65574 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR–4127–N–03]

Notice of Fund Availability for the Fair

Housing Services Center in East Texas

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of Fund Availability

(NOFA) for the Fair Housing Services

Center (FHSC) in East Texas.

SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the

availability of funds and HUD’s request

for proposals (RFP) to establish a Fair

Housing Services Center in East Texas

to be administered by a non-profit

organization (NPO). HUD will award to

and enter into a contract with an NPO

to administer the FHSC as required by

the Final Judgment and Decree (Final

Judgment) in Lucille Young v. Cuomo,

CA No. P–80–8–CA, (E.D. Tex.; dated

March 30, 1995). HUD has been ordered

to provide $500,000 per year for a

period of at least five years to fund the

FHSC to be located in Beaumont, Texas,

with branch offices within the 36

county area that constitutes East Texas,

and one mobile office unit to provide

services to remote locations throughout

East Texas. Appendix A to this Notice

is a copy of the Request for Proposals

(RFP) and Program Guidelines.

DATES: The deadline for proposals for

the Fair Housing Services Center NOFA

is February 10, 1998, 3:00 p.m.,

Washington, DC time.

The above-stated deadline for

proposals is firm as to date and hour. In

the interest of fairness to all competing

NPOs, HUD will treat as ineligible for

consideration any proposal that is not

received before the deadline for

proposals. NPOs submitting proposals

should take this practice into account

and make early submission of their

materials to avoid any risk of loss of

eligibility brought about by

unanticipated delays or other deliveryrelated problems. HUD will not accept,

at any time during the NOFA

competition, proposal materials sent via

facsimile (FAX) transmission.

Preproposal Conference: A

preproposal conference will be held by

HUD on Friday, December 19, 1997, at

9:00 AM, for all NPOs interested in

submitting a proposal in response to

this NOFA. The preproposal conference

will be held at Lamar University (1200

Martin Luther King Parkway), Education

Building, Room 207, Georgia at Calahan

Street, Beaumont, Texas. NPOs

interested in submitting an application

should contact Mr. Gerald J. Benoit,

Director, Operations Division, Office of

Rental Assistance, Department of

Housing and Urban Development,

Washington, D.C. at telephone number

(202) 708–0477 (this is not a toll-free

number) regarding the date, time and

room number for the preproposal

conference. For hearing-and speechimpaired persons, this number may be

accessed via TTY (text telephone) by

calling the Federal Information Relay

Service at 1–800–877–8339.

Proposal Packet: A proposal packet

containing a copy of this NOFA, the

Court Order in Lucille Young v. Cuomo,

and the format for three of the four

certifications required of NPOs

submitting proposals is available by

contacting the address/telephone

number indicated in the following two

paragraphs entitled ADDRESSES and FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES: The original and five

complete copies of the proposal should

be submitted by the deadline to Mr.

Gerald J. Benoit, Director, Operations

Division, Office of Rental Assistance,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Room 4220, 451 Seventh

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20410.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerald J. Benoit, Director, Operations

Division Office of Rental Assistance,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Room 4220, 451 Seventh

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20410,

telephone number (202) 708–0477 (this

is not a toll-free number). For hearingand speech-impaired persons, this

number may be accessed via TTY (text

telephone) by calling the Federal

Information Relay Service at 1–800–

877–8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

The information collection

requirements contained in this Notice

have been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget in accordance

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and

assigned OMB control number 2577–

0169. An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless the collection displays a valid

control number.

Request for Applications

All information related to the RFP is

available in Appendix A to this Notice.

Appendix A is the only document

potential bidders should use to

determine the requirements of the RFP.

The plaintiffs, African-American

residents of public housing in East

Texas, filed suit in 1980 alleging that

HUD had knowingly maintained a

system of segregated housing in a 36-

county area of East Texas, in violation

of the U.S. Constitution and various

civil rights laws. The plaintiffs

contended that there was segregation in

HUD-supported low income public

housing, Section 8 Existing Housing and

other HUD-assisted multifamily housing

programs.

In 1982, the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas certified a class

consisting of all African-American

applicants for and residents of HUDfunded public housing, Section 8

housing and other assisted housing

programs in the 36-county area. In 1985,

the court issued a liability decision

finding that HUD had knowingly and

continually maintained a system of

segregated housing in the 36-county

area.

In 1987, while an appeal was

pending, HUD and the plaintiffs reached

an agreement to limit the scope of the

case and the class of plaintiffs. In 1988,

the court appointed a special master and

issued an interim injunction which

compelled HUD to require each of the

70 housing agencies to implement raceconscious Tenant Selection and

Assignment Plans and to provide all

class members a series of notices of

desegregative opportunities in all HUDassisted housing in East Texas. On

March 30, 1995, U.S. District Judge

William Wayne Justice issued the Final

Judgment that approved the

desegregation plans and the plan

amendments and required HUD to fund

the FHSC.

The following is an outline of the

activities of the FHSC (NPOs submitting

proposals should refer to the attached

RFP for details of the activities and

responsibilities of the FHSC):

1. Familiarity with all relevant HUD

regulations;

2. Outreach to landlords and

assistance with exception rents;

3. Eligibility review services;

4. Counseling services and other

social services support;

5. Responsibilities to Class members

who receive a desegregative voucher/

certificate;

6. FHSC encouragement and

assistance to class members to make

desegregative moves;

7. Information provided to Class

members;

8. Quarterly and Annual Performance

Reports; and

9. HUD’s Right to Request

Information.

NPOs submitting proposals must

respond to the requirements of the RFP

attached to this NOFA and HUD

encourages applicants to refer to the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices 65575

RFP for all appropriate information

concerning the Fair Housing Services

Center.

Other Matters

Environmental Impact

This NOFA provides assistance in

promoting and enforcing fair housing

and nondiscrimination. Accordingly,

under 24 CFR 50.19(C)(3), this NOFA is

categorically excluded from

environmental review under the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

Federalism Impact

The General Counsel, as the

Designated Official under section 6(a) of

Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has

determined that the policies contained

in this notice will not have substantial

direct effects on States or their political

subdivisions, or the relationship

between the Federal Government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. As a

result, the notice is not subject to review

under the Order. This notice is a

funding notice and does not

substantially alter the established roles

of the Department, the States, and local

governments, including HAs.

Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

This notice will not pose an

environmental health risk or safety risk

to children.

Section 102 of the HUD Reform Act:

Documentation and Public Access

Requirements

HUD will ensure that documentation

and other information regarding each

proposal submitted pursuant to this

NOFA are sufficient to indicate the basis

upon which assistance was provided or

denied. This material, including any

letters of support, will be made

available for public inspection for a fiveyear period beginning not less than 30

calendar days after the award of the

assistance. Material will be made

available in accordance with the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.

552) and HUD’s implementing

regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In

addition, HUD will include the

recipients of assistance pursuant to this

NOFA in its Federal Register notice of

all recipients of HUD assistance

awarded on a competitive basis. (See 24

CFR 12.14(a) and 12.16(b), and the

notice published in the Federal Register

on January 16, 1992 (57 FR 1942), for

further information on these

requirements.)

Section 103 of the HUD Reform Act

HUD’s regulation implementing

section 103 of the Department of

Housing and Urban Development

Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3537a)

(Reform Act), codified as 24 CFR part 4,

applies to the funding competition

announced today. The requirements of

the rule continue to apply until the

announcement of the selection of

successful applicants.

HUD employees involved in the

review of proposals and in the making

of funding decisions are restrained by

part 4 from providing advance

information to any person (other than an

authorized employee of HUD)

concerning funding decisions, or from

otherwise giving any applicant an unfair

competitive advantage. Persons who

apply for assistance in this competition

should confine their inquiries to the

subject areas permitted under 24 CFR

part 4.

NPOs submitting proposals or

employees who have ethics-related

questions should contact the HUD

Ethics Law Division (202) 708–3815

(TDD/Voice) (this is not a toll-free

number). Any HUD employee who has

specific program questions, such as

whether particular subject matter can be

discussed with persons outside the

Department, should contact the

appropriate Field Office Counsel or

Headquarters counsel for the program to

which the question pertains.

Prohibition Against Lobbying Activities

The use of funds awarded under this

NOFA is subject to the disclosure

requirements and prohibitions of

section 319 of the Department of Interior

and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act for Fiscal Year 1990 (31 U.S.C.

1352) (the ‘‘Byrd Amendment’’) and the

implementing regulations at 24 CFR part

87. These authorities prohibit recipients

of Federal contracts, grants, or loans

from using appropriated funds for

lobbying the Executive or Legislative

Branches of the Federal Government in

connection with specific contract, grant,

or loan. The prohibition also covers the

awarding of contracts, grants,

cooperative agreements, or loans unless

the recipient has made an acceptable

certification regarding lobbying. Under

24 CFR part 87, applicants, recipients,

and subrecipients of assistance

exceeding $100,000 must certify that no

Federal funds have been or will be spent

on lobbying activities in connection

with the assistance. IHAs established by

an Indian tribe as a result of the exercise

of the tribe’s sovereign power are

excluded from coverage of the Byrd

Amendment, but IHAs established

under State law are not excluded from

the statute’s coverage.

Dated: December 8, 1997.

Kevin Emanuel Marchman,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and

Indian Housing.

Appendix A

Request for Proposals (RFP) and

Program Guidelines for Establishing a

Fair Housing Services Center (FHSC) in

East Texas

This is a request for proposals to

establish an FHSC in East Texas to be

administered by a nonprofit

organization (‘‘NPO’’) as required by the

Final Judgment and Decree (‘‘Final

Judgment’’) in Lucille Young v. Cuomo,

CA No. P–80–8–CA (E.D. Tex.; dated

March 30, 1995). HUD has been ordered

to provide $500,000 per year for a

period of at least five years to fund an

FHSC for East Texas to be located in

Beaumont, Texas, with several branch

offices within the 36-county area that

constitutes East Texas, and one mobile

office unit to provide services to remote

locations throughout East Texas. The

funding will provide for a variety of

services designed to facilitate

desegregative moves of class member

applicants for and residents of public

housing throughout the seventy (70)

Public Housing Authorities (‘‘PHAs’’)

located in the 36-county jurisdiction of

the Young Final Judgment. The specific

responsibilities of the FHSC are

enumerated in the Scope of Work

below, in the Final Judgment (copy

attached), and the original desegregation

plans and the plan amendments

approved by the Court. The Final

Judgment is the document that controls

the activities of the FHSC. The FHSC is

bound by the terms of the Final

Judgment and final desegregation plans

(as determined by the Court).

The U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (‘‘HUD’’) will

award to and enter into a contract with

an NPO. HUD’s local Field Office will

monitor the NPO’s performance

consistent with the requirements of 24

CFR Section 84.51. The specific

monitoring requirements applicable to

the NPO will be addressed in the

contract to be entered into between

HUD and the NPO. The term of the

contract shall be for one year, renewable

in one year increments, for a cumulative

total of no less than five (5) one year

terms. The renewal of the proposal is

contingent upon the FHSC’s ability in

meeting the conditions set forth in

Section I, ‘‘Scope of Work’’ below, and

in complying with the Final Judgment.

HUD will provide $500,000 for the

activities of the FHSC for each year of
65576 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices

operation, and a total of 1,000 Section

8 rental vouchers and/or certificates

(excluding incremental and turnovers)

to be used toward HUD’s obligation to

provide 5,134 desegregative housing

opportunities to Young class members.

The housing opportunity counseling

funds will be provided to the FHSC

through HUD’s contract administrator.

HUD is required to award 1,000

desegregation vouchers/certificates to

PHAs that have jurisdiction in the areas

where the Young class members move.

The PHAs that are awarded these

vouchers/certificates are herein called

‘‘receiving PHA(s)’’.

Sections of the RFP

I. Scope of Work

A. Background and Objectives

B. Activities of the FHSC

C. Administrative Requirements

D. Monitoring

II. Contents of Proposal

A. Eligible Applicant

B. Description of Activities and Costs

C. Deficient Applications for FHSC

III. Factors for Award

A. Evaluating Rating Factors

B. Certifications

C. Cost Factor

D. Contract Award

E. Approval by HUD and Court Review

I. Scope of Work

A. Background and Objectives

The plaintiffs in Young, AfricanAmerican residents of public housing in

East Texas, filed this action in 1980,

alleging that HUD had knowingly

maintained a system of segregated

housing in a 36-county area of East

Texas, in violation of the U.S.

Constitution and various civil rights

laws. The plaintiffs contended that there

was segregation in HUD-supported low

income Public Housing, Section 8

Existing Housing Program, and other

HUD-assisted multifamily programs

(including HUD-insured housing).

While there are presently 70 individual

public housing authorities (‘‘PHAs’’) in

the 36-county area, none of the PHAs

are included in the lawsuit as parties.

In 1982, the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas (‘‘Court’’)

certified a class consisting of all

African-American applicants for and

residents of HUD-funded public

housing, Section 8 housing and other

assisted housing programs in the 36-

county area.

In 1985, the court issued a liability

decision, finding that HUD had

knowingly and continually maintained

a system of segregated housing in the

36-county area. In 1987, while an appeal

was pending, HUD and the plaintiffs

reached an agreement to limit the scope

of the case and class of plaintiffs to

public housing in the 36-county area.

The Young class thus consists of all

African-American residents of, or

applicants for, public housing in the 36-

county area.

In 1988, the court appointed a special

master and issued an interim injunction,

which, among other things, compelled

HUD to require each of the 70 PHAs to

implement race-conscious Tenant

Selection and Assignment Plans and to

provide all class members a series of

notices of desegregative opportunities in

all HUD-assisted housing in East Texas.

After settlement discussions between

HUD and the plaintiffs proved

unsuccessful in 1990, the court issued

an Order for Further Relief, dated

September 9, 1990, which required,

among other things, that HUD develop

desegregation plans or assertions of

unitary status for each of the 70 PHAs.

The court ordered HUD, in developing

each plan, to provide for the

equalization of conditions between

predominantly African-American

projects and the conditions in the

projects and neighborhoods where the

majority of white HUD-assisted housing

recipients resided.

By June 1991, HUD had submitted

desegregation plans or unitary status

assertions for all 70 PHAs to the court

for approval. Although the court did not

rule as to the adequacy of the plans and

unitary status assertions at that point,

HUD began to implement the

desegregation plans. In October 1993,

after further analysis, HUD withdrew its

submission of the plans and assertions

after having determined that they did

not fully or adequately address the

requirements of the September 1990

Order.

HUD filed revised plans on February

8, 1994, along with the East Texas

Comprehensive Desegregation Plan

(Comprehensive Plan). The

Comprehensive Plan reinstituted the

original plans filed in 1990–91, but

amended them to provide for further

actions, and replaced all unitary status

assertions with new desegregation plans

(asserting that none of the 70 PHAs had,

as of yet, attained unitary status).

The Comprehensive Plan filed in

February 1994 called for the creation of

1,000 desegregative housing

opportunities for class members over a

five-year period. In May 1994, after

further analysis, HUD agreed to provide

for the creation of 5,134 desegregative

opportunities within seven years. On

March 30, 1995, U. S. District Judge

William Wayne Justice issued the Final

Judgment, that approved the original

desegregation plans and the plan

amendments and required HUD to fund

the FHSC.

B. Activities of the FHSC

1. The FHSC Must Become Familiar

With All Relevant HUD Regulations

(e.g., Those Governing Section 8

Assistance, Public Housing, Assisted

Housing, and Fair Housing), the Final

Judgment and Applicable Individual

Desegregation Plans

The FHSC shall order and/or approve

all issuances by the receiving PHA of

Section 8 rental vouchers or certificates

to class members or others pursuant to

the Final Judgment Decree, § II.

2. Outreach to Landlords and Assistance

With Exception Rents

The FHSC shall encourage and assist

in the development of desegregative

housing opportunities, including

outreach to private landlords in nonminority areas for the purpose of

encouraging them to participate in the

Section 8 existing housing program, as

well as counseling and referral services

to Section 8 existing housing tenants

and applicants who wish to utilize their

Section 8 rental vouchers or certificates

in a manner furthering desegregation

pursuant to ¶ IV.5.d. of the Final

Judgment.

The FHSC, along with the PHAs, shall

monitor rents in desegregative housing

opportunity areas every six months to

determine whether such rents are

adversely affecting housing

opportunities. If so, the FHSC shall take

such steps as are necessary to overcome

this adverse affect, including requesting

that HUD consider granting exception

rents for certificates or payment

standards for vouchers, pursuant to the

Court’s 1990 Order for Further Relief, if

such exception rents or payment

standards would increase the

availability of desegregative housing

opportunities for class members.

Landlord Outreach Activities include,

but are not limited to:

a. Identify potential landlords and

market the program to them; make

special efforts to obtain the participation

of owners and managers who control a

large number of units, and especially, of

owners and managers of units with

three or more bedrooms;

b. Maintain a data base of available

housing in desegregative areas;

c. Carry on outreach using a variety of

methods including recruitment in

person, by telephone, in writing, at

meetings of landlord associations, by

special brochures, and by other

economically feasible means;

d. Seek out landlords with a prior

reputation for community involvement

and civic commitment, especially those

on the boards of civil rights or fair

housing organizations;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices 65577

e. Join property management

associations and attend seminars on

property management issues (especially

where information about Section 8

opportunities for owners is discussed);

solicit opportunities to make

presentations at property owner and

manager meetings about the needs of

Section 8 families and the opportunities

presented by the program; and

f. Network through personal contacts

with established owners and real estate

organizations in the multifamily sector,

to uncover potential vacancies and to

update listings of units in new or

existing developments.

3. Eligibility Review Services

The FHSC shall review all clients of

the FHSC who have not already

undergone a determination of eligibility

by the receiving PHA, to document each

client’s ability and willingness to

comply with an acceptable lease and

HUD program requirements pursuant to

¶ IV.5.a. of the Final Judgment.

The FHSC shall determine the

eligibility of families consistent with

HUD’s regulatory requirements

pertaining to income, family

composition, citizenship and eligible

immigration status. Families who have

members who have engaged in certain

activities that are grounds for denying

Section 8 assistance under the

regulations, including drug-related and

violent criminal activity, will not be

offered a Section 8 rental voucher or

certificate.

4. Counseling Services and Other Social

Services Support

Pursuant to ¶ IV.5.b. of the Final

Judgment, the FHSC shall provide

counseling services designed to provide

information and counseling with respect

to class members including the

following:

a. Initial Stage of Counseling. The

FHSC will provide an initial counseling

session to groups of class members. At

the initial session, the FHSC will

provide essential general information,

for example:

(1) Explain the terminology of the

Section 8 programs;

(2) Explain the program requirements

pertinent to Section 8 rental vouchers

and certificates;

(3) Inform families of the counseling

services that will be available.

(4) Meet with families to help them

assess their needs and solve problems in

areas such as credit and housekeeping;

and

(5) Provide training to families to

enhance their housing search skills and

ability to present themselves to

landlords.

b. Second-stage Counseling

(Motivational Support). From the first

contact with the family, the FHSC will

need to help families maintain a

consistent and high level of enthusiasm

and commitment to the program. For

many families, the possibility of living

in a new environment will be sufficient

to energize their activities and

strengthen their resolve. However, other

families may be more timid about

learning new skills (like finding

available units and dealing with

prospective landlords) or looking for

units in unfamiliar locations. Keys to

maintaining a family’s motivation to

succeed include:

(1) Provide detailed information to

individual families about housing

options in desegregative areas;

(2) Conduct individual sessions with

each family about communities of

interest to the family, including

educational opportunities, housing,

employment information, and

transportation information;

(3) Refer each family to at least three

vacancies in desegregative areas in

neighborhoods selected by the family;

(4) Assist families in their housing

search, as needed, including providing

escorts and transportation to unfamiliar

neighborhoods, and arranging day care

for children;

(5) Assist in lease negotiation and

assist the prospective landlord in

obtaining lease approval from the local

housing agency;

(6) Provide referrals to organizations

that may provide assistance with

security deposits, moving costs, and the

like;

(7) Provide assistance in passing

landlord screening requirements. The

FHSC may also assist families by

providing credit and tenant screening

reports to landlords;

(8) Address fears directly and discuss

them thoroughly; and

(9) Assure the family that it has the

continuing and active support not only

of the FHSC, but also of an array of

service providers available to solve

particular problems.

c. Post-placement services. The FHSC

will:

(1) Contact the family at move-in,

again 30 days thereafter, and again three

months after that, to assist in transition

and inform the family about the

availability of post-placement services.

(2) Inform the family about the

Section 8 self-sufficiency program.

(3) Mediate disputes between the

family and the landlords and between

the family and the neighborhood, if and

when they arise, and counsel families in

resolving such disputes themselves.

(4) Facilitate support networks among

families moving to nearby areas, to the

extent families express a desire for such

networks.

(5) Provide information about

educational and employment

opportunities; parenting skills classes,

general equivalency diploma (GED)

classes, and other such services.

5. Class Members Who Receive a

Desegregative Voucher/Certificate

Under the Final Judgment and Decree,

HUD will provide to class members

5,134 desegregative housing

opportunities, over a seven-year period.

The actual placement of a total of 40

class members in Alba (1), Corrigan (2),

Fruitvale (2), Kirbyville (8), Mount

Pleasant (22), Talco (2), and Trinidad (3)

is also required under the Final

Judgment. Two hundred (200)

desegregative vouchers/certificates will

be provided in the first year of the

FHSC’s operation, and 200 per year

thereafter for the following four years.

The class members who receive one of

the desegregative vouchers/certificates

will be required to use their vouchers/

certificates in rental housing that

constitutes a desegregative opportunity

as defined in the Final Judgment. The

FHSC will provide to the class members

who receive a desegregative voucher/

certificate counseling services and other

forms of assistance, as necessary, to aid

them in locating desegregative housing.

Pursuant to ¶ IV.5.g. of the Final

Judgment and Decree, FHSC will give

each class member written notice, every

six months, in a form and distribution

method to be approved by HUD, of all

HUD-assisted and/or HUD-subsidized

low-income housing developments in

the housing markets where the class

member resides that offer the class

members a desegregative housing

opportunity, provide notice of the full

address, telephone number, and name of

the person responsible for accepting

applications for the development, a

short description of the type of housing

offered by the development, and the

general eligibility requirements for the

development. The FHSC will include in

the Notice to class members,

information about the mobility program,

and the opportunities available through

it.

a. PHA Responsibilities. The receiving

PHAs will be awarded 1,000

desegregation certificates and vouchers

to be used toward HUD’s obligation to

provide 5,134 desegregative housing

opportunities to Young class members;

conduct the intake and initial eligibility

determination of applicants; and

conduct any required Housing Quality

Standards (‘‘HQS’’) inspections of units.
65578 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices

The 1,000 desegregative vouchers/

certificates are for the exclusive use of

class members. Certificates or vouchers

obtained by receiving PHAs from other

East Texas Section 8 programs through

turnover, recapture, or otherwise, may

be provided to non-class members when

required by HUD under subparagraph c

below.

b. Award and Turn-in of

Desegregative Certificates. Class

members who initially receive a

desegregative voucher/certificate will

have 120 days within which to enter

into a lease for a unit of desegregative

housing as defined, or, if the FHSC has

failed to offer a unit within that time,

until a desegregative offer is in fact

received. At the expiration of 120 days,

if an offer and if a lease has not been

entered, the applicant has the option of

continuing to search for housing with

no restrictions as to locations for an

additional sixty days. At the end of the

sixty day period, the voucher/certificate

would revert to the receiving PHA

(unless it grants an extension). (HUD

Headquarters will grant the necessary

waivers to allow the receiving PHA to

grant an extension beyond the 120 day

maximum currently allowed under

HUD’s regulations.) Should the class

member locate in a minority

neighborhood, this will not count

toward HUD’S obligation to create 5,134

desegregative housing opportunities.

c. Special Procedures for Affirmative

Action Waiting List Initiatives. HUD

shall provide to the FHSC the name and

address of every class member applicant

who is to be offered a certificate and

counseling as an alternative to public

housing when a PHA uses an affirmative

action waiting list procedure that has

been approved by the Court to offer the

unit that would otherwise have been

offered to the class member, to a white

applicant whose name is listed lower on

the waiting list. Paragraph III of the

Final Judgment is to be followed when

implementing the Affirmative Action

Waiting List initiatives. When a class

member is offered a certificate or

voucher under these circumstances:

(1) The class member is to be made an

offer of alternative housing within 60

days of the date on which the public

housing unit that is to be offered to a

white applicant is available for

assignment.

(2) The class member must be

provided the Section 8 rental voucher or

certificate and an offer of a unit must be

made within 120 days from issuance of

the certificate to the class member that

meets the requirements of § II.7 of the

Final Judgment and must notify HUD

within one day if the applicant accepts

the offer;

(3) If the class member rejects the

offer of alternative housing, the FHSC

must notify HUD within one day of the

rejection, state the reason(s) for the

rejection, and provide information as to

the location of the rejected unit and

evidence of its availability.

(4) If, after 120 days, an alternative

housing opportunity has not been found

for the class member, the class member

may opt to hold the certificate for up to

sixty additional days and to search for

housing on her or his own without

restriction as to location. (HUD

Headquarters will grant the necessary

waivers to allow the receiving PHA to

grant an extension beyond the 120-day

maximum currently allowed under

HUD’s regulations.)

HUD will provide the FHSC with the

name and address of every non-class

member who is to receive a Section 8

rental voucher or certificate as a result

of the implementation of the Affirmative

Action Waiting List. The FHSC must

instruct the receiving PHA to issue a

Section 8 rental voucher or certificate to

the non-class member applicant who

held the highest position on the waiting

list and who would otherwise have been

offered an available public housing unit

but for the advancement of a class

member to the head of the waiting list

for that unit under the Affirmative

Action Waiting List.

d. Priority of Offers. The FHSC will

offer the desegregative certificates to

class members according to the

following priority:

(1) To class members residing in

predominantly African American lowrent public housing projects;

(2) To class members who are on a

waiting list for low-rent public housing

as of March 30, 1995;

(3) To class members who apply for

low-rent public housing subsequent to

the date of March 30, 1995.

6. The FHSC Shall Encourage and Assist

Class Members To Make Desegregative

Moves Within the Low Income Housing

Program and to Privately Owned

Assisted Housing Programs Pursuant to

¶ IV.5.e. of the Final Judgment

The FHSC shall develop and

implement a plan to refer class

members, with or without the use of

Section 8 rental vouchers or certificates,

to privately owned, HUD-assisted, or

FmHA housing located in areas which

provide a desegregative housing

opportunity. FHSC shall conduct

outreach to the landlords and/or owners

of all such HUD-assisted, or FmHA

private housing providers located in

areas which provide a desegregative

opportunity and other Section 8 existing

agencies, to encourage participation in

the FHSC-developed referral plan. FHSC

shall monitor the performance of other

Section 8 existing agencies in the 36-

county area in this regard, and shall also

develop a system to record all offers of

and/or placements of class-members in

desegregative housing by other Section

8 agencies in East Texas.

7. Information

The FHSC shall designate specific

personnel to respond to requests for

information and requests for assistance

from class members desiring to obtain a

desegregative housing opportunity as

defined in the Final Judgment. The

assistance to be provided shall include

referrals of interested class members to

public housing developments, and to

programs other than low income public

housing, that offer desegregative

housing opportunities in East Texas.

8. Quarterly Status and Annual

Performance Report

The FHSC shall provide quarterly

status reports on significant activities

taken under the requirements of the

Final Judgment and Decree. HUD will

file each report with the court and serve

it on plaintiffs’ counsel within thirty

days of the end of the quarter covered

in the report.

The FHSC shall submit an annual

report on their performance of their

obligations under the Final Judgment

and Decree to the plaintiffs, with a copy

to go to the Court by April 30th of each

year.

9. HUD’s Right To Request Information

The FHSC will collect and maintain

the data necessary to monitor the

program toward providing desegregative

opportunities. This would include: (a)

the number of class members seeking

desegregated housing opportunities; (b)

evidence of each family (class member)

having been referred to at least three

vacancies in desegregative areas in

neighborhoods selected by the family;

(c) the number of class members

actually leasing units in non-impacted

neighborhoods; (d) the number and

name of housing providers recruited

into the program; and (e) the number of

class members assisted and number of

hours staff members devoted to assisting

families, and similar data as HUD may

require. The FHSC will comply with

any informational requests from HUD

that HUD, in its discretion, makes from

time to time during the course of the

program.

C. Administrative Requirements

The FHSC shall be required to adhere

to the following three administrative
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices 65579

requirements in performing work under

this award:

1. Submission of quarterly progress

reports detailing progress made in

fulfilling the tasks and sub-tasks in the

approved Project Management Plan;

2. Distribution of an Evaluation

Questionnaire to all persons,

organizations, agencies, or other entities

receiving services, participating, or

otherwise involved in this project and

submission of a ‘‘Customer Satisfaction

Report’’ semi-annually; and

3. Preparation of a final report in a

format suitable for information transfer,

exchange and dissemination to other

PHA’s communities, or other entities

interested in providing such services.

The final report should detail the case

study of East Texas Desegregation

Counseling Project and provide insights

and recommendations for others who

may wish to develop similar programs.

D. Monitoring

The FHSC shall monitor the

compliance of the providers of lowincome housing in the class action area

(low-income public housing and

assisted housing) with the fair housing

laws and the requirements placed upon

the providers under the comprehensive

plan and the individual desegregation

plans pursuant to ¶ IV.5.c. of the Final

Judgment. The FHSC shall coordinate

all monitoring activities with HUD.

II. Contents of Application

A. Eligible Applicant

1. The application must be submitted

by an NPO and must include all

information requested in this section.

Any application submitted after the due

date or that does not contain the

required information may be rejected.

The NPO must submit documentation as

a part of the application that verifies the

501(c)(3) and/or 501(c)(4) (IRS Code)

status of the NPO and its legal authority

to operate throughout the East Texas

area.

2. Corporate documents. The NPO

shall provide a copy of its Articles of

Incorporation.

B. Description of Activities and Costs

It is to an NPO’s advantage if it

describes its experiences, if any, as

requested in this section. In the case of

an NPO that intends to use one or more

subcontractors, the NPO must also

submit the qualifications of the

subcontractors and a description of the

work to be performed by the

subcontractors. In the case of a newly

formed NPO, the NPO may substitute a

description of experience and

knowledge of its principal officers and

employees where a description of its

own experience is requested below.

1. Description of Experience

The NPO must submit a narrative

description of its experience in assisting

lower-income families and/or AfricanAmericans or other minorities in the

search for housing. The NPO should

describe its working knowledge of

HUD’s Section 8 programs, as well as its

public housing and assisted housing

programs. The NPO should include a

list of its projects over the last two years

that are relevant to this procurement

action. HUD reserves the right to request

information from any source so named.

2. Knowledge of Fair Housing and

Mobility Experience

The NPO must submit a narrative

description of its knowledge of, and

experience in assisting AfricanAmericans with fair housing as well as

monitoring providers for violations of

the fair housing laws. The narrative

should specifically address the NPO’s

knowledge of the rental market in

racially non-impacted areas and the

barriers that limit access to that housing

by lower-income minority persons. The

NPO shall also describe its experience

with mobility activities.

3. Description of Organizational

Capacity

The NPO must submit a narrative

description of its capability and

capacity to handle a project of this

scope. The narrative is to include a list

of current federally funded activities.

The NPO should provide an

organizational chart of key personnel to

be involved in each activity under the

agreement, and the percentage of time

that they will devote to each activity.

The NPO should include resumes,

references, or other documents that

show that key personnel have

experience in the tasks described in the

‘‘Scope of Work’’, the Final Judgment

and Decree, and applicable individual

desegregation plans. If the NPO plans to

utilize subcontractors, consultants or

other agents, it should provide the same

information with respect to them.

4. Management Plan (Includes Proposed

Costs)

A management plan as described

below, particularly as the plan pertains

to the evaluation rating factors set out in

Section III. A. of this RFP, shall be

submitted as part of each NPO’s

proposal. A detailed narrative of a

management plan to carry out the

programs as outlined in the Final

Judgment and Decree and this RFP will

be delivered to the HUD’s local Field

Office within 15 days after the contract

is awarded. The Plan will include:

1. Detailed and sequential list of tasks

(and sub-tasks, if appropriate), by

quarter, necessary to accomplish the

work specified in the NOFA;

2. The methodology to be used in

accomplishing each task and sub-task;

3. A list of the staff or subcontractors,

consultants or other agents who will

perform each task/subtask, including

their hourly rates and the number of

hours per individual to be charged to

each task/subtask;

4. Other direct costs (e.g., travel, etc.)

for each task/subtask;

5. Indirect costs (e.g., projected site

and rental cost of office space and

mobile unit, if applicable, telephone,

postage, printing, etc.) for each task/

subtask;

6. Any other costs (general and

administrative overhead) to be charged

and the method for allocating such

costs;

7. Internal financial management and

oversight procedures and policies;

8. When each task/sub-task and

establishment of financial oversight

procedures will be accomplished;

9. Staff and organization (including an

organizational flow-chart); and (10) the

support that is expected to be required

from HUD and its contract

administrator.

The costs may be more detailed than

is specified above, but may not be less

detailed. In reviewing the proposals,

HUD shall consider the breakdown of

the work, the list of tasks, and the level

of effort and qualifications of staff and

subcontractors and other resources as

demonstrations of the NPO’s

understanding of the work described by

the NOFA. Only costs that are detailed

in the proposal will be eligible for

billing and reimbursement. The final

management plan will be submitted by

HUD to the Court for approval.

C. Deficient Proposals for FHSC

A proposal will be deemed

technically ineligible if:

1. It does not fully adhere to the

guidelines established herein, including

budgetary requirements;

2. The complete proposal is not

received by the deadline;

3. A comprehensive line item budget

is not included;

4. The project budget for costs

charged against funds exceeds $500,000;

or

5. Unsigned proposal or certification

forms are submitted.

6. The proposal does not include

letters of commitment from the

subcontractors.
65580 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices

III. Factors for Award

A. Evaluating Rating Factors

HUD will use the following criteria to

evaluate proposals received in response

to this RFP. In all cases, the number of

points stated represents the maximum.

In the actual scoring, any given proposal

may receive less than the maximum for

each category, based on an evaluation of

competing proposals.

1. Familiarity with housing mobility

counseling and HUD housing programs

(30 points).

a. Demonstrated work experience

with fair housing mobility counseling of

lower income and minority families.

(10)

b. Demonstrated work experience

with HUD’s Section 8, public housing or

privately owned assisted housing

programs. (10)

c. Demonstrated work experience in

coordinating resources and activities

provided by a variety of government,

private sector agencies, and

organizations for providing housing

and/or fair housing law enforcement

support. (10)

2. Knowledge of fair housing laws and

mobility experience. (25 points)

a. Demonstrated record of

participation in fair housing activities,

particularly with respect to low income

families and racial or ethnic minorities

and monitoring providers of low-income

housing for violations of the fair

housing laws. (10)

b. Demonstrated knowledge of and

experience in mobility services for

African-American tenants. (10)

c. Experience in rental markets in

racially non-impacted areas. (5)

3. Organizational capacity. (20 points)

a. Demonstrated capability and

capacity of the non-profit organization

to effectively manage a grant of this

scope. (10)

b. Demonstrated capability of the nonprofit’s key personnel, including

officers, employees, partners,

subcontractors, consultants and other

agents to accomplish the work

responsibilities of the FHSC. (10)

4. Quality of Proposal. (25 points)

a. Extent to which the proposal

demonstrates an understanding of the

Final Judgment and Decree, the

applicable individual desegregation

plans, and this RFP, and the extent to

which the proposal proposes a realistic

approach to all the work requirements

that meet the conditions of the Final

Judgment and Decree. In rating this

factor, HUD will consider such activities

as the proposed number of desegregated

housing opportunities to be created with

tenant-based assistance, the degree of

coordination with public housing

agencies to expand desegregated

housing opportunities in each

community, the types and level of effort

to provide tenant counseling and

outreach to owners, and the expected

number of families to be counseled and

placed in a unit that is not located in an

area of minority concentration. (15)

b. Completeness and acceptability of

the overall proposal and specific

methods, procedures and steps as

outlined in the Management Plan. In

rating this factor, HUD will consider

such factors as the adequacy of the

staffing and other resources devoted to

completing the tasks outlined in this

NOFA, direct and indirect costs for the

various subtasks, and methods for

completing the tasks outlined in the

NOFA. (10)

B. Certifications

Each proposal must contain an

original and five copies of the

certifications identified below. Each

certification must be signed by the Chief

Executive Officer of the applicant

organization unless otherwise noted.

The Proposal packet referenced at the

beginning of the NOFA contains the

certification formats for the Certification

Regarding Drug-Free Workplace

Requirements, Certification Regarding

Lobbying, and the Equal Opportunity

Certification.

1. Drug-free Workplace Certification.

The non-profit organization must certify

that it will provide a drug-free

workplace and comply with the drugfree workplace requirements at 24 CFR

part 24, subpart F.

2. Certification regarding Lobbying

pursuant to Section 319 of the

Department of the Interior

Appropriation Act of 1989, generally

prohibiting use of appropriated funds

for lobbying.

3. Certification of no outstanding

violations of: Title VI of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and

regulations pursuant thereto (24 CFR

part 1); the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.

3601–19); Executive Order 11063, as

amended by Executive Order 12892 and

HUD regulations (24 CFR part 107);

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and regulations

issued pursuant thereto (24 CFR part 8);

Title II of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (and applicable

regulations at 28 CFR Part 36); the Age

Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.

6101–07) and regulations issued

pursuant thereto (24 CFR part 146);

Executive Order 11246 and all

regulations issued pursuant thereto (41

CFR Chapter 60–1); Section 3 of the

Housing and Urban Development Act of

1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701U) and regulations

pursuant thereto (24 CFR part 135).

4. Conflicts of Interest. The non-profit

organization shall provide a statement

which describes all relevant facts

concerning any past, present or

currently planned interest (financial,

contractual, organizational, or

otherwise) relating to the work to be

performed which could present a

possible conflict of interest with respect

to: (a) Being able to render impartial,

technically sound, and objective

assistance or advice; or (b) being given

an unfair competitive advantage. The

non-profit organization shall describe its

current and past relationship with HUD

as it relates to a possible conflict of

interest in carrying out the counseling

program.

Such conflict could arise when any

employee, officer or agent of the PHA,

HUD or plaintiffs’ counsel; any member

of his or her immediate family, his or

her partner, or organization which

employs or is about to employ any of

the above has a financial or other

interest in the NPO that is selected.

C. Cost Factor

Cost will become relevant in the case

of a tie score in the technical part of the

evaluation, as stated under ‘‘Contract

Award’’ below. It is the goal of the Final

Judgment to provide high quality

services that will contribute

substantially to the desegregation of all

federally assisted housing in East Texas.

It is expected that the costs of each task

and sub-task will be addressed in the

proposal, including the costs for subcontractors, etc. HUD reserves the right

to reject any proposal that does not

adequately reflect costs.

D. Contract Award

In the event that the proposals are not

sufficiently complete to award the

contract, HUD may request additional

information from the highest scoring

applicants in order to make a final

decision. The additional information

will be considered by HUD in

establishing the final score for each

NPO. Award will be made to the NPO

whose proposal has the highest score. In

the event two or more offerors have tied

scores, cost efficiency—i.e., the extent to

which the NPO has a plan that will

accomplish the most desegregative

placements of all kinds within the

established financial parameters—will

be the determining factor.

E. Approval by HUD and Court Review

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a

contract shall not be entered into for the

FHSC without the express written

approval by HUD of the entity and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices 65581

application selected, and of the contract

with such entity. The initial and any

subsequent HUD decisions to enter into

a contract with an NPO and the initial

and any subsequent HUD approvals of

the proposal selected and of the contract

with the NPO are subject to judicial

review by motion of the plaintiffs under

¿ IV.6. of the Final Judgment and

Decree.

In the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Texas Paris

Division Lucille Young, et al., Plaintiffs,

v. Henry G. Cisneros, et al., Defendants.

[P–80–8-CA, Final Judgment]

Final Judgment and Decree

In 1985, defendants in the aboveentitled and numbered civil action were

found liable for knowingly and

continually maintaining a system of

segregated housing in a thirty-six county

area of East Texas in violation of the

constitutional and civil rights of a class

of African-Americans. Young v. Pierce,

628 F. Supp. 1037 (E.D. Tex. 1985). An

interim injunction issued in this action

in 1988. Young v. Pierce, 685 F. Supp.

986 (E.D. Tex. 1985). Such interim

injunction was amended by order of this

court in 1990. Order for Further Relief,

September 10, 1990. After extensive

briefing by the parties and a hearing on

the plaintiffs’ motion for final remedy,

it is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed

that the Honorable Henry G. Cisneros, as

Secretary of the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (‘‘HUD’’), his

officers, agents, servants, employees,

successors, and all persons in active

concert or participation with them shall

be, and are hereby, Permanently

Enjoined, either directly, or through

contractual or other arrangements, to

take the actions necessary to effectuate

the relief decreed by the provisions of

this Final Judgment and Decree, as

follows:

1. The individual desegregation plans

and the individual desegregation plan

amendments for each Public Housing

Authority (‘‘PHA’’) submitted by the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development (‘‘HUD’’) are hereby

approved, subject to the modifications

contained in this judgment and decree.

As used herein, ‘‘individual

desegregation plan’’ or ‘‘desegregation

plan’’ includes both the original,

individual desegregation plan filed by

HUD for a particular PHA and the

individual plan amendment filed by

HUD for that PHA. Within ninety days

from the issuance of this judgment and

decree HUD shall re-file the individual

desegregation plans, which shall fully

incorporate the amendments to such

plans, in order that a fully integrated

plan for each PHA will be on file.

2. The desegregation plans shall be

implemented and interpreted in a

manner consistent with the applicable

provisions of HUD’s East Texas

Comprehensive Desegregation Plan

(‘‘Comprehensive Plan’’) and with the

provisions of this judgment and decree.

HUD shall discharge all duties imposed

upon HUD by the terms of the

Comprehensive Plan and by the

provisions of this judgment and decree.

In the event of any inconsistency or

conflict between the provisions of this

judgment and decree and the provisions

of either the Comprehensive Plan or the

desegregation plans, the provisions of

this judgment and decree shall be

controlling.

3. All orders, including the interim

injunction previously issued in this

action, shall be in full force until HUD

attains unitary status, as defined in this

judgment and decree, and judicial

supervision ends in accordance with

this judgment and decree. All previous

orders entered in this action shall be

interpreted in a manner consistent with

this judgment and decree. In the event

of any inconsistency or conflict between

the provisions of this judgment and

decree and the provisions of any earlier

order, the provisions of this judgment

and decree shall be controlling.

4. All provisions of this judgment and

decree shall require, or be construed as

requiring, compliance with federal

statutes as they now exist, or as they

may be amended or enacted.

I. Physical Improvement to Projects and

Neighborhoods

1. Financial assistance for physical

improvements specified in the

desegregation plans shall be provided

by HUD or, in the case of neighborhood

improvements receiving financial

assistance under the Community

Development Block Grant Small Cities

Program (‘‘CDBG Small Cities

Program’’), by the State of Texas, within

seven years of the date of this judgment

and decree. The review and approval

process for applications for financial

assistance shall be conducted in

accordance with all applicable laws and

regulations, including the rules

governing competitive programs, where

appropriate.

2. Each such physical improvement

shall be completed as soon as is feasible

and practicable after approval and

funding and, in no event, shall the time

period for the completion of any such

physical improvement exceed a period

of three years from the date upon which

the application is approved and funded.

With respect to neighborhood

improvements being carried out by a

municipal government with financial

assistance under the Community

Development Block Grant Program

(‘‘CDBG program’’), it shall be the

responsibility of HUD to take all

appropriate actions within HUD’s

control to obtain completion of those

neighborhood improvements within the

time periods specified herein.

3. If any municipal government fails

to take an action necessary to complete

the neighborhood improvements

specified in the PHA’s desegregation

plan, HUD shall take appropriate action

in accordance with the regulations

governing the CDBG program. These

actions may include (i) enforcement

mechanisms available to HUD under its

obligation affirmatively to further fair

housing and (ii) causing the PHA to

institute against the municipal

government enforcement based on the

municipality’s violation of the

cooperation agreement between the

PHA and the municipality.

4. If any PHA fails to take an action

necessary to complete the physical

improvements specified in the PHA’s

desegregation plan, HUD shall take

appropriate enforcement action against

the PHA. These actions may include one

or more of the actions described in the

Comprehensive Plan at p. 20 for dealing

with the failure of a PHA to follow its

desegregation plan.

5. Where HUD has required

improvement of neighborhood

conditions as part of the desegregation

remedy for a PHA, HUD shall cause that

PHA and the responsible municipality

to enter into a memorandum of

understanding under which the

municipality agrees to carry out the

required neighborhood improvements.

Each such memorandum of

understanding shall identify the

neighborhood conditions to be corrected

or upgraded and describe the work to be

done in carrying out such correction or

upgrading. If such work requires

funding under the CDBG Program, the

memorandum of understanding shall

also contain a preliminary cost estimate

for the required work. All such

memoranda of understanding shall be

entered into by the PHAs and their

respective municipalities no later than

July 1, 1995. All such memoranda of

understanding shall be submitted for the

approval of the court. Upon approval by

the court, the memorandum of

understanding between a PHA and a

municipality shall define the full extent

of the obligation to correct or upgrade

neighborhood conditions in that PHA

and in that municipality.

6. In approving applications for the

funding of physical improvements, or

the provision of amenities, to low-rent

public housing projects in the class
65582 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices

action area, HUD shall, to the extent

consistent with applicable statutory and

regulatory requirements, give priority to

the funding of applications for making

such improvements, or providing such

improvements, to racially identifiable

African-American projects, i.e., low-rent

public housing projects in which

seventy-five percent (75%) or more of

the residents are African-Americans.

7. The amended individual

desegregation plans require, and the

comprehensive plan contemplates,

certain physical improvements which

include, inter alia, the provision of air

conditioning equipment, laundry

facilities, community centers, and

playgrounds. Plaintiffs additionally seek

the provision of carpeting, dishwashers,

a utility allowance to account for the

reasonable use of air conditioning, and

garbage disposals in predominately and

historically African-American projects.

Moreover, plaintiffs identify other

conditions present at predominately and

historically African-American projects

that are not present at the historically

and predominantly white projects,

including inadequate security and

maintenance.

HUD shall satisfy the obligations of

the individual desegregation plans as

they pertain to amenities and services.

In addition to those amenities and

services required by the individual

desegregation plans, HUD shall provide

the amenities and services available in

any of the historically and

predominantly white projects at the

historically and predominately AfricanAmerican projects of like or similar kind

within the PHA. The amenities and

services required at the non-elderly

family units at historically and

predominately African-American

projects in a given PHA are to be

determined by evaluating the

historically and predominately white

non-elderly family units within the

same PHA. For example, HUD must

ensure that the historically and

predominately African-American nonelderly family units include carpeting if

a historically and predominately white

non-elderly family unit includes

carpeting. Moreover, both projects shall

be staffed with maintenance personnel

in equal numbers or such numbers as

necessary to maintain the premises in

substantially similar condition.

II. Creation of Desegregated Housing

Opportunities

1. Within seven years from the date of

this judgment and decree, HUD shall

create a total of 5,134 desegregated

housing opportunities for elderly and

non-elderly class members in nonminority census blocks in the class

action area. Desegregated housing

opportunities shall be offered, first, to

class members residing in

predominately African-American lowrent public housing projects, second, to

class members who are on a waiting list

for low-rent public housing as of the

date of this judgment and decree, and,

third, to class members who apply for

low-rent public housing subsequent to

the date of this judgment and decree.

2.a. The term ‘‘non-minority census

block’’ is defined in accordance with the

‘‘1⁄4 mile radius’’ methodology described

in the report of the East Texas

Demographic and Mapping Analysis

conducted by George Galster of the

Urban Institute under a contract with

HUD (Defendants’ Exhibit 116). A given

census block shall be regarded as a nonminority census block, if the area

consisting of the given census block,

plus all census blocks within the PHA

jurisdiction whose centroids lie within

a 1⁄4 mile radius of the centroid of the

given census block (i) has a percentage

of white population of more than eighty

percent (80%), or (ii) has a percentage

of white population greater than 100%,

minus the PHA jurisdiction’s overall

percentage of African-American

population. b. Notwithstanding

subsection II.2.a., a census block will

not be regarded as a non-minority

census block, if (i) more than fifty

percent (50%) of the African-Americans

living in the area described by the 1⁄4

mile radius methodology are

concentrated in individual census

blocks with more than eighty percent

(80%) African-American population, or

(ii) the population of the area described

by the 1⁄4 mile methodology is more

than forty percent (40%) AfricanAmerican or (iii) geographic,

demographic, or social factors,

including proximity to racially

impacted areas or isolation from

population centers or community

services, indicate that the census block

should be regarded to be in a racially

impacted area.

3. To the maximum extent feasible

and practicable, HUD shall, through the

use of tenant-based housing assistance,

create within each PHA jurisdiction, the

number and type (elderly and nonelderly) of desegregated housing

opportunities which HUD has

determined to be needed within each

particular PHA jurisdiction, as indicated

in Defendants’ Hearing Exhibit No. 119,

Table 1.

4. If the number of desegregated

housing opportunities needed within a

particular PHA cannot be created

through the use of tenant-based housing

assistance, that PHA’s unmet need shall

be satisfied by offering class members

residing within that particular PHA a

desegregative housing opportunity

located in an adjacent jurisdiction. Such

adjacent jurisdiction can be no more

than thirty-five miles from the PHA and

must be accessible from the PHA by

adequate and feasible highway links and

public transportation.

5. If the number of desegregated

housing opportunities needed within a

particular PHA cannot be created

through the use of tenant-based housing

assistance, either within the PHA

jurisdiction or an adjacent jurisdiction,

the HUD shall, to the maximum extent

feasible and practicable, and consistent

with all statutory and regulatory

requirements, satisfy that PHAs unmet

need for desegregated housing

opportunities through the use of projectbased Section 8 existing housing

certificates and vouchers.

6. If the number of desegregated

housing opportunities needed within a

particular PHA cannot be created

through the use of either tenant-based or

project-based Section 8 housing

assistance, then that PHA’s unmet need

shall be satisfied through the creation of

desegregative housing opportunities

anywhere within the class action area.

7. HUD shall be given credit for the

creation of a desegregated housing

opportunity if:

a. A class member has been provided

by HUD with a desegregative housing

voucher or housing certificate. A

desegregative housing voucher or

housing certificate is a Section 8

existing housing certificate or housing

voucher, limited for the first 120 days to

use in non-minority census blocks.

b. The class member is offered

mobility counseling to assist the class

member to locate an appropriate

housing unit.

c. The class member has been referred

by the mobility counseling service to a

landlord who is willing to accept the

class member’s certificate or voucher for

the rental of a housing unit.

d. The housing unit offered by the

willing landlord is located in a nonminority census block.

e. The unit offered by the willing

landlord meets the applicable Section 8

existing housing quality standards in 24

CFR Sec. 882.109, and contains an

appropriate number of bedrooms for the

particular applicant’s family size and

composition.

f. The unit offered by the willing

landlord is located outside an area

where a reasonable African-American

would perceive significant racial

hostility.

g. There must be no legitimate basis

for the class member to refuse the

offered unit. Legitimate reasons to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices 65583

refuse an offer are limited to remoteness

to jobs or day care and lack of adequate

and feasible transportation. The burden

is on the applicant to demonstrate that

the proffered reason is legitimate. The

special master, or some designated

representative of the special master,

shall make the initial determination as

to whether the applicant has carried his

or her burden in this regard.

8. HUD shall also receive credit for

the creation of a desegregated housing

opportunity, whenever a class member

who has been provided with a

desegregative housing certificate or

housing voucher accepts an offer of a

housing unit located in any nonminority census block in the class

action area, or in any other nonminority area, but the unit was not

obtained through a referral from the

housing mobility service.

9. HUD shall receive credit for the

creation of a desegregated housing

opportunity, if a class member is

referred by the mobility counseling

service to a landlord willing to rent the

class member, with or without the use

of a Section 8 housing certificate or

voucher, a suitable housing unit in a

privately owned, HUD-assisted and/or

HUD-subsidized housing development,

or in a housing development assisted or

subsidized by the Farmers Home

Administration, provided that the

offered housing unit meets the location

requirements set forth in Paragraph

II.7.d., above, and provided that the

African-American occupancy of the

project in which the unit is located does

not exceed fifty percent (50%).

10. HUD shall also receive credit for

the creation of a desegregated housing

opportunity whenever a class member,

with or without the use of Section 8

housing certificate or voucher, accepts

an offer of a housing unit in a privately

owned, HUD-assisted and/or HUDsubsidized housing development, or in

a housing development assisted or

subsidized by the Farmers Home

Administration, where (i) the housing

unit is located in any non-minority

census block in the class action area, or

in any other non-minority area, (ii) the

African-American occupancy of the

project in which the unit is located does

not exceed fifty percent (50%) and (iii)

the unit was not obtained through a

referral from the housing mobility

service.

11. The mobility services referred to

above shall be provided by the Fair

Housing Services Center, a private, nonprofit organization to be established and

funded by HUD for a five-year period,

as set forth below.

12. The Fair Housing Services Center

shall administer the desegregative

Section 8 housing vouchers and

certificates under contract with one or

more PHAs.

III. Elimination or Reduction of Racially

Identifiable Low-Rent Public Housing

Projects

1. If the individual desegregation plan

for a particular PHA does not require

the use of any of the Waiting List

Initiatives, that specific PHA shall

continue to use a race-conscious tenant

selection assignment plan in conformity

with the requirements of Paragraph 2 of

the Interim Injunction entered in this

action on March 3, 1988.

2. Any particular Waiting List

Initiative specified in an individual

desegregation plan shall be fully

implemented by the PHA within six

months of the date of this judgment and

decree. Any PHA that is required to

implement a Waiting List Initiative shall

also continue to use a race-conscious

tenant selection assignment plan in

conformity with the requirements of

Paragraph 2 of the Interim Injunction

entered in this action on March 3, 1988.

HUD shall provide any and all

assistance to the PHA necessary to

implement the Waiting List Initiative,

such as the drafting of detailed

instructions to guide the PHA in the

implementation of the Waiting List

Initiative, and the preparation of

interagency agreements required for the

Cross-Listing Initiative, the Merged

Waiting List Initiative, the Area-Wide

Waiting List Initiative and the Housing

Opportunities Waiting List Initiative.

3. If any Waiting List Initiative, such

as the Affirmative Action Waiting List

Initiative, employs race-conscious

practices for the selection of tenants for

assignment to a low-rent public housing

project, an offer of alternative housing

shall be made to any class member who

would otherwise have been offered a

unit in the project but for the need to

achieve a desired racial balance in the

project within sixty days of the date on

which the public housing unit in

question became available for

assignment.

a. Such an offer of alternative housing

shall be made to a class member if (i)

the class member has applied for lowrent public housing with the PHA

operating the project; (ii) the class

member meets all applicable eligibility

and screening requirements for

admission to public housing operated

by the PHA; and (iii) and the class

member would otherwise have been

offered an available unit in the project

but for the advancement of a non-class

member applicant to the head of the

waiting list for that unit under the terms

of the Waiting List Initiative, i.e., the

class member held the highest position

on the waiting list above the non-class

member applicant whose position on

the waiting list was advanced under the

terms of the Waiting List Initiative. A

non-class member applicant may not be

advanced on a waiting list, unless it has

been verified that the non-class member

applicant meets all eligibility

requirements and tenant selection

criteria applicable to the low-rent public

housing project.

b. In order to satisfy the requirements

for an offer of alternative housing (i) the

class member must be provided with a

desegregative Section 8 housing voucher

or housing certificate and (ii) all other

requirements for the creation of a

desegregated housing opportunity

specified in Paragraph II.7., above, must

be satisfied.

c. The public housing unit that

otherwise would have been offered to

the class member shall remain vacant

pending receipt by the class member of

an offer of alternative housing.

d. If the class member who would

otherwise have been offered the public

housing unit rejects an offer of

alternative housing HUD shall, within

seven days of such rejection, provide

plaintiffs with a written notice stating

the name of the applicant and stating

the basis for HUD’s determination that

the applicant rejected the offer of a

dwelling unit meeting the requirements

for an offer of alternative housing.

e. The plaintiffs shall have seven days

from the date of notice under the

preceding subparagraph to submit to

HUD, in writing, any objections

plaintiffs may have to HUD’s

determination. If timely objections are

submitted by the plaintiffs, the public

housing unit shall remain vacant

pending a decision by the special

master. Except as provided in Paragraph

III.3.b. (referring to Paragraph II.7.g.),

above, in any such proceeding, HUD

shall bear the burden of proving that the

applicant has rejected an offer of

alternative housing. If no objection is

made, or, upon objection, the special

master determines that an offer of

alternative housing was received by the

class member who would otherwise

have been offered the public housing

unit, the class member shall be placed

on the waiting list in the position

occupied by the non-class member

advanced in accordance with the

Waiting List Initiative, and the non-class

member applicant advanced under the

Waiting List Initiative shall be assigned

to the public housing unit. Either party

dissatisfied with the decision of the

special master may seek review of that

decision by this court within seven days

of the special master’s decision.
65584 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices

f. If a class member rejects an offer of

alternative housing after previously

receiving an offer of alternative housing

and rejecting such offer, the special

master shall determine whether the

applicant will again be placed on the

waiting list in the position occupied by

the advanced non-class member

applicant or will receive different

consideration in light of the unusual

circumstances. Either party dissatisfied

with the decision of the special master

may seek review of that decision by this

court, within seven days of the special

master’s decision.

g. If no offer of alternative housing is

made within sixty days, HUD shall

notify the special master, within seven

days, of the circumstances preventing

an offer of alternative housing. The

special master shall investigate the

conditions already causing HUD’s

failure to make an offer of alternative

housing. If the special master

determines that HUD is acting in good

faith, the class member shall be

provided a desegregative housing

certificate or voucher which may be

used without the geographic restriction

described in Paragraph II.7.a., above,

within the time period described in 24

CFR Sec. 882.209(d). A finding that

HUD acted in bad faith shall be

evidence to be considered in relation to

any motion to hold HUD in contempt.

4. HUD shall provide a section 8

existing housing voucher to the nonclass member applicant who would

otherwise have been offered an available

public housing unit but for the

advancement of a class member to the

head of the waiting list for that unit

under the terms of a Waiting List

Initiative, i.e., the non-class member

applicant who held the highest position

on the waiting list above the class

member applicant whose position on

the waiting list was advanced under the

terms of the Waiting List Initiative.

5. In determining whether to require

a PHA to use the Affirmative Action

Waiting List Initiative, or any other race

conscious tenant selection and

assignment plan, for a particular lowrent public housing project, HUD shall

not consider the impact of the

integration of the project on the racial

composition of the neighborhood

surrounding that project.

IV. Fair Housing Services Center

1. HUD shall establish a Fair Housing

Services Center (‘‘FHSC’’), the functions

of which must include providing

assistance to class members in locating

and obtaining affordable desegregated

housing in areas where they choose and,

additionally, providing class members

with fair housing counseling services.

2. The FHSC shall be operated by a

private, non-profit organization. HUD

shall provide funding to the FHSC in an

amount no less than $500,000 per year

for a period of five years.

3. Within sixty days of the date of the

entry of this judgment and decree, HUD

shall serve upon the plaintiffs, and

submit for approval of the court, a

proposed Request for Proposals (‘‘RFP’’),

inviting private, non-profit

organizations to apply for a contract

with HUD to operate the FHSC. The

plaintiffs shall have ten days from the

date of service within which to file

objections to the proposed RFP. If such

objections are filed, the court shall

conduct such proceedings as are

required to resolve the objections.

4. Upon approval of the RFP by the

court, HUD shall publish the RFP in the

Commerce Business Daily. Within 120

days of the date of publication of the

RFP, HUD shall make its selection of the

organization to operate the FHSC.

5. The FHSC shall provide the

following services:

a. Pre-screen all clients of the FHSC

who have not already been screened by

a PHA, to document each client’s ability

and willingness to comply with an

acceptable lease and HUD program

requirements;

b. Provide information and counseling

with respect to housing opportunities to

class members;

c. Monitor the compliance of the

providers of low-income housing in the

class action area (low-income public

housing and assisted housing) with the

fair housing laws and the requirements

placed upon the providers under the

Comprehensive Plan and the individual

desegregation plans;

d. Encourage and assist in the

development of desegregative housing

opportunities, including outreach to

private landlords in non-minority areas,

as well as counseling and referral

services to Section 8 existing housing

tenants and applicants who wish to

utilize their Section 8 certificates or

housing vouchers in a manner

furthering desegregation;

e. Encourage and assist class members

to make desegregative moves within the

low-income housing program and to

privately owned assisted housing

programs;

f. Administer the desegregative

housing certificates and vouchers to be

provided by HUD under contract with

one or more PHAs;

g. Give each class member written

notice, every six months, in a form and

distribution method to be approved by

HUD, of all HUD-assisted and/or HUDsubsidized low-income housing

developments in the housing markets

where the class member resides that

offer the class members a desegregative

housing opportunity, provide notice of

the full address, telephone number, and

name of the person responsible for

accepting applications for the

development, a short description of the

type of housing offered by the

development, and the general eligibility

requirements for the development.

6. The plaintiffs may seek review, in

this court, of HUD’s final selection of

the organization to operate the FHSC.

Such review shall be in accordance with

the standards and procedures for

judicial review set forth in the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

Secs. 701, et seq.

V. Racially Hostile Sites

1. HUD shall utilize its statutory and

regulatory authority to proceed against

any resident who acts to deprive any

other resident of his or her civil rights

under the United States Constitution or

applicable civil rights statutes.

2. HUD shall assist municipal leaders,

including, but not limited to, the city’s

mayor and its city counsel, in

undertaking actions to address hostility

including, but not limited to, supplying

trained security officers to protect the

physical safety of African-American

residents when necessary.

3. Within sixty days of issuance of

this judgment and decree, HUD shall

determine in which localities class

participation is limited because of racial

hostility such that it is unlikely class

members will actually use the existing

public housing.

4. HUD shall develop a supplemental

desegregation plan for each site deemed

by HUD to be racially hostile. The

supplemental plan shall examine all

avenues available to HUD effectively to

counterbalance racial hostility, thereby

facilitating class participation and the

implementation of the individual

desegregation plans and this judgment

and decree. Such supplemental plan

shall be submitted to the special master

for his approval within six months of

the designation of a site as racially

hostile.

VI. Unitary Status

1. When HUD and each PHA have

satisfied the requirements as provided

for in this judgment and decree and no

racially identifiable low-rent public

housing projects exist within the class

action counties, HUD may apply to the

court for a declaration of unitary status

because of the elimination of all vestiges

of discrimination attributable to HUD.

See Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284,

297 (1976). A project shall be regarded

as non-racially identifiable if less than
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 1997 / Notices 65585

seventy-five percent (75%) of the

occupants of the project are members of

the same race.

2. Upon issuance by the court of a

declaration of unitary status, judicial

supervision pursuant to this judgment

and decree, or any other order entered

in this case, of HUD’s activities shall

terminate.

3. Ten years after the date of this

judgment and decree, if the court’s

jurisdiction has not been sooner

terminated, the court shall determine

whether its jurisdiction over HUD’s

actions should be continued or

terminated. The court shall extend its

jurisdiction over HUD if it determines

that any of the specific obligations to be

performed under this judgment and

decree have not been accomplished

within that time period. If the court

extends its jurisdiction for this reason,

its jurisdiction shall end upon

fulfillment of those specific obligations.

[FR Doc. 97–32516 Filed 12–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–33–P