----

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

----

**Introduction**

----

TodayAmerican neighborhoods remain deeply segregated on the basis of race andethnicity. A disproportionate number of black and Hispanic Americans still livein inner-city neighborhoods that are predominantly black or Hispanic, while mostwhite Americans live in neighborhoods that are predominantly or exclusivelywhite.1

Thepersistence of residential segregation in America�s metropolitan areas hasserious and far-reaching consequences. Fewer economic opportunities, inferioreducational facilities, and perpetuation of racial and ethnic prejudices arethree of these consequences. Residential segregation limits the ability ofminority families to move to neighborhoods where opportunities for economic andsocial mobility are greater. Recent evidence indicates that economicopportunities are expanding faster in the suburbs than in central cities, wheremost black and Hispanic neighborhoods are located.2

In New YorkState, the disparity in educational opportunities for urban minorities ispronounced. According to the 1997 State Education Department report to theGovernor and legislature, �high-minority schools . . . have the leastexperienced teachers, the most uncertified teachers, the lowest salariedteachers, and the highest rates of teacher turnover.�3Moreover, the absentee rate for high-minority schools is nearly three times thatof low-minority schools, and �only 54.1 percent of the third graders inhigh-minority schools, compared to 92.5 percent in low-minority schools, aremaking satisfactory progress in reading.�4

Where onelives determines which school district one�s children can attend, and morethan 82 percent of the State�s minority students attend school in 1 of only 5of the State�s nearly 700 school districts. Three of those five districts arethe Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse school districts�the three metropolitanareas examined in this study of Section 8 housing programs.5

Thegeographic isolation of blacks and Hispanics minimizes opportunities forinteraction among racial and ethnic groups, and consequently may perpetuateracial and ethnic prejudice.6 Thushousing segregation warrants public attention and policy intervention not onlybecause it limits residential mobility and choice, but because it barsopportunities for the social and economic advancement of minorities, therebycontributing to the persistence of economic inequality.     

The NewYork Advisory Committee became aware through incidents brought to theirattention, recent court cases, and through personal observations andexperiences, that minorities and other protected classes faced barriers,including discrimination in federally funded Section 8 housing programs. As aresult, in May 1996, the Committee initiated a project titled �Equal HousingOpportunities in New York: An Evaluation of Section 8 Housing Programs inBuffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse.�

The Section8 program was chosen as the focus of this study in part because Congressmandated in 1974 that the more than $5 billion spent annually on the Section 8program be administered in a way that promotes fair housing7 (like all HUD programs), and in part because of the enormous potential for theSection 8 program to move minority families into areas of low-povertyconcentration and greater economic opportunities.

TheAdvisory Committee�s goals for this project were the following:

-  First,    to determine whether minorities, female heads of households, and people with    disabilities have equal access to and participation in Section 8 programs,    and what barriers, including discrimination they may face when trying to use    their voucher or certificate.Second,    to review whether selected administrative regulations or practices on the    part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the    local public housing authorities limit the opportunities of these persons    applying to Section 8 programs, or their use of Section 8 certificates and    vouchers. Third,    to examine the quality and quantity of available rental property, where it    is located, and the accessibility to transportation and availability of    jobs.
In order togain as full a comprehension of the topic as possible, the Advisory Committeeinvited leading experts in the field of Section 8 housing, including Federal andlocal administrators, advocates, academics, as well as Section 8 recipients tothe factfinding meetings. Meetings were held in Buffalo, Rochester, andSyracuse, and the results of those meetings along with additional research,interviews, and background information have been compiled to form this report.

The reportis divided into seven chapters. The first chapter discusses the legislative andjudicial history of the Section 8 program, how and why it came into existence,and reviews the major court cases that have shaped its development. Alsoincluded in this section is a discussion of the different types of Section 8subsidies, who is eligible, and how the subsidies are administered on the locallevel.

The secondchapter, *Barriers to Fair Housing,*discusses a hypothetical situation ofa Section 8 recipient and the barriers, including discrimination, that might beencountered when using a subsidy. This section also explains several of thosebarriers, dividing them into administrative and nonadministrative categories.Administrative barriers include residency requirements, the withholding ofrental lists, and failure to implement HUD�s mandate to affirmatively furtherfair housing. Nonadministrative barriers include lack of transportation, limitedknowledge of housing options, and community attitudes.

The thirdchapter, *Oversight of Local Housing Authorities*, looks into thesupervision and monitoring by HUD�s Office of Fair Housing of local housingauthorities and further discusses HUD�s mandate to housing authorities oftheir affirmative duty to promote housing desegregation in the Section 8program.

This fourthchapter discusses recent changes to the Section 8 program, such as increasingthe amount of security deposits recipients must pay, allowing landlords toreject some Section 8 recipients, and making it easier to evict tenants for justcause.

The fifth,sixth, and seventh chapters, *Buffalo, Rochester,*and*Syracuse*,******respectively,******are the three cities where the AdvisoryCommittee held factfinding meetings. Each city chapter begins with the racialmakeup of the area and the distribution of Section 8 recipients between the cityand the suburbs. The sections then focus on the local Section 8 issues facingthose particular metropolitan areas. Common issues include (1) lack of access torental information, (2) residency requirements and preferences, and (3) poorpublic transportation. 

The eighth and final chapter is composed of *Findings and Recommendations*.In this section the Advisory Committee brings together what it learned andproposes corrective recommendations.

**Endnotes**

1   Across the 50 largestmetropolitan areas in the country, 37 percent of blacks lived in neighborhoodsisolated from whites. M. A. Turner, *Discrimination in Urban Housing Markets:Lessons from Fair Housing Audits (*The Urban Institute, 1992) (hereaftercited as Turner). Not only do a disproportionate number of  blacks andHispanics live in segregated neighborhoods, most live in central-cityjurisdictions. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of people living inconcentrated poverty areas (neighborhoods in which over 40 percent of theresidents are poor) grew from 3.8 million to 10.4 million. In theseneighborhoods: more than 60 percent of families with children are headed bysingle women; more than half of alladults have less than a high school education; morethan 40 percent of working-age men are unemployed; almost one in five youths(aged 16�19) are high school dropouts; and one in three families receivewelfare benefits.

2 Turner, p. 19.

3 New York State Education Department, *The State of Learning: A Report tothe Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Status of the State�sSchools*, (Albany, NY, 1997),  p. vi (hereafter cited as *State ofLearning*, 1997).

4 Ibid.

5 Statistics computed from data in *The State of Learning,*1997*.*

6 Turner, p. 30.

742 U.S.C. � 3608(e)(5).