Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02062007 - D.5 S' TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Housing FROM: Rudy Tamayo Authority of Executive Director -� Contra Costa aff,dable housing mWtio County DATE: February 6, 2007 SUBJECT: Report to the Board; OIG Audit Report of December 15, 2006 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPT the audit report from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Inspector General (OIG), dated December 15, 2006, concerning the Housing Authority of Contra Costa's management of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of the Inspector General (OIG) assessed the Housing Authority with $166,000 in reimbursements, subject to final negotiation with the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco. It is likely that within the next 30 days the reimbursements to HUD will be significantly reduced by$121,658 as a result of providing additional documentation to justify the questioned costs. The remaining $39,000 will be negotiated with HUD to reduce this amount further. In addition, the OIG is requiring the Housing Authority perform accounting adjustments to reclassify retroactive tenant rent payments. There will be no impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND HUD's OIG came to the Housing Authority on March 1, 2006 to conduct an audit of the Housing Authority's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program's system for determining rent reasonableness. The audit report was completed on December 15, 2006. The audit recommended to HUD's San Francisco Office of Public Housing, that they require the Housing Authority to: A) support or reimburse HUD $82,659 in unsupported Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) , B) follow HUD-approved policies and procedures when performing rent reasonableness and ensure adequate quality control procedures are in place, C) reimburse HUD $77,997 in administrative fees, D) repay HUD $5,236 for subsidy overpayments resulting from processing delays, E) repay additional subsidies disbursed due to late processing of rent increases from July 1, 2005 to present, and, CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RU TA O,EXECUTIVE D TOR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF 11110ARD COMMITTEE,/ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON /�co& APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER ..Sem VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON THE DATE SHOWN. UNANIMOUS(ABSENT � ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: Judy Hayes,957-8028 Cc: County Administration ATTESTED Auditor-Controller JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BY: DEPUTY Board of Commissioners February 6, 2007 Page 2 of 3 F) develop procedures that ensure the timely processing of rent increase requests; prevent the use of federal funds to pay for the Authority's errors or omissions; and address repayment of funds to HUD for overpayments resulting from the use federal funds to pay for errors or omissions. Housing Authority Action Plan The Housing Authority has developed a comprehensive plan to address the six recommendations as outlined above. A) HUD OIG recommended to the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco support or reimburses HUD $82,659 in unsupported Housing Assistance Payments (HAP). The Housing Authority has supported the $82,659 in Housing Assistance Payments and should not have to reimburse this amount to HUD. Explanation: The audit of 29 files found inadequate documentation to support the approved rents for Section 8 units. Specifically, the boxes on some forms were not checked and some forms were missing. Action: 1 Staff reworked the 29 files and properly filled out all boxes and fully completed all forms with the appropriate information. Using the same data sources used in fiscal year 2005-2006, the 29 Section 8 units, in fact, had reasonable rents, i.e., rents that were comparable with the area local markets that were at or below the HUD published Fair Market Rent (FMR) and the Housing Authority's Payment Standards. 2 To ensure rents were comparable, the 29 units were re-processed using our new system for determining rent reasonableness. Again, using a different methodology, the rent for the 29 units was found reasonable. There is no evidence that the Housing Authority has overpaid or underpaid rent for any Section 8 rental unit. This supporting documentation will be forwarded to HUD for review and approval by February 1, 2007. B) The HUD OIG recommended to the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco that the Housing Authority follows HUD-approved policies and procedures when performing rent reasonableness and ensures adequate quality control procedures are in place. Action: 3. Policies and procedures have been updated and will be forwarded to the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco for approval by February 1, 2007. 4. The Housing Manager and the Director have been directed to re-train the two existing staff and thoroughly train the two new staff on these policies and procedures, federal requirements, establish goals for staff and monitor progress toward goals. 5. The Housing Manager and Director have implemented weekly quality control procedures and maintenance of quality control logs and records. This process will be forwarded to the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco for approval by February 1, 2007. 6. The Housing Authority Director of Assisted Housing will review quality control logs and test an appropriate number of files on a biweekly basis. The Director will maintain records of logs and files tested. 7. The Executive Director has developed a Quality Control Team from another department to review all files for rent reasonableness and proper supporting documentation. 8. The Housing Authority housing manager and the four inspectors will correct all files tested by the Quality Control Team, if appropriate. C) HUD OIG recommended to the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco that the Housing Authority reimburses HUD $77,997 in administrative fees, 1 Board of Commissioners February 6, 2007 Page 3 of 3 Action: 9. The Housing Authority will be working with the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco to reduce this amount. The rents were and remain reasonable with the updated documentation now properly filed. 10. HUD OIG stated that this amount could be reduced by the amount attributed to earned administrative fees earned after April 1, 2006, the beginning of this fiscal year. The Housing Authority has calculated this amount to be approximately $39,000 of the $77,997 which should not be reimbursed to HUD. D) & E) HUD OIG recommended to the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco that the Housing Authority repays HUD $5,236 for subsidy overpayments resulting from processing delays, and repay additional subsidies disbursed due to late processing of rent increases from July 1, 2005 to present. Explanation: The OIG requires the Housing Authority to separate the retroactive landlord payments from July 1, 2005 to present and properly charge the Section 8 Administrative Fee account for the retroactive tenant rent portion of the payment. Action: 11. The Housing Authority is correcting an accounting entry that should have been made at the time of the payment. The retroactive tenant payments and the retroactive Housing Assistant payments have been applied to their appropriate accounts. 12. Staff is reviewing all requests for rent increases from July 1, 2005 to ensure that the accounting is correct. The Housing Authority will submit its findings to HUD within the next 30 days, which is expected to resolve both findings. 13. Procedures and process have been developed for accounting and Section 8 staff which will be forwarded to HUD, Office of Public Housing for approval by March 9, 2007. 14. To ensure timely completion of all reexaminations and request for rent increases the housing managers and the Director have been instructed to print the reexamination report every Monday, review with staff and develop work plan for the week and/or month. 15. Late reexamination report will be provided to the Executive Director on a bi-weekly basis. 16. Develop a plan utilizing contractors and temporary staff to address high cycles of work load to ensure timely processing of all reexaminations. 17. Training of staff will be conducted to ensure accurate and timely processing. Consultant training is scheduled for March 5 through 9, 2007. F) HUD OIG recommended to the HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco that the Housing Authority develop procedures that ensure the timely processing of rent increase requests; prevent the use of federal funds to pay for the Authority's errors or omissions; and address repayment of funds to HUD for overpayments resulting from the use federal funds to pay for errors or omissions, Action: 18. Desk top procedures and quality control processes have been developed and implemented for the timely processing of request for rent increases. These will be forwarded to HUD, Office of Public Housing for approval by March 9, 2007. 19. The HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco and the Housing Authority will work to develop prevention practices and methodology to address the Housing Authority's errors or omissions. Conclusion The Housing Authority is working diligently to clear those items listed above. The HUD Office of Public Housing, San Francisco and the Housing Authority staff will be working very closely to ensure that Housing Authority procedures and processes comply with the intent of federal regulations. Housing Authority management staff is committed to ensure operational practice complies with HUD approved procedures and policies. Quality control practices and procedures have been initiated to provide accountability by all staff throughout the Section 8 work processes. ADDENDUM to D.5 February 6, 2007 On this day,the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners considered an audit report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD), Office of Inspector General, concerning the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County's management of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Rudy Tamayo,Housing Authority Executive Director,requested that the Board accept the audit report presented today. Chair Piepho requested an update on the Quality of Life Forums and current community outreach efforts. Mr. Tamayo responded that there is concern about Section 8 participation in southeast Antioch. He noted that nationwide,there is a change happening in the Section 8 program and as suburban housing becomes available for rent, more program participants are moving to the suburbs. He said that Antioch has a large number of single-family houses for rent, more so than any other part of our region. He said there is a prevalent feeling that Antioch residents don't want these single-family rentals to be available to Section 8 participants, but he noted that the Housing Authority cannot dictate where program participants live and cannot deny landlords the opportunity to rent to Section 8 participants. Chair Piepho said there appears to be a lack of accountability by the Board and by the landlords participating in the program, and suggested that if this is the result of the federal HUD system,then we need to be advocating for change. Mr. Tamayo responded that as facilitators of the federal program,the Housing Authority is holding landlord workshops and has developed a system to log and track complaints. Chair Piepho suggested revisiting her proposal to research the possibility of annual criminal record background checks. Mr. Tamayo noted that at present, background checks are done on new program participants and on new members to participant households.He suggested annual background checks could cost approximately $50,000 per year for the 1,500 members, of whom approximately one-third are disabled or elderly and unlikely to have new criminal offenses. Chair Piepho said there may be a way to develop a pilot program to conduct annual checks for those at risk. Supervisor Gioia interjected to say the item before the Board is the matter of accepting the HUD audit, and noted anything separate from that issue should be scheduled separately for Board consideration. Supervisor Glover said he would like to make it very clear that the Antioch Section 8 housing situation needs to be its own separate robust discussion that should include issues as they exist Countywide and nationwide in addition to as they exist in Antioch. Mr.Tamayo noted that there will be a report on the Antioch Section 8 program at the Board's February 27, 2007 meeting.As for the audit,Mr. Tamayo said that of 29 files surveyed, 10 were found to be deficient but have subsequently been corrected. Supervisor Gioia suggested that the audit could be indicative of problems in many files,rather than just the 10 out of 29 that were corrected. He suggested considering some kind of Board oversight process and suggested this may need to come back to the Board. February 6, 2007 Addendum to D.5 Page 2 of 2 Supervisor Bonilla said that now is the time to find solutions, and suggested that some kind of solution should accompany this report. The Chair called for public comment and the following people spoke: ■ Pat Miller,United Citizens for Better Neighborhoods, Antioch, said that people with current criminal records are receiving benefits in Antioch from the Section 8 program, and said she wants to be able to get violators out of the program and get qualified people in(handouts provided); ■ Nancy Fernandez,Antioch resident, noted that many Section 8 residents publicly announce they are receiving benefits and even brag about it; ■ Martin Fernandez,Antioch resident, said"the whole thing is a scam"and said the Board needs to take over the operation of the Section 8 program; ■ Arlene Hildebrand, Assistant City Manager, City of Antioch, said Antioch is a diverse community that welcomes all good neighbors, but the City is very concerned about the quality of life. She said there is"much to do"and welcomed open discussions that would enable the Board and the City to work together; and ■ Ralph Hernandez,Antioch resident, requested the Board seek a Grand Jury/District Attorney investigation of the Section 8 program. Supervisor Gioia suggested researching the transfer of the program to the City of Antioch, noting that many times the problems with Section 8 participants involve Code enforcement issues,which are City issues. Supervisor Glover said there could be problems with transferring the program, but suggested an ad-hoc committee could research all the issues in terms of what is legal and what is not,and return to the Board in 30 days. Commissioner Tenes provided the Board with the executive summary of a HUD report on strategies for dealing with program concerns: "Strategies that Enhance Community Relations in Tenant-Based Housing Choice Voucher Programs"(March 30, 2001). By a unanimous vote with none absent, the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners took the following action: ACCEPTED the audit report from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County's management of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; and ESTABLISHED an ad-hoc committee consisting of Commissioners Tenes, Gioia, and Glover to address the issues in the audit and all the other Housing Authority issues being brought before the Board. u Visit PD&R's Web Site www.huduser.org to find this report and other sponsored by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R's Research Information Service, include listservs; special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources); access to public use databases; hotline,1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need. Ili Strategies That Enhance Community Relations in Tenant-Based Housing Choice Voucher Programs Final Report March 30,2001 Prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research 4517"Street,SN,Room 4122 Washington,DC 20410 Prepared by Sarah Churchill Mary Joel Holin Jill Khadduri Jennifer Tu mham P Acknowledgements The authors of this report--Sarah Churchill, Mary,Joel Holin, Jill Khadduri, and Jennifer Turnham—acknowledge with thanks the assistance of others in completing this study. Judith D.Feins,Linda Pistilli,MaryAnn Russ, and Debra Torres of Abt Associates Inc. contributed to the primary research underlying the report,as did Amy Jones of Amy Jones and Associates Inc. and Eugene Rizor of Quadel Consulting Corporation. Michael Baker, Jenny Berrien, Carissa Climaco, Ty Hardaway, and Saty Patrabansh assisted with the secondary data collection and analysis. Jeff Smith and Monique Tucker provided production assistance. This guidebook was prepared by AN Associates Inc. under Contract C-OPC-18571, Task Order 4 for HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research. The authors acknowledge the thoughtful guidance and support provided by Dr. Harold R. Holzman, the Government Technical Monitor. Robert Gray and Les Rubin also made helpful contributions to the research. Finally,the authors would like to thank the HCVP administrators,community groups, elected officials, and nonprofit organizations at the eight study sites who so generously shared information and ideas with us. The contents of this report are the views of the contractor, and do not necessarily reflect the P Y views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government. Contents ExecutiveSummary....................................................... ...................................................................i Chapter 1 Introduction.................................................................... .................................................................. 1 1.1 Background for the Study............................ .................................................................... 1 1.2 Methodology................................................i....................................................................3 1.3 Contents of the Report.................................II....................................................................5 Chapter 2 SummaryProfiles of the Study Sites ............................'p....................................................................7 2.1 Fairfax County,Virginia..............................'....................................................................7 2.2 Montgomery County,Pennsylvania............. ....................................................................9 2.3 Lynn, Massachusetts....................................",.................................................................. 11 2.4 Baltimore,Maryland....................................................................................................... 13 2.5 Cook County,Illinois...................................''.....................................................:............. 15 2.6 Camden County,New Jersey.......................................................................................... 18 2.7 San Antonio,Texas......................................................................................................... 19 2.8 Syracuse,New York....................................;..................................................................22 Chapter 3 The Role of Neighborhood or Community in HCVP Conflicts.....................................................26 3.1. Geography of the Conflict ..........................:...................................................................26 P 3.2 HCVP Administrative Geography ............. ...................................................................27 3.3 Neighborhood Factors that Contribute to HCVP Community Conflict..........................28 Chapter 4 Housing Authority Practices that Contribute to HCVP Community Conflict............................41 4.1 Failure to Monitor Housing Market Change and Locations of HCVP Housing ............41 4.2 Insufficient Attention to Assisting Families„to Move to a Broad Range of Neighborhoods ................................................................................................43 4.3 Inadequate Attention to Rent Reasonableness and Housing Quality Standards.............45 4.4 Insufficient Attention to Household Behavior................................................................48 4.5 Unresponsiveness to Complaints and Controversy...................:.....................................50 Chapter 5 Underlying Issues and Outside Influences in HCVP Community Conflict.................................53 5.1 Underlying Issues in HCVP Community Conflict..........................................................53 5.2 The Role of Outside Influences in HCVP Conflict........................................................61 Contents Chapter 6 PHAStrategies and their Effectiveness......................... ................................................................. 67 6.1 Conducting Community Outreach................:................................................................. 67 6.2 Creating Interagency Partnerships.................................................................................. 72 6.3 Understanding Housing Market Dynamics/HCVP Locations........................................ 73 6.4 Improving Compliance and Monitoring Efforts ............................................................. 74 6.5 Revising Administrative Practices.................................................................................. 77 6.6 Conclusions................................................... .................................................................81 AppendixA: Study Methodology.................................................................................................... 82 AppendixB: Maps of the Study Sites............................................................................................. 99 Contents i i I i j Executive Summary i i c In 1999, Abt Associates Inc. initiated a HUD-sponsored study of Strategies that Enhance Community Relations in Tenant-Based HCVP Programs. The goal of the study was to provide HUD with a thorough understanding of the conditions that precipitate local opposition to the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP—in this publication, the term "HCVP" is used to describe the concept historically described as "Section 8") and the strategies that are effective in mitigating potential or;real conflicts. A team of senior housing professionals with extensive HCVP experience was assembled to research eight situations around the country where communities have faced local opposition to tenant-based HCVPs. This report presents the findings of the study. The rapid growth of the HCVP in recent years has provided an important opportunity for many low-income families to find affordablei housing in previously inaccessible neighborhoods. However,as the experience of the eight study sites suggests, this opportunity also presents its challenges as the program becomes more visible and the potential for controversy about the growing presence of HCVP families in certain neighborhoods increases. In many cases, HCVP becomes a scapegoat for larger problems or changes in the community over which the housing authority has little apparent control. It appears that the best course of action for housing authorities in such situations is to take ownership of the 1 problem, whether or not they have the resources at hand to resolve the controversy. This research offers some valuable lessons regarding the conditions that precipitate HCVP conflicts and the strategies that are effective in mitigating them. Although the number of study sites was limited, the data collected provide a good illustration of the kinds of neighborhoods that may be vulnerable to HCVP controversy; the kinds of issues over which controversy can arise; common housing authority ,reactions to community opposition; and effective approaches to improving community relations over the long-term. The principal I lessons learned in each of these areas are summarized below: • Neighborhoods that are experiencing economic decline, or are perceived to be "not what they used to be,"are vulnerable to HCVP conflict. Anxieties about neighborhood decline were often fueled by trends that are visible at a local level, such as a drop in property values or decrease in homeownership rates, changes in the racial makeup in the community, or a downward trend in public school test scores. • The areas with the highest concentration of poverty and/or the highest concentration of HCVP recipients may not be those that experience conflict. Among the study sites where HCVP conflict emerged, poverty rates ranged from 6 percent to 41 percent, with Executive Summary i G half of the sites at or below 10 percent. The fraction of the population made up by HCVP households ranged from 2 to 14 percent, with most sites falling into the 3 to 6 percent range. Thus, it appears that what makes a community vulnerable to conflict surrounding the HCVP is not a specific_degree of poverty or concentration of HCVP households; rather, it is the perception that the community is;changing or that families moving in are visibly different from existing residents in race or class. • The presence of an active neighborhood group concerned about change can play a crucial role in galvanizing and organizing opposition to the HCVP. It is possible, however, for HCVP conflict to arise in the absence of a strong neighborhood group, particularly if it is perceived as part of a broader political struggle. • HCVP conflict is almost always fueled by concerns that the program is being poorly administered. Whether these concerns are based on misinformation or not, housing authorities should be particularly careful to pay attention to the following administrative problems, many of which contributed to the conflict at one or more study sites: 1) failure to monitor housing market change and locations of HCVP housing; 2) insufficient attention to assisting families to move to a broad range of neighborhoods; 3) inadequate attention to rent reasonableness and housing quality standards; 4) insufficient attention to HCVP household behavior;and 5) unresponsiveness to community complaints. • Before the HCVP controversy began, the HCVP administrators in most of the sites studied did not have a firm grasp of the number and locations of HCVP recipients across their jurisdictions. Information about the locational patterns of the program and how.they had changed over time might have alerted housing authorities to problems in the way they were administering the program. At the very least, this knowledge could have enabled program administrators to be more proactive in their dealings with neighborhood organizations. • Most of the housing authorities studied did not take the initial community complaints about the HCVP seriously. In addition, many reacted in a defensive way, providing information about the program and its participants that may have been factually accurate but that did nothing to engage those on the other side of the controversy in useful dialogue. In the cases where the housing authority did not take the initial complaints seriously,they did not go away. Rather,the failure to act promptly and directly to address community concerns universally resulted in the escalation of the conflict. • Understanding and resolving HCVP conflict requires probing the issues of conflict underlying the surface complaints. HCVP controversies often initially appear to be about relatively minor, "nuisance" issues—rental units that are not up to neighborhood standards, tenant behavior that disturbs the neighbors, etc. These kinds of complaints, however, are often symptomatic of deeper concerns about control over local resources,or Executive Summary ii philosophical differences between the community and housing authority. Both parties need to be aware of the underlying issues at stake in order to begin to resolve the conflict. • Resolving community conflict over the HCVP requires that the housing authority "take ownership" of the problem, regardless of who is at fault. Taking ownership of the problem generally means making both practical changes—such as conducting owner outreach, improving compliance efforts, and improving administrative practices—and cultural changes, such as partnering with other agencies (particularly the police department) and viewing whole neighborhoods, and not just assisted families, as customers. • In many instances, the housing authority is not in a position to solve the underlying problem—such as the economic decline or political weakness of a particular community—but a prompt and collaborative response can go a long way toward calming community fears and addressing those issues that focused opposition on the HCVP. In most cases, the housing authority will not',' be able to single-handedly turn the neighborhood around,but it can take steps to ensure that HCVP is perceived as part of the solution,not part of the problem. • In some cases effective HCVP administration alone may not be adequate to prevent ff Y 9 HCVP conflict. Housing authorities need also!,to understand the economic, social, and housing market dynamics of the neighborhoods in their jurisdictions. This includes being " aware of the other housing authorities administering tenant-based assistance in the region. • Greater public education about the goals and.regulations of the HCVP is necessary, particularly as the program enters a new era of greater visibility and is present in an increasingly'wide range of neighborhoods. • Finally, if housing authorities want to improve,the image and acceptance of the HCVP over the long-term, they should reconsider their role with respect to the larger community. As HCVP becomes a visible presence in a growing number of neighborhoods, housing authorities must begin Ito take on broader, non-traditional roles. This includes getting involved in neighborhood revitalization activities and taking leadership positions in community-building initiatives. Executive Summary iii Visit PD&R's Web Site www.huduser.org to find this report and other sponsored by HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R's Research Information Service, include listservs; special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources); access to public use databases; hotline 1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need. Strategies That Enhance Community Relations in Tenant-Based Housing Choice Voucher Programs Final Report March 30,,2001 Preparedfor U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research 4517"'Street,S.W.,Room 4122 Washington,DC 20410 Prepared by Sarah Churchill Mary JoeliHolin Jill Khadduri Jennifer Tumham �V Acknowledgements The authors of this report—Sarah Churchill, Mary ',Joel Holin, Jill Khadduri, and Jennifer Turnham—acknowledge with thanks the assistance of others in completing this study. Judith D. Feins, Linda Pistilli, MaryAnn Russ, and Debra Torres of AN Associates Inc. contributed to the primary research underlying the report,as did Amy Jones of Amy Jones and Associates Inc. and Eugene Rizor of Quadel Consulting Corporation. Michael Baker, Jenny Berrien, Carissa Climaco, Ty Hardaway, and Saty Patrabansh assisted with the secondary data collection and analysis. Jeff Smith and Monique Tucker provided production assistance. This guidebook was prepared by AN Associates Inc. under Contract C-OPC-18571 Task Order 4 for HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research. The authors acknowledge the thoughtful guidance and support provided by Dr. Harold R. Holzman, the Government Technical Monitor. Robert Gray and Les Rubin also made helpful contributions to the research. Finally,the authors would like to thank the HCVP administrators,community groups, elected officials, and nonprofit organizations at the eight study sites who so generously shared information and ideas with us. The contents of this report are the views of the contractor, and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government. N Contents ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................................i Chapter 1 Introduction.................................................................... ................................................................. 1 1.1 Background for the Study.......................................................................... 1.2 Methodology 1.3 Contents of the Report..................................'.................................................................... 5 Chapter 2 SummaryProfiles of the Study Sites ................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Fairfax County,Virginia.. ................................................................... 7 2.2 MontgomeryCounty,Pennsylvania a ........... 9 2.3 Lynn,Massachusetts...................................................................................I................... 11 2.4 Baltimore,Maryland....................................................................................................... 13 2.5 Cook County,Illinois...................................................................................................... 15 2.6 Camden County,New Jersey 2.7 San Antonio,Texas......................................................................................................... 19 2.8 Syracuse,New York.....................................'...................................................................22 Chapter 3 The Role of Neighborhood or Community in HCVP C'onflicts.....................................................26 3.1. Geography of the Conflict ..............................................................................................26 3.2 HCVP Administrative Geography................ .................................................................27 3.3 Neighborhood Factors that Contribute to HCVP Community Conflict..........................28 Chapter 4 Housing Authority Practices that Contribute to HCVP Community Conflict............................41 4.1 Failure to Monitor Housing Market Change and Locations of HCVP Housing ............41 4.2 Insufficient Attention to Assisting Families to Move to a Broad Range of Neighborhoods ..............................1.................................................................43 4.3 Inadequate Attention to Rent Reasonableness and Housing Quality Standards.............45 4.4 Insufficient Attention to Household Behavior................................................................48 4.5 Unresponsiveness to Complaints and Contro„versy.........................................................50 Chapter 5 Underlying Issues and Outside Influences in HCVP Community Conflict.................................53 5.1 Underlying Issues in HCVP Community Conflict..........................................................53 5.2 The Role of Outside Influences in HCVP Conflict........................................................61 Contents ul Chapter 6 PHAStrategies and their Effectiveness.........................:.................................................................67 6.1 Conducting Community Outreach..................................................................................67 6.2 Creating Interagency Partnerships..................................................................................72 6.3 Understanding Housing Market Dynamics/HCVP Locations........................................73 6.4 Improving Compliance and Monitoring Efforts.....................................:.......................74 6.5 Revising Administrative Practices..................................................................................77 6.6 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................81 AppendixA: Study Methodology....................................................................................................82 AppendixB: Maps of the Study Sites.............................................................................................99 Contents Executive Summary. In 1999, Abt Associates Inc. initiated a HUD-sponsored study of Strategies that Enhance Community Relations in Tenant-Based HCVP Programs. The goal of the study was to provide HUD with a thorough understanding of the conditions that precipitate local opposition to the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP—in this publication, the teen "HCVP" is used to describe the concept historically described as "Section 8") and the strategies that are effective in mitigating potential or real conflicts. A team of senior housing professionals with extensive HCVP experience was assembled to research eight situations around the country where communities have faced local opposition to tenant-based HCVPs. This report presents the findings of the study. The rapid growth of the HCVP in recent years has provided an important opportunity for many low-income families to find affordable housing in previously inaccessible neighborhoods. However,as the experience of the eight study sites suggests,this opportunity also presents its challenges as the program becomes more visible and the potential for controversy about the growing presence of HCVP families in certain neighborhoods increases. In many cases, HCVP becomes a scapegoat for larger problems or changes in the community over which the housing authority has little apparent control. It appears that the best course of action for housing.authorities in such situations is to take ownership of the problem,whether or not they have the resources at hand to resolve the controversy. This research offers some valuable lessons regarding the conditions that precipitate HCVP conflicts and the strategies that are effective in mitigating them. Although the number of study sites was limited, the data collected provide a good illustration of the kinds of neighborhoods that may be vulnerable to HCVP controversy; the kinds of issues over which controversy can arise; common housing authority +reactions to community opposition; and effective approaches to improving community relations over the long-term. The principal lessons learned in each of these areas are summarized below: • Neighborhoods that are experiencing economic decline, or are perceived to be "not what they used to be,"are vulnerable to HCVP conflict. Anxieties about neighborhood decline were often fueled by trends that are visible at a local level, such as a drop in property values or decrease in homeownership rates, changes in the racial makeup in the community, or a downward trend in public school test scores. • The areas with the highest concentration of poverty and/or the highest concentration of HCVP recipients may not be those that experience conflict. Among the study sites where HCVP conflict emerged, poverty rates ranged from 6 percent to 41 percent, with Executive Summaryi u half of the sites at or below 10 percent. The fraction of the population made up by HCVP households ranged from 2 to 14 percent, with most sites falling into the 3 to 6 percent range. Thus, it appears that what makes a community vulnerable to conflict surrounding the HCVP is not a specific degree of poverty or concentration of HCVP households; rather, it is the perception that the community is changing or that families moving in are visibly different from existing residents in race or class. • The presence of an active neighborhood group concerned about change can play a crucial role in galvanizing and organizing opposition to the HCVP. It is possible, however, for HCVP conflict to arise in the absence of a strong neighborhood group, particularly if it is perceived as part of a broader political struggle. • HCVP conflict is almost always fueled by concerns that the program is being poorly administered. Whether these concerns are based on misinformation or not, housing authorities should be particularly careful to pay.'attention to the following administrative problems, many of which contributed to the conflict at one or more study sites: 1) failure to monitor housing market change and locations of HCVP housing; 2) insufficient attention to assisting families to move to a broad range of neighborhoods; 3) inadequate attention to rent reasonableness and housing quality standards; 4) insufficient attention to HCVP household behavior;and 5) unresponsiveness to community complaints. • Before lite HCVP controversy began, the HCVP administrators in most of the sites studied did not have a firm grasp of the number and locations of HCVP recipients across theirjurisdictions. Information about the locational patterns of the program and ii how they had changed over time might have alerted housing authorities to problems in the way they were administering the program. At the very least, this knowledge could have enabled program administrators to be more proactive in their dealings with neighborhood organizations. • Most of the housing authorities studied did not take the initial community complaints about the HCVP seriously. In addition, many reacted in a defensive way, providing information about the program and its participants that may have been factually accurate but .that did nothing to engage those on the other side of the controversy in useful dialogue. In the cases where the housing authority did not take the initial complaints seriously,they did not go away. Rather,the failure to act promptly and directly to address community concerns universally resulted in the escalation of the conflict. • Understanding and resolving HCVP conflict ''requires probing the issues of conflict underlying the surface complaints. HCVP controversies often initially appear to be about relatively minor, "nuisance" issues—rental units that are not up to neighborhood standards, tenant behavior that disturbs the neighbors, etc. These kinds of complaints, however, are often symptomatic of deeper concerns about control over local resources, or Executive Summary ii philosophical differences between the community and housing authority. Both parties need to be aware of the underlying issues at stake in order to begin to resolve the conflict. • Resolving community conflict over the HCVP requires that the housing authority "take ownership" of the problem, regardless of who is at fault. Taking ownership of the problem generally means making both practical changes—such as conducting owner outreach, improving compliance efforts, and improving administrative practices—and cultural changes, such as partnering with other agencies (particularly the police department) and viewing whole neighborhoods, and not just assisted families, as customers. • In many instances, the housing authority is not in a position to solve the underlying problem—such as the economic decline or' political weakness of a particular community—but a prompt and collaborative response can go a long way toward calming community fears and addressing those issues that focused opposition on the HCVP. In most cases, the housing authority will not be able to single-handedly tum the j neighborhood around,but it can take steps to ensure that HCVP is perceived as part of the solution,not part of the problem. • In some cases, effective HCVP administration alone may not be adequate to prevent HCVP conflict. Housing authorities need also to understand the economic, social, and housing market dynamics of the neighborhoods in their jurisdictions. This includes being aware of the other housing authorities administering tenant-based assistance in the region. • Greater public education about the goals and regulations of the HCVP is necessary, -particularly as the program enters a new era of greater visibility and is present in an increasingly wide range of neighborhoods. • Finally, if housing authorities want to improve the image and acceptance of the HCVP over the long-term, they should reconsider their role with respect to the larger community. As HCVP becomes a visible presence in a growing number of neighborhoods, housing authorities must begin to take on broader, non-traditional roles. This includes getting involved in neighborhood revitalization activities and taking leadership positions in community-building initiatives. Executive Summary iii uMd�� 1�iJc 1►L C d►�-w•� �� !�.S ©z/c v�o �. • Action items UCBN is requesting from the Contra Costa County Housing Authority: o If a landlord knew about criminal and/or fraudulent activity by the Section 8 tenant,we want the Housing Authority to ban that landlord from ever receiving Section 8 funds in Contra Costa County again; o The Housing Authority's efforts to weed out fraudulent and criminal Section 8 recipients is a good thing because that opens up positions for eligible people on the waiting list who will follow the rules and obey the laws; o We want all of the Section 8 recipients in Antioch to be recertified, including comprehensive criminal background checks. We fully support Chief Hyde's pilot program for criminal background checking by retired police officers of ALL section 8 recipients and those living with the Section 8 recipient; o We want the Housing Authority to certify a Section 8 tenant's financial qualifications based upon 12 month's worth of pay stubs and/or a W-2. It is not sufficient to take one month's pay stub and extrapolate the annual salary by multiplying by 12. This would be of no cost to the Housing Authority as the burden of proof is on the Section 8 recipient. o We want the Housing Authority to respond to complaints by affirming that the matter is being investigated. We do not expect the Housing Authority to breach privacy laws but confirming that a complaint has been received and is being investigated does not violate any privacy issues. �II�/•yam <� ��� ^_r� ��" {`Y� , f � tx2 t f �_' ��. - l # „ 4 tI � kAw kv 4 r" f7 i r• r e • l i 77, ® �� k��<• s. •K"rytw�" �°�I' � 'a yAf `''� k t ��.t.t:r"'- #FbR"�I p35' it t 4 Ns 1 t IF y, }� k � t f _ s c t , O O a t f Y V }. F d O O O c O on O d O .:o 4 O 'O 00 Eld l�. O Ei_�'iJ �] r /�VVI�LLL�fff, • ��JJ y� r t QS cu a N r v w . t r V-V IS fi5j J r, e > XAlm 11 y' O W i t I ,!: �rF... DEER tiALLEI-Ri? I tfs, ES�' ' *' �.,` Wy ILALLASRAf3CHAD• 0,11 All 4iv VIA Tl to ( r :Z t 1*-. � � t SS 7 N f U N to O ca ' i r,`•. J ` q��,v Yi �L.� _ $ 'i,-•?'•pj (fit k i'� �_. _ - + ` 4 >. •I;. aL. it ( ;d fly a � , - �6 !-�r �. �." �,r, � ' w .°.' ., ,? � ..r-i r w-•- k4. d*2>t,' �mYm 4 2y'„Awn �� , , o on 9 - •tic . € �� `V :: -i:y�+, ,•� ,;y^ x=-71) O ° O At > F ° O x o fa 0 0 0 ° F O ° � . 00 ,. a IVO 04 cv r p , �0 o6?i moi'. k�`�'�P`� ,,,y��',`+- -,� r.?�' t ��„ ,c>m„•. N : a St1fy 0 ^Vl'f'Lq.,:F J ea. 1 }} !'m y A• l { Yit ay`�++ I r Z •T} . _✓\'`� 1�'. +p�>� 4 "'L+r i .XS' 4 {, "743 * 2 i#i. � ' � � S y� r ) I,.,t��".�•M. I {�` � t�:_t"mayy,4 S* . ��tr,y E�e i'�°•', � �+ t nL CO)O -qw, �� GY 7r 3� yrs£' y �t1 . t s r-i i k(li M t t ! ' ' t i u .t _e 3 O 0 ® a 0 Q O .. o L o © ® 0 \J O Q� Or, Q CD Q © © CD p o Q Q '� Al 0 CIO ' 0 Q ;� 0 0 p o O Cl L T f 'L n 7' E '- ri TFf r. i f , i a ¢ a _ ' ne.P•...� i`� iii .P.'. 'd. ��� '�.. �� �' a . r n. > b , , 4 "x y : f ,. -oj p� }irk 'u- rte'v .� '-;.. k"td"' •� © © rt �; AD © ©, 51 , 71 t iY u^ d s. 52� A C7D) NI 41- ,., m��" MI �r a 3 x $s�•§�# �ax��.a �� �� � � '� �,,t � sem; asp r i g - pv d J e° a PAO ,SES 4 } �. ug(.• �� - Al ' g moo 1 y ^l 4 ®y�97 } � 3 rt ;1 f ..•=s— �`f d \" r a" `ea a s " ' 917 ^ � �a I N 4n P •^« n P :; xc: ''_ 1 r�, � S r � `„cam +; �, .. K . �_ ^ a ,e 3s f F eF 4 fit$.� „y"� ��'� �_ � �• i' f i 44/ f zz , of Uz _ , t i f, r e O � y.. r - _ i IP w G V i 1J�4 .: $. ° $a' r'� '3g� r'�s �s ��� �,`�• ,�' �'�r •`nye I o-k. . y. ® ri . . o ,. _. •-.,..' k �„ 4 C�"� _.: �t X14^ "S� e i p �F e } Y Imo. x` r " ve K ff M , a aL 4 S`. 3� 3 ifi °3t tt` f µ;''•"ms x r > W m e 4P + t an y txF IAN .x},12$ '� r f " .. *' .,n�a', • i #,fit fr +: t y 7 4 u ,x sx d a 'S,a xr,an S w> ro�3`' •x tc. I t��' �'�t v3 4i ;4'� Y bs t r �.t,7Y y4q`P +' �4 2 � t' °- t r AN b 2 r rMcg e 3 r.& �- .r,, "} 4 jAV } Fd q � f , - a � - °� � � ks �.f z "f �. �,•i`j z e*'� f� m' r v tT N � � Ln N < 4WL� y p, 6A I L f V 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl rel W4 w :t r N cV as rn E-f (n U2 cn H H Ira!) CY) U) M Cd � cd mo o . E-4 El Eg *f, f. ` u sad r .yMIT { o tj TV - .r<. x _ To k, c F O b 8 � ,±� .^-.., u,•s,t ti 53 i:' -�' ' a, % xw a # o ; s � 71 xvo Ed _,� �� ! � ��ss� r v n.,,, r"` "h' a s 'kE +�^j�*`�a �;,. � C� � � �� :��-a�•a Via+"� ,� � i AM— � x i s 1,4 oW , W. SA QQ 1141 r, .� � ' �> t �,�.s.#'"P'�"-�s- $ e�:- a•.c g c4a`„v e`„i�,' `�t'°' 3. Q ,. ,f�,n'^S` y w,WS-ry F�- qp .� F.., !N-"c" "n, 1A Z".12" IT, vyt to '^ufiY �Y,.�. %f' •. � �....� ,. � P do s � r' s, � ^. y ':•.;. .rw r ,. i x46 � .✓a��pY�' �� ..r �� ,�� r .,��� ��� �� ��ra�,�+ t�� �o�,;3 Wmil . �,5• � .� f � „g�^eA'�aC.9e���'y j �g�'S'�,j a 5 �.e�w( _ � _ { ,Yd � w� •� '�� ��xr �a ��3 �''�.' � �r' '"t �,.. my r� ����, �� y;, : ir ,P° , ` '07 7>�°, F .� ^�;r- 900 , -�•"�'� �,., t LO CD O O O O N N 1,w 77 M 0 W LLI TOMV U N a N o to o N LO O _ W Go N � o U w M Z 0 C) C) 0 C) C) ® 0 O C) V) O LO 0 LO M M N N r- �-- '3SV O 10 N3swnN N ON •� 7� N M �M N ` d U1 � N W o a. 2 � t oC-4 r O N r \ - � w , N O N O 4 U) p z O p N p Z Z U a O Z z w m 2 O -j r �- W Z Y Y = Z 2 v Q m m0 2 O O U a to 0 N d O V O r L M 00 ® M k l Vi _�,.v >..h.,• ap u Q P" 4 «1 -471 77, I '�9 f � 1 r 4 1 �q � '"-� '�{ .. �_..+ t..-w.� � L-..:.� "k. .• � � � _ ____r�i� � o L o- 7i 1 I I} ixi CN- ~ C.0 y H W W I co t {!] - CD •� fall) m 4f3 _ , r e? '� s r �' f r �D O co Q� U- CO co CD < m m m m m a , e r S Mv w� x N � i ® � s it z �J r,� nz tea.•• � s 1/ t y r s � , .� f f .ak.. ® $; �' a �Y�g '"W f 2t y ��1. � ��R�a•`% f .�� �` � � - a t ' .. - 4. �'y�`-� ,a��' 8t �� nff� eves ���&:•'r{*..^ -�: w.�'K'Shy €4� � 'nF_,"' cl Cni xaq t <E, a 'Js .'1• la ,,,t.Y',' _ 9t-'• w� sir .. r ' t ' v 7f L. 7+ r 4, II® it,�,iwt. �a• t nsrly^��,�,s �°. ur +R„,,s c'r�:?n � ��^ <;;"� ",sa'� � ,,,,�},.' r -r'S„'"3 '�°.. j« . ,. , » ? _ � o I JI IV 4 64 ;•�"$ h '';,�F anti � �'r''va '�p�� . zf aA F O 31 -gy h 8 y 1 ..,_...... 4 ... ''y-�11 }..JIFF-�1K KWh .. •,�(�'1��' -,. . :t F 8ya`: \°` :1:� ��`, �-F f�#�`'-y�4df` ..� ..,k� 1 �M�'�•,' •,�. S'*', } 'a rte, S�mx A,4 a:' t a _;% �•°�' �ij��'� ,. 4 4, r e. a MK A MCA IT lot '« m-M �� .€inw ' [ r I aQC Qy�­ wM a MCI � at win YMW Mil �## ', � y q'�f. �� �k&� .,W'S°Y`•mv' ^d! i � i%$3� �� +� ���ss L4•y 9��RSi� � � $ .� j+ �fw'a++*+`'St, § E �• C AY`e$�` '� Q g*'T'Swy .''E �• 'j a 4 fi TIM . h• k`Wp ttc-.s OAK- o- g � - s s_ sg� �.IN °� ' is ,, s •�a � ,Op - e ta 3N— Irk J b i yQ 1 1i i F • i L ' i_�� .�,v ty x f _ � � '� Fig, � ♦ _ w�' � y, - h An 10 1 '"jg, t x 7� A, J�"; wi*, �k 1: IV, 0 k � 1. � a ?1 S' � {-L+ t ,C§y.� r© Jc ` �,•t$ A 3; MA SO, oj� Cts` V5,I ft ' VY �a Wz _ � ,gyp� r� S. 4»4�-+ •,,a � �'���. � rr� f. .. a vj 'r • T p 4 x.. a , J i^F Y r. 71-7 Eft 27 5, s s$ � � cty� i Pq ? +�.� "` �.Ff�� � �1���k y � Y� L.��. s+t..-• t .!I I ➢ ri E � 1 41 . rq y�1f_.e�r r 6i i t x"44 v: t caa�.,pp 77 d M ~ �.,/ �- � ��[ Fw' ��g �'��tt a' ' i`5� '1��*, v's#w.+ .trfi�y ��•✓ �N��v' f:s� �e�w � �` �j,rc L� 4 *yt 8L' c�• 1r ��� ¢ ,: - b v r#'*r^�dP �. 1 1 t{ o _ r IIII , � c � n { r a �" �d •.atg �I �' }�, s �`� �.� ,c�'+ �` S�"ir�"M' �'e air' -wc i 4 Via! �:• REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item D-5 Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. My comments will be: General Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated into the public record of this meeting. El For Name: El Against I wish to speak on the subject of: Address: 514 / 7 Onei'da- u.W V 0 D a e)cp o16 6n City: Af\jic>CAS Phone: q;5 - '759- 21ZR I am speaking for: El Myself K Organization: 1111 +e& ❑ Ido not want tospeak but would like to � kk1o\Hoo(koo& ( leave comments for the Board to consider (use the back of this form) r REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item#: CIS Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: 4z,107 speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. My comments will be: ❑ General Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For �'�C.� {�� I d Pib V Q'/Jc El Against Name: 0( El wish to speak on the subject of: Address: City: Phone: I am speaking for: ❑ Myself L�Organization: I do not want to speak but would like to leave comments for the Board to consider (use the back of this form) s 'N T REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to sneak on Agenda Item#: 1J • S� Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: f ®'' speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. My comments will be: General Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For, ❑ Against Name: �i ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of- Address: -W� City: Phone: I am speaking f yself ❑ Organization: ❑ 1 do not want to speak but would like to leave comments for the Board to consider (use the back of this form) REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: c� - CJ 7 speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. My comments will be: ❑ General Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For El Against Name: L J I wish to speak on the subject of.- Address: fAddress: �S �� City: 19 Phone: ��a l1-1b / I am speaking for:* Myself ❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to leave comments for the Board to consider (use the back of this form) REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item #: - c Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair. _ My comments will be: ❑ General / Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For ❑ Against Name: 77W—�M S ElI wish to speak on the subject- of-Address: - � City: D Phone: I am speaking for: Myself ❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to leave comments for the Board to consider (use the back of this form)