would have the effect of either excluding minorities or causingthem to wait longer for subsidies.

***Recommendation 2.3***

HUDshould not permit the reinstatement of the local residency requirements for theBelmont program until a critical statistical analysis is conducted to establishthat such a preference will no longer have a racially exclusionary effect.

 

**3.  Public Transportation**

***Findings***

Lackof adequate public transportation to outlying communities is a formidableimpediment to inner-city minorities in locating and renting housing and infinding employment in those areas. Lack of sufficient public transportationappears to be common to all three jurisdiction. 

***Recommendation 3.1***

Publictransportation authorities should establish a formal working relationship withthe local Section 8 housing agencies to consider providing improved publictransportation for minority Section 8 households seeking to move to or work inareas of lower poverty concentration. Additionally, this crucial publictransportation issue must become a priority not only for the Section 8 agenciesand the transportation authorities, but also for the municipalities themselves,as each has an independent obligation to overcome barriers to fair housing byvirtue of their receipt of HUD block grant funding for community developmentprograms.

 

**4.Sharing of Rental Listings**

***Findings***

Theregion�s Section 8 administrators do not share their rental housing listings.This failure is deliberate in some instances, and in other cases the omissionseems to be an inadvertent failure to cooperate on a regional basis to improvehousing opportunities. Regardless of its cause, not having a regionwide listmakes it difficult for minority renters to find housing in areas of lowerpoverty concentration. Moreover, without such lists renters from urban areas areforced either to expend their limited economic resources searching for betterhousing in suburban areas or to forego their search altogether.

Byallowing Belmont to continue to refuse access to rental lists to city subsidyholders, HUD has failed to comply with the settlement provisions of the *Comer*lawsuit. In fact, one subsidy holder went to Belmont four times to try to obtaina rental listing. Each time she was denied Belmont�s landlord list. To obtainthe list, she was forced to apply to the U.S. district court.

Theinvited representatives from the Belmont Shelter Corporation and the RentalAssistance Corporation declined to appear at the meeting. Public officials whorefuse to participate in factfinding meetings impede and obstruct the mission ofthe Committee and the Commission. To the Advisory Committee, this behavior inand of itself demonstrates a disconcerting disregard for the civil rightsrequirements of the Section 8 program. Moreover, the testimony of Buffalo areaprogram subsidy holders indicate that the Buffalo area Section 8 program is inneed of reform.

***Recommendation 4.1***

HUDshould require Section 8 administrators within each of the three regions to: 
-  Share    their rental listings not only with each other, but also with various    community organizations in the area.Develop    a single, consolidated regional rental list and make the list available    through a Web site so that Section 8 subsidy holders in search of housing in    low-poverty areas can visit public libraries or other community    organizations to access updated information.Show    subsidy holders how to find and use the Web site as part of their regular    briefing session for new program participants.
***Recommendation 4.2***

HUDshould investigate and determine why Belmont has refused to provide its landlordlist to families with subsidies from the RAC program. If found in violation, HUDshould sanction Belmont by conditioning its continuation as a Section 8administrator on the assurance of future compliance and that it will provide itsrental list to RAC on an ongoing basis. At a minimum, HUD must monitorBelmont�s compliance with this requirement.

***Recommendation 4.3***

Sincepublic officials who refuse to participate in factfinding meetings or sharepertinent information impede the information-gathering mission of the Committeeand the Commission, the Committee requests that the Commission clarify whatactions might be taken against such officials. Furthermore, a request should bemade to HUD to direct its officials to cooperate in the future. 

 

**5. Mobility Counseling Centers**

***Findings***

Ineach of the three regions studied, racial segregation goes hand in hand withareas of high concentration of poverty. Research shows that mobility counselingcenters are an effective tool in providing inclusive opportunities forminorities.

TheCommunity Housing Center, the counseling program for Buffalo, created in 1996 bythe *Comer* consent decree, has encountered delays in selecting itsadministrator and is not yet in operation.

TheRochester Housing Authority�s (RHA) mobility counseling center serves onlyinner-city program participants. The center does not provide counseling servicesto tenants who obtain their subsidies through one of the four suburban Section 8programs, including the three administered by RHA itself, even if a tenant iscurrently a resident of a high-poverty area. It is crucial that all households,regardless of location, be served equally.

WhileBuffalo and Rochester are at least slated to have mobility centers in theirregions, Syracuse is not. Although the Syracuse public housing agencies are inneed of mobility centers, they have not applied for authorization and fundingfor such centers.

***Recommendation 5.1***

HUDshould actively support enhanced mobility counseling programs in each of thethree regions. The mobility counseling programs should provide the followingfive services:
-  "Motivational    counseling" to provide information to Section 8 recipients on the    potential benefits of living in nonpoverty-concentrated neighborhoods.Logistic    information to assist Section 8 recipients in their search for housing.Skills    development to Section 8 recipients on how to enhance their appeal to    prospective landlords (e.g., appearance, interviewing skills), and to    ameliorate difficulties they may encounter (e.g., poor credit history, bad    landlord references).Information    on what steps to take if they believe they have encountered unlawful    discrimination.Followup    support services for households in adjusting to living in new neighborhoods.
Oncemobility counseling programs have been established in each of the three regions,HUD should facilitate greater communication with the counseling programs toensure the identification and adoption of the �best practices� models.

***Recommendation 5.2***

TheRochester mobility counseling program should be broadened to provide services toall Section 8 recipients, including tenants who obtain their subsidies throughthe suburban area Section 8 programs, so long as those tenants currently residein high-poverty areas and express a desire to look for housing in areas of lowerpoverty concentration.

***Recommendation 5.3***

Syracusepublic housing agencies should take steps to establish a mobility counselingcenter and HUD should encourage such a center in Syracuse.

 

**6.Security Deposits**

***Findings***

Highersecurity deposit requirements under new HUD regulations for Section 8certificate holders create a barrier to tenants looking for housing innonpoverty areas as they are now obligated to pay landlords higher securitydeposits for nonpoverty housing.

***Recommendation 6.1***

Resourcesshould be identified to assist families in meeting security deposit requirementssuch as a listing of local agencies that might provide assistance in the form ofloans or grants.

 

**7.Changes to Terms of Leases**

***Findings***

The1995 revisions of Section 8 regulations removed the indefinite term lease andthe �good cause� standard for eviction after the first year, thereby makingSection 8 leases more similar to other leases in the private rental market. Withthe agreement of the landlord, tenants now have an option to enter into leasesfor different terms, for example, either annual or month-to-month. 

***Recommendation 7.1***

HousingAuthorities should make tenants aware of their new rights to enter into definiteterm leases that are most beneficial for achieving mobility goals. For example,if a tenant finds an apartment in a low-poverty census tract, the tenant shouldbe informed it is beneficial to opt for a long-term lease. However, if thetenant is unable to find housing in a lower poverty area, but still desires todo so, the HA should advise the tenant of the option of a short-term leaseconsisting of a month-to-month tenancy or slightly longer period. The HAs shouldoffer short- and long-term lease forms for use by tenants.

 

**8.Assistance With Claims of Unlawful Discrimination**

***Findings***

Asminorities move to the suburbs and low-poverty areas they are likely toencounter discrimination. Therefore, an increased need exists for those movinginto such areas for advocacy services and dissemination of informationaddressing discrimination issues.

***Recommendation 8.1***

Section8 administrators should establish a consistent and effective method to educateSection 8 participants on identifying unlawful discrimination and disseminatespecific information describing their legal rights and recourses when they havebeen discriminated against unlawfully. In addition, the mobility centers shouldperiodically conduct housing discrimination seminars for their applicants andtenants. Finally, in order to make expeditious referrals, the HA shouldestablish and maintain a working relationship with local legal serviceproviders, such as legal services, local bar associations, and local privatefair housing enforcement agencies.

 

**9.Persons With Disabilities**

***Findings***

Section8 recipients with physical or mental disabilities face challenges in locatinghousing that accommodates their needs.

* **Recommendation 9.1***

Adatabase should be created to identify modified rental properties in bothpoverty and nonpoverty areas. The database should also include those landlordswilling to modify their properties. Lists of accessible options and programsthat fund these modifications should be provided to landlords.

 

**10. TheMultiple Application Process**

***Findings***

Requiringseparate applications for each local program creates excess paperwork andfrustrates applicants� efforts to obtain housing subsidies. None of theregions examined has a single areawide program administrator responsible for allSection 8 subsidies allocated to the region. The Buffalo Section 8 programs haveevolved into a system in which the suburban program serves primarily nonminorityhouseholds while the city program serves primarily black applicants. InRochester, although 85 percent of the area�s Section 8 subsidies are availablethrough a single program, an applicant is still required to submit fivedifferent applications to be considered for a subsidy from all the Section 8programs serving the Rochester area. Syracuse, like Buffalo, has two majorSection 8 programs, one serving predominantly black households, the other whitehouseholds. 

***Recommendation 10.1***

Themultiple application process should be eliminated because it is not onlyburdensome, but drains applicants� resources and morale and increases theprobability of bureaucratic errors. HUD should ultimately develop a computerizedapplication procedure so that application forms can be entered directly into alocal centralized network. In the interim, Section 8 administrators shouldvoluntarily agree among themselves, or be directed by HUD, to develop oneregionwide application form that can be photocopied for submission to allSection 8 programs.