55324 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Parts 5, 960, 964, 984, and 990

[Docket No. FR–4087–A–03]

RIN 2577–AB68

Strengthening the Role of Fathers in

Public Housing Families

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking; Notice of withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Department published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the subject of

‘‘Strengthening the Role of Fathers in

Public Housing Families’’ on July 30,

1996 (61 FR 39812), with a 45-day

comment period. The ANPRM invited

public comments on measures,

practices, and authorizations to local

public housing agencies in support of

efforts to encourage absentee parents,

especially but not necessarily limited to

absentee fathers, to play a more

responsible social and economic role in

the lives of families in PHA-owned or

assisted developments. Upon review of

comments received in response to that

ANPRM, the Department has

determined that it is unnecessary to go

forward with a regulatory change at this

point, but that the purposes described in

the ANPRM and in this Notice would be

best served by proceeding with the

development of less formal guidance

material, described below.

DATES: The ANPRM on the subject of

‘‘Strengthening the Role of Fathers in

Public Housing Families,’’ published on

July 30, 1996 at 61 FR 39812 is

withdrawn as of October 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard A. Trebelhorn, Technical

Assistance and Planning Division, HUD,

Room 4236, 451 Seventh Street SW,

Washington, DC 20410–5000, telephone

(202) 708–3642 (this is not a toll-free

number). A telecommunications device

for hearing- and speech-impaired

persons (TTY) is available at 1–800–

877–8339 (Federal Information Relay

Services). (This is a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Department published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the subject of

‘‘Strengthening the Role of Fathers in

Public Housing Families’’ on July 30,

1996 (61 FR 39812), with a 45-day

comment period. HUD received

comments from 32 entities, most of

which were State or local housing

agencies, and the substance of those

comments is summarized below. In

addition to comments received in

response to the ANPRM, HUD convened

a roundtable discussion on this subject

in early September 1996, in which

knowledgeable housing professionals

and academics shared their thinking on

measures that would encourage more

responsible roles for fathers, and that

would facilitate reuniting public

housing families.

The comments on the ANPRM and

comments and observations from the

roundtable generally suggest that a

formal rulemaking might be

unnecessary, and in the absence of a

compelling need for regulatory action,

the Department has determined not to

proceed with publication of a Proposed

Rule at this time. Therefore, consistent

with the majority of the comments on

the ANPRM and the draft proposed rule,

and with the recommendations of the

roundtable, HUD will sponsor

development of a ‘‘best practices’’

guidebook or source book for use in

local fatherhood initiatives. HUD, or a

contractor under HUD supervision, will

visit a substantial number of sites—

probably 12 to 15 locations beginning

with and in addition to the known

programs in Baltimore and Hartford—to

gather information on best practices,

procedures, attributes, and similar

program elements or components of

local programs compatible with the

Department’s goal of strengthening the

role of fathers in public housing

families.

Based on information gathered in the

course of the site visits, information

developed from the roundtable and

comments on the ANPRM, and any

other information that becomes

available, HUD will develop a

guidebook or source book of materials

for PHA managers planning a

fatherhood initiative. The materials in

this guide or source book will

emphasize ‘‘how- to’’ information on

program modules or components that

can be replicated, as opposed to

narrative descriptions or case studies;

case studies are expected to be used for

illustrative purposes, but are not to be

the principal focus of the research

project or the resulting guide or source

book.

Using inputs from the roundtable and

the best practices study, HUD will use

contracted resources to develop an

Implementation Guide and a training

package for use by PHAs electing to

develop and implement a ‘‘fatherhood

initiative.’’

The Guide would be a compendium

of current thinking, reflecting but not

duplicating the best practices material

referenced above, that would be useful

to housing authorities in initiating a

local program to encourage or facilitate

fathers’ playing a more positive and

responsible role in public housing

families and communities. The training

and implementation component is

expected to include a short video to

introduce HUD’s interest in

strengthening the role of fathers in

public housing families, suitable for use

with tenant groups and HUD field office

staff as well as PHA personnel. It will

also include detailed lesson plans and

training materials for program managers

at the PHA and project-site levels.

II. HUD Responses to Public Comments

on the ANPRM

In drafting the Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, HUD assumed an

initial goal of reuniting families and

bringing absent fathers back into their

children’s homes. Responses to the

ANPRM and explicit comments in

HUD’s roundtable suggest that the

ANPRM blurred necessary distinctions

among several important goals. These

include, at least, (1) facilitating the

return of absentee fathers to their

families; (2) encouraging men who are

living intermittently or clandestinely

with their public housing families to

come forward and assert a responsible

social and financial role; (3) assuring

that estranged parents accept financial

responsibility for their children in

public housing; and (4) making it

possible for absentee fathers to connect

or re-connect with their children in

public housing communities.

By subsuming these (and probably

other) reasonable goals under a general

statement of support for ‘‘re-uniting

families,’’ the ANPRM assumed an

active PHA role in areas and issues that

generally are beyond the authority and

the capacity of local housing agencies.

HUD recognizes that the program

outlined in the ANPRM required

considerable refinement. The

Department recognizes that many of the

activities that would go into a local

program for strengthening the role of

fathers and encouraging fathers to play

responsible roles in their children’s

growth and development fall more

appropriately within the capacity and

responsibility of social service agencies

outside the housing authority.

Therefore, any further initiative in

this area—including the proposed best

practices guide and implementation

package—will necessarily place less

emphasis on a presumed role for a

housing authority. This Notice identifies
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55325

PHA actions or activities already

authorized in statute and/or regulation

that can be employed to further the

goals described in the ANPRM. The

proposed best practices guidebook will

address additional measures that can be

undertaken by a PHA and/or another

service agency or contractor, and the

implications of such measures for PHA

management, including financial

management.

The ANPRM invited comments on

several specific items, and most

respondents commented on most of

those elements. Those comments are

summarized, under the subject area

heading of the ANPRM that is addressed

by the comment, as follows:

1. To the extent that it may be

necessary to encourage responsible

behavior by an absent parent, HAs

would be encouraged, but not

necessarily required, to:

a. Provide a priority for transfer

among HA properties;

Summary: The vast majority of

respondents pointed out that PHAs

already have the latitude to permit,

authorize, or require transfers among

their properties, and that such policies

are spelled out in tenant selection and

assignment plans; no further regulation

should be necessary.

Response: HUD accepts these

comments, and acknowledges that

transfer policies are best left to local

decision-making. HUD will continue to

examine the desirability or practicality

of including in a transfer policy explicit

recognition of requested transfers that

would result in a family’s better access

to day care, or more convenient access

to employment or job training,

especially in cases involving a returning

parent.

b. Offer a priority for a Section 8

certificate or voucher (consistent with

the principles of the Family Unification

program);

Summary: Most respondents were

opposed to Federal preferences in any

guise, including this one. Several

comments suggested that a preference,

especially a new preference, was unfair

to applicants already on waiting lists,

some for several years. Other comments

made the point that offering public

housing residents a priority for Section

8 placement creates vacancies in public

housing.

Response: HUD accepts these

criticisms, and does not plan to

emphasize use of tenant selection

preferences to further the goals

described in the ANPRM.

c. Exempt from rent determinations

the incremental income of the returning

parent for a period of up to three years

without adverse effect on the HA’s

eligibility for operating subsidy under

the PFS.

Summary: Income disregards, rent

forgiveness, and rent credits elicited

more comment than almost any other

part of the ANPRM. Only two

respondents—both state housing

agencies—opposed incentives of this

kind, and several respondents

recommended expansion of PHAs’

latitude to disregard incremental

income from a new job, income from a

second job or second wage-earner

(whether a new family member or not),

or any earned income.

Response: Under section 402 of the

1996 Continuing Resolution, PHAs are

permitted to adopt optional earned

income deductions in determining

adjusted income (but are not eligible for

commensurate increases in eligibility

for operating subsidy); this provision

was extended in section 201 of the

Department’s 1997 Appropriations Act

and is in effect at least through

September 30, 1997 pending additional

legislation.

In addition, the Department’s

recently-published Optional Earned

Income Exclusions Final Rule,

published May 5, 1997 (62 FR 24334),

permits PHAs to adopt an exclusion for

earned income; PFS Operating Subsidy

will not increase to cover rental income

reductions resulting from such

exclusions, but will allow a PHA that

achieves net increases in rents from

earned income to maintain eligibility for

subsidy up to an amount equal to the

PFS operating subsidy shortfall (see also

the Interim Rule on Performance

Funding System—Incentives, published

in the Federal Register on September

30, 1996 61 FR 51178).

2. To obtain any benefits or incentives

offered by an HA program, a returning

parent would be required to enter into

a formal agreement or contract, binding

him or her to comply with the

requirements of the HA lease and to

make and honor commitments to family

members and to the HA community.

HUD requested public comments on the

nature of such an agreement, and on the

range of obligations that could

reasonably be demanded of a returning

parent. Should HUD create a model

form of agreement for this purpose? Are

there certain minimum requirements

that HUD could itemize, and permit

HAs to make additions to reflect local

interests? Or should HAs be given

maximum latitude to develop their own

standards and agreements?

Summary: Responses to this item

were nearly as varied as comments on

income disregards, ranging from specific

recommendations for contract language,

to suggestions that all the requirements

for positive parental behavior are

already written into marriage vows and

lawful marriage ought to be a major goal

of fatherhood initiatives.

Response: HUD’s first conclusion is

that the ANPRM was too narrowly

focused to have introduced this subject

as a contract between the PHA and a

returning parent/father. As was

correctly pointed out in the comments,

the PHA already has a lease with the

subject family, and if a returning father

joins that household, he becomes

subject to that lease. If there is another

agreement, securing additional rights or

privileges beyond those of the

leasehold, that agreement would be

between the program participant—the

returning parent, presumably—and the

service agency managing the fatherhood

program. That service agency may or

may not be a PHA; experiences related

at HUD’s roundtable suggested that in

many cases, if not most often, the

service agency would not be a PHA, but

a wholly separate community services

entity whose clientele could include

PHA families but would not be limited

to PHA families. The substance and the

enforcement of any such additional

agreement, and the range of benefits

secured by the agreement—

employment, employment counseling,

job training, behavior counseling—

would be entirely between the

signatories; neither HUD nor the PHA

need necessarily be involved in that

agreement.

HUD anticipates that the ‘‘best

practices’’ study will develop a variety

of agreements and components of

agreements from which service

providers, including any PHAs that

elect to manage their own fatherhood

initiative, can develop agreements

suited to their specific situations.

A second major observation is that,

particularly in the context of returning

parents and re-uniting families,

agreements between the absentee parent

and the service agency are necessarily

secondary to an agreement between the

public housing leaseholder and the

absentee parent. If the parent or

grandparent is living in public housing

with the children, then as a practical

matter, that person will exert far more

influence and control than the PHA or

the service agency over the terms under

which the absentee parent establishes or

re-establishes a relationship with the

children.

This observation also responds to

several comments to the effect that

restoring an absent parent to a

household is not necessarily a good

idea; sometimes the best resolution is

for the absentee to remain absent. HUD’s

goal in fostering local fatherhood
55326 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules

initiatives is to facilitate plans that will

enable absentee parents, especially

fathers, to establish or re-establish

positive social and/or economic links

with their children, but HUD also

recognizes that any such links must be

mutually agreeable to the absentee and

the custodial parent.

Summary: There were specific

comments to the effect that HUD and/

or the PHAs should encourage, or even

require, lawful marriages as part of this

effort.

Response: The policies and

authorizations incident to this initiative

are intended to facilitate the

establishment or re establishment of

positive social and economic links

between absentee parents and their

children in public housing

communities; any explicit prescription

concerning linkages or relationships

among adult residents is beyond the

scope of HUD rulemaking.

3. HUD’s position is that participants

must be subject to admissions screening,

to assure the rest of the community that

the new or re-joining family member

would not constitute any special threat

to the peace and quiet of the

neighborhood.

Summary: Respondents were nearly

unanimous in favor of rigorous

screening of all applicants, including

persons joining or re-joining resident

families.

Response: HUD will instruct

developers of subsequent guidance

material to make explicit that housing

authorities have the right to review and

to reject persons proposing to join (or rejoin) resident families, irrespective of

the applicant’s relationship to the

resident family or of any prior leasehold

interest enjoyed by that person: if

someone has left the household, return

is not necessarily automatic.

Summary: Several comments

suggested that there was an apparent

conflict between the ‘‘one-strike’’

provisions of section 9 of the Housing

Opportunity Program Extension Act of

1996 (Pub. L. 104–120, approved March

28, 1996) (the ‘‘Extension Act’’) and outreach efforts to engage absentee parents

in public housing communities.

Response: HUD has reviewed those

comments and the cited statute, and is

of the opinion that there is no conflict

between this initiative and the

Extension Act. Section 16(e)(2) of the

Extension Act sets forth several

exceptions to the Extension Act’s rule

that Public Housing authorities must

deny assistance to persons who have a

pattern of use of a controlled substance

or a pattern of abuse of alcohol that

interferes with the health, safety, or

right to peaceful enjoyment of the

premises by others. The Extension Act

states that in determining whether to

deny occupancy or assistance, a housing

authority may consider whether an

individual:

(A) Has successfully completed a

supervised drug or alcohol rehabilitation

program and is no longer engaging in the use

of a controlled substance or abuse of alcohol

(as applicable); or

(B) Has otherwise been rehabilitated

successfully and is no longer engaging in the

use of a controlled substance or abuse of

alcohol (as applicable); or

(C) Is participating in a supervised drug or

alcohol rehabilitation program (as applicable)

and is no longer engaging in the illegal use

of a controlled substance or abuse of alcohol

(as applicable).

For purposes of screening tenants

who would join or re-join public

housing resident households, the PHA

should take into consideration an

applicant’s participation in a

Fatherhood Initiative. Where that

services or counseling program includes

a substance abuse counseling

component, the housing authority may,

but is not required to, accept that as

compliance with the rehabilitation

provisions of the one-strike limitations

in section 16(e)(2), and permit an

exemption from the prohibitions of

sections 6(r) and 16(e)(1) of the United

States Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act).

In addition to screening for admission

or re-admission to residency in a public

housing community, the issue of

screening for acceptance into an

employment, job training, or other

social service program was subsumed in

the ANPRM’s reference to ‘‘screening.’’

In response to comments on the ANPRM

and information shared at the

roundtable, the Department recognizes

that criteria for participation in a

services program are not necessarily the

same as tenant selection criteria. HUD

anticipates that the best practices study

will include a variety of selection

factors and screening techniques from

which service providers, including any

PHAs that elect to manage their own

fatherhood initiative, can develop

procedures suited to their specific

situations.

4. Returning parents, or a parent

newly accepting a responsible role in a

family, would be required to participate

in a parenting and/or counseling

program. To the extent that some

returning parents may have been

involved in domestic violence or abuse,

such counseling or training must have

been completed before admission or readmission to the HA housing. Parenting

training or counseling would be

allowable budget costs for the HA.

Summary: Respondents were

generally in favor of parent training and

counseling, and not necessarily limited

to new or returning parents, but several

PHAs objected to the suggestion that

such services could be operated or

financed by the housing authority.

Response: HUD’s response is to

remind all concerned that certain PHAprovided tenant services and

management of external services are

already allowable costs under PFS

procedures, at least to the extent that

such services are part of an approved

Family Self Sufficiency plan under

section 23 of the 1937 Act.

Where participation in a parenting

class, anti-abuse counseling, or any

other sort of behavior counseling is a

component of a non-PHA service

agency’s program, the PHA has the

latitude to accept or reject an applicant

for admission (or re-admission) to

public housing, irrespective of the

applicant’s participation in the training

or counseling program, in accordance

with the PHA’s tenant selection and

screening policies or procedures.

5. The Hartford Family Reunification

model includes an explicit requirement

that returning parents be and remain

free of substance abuse, including

provisions for pre-admission testing and

subsequent random testing for

substance abuse. Testing is at the

expense of the housing authority. HUD

is interested in public comments on

such drug abstinence and drug testing

requirements and policies.

Summary: As stated in the ANPRM,

the discussion of drug abstinence and

drug testing unfortunately blurs the

distinction between public housing

residency versus participation in

employment, training, and services

programs. Responding housing

authorities were nearly unanimous in

opposition to substance abuse testing

requirements for returning fathers

(although a few comments were positive

toward universal substance abuse

testing). Negative comments cited issues

of discrimination against a particular

segment of PHAs’ clientele, the

inappropriateness of PHAs’ involvement

in medical processes, PHAs’ lack of

capacity to manage or operate a

substance abuse testing or identification

program, and the costs of such an

undertaking.

Response: Where a service provider

operates a fatherhood initiative that

includes a substance abuse testing

component, existing regulations

authorize PHAs to take into account the

results of testing for controlled

substances in screening potential

residents, including parents seeking to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Proposed Rules 55327

re-establish residency with their

families.

PHAs can also condition continued

rent abatement or income disregard

benefits on a resident’s successful

participation in an employment,

training, or services program, including

success in abstinence from controlled

substances where that abstinence is a

condition of the program.

Dated: October 17, 1997.

Kevin Emanuel Marchman,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and

Indian Housing.

[FR Doc. 97–28080 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P