Showing posts with label HUD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HUD. Show all posts

Friday, November 22, 2024

HSBC Commits $25M to NCRC Partnership Following Redlining Allegations

HSBC, a British universal bank and financial services group headquartered in London, has agreed to direct $25 million over the next four years to support underserved communities in an agreement with the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) following allegations of redlining. 

HSBC had been under investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) after NCRC filed a complaint alleging violations of the U.S. Fair Lending Act. According to the document, HSBC allegedly engaged in discriminatory lending practices in majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in six U.S. metropolitan areas from 2018-2021 - including New York (NY), Seattle (WA), Orange County (CA), Los Angeles (CA), Oakland (CA), and the Bay Area (CA). 

The new HSBC-NCRC partnership begins in January 2025, and is dedicated to expand economic opportunities in low—and moderate-income, diverse and underserved communities through loan subsidies, grants, and donations. The HSBC US and Americas CEO Michael Roberts stated that the partnership “reflects our shared commitment to fostering economic resilience and opportunity in communities across the U.S., and we are honored to support these efforts through our loans, investments and grants.”

HSBC has committed $10 million in loan subsidies, including $3.5 million to certain California markets. An additional $4 million will be for grants to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and community-based nonprofit organizations, $6 million will be donated to NCRC, and $1 million will fund community engagement initiatives. 

According to the mortgage tech platform Modex, HSBC originated about $3.5 billion in mortgages in the last 12 months, 77% of them purchases and 90% conventional loans. California and Washington are the bank’s main markets.

Read the November 20, 2024 HousingWire article.


Thursday, November 7, 2024

HUD Charges Macon, Georgia, Property Owner, Property Management Company, and Property Manager with Disability Discrimination

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged Macon, Georgia, property owner, property management company, and property manager, Macon MF, LLC, Active Property Management LLC, and Michael Bailey, with discrimination against a tenant because of her disability. HUD also charged them with retaliating against the tenant. Read HUD’s Charge.

HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the Respondents did not grant required reasonable accommodations when the Complainant requested an assistance animal and an alternate bathroom while the Respondents were renovating the sole bathroom in her unit. The Charge also alleges that the Respondents terminated her tenancy in retaliation for requesting the reasonable accommodations.

HUD's charge will be heard by a U.S. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) unless any party to the charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an ALJ finds after a hearing that retaliation has occurred, they may award damages to the complainant for harm caused by discrimination, injunctive relief, other equitable relief, payment of attorney fees, and fines. If the Charge is decided in federal court, punitive damages may also be assessed.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY). More info: www.hud.gov/fairhousing. Housing providers and other interested persons can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications to individuals with disabilities here. Materials and assistance are available for persons with limited English proficiency. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact HUD using the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

Read the November 7, 2024 HUD release.

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Elderly- or Disabled-Headed Households are Now the Most Common Housing Choice Voucher Program Households

A new HUD Office of Policy Development and Research study found that as of 2020, families with children no longer represented the most common type of tenant-based rental assistance - Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) - households. Elderly- or disabled-headed households are now the most common HCV household structure.

HUD began providing tenant-based rental assistance following the passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. For the first time, low-income households were able to use their assistance to seek rental housing in the private market. By the 1970s, observers realized that the spatial concentration of poverty was negatively impacting those the program sought to help. The current HCV program tries to have these assisted households live in higher-opportunity neighborhoods rather than areas of concentrated poverty, where many public housing developments were and still are located.

A HUD report comparing nationwide trends in 2010 to those in the top 50 MSAs in 2000 found that although the HCV program had a small share of affordable rental housing, the share of households living in high-poverty areas was increasing. It also found that the share of HCV households living in HCV-dense census tracts had increased during 2000-2010. Both reports found that participant choice alone was not enough to achieve spatial poverty de-concentration.

The just-released third HCV location report covering 2010 and 2020 found that:

(1) The number of HCV households with an elderly or disabled head of household exceeded the number of HCV households with children. During 2010-2020, the number of elderly heads of households increased by nearly 10% and the number of disabled heads of households decreased slightly. Non-Hispanic Black heads of households continue to represent the largest - and growing - racial/ethnic group of HCV households.

(2) The share of HCV households living in neighborhoods with a high density of voucher holders increased 2010-2020; and 

(3) A large share of HCV households still live in high-poverty neighborhoods. Nationwide, 44% of tenant-based voucher (TBV) households still lived in high-poverty census tracts in 2020, including 7% living in areas of extreme poverty

(4) There are significant racial and ethnic disparities among voucher households regarding neighborhood poverty rates: Black (52.3%) and Hispanic (47.8%) HCV households were more likely to live in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty compared to their white peers (30.7%). Black and Hispanic HCV households were also twice as likely to live in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of other voucher holders, where more than 10% of units were occupied by voucher holders, compared to white HCV households.

Read the October 29, 2024 HUD Report.

Read the September 16, 2024 National Low Income Housing Coalition article.

Thursday, October 24, 2024

Fannie Mae Improves and Extends its "Expanded Housing Choice" Voucher Initiative Nationwide

 

Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTCQB) has announced improvements to its Expanded Housing Choice (EHC) initiative that: (1) make it available nationwide - including states with no source of income protections - for new loans to multifamily property owners who accept U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs); (2) increase eligibility thresholds to stimulate a more sustainable program; (3) streamline its data collection process; and (4) make its more transparent regarding inclusive renter screening requirements.  It was previously limited to eligible properties in North Carolina and Texas. These changes will support a more equitable housing market.

The Housing Choice Voucher federal program helps very-low-income families, senior citizens, and people with disabilities afford stable, quality housing in the private market. Fannie Mae’s Expanded Housing Choice initiative, begun in 2022 and extended through April 2026, is a pilot initiative to expand housing opportunities for HCV holders by incentivizing multifamily borrowers to accept vouchers as a valid source of income. Approximately 30% of voucher holders are unable to find housing that accepts their vouchers.

Multifamily property owners are now eligible if their property is not already legally required to accept HCVs and that at least 40% of units are affordable at or below HUD Fair Market Rents or Small Area Fair Market Rents. Borrowers and property managers who leverage EHC and accept HCVs can benefit from lower pricing, flexible loan terms, certain completion, lower turnover and vacancy rates, and a steady stream of competitive rent payments backed by HUD.  Fannie Mae's Delegated Underwriting and Servicing (DUS®) lenders partnered with it in the initiative.

For more information on Fannie Mae’s Expanded Housing Choice initiative, including background on the Housing Choice Voucher program, lender and borrower best practices, frequently asked questions, and more resources, go to FannieMae.com.

Read the October 15, 2024 Fannie Mae press release.

Tuesday, October 15, 2024

HUD Charges New Hampshire Property Managers and Landlord with Discrimination for a Retaliatory Eviction

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged Greenview Associates L.P., Palmer Asset Management, LLC, and John Martin, property managers and landlord in Manchester, New Hampshire, with violating the Fair Housing Act by retaliating, threatening, or interfering with a tenant’s fair housing rights. HUD’s Charge alleges that, following the tenant’s filing of a Fair Housing complaint with HUD, the landlord and property manager did a background check on the tenant, not their usual practice of not running background checks, and then sought eviction of the tenant based on a long-past event that the background check revealed. Read HUD’s Charge.

A U. S. Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s charge unless any party to the charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an administrative law judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, they may award damages to the individuals for their losses as a result of the discrimination, injunctive relief, other equitable relief, and payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the complainant.

For more information on potentially discriminatory evictions, please refer to this HUD Fact Sheet.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) 800-927-9275 (TTY). Additional information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing and www.justice.gov. Materials and assistance are available for persons with limited English proficiency. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the Department using the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

HUD Charges Owner & Operators of New Hampshire Apartment Buildings with Disability Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged Good Team Realty LLC, Jack O Cohen Revocable Trust, and Jack Cohen, owners and operators of more than 40 rental apartments in New Hampshire, with discriminating against potential tenants because of disability. The Charge alleges that the Respondents violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to negotiate for and show an available apartment to prospective tenants who used assistance animals for their disabilities. Read HUD’s Charge.

“In 1988 the Fair Housing Act was extended to protect persons from discrimination in housing because of a disability, yet people with disabilities continue to be subjected to discriminatory treatment,” said Diane M. Shelley, HUD’s Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. "Today's action demonstrates HUD's ongoing commitment to take appropriate action when housing providers fail to comply with the Fair Housing Act."

HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the Complainants spoke with property owner, Jack Cohen, about renting an apartment and that during the conversation the Complainants revealed that they had an assistance animal. The Charge further alleges that the Complainants arranged to meet Mr. Cohen to view the apartment but that Mr. Cohen refused to allow the Complainants inside the apartment because they did not have medical documentation verifying their need for the assistance animal with them at that time.

A U. S. Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s charge unless any party to the charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an administrative law judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, they may award damages to the family for their losses as a result of the discrimination, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief, as well as payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties and punitive damages to the complainant.

Go to HUD Fair Housing.

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Baltimore Regional Housing Partnership Analyzes Source of Income Discrimination Law Effectiveness

 

During HUD's Quarterly Update event on July 25, 2024, panelists explored the emerging research on source of income discrimination laws and the enforcement strategies employed by municipalities in Maryland and New York. Some 50 years ago, Congress enacted the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program to promote housing stability, health, and economic mobility by allowing households to choose where to use their rental subsidy. Many voucher holders, however, remain in high-poverty areas because area landlords practice source of income discrimination (SOID) by refusing to accept vouchers outright. To address this behavior, states and localities began enacting SOID laws in the 1970s; however, even in areas where SOID laws are in place, landlords sometimes find indirect ways to deny housing to voucher holders. 

On July 25, 2024, HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) hosted a PD&R Quarterly Update featuring two panel discussions examining the implementation of these laws and the latest research on their effectiveness. Adria Crutchfield, executive director of the Baltimore Regional Housing Partnership (BRHP) participated in the discussions and analysis.

Prevalence, Evolution, and Effectiveness of SOID Protections

As of February 2024, HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing reports that 17 states, 21 counties, and over 85 cities have passed laws regarding SOID. According to Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) data, the number of state and local SOID laws has more than doubled over the past 10 years. Alongside the rise in SOID laws, the National Fair Housing Alliance reports a corresponding increase in complaints that local fair housing organizations have filed concerning landlord offenses. Lawyers previously needed to challenge laws that did not explicitly include federal housing assistance as a protected source of income (SOI) or address minimum income requirements and landlord objections to inspections. Policymakers have changed the language of recent ordinances to more effectively address SOID issues, eliminating outdated defenses and strengthening enforcement. At the same time, institutions are prioritizing making information about SOID laws more accessible. Earlier in 2024, the Office of Public and Indian Housing launched a website detailing SOID laws. In addition, PRRAC maintains and regularly updates a compilation of state, local, and federal laws prohibiting SOID.

To understand the effect of SOID laws on voucher utilization and movement to low-poverty neighborhoods, the Urban Institute did a study that analyzed 43 SOID laws passed between 2001 and 2017. They noted that before these laws were enacted, only one in four families with vouchers lived in low-poverty neighborhoods, and the concentration of voucher holders in high-poverty areas was growing. After SOID laws were passed, access to lower-poverty neighborhoods improved, although "with a 3- to 4-year lag" for laws to take into effect.

Despite the rise in SOID laws enacted nationwide and the positive mobility outcomes for voucher holders they have supported, it was asserted that "too few households reach low-poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods, and too many households are unable to find housing with their vouchers." A paired-testing study HUD conducted in partnership with the Urban Institute between 2016 and 2017 evidenced the pervasiveness of landlord discrimination as an explanation for the "stubborn and persistent challenges" that families with housing choice vouchers face.

Lessons From State and Local Implementation of SOID

The second panel discussion presented insights from practitioners in Baltimore and New York. The panelists discussed the specifics of SOID laws in their respective jurisdictions, enforcement mechanisms, and strategies for engaging landlords to enhance housing access. Since 2019, New York state law has protected SOI under human rights legislation and prohibited discrimination against legal sources of income in housing advertisements. The law covers numerous SOI categories, including various forms of public assistance, and incorporates provisions for individuals to pursue legal action through state courts or the Division of Human Rights. 

BRHP's Crutchfield explained that Maryland's 2020 Housing Opportunities Made Equal Act, which expanded SOI protections statewide, addressed negative provisions in earlier city-level SOI laws. For example, in Baltimore, the act ended the practice of allowing landlords with a certain percentage of HCV tenants to reject future voucher applicants.

Despite these advances, both the New York representative and Crutchfield noted that landlords' efforts to evade enforcement present ongoing challenges for HCV holders. Crutchfield shared anecdotes from clients of BRHP's housing counseling team that faced discriminatory screening practices and neighborhood resistance. For example, tenants have reported that some landlords impose stringent credit score requirements or income multipliers, and homeowners associations sometimes amend their bylaws to introduce additional screening criteria related to criminal records. 

Incentivizing Landlord Participation in Antidiscrimination

Speakers on both panels agreed that strategies to incentivize landlord participation can make SOID protection more effective. Crutchfield described BRHP's proactive marketing to landlords, including conducting social media campaigns to promote the benefits of renting to voucher holders. BRHP also produces webinars to educate landlords about the involved legal requirements.

Still, all agreed these efforts are just the beginning. "There's more work to be done around educating landlords, and there's more work to be done around understanding what might change landlord behavior, but this is an encouraging time to [be gaining] more evidence about the value that these laws bring to voucher holders and their outcomes." New York's office is currently partnering with a behavioral insights team to understand and address landlords' awareness and perceptions of SOID.

Read the October 1, 2024 PD&R article.

Monday, September 23, 2024

Housing Discrimination Complaints in 2023 Continue to Increase Nationally

The national number of fair housing complaints rose to record numbers for the third year in a row. There were 34,150 fair housing complaints received in 2023, compared to 33,007 complaints in 2022, according to findings in the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA)'s 2024 Fair Housing Trends Report. There also was a sharp increase in the number of harassment complaints which jumped by 470.5% based on color and 114.9% on race.

The source of the data were 86 NFHA member organizations, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s 10 regional offices, and 77 state and local government agencies in HUD’s FHAP program. Information also was obtained from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Most of the millions of housing discrimination incidents each year go unreported because they are difficult to identify or document. All complaints also are not made because individuals might fear facing retaliation or eviction if they file a complaint. Therefore, the total number should be considered an undercount.

Private nonprofit fair housing organizations (FHOs) processed 75.5% of complaints, a 5.6% increase from 2022. These FHOs investigate fair housing complaints, collect data, provide fair housing counseling and education to consumers, and help clients file complaints. Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies processed 19.2% of complaints, HUD 5.1% of complaints, and the DOJ  0.1% of complaints. 

As in the previous year, discrimination based on disability accounted for the majority (52.6%) of complaints filed with FHOs, HUD, and FHAP agencies. There were 1,521 complaints of harassment reported, an increase of 66.2%. This is the highest number of harassment complaints reported since NFHA began reporting harassment-specific data in 2006.

Read the July 10, 2024 NFHA article.

HUD Charges Florida Property Owner, Management Company, and Property Manager with Disability Discrimination

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged Tallahassee, Florida, housing providers Greenbriar Partners, LLC, Jackson Properties and Financial Services, LLC, and Erwin D. Jackson (the “Respondents”) with violating the Fair Housing Act by failing to grant a tenant with a disability a reasonable accommodation to allow the tenant to live with an emotional support animal. Read the Charge here.

The Fair Housing Act (“the Act”) prohibits discrimination because of disability, including the denial of reasonable accommodations. Individuals with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations when such accommodations are necessary to afford them equal access to their home, including the use of assistance animals.

“The Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations necessary to afford persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling,” said Damon Smith, HUD General Counsel. “The Department will take action to ensure housing providers comply with their obligations to provide necessary reasonable accommodations.”

HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the Respondents failed to grant the Complainant’s requested reasonable accommodation for an assistance animal. That denial led to economic loss, lost housing opportunity, and emotional distress. The Charge of Discrimination also alleges that the Respondents violated the Act when they threatened the Complainant with an eviction because of her reasonable accommodation request.

HUD's Charge will be heard by a U.S. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) unless any party to the Charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an ALJ finds after a hearing that a violation of the Act has occurred, they may award damages to the Complainant for harm caused by discrimination. The ALJ may also order injunctive relief and other equitable relief, fines to vindicate the public interest, and punitive damages.

Read the September 23, 2024 HUD release.

Thursday, September 19, 2024

OceanFirst Bank Fined Over $15 Million in New Jersey Redlining Settlement

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has made a Conciliation Agreement with OceanFirst Bank (headquartered in Toms River, New Jersey). This Agreement resolves a Secretary-initiated complaint against OceanFirst alleging that the bank engaged in redlining by restricting access to credit and mortgage lending services in majority-Black, Hispanic, and Asian neighborhoods in the New Brunswick, New Jersey area. HUD’s investigation was conducted with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) after a referral from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the bank’s regulator.

“This settlement, and the over $137 million in relief the Justice Department has secured for communities across the country, will help to ensure that future generations of Americans inherit a legacy of home ownership that they have been too often denied,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Redlining is unlawful, it is harmful, and it is wrong. The Justice Department will continue to hold banks and mortgage companies accountable for redlining and to secure relief for the communities that continue to be harmed by these discriminatory practices.”

“Restrictive barriers to credit and mortgage lending that disproportionately impact communities of color violate fair housing laws,” said Diane M. Shelley, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “The Fair Housing Act prohibits this type of discrimination, commonly known as redlining, that has left too many Black, Indigenous, and People of Color with little to no access to homeownership and wealth building, and will not be allowed.”

HUD’s complaint alleges that, from 2018 through at least 2022, OceanFirst did not provide mortgage lending services to predominantly Black, Hispanic, and Asian neighborhoods in Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties. The complaint also alleges states that OceanFirst acquired and subsequently closed branches and loan production offices in these neighborhoods, which, coupled with its insufficient marketing efforts and fair lending policies, led to OceanFirst not serving the needs of these neighborhoods.

Under the terms of the Agreement, OceanFirst will:
  • Invest at least $14 million in a loan subsidy fund to increase access to credit for home mortgage loans, home improvement loans, and home refinance loans in majority-Black, Hispanic and Asian neighborhoods in the New Brunswick area.
  • Spend at least $400,000 on professional services for residents in these neighborhoods to increase access to residential mortgage credit and serve the credit needs of those communities through partnerships with at least one community-based or governmental organizations providing services related to credit, financial education, homeownership, and/or foreclosure prevention.
  • Spend at least $140,000 annually of the Agreement ($700,000 total) on advertising, outreach, consumer financial education, and credit counseling in these neighborhoods.
  • Maintain a full-service branch opened in December 2023 and open a loan production office (LPO) in these neighborhoods. The LPO will have a community room for financial education classes that OceanFirst will provide to the public and community organizations, and include an ATM that will not charge fees to OceanFirst’s customers and maintain lower fees for non-customers than what is available at nearby ATMs.
  • Assign or hire at least two full-time loan officers to solicit mortgage applications primarily in majority-Black, Hispanic, and Asian neighborhoods in the New Brunswick area.
  • Hire or designate a full-time position of Director of Community Lending.
  • Provide at least four outreach programs per year for real estate brokers and agents, developers, and public or private entities in residential real estate-related business in these neighborhoods to inform them of the bank’s products and services.
  • Provide at least six consumer education seminars annually targeted and marketed for residents of neighborhoods of color in the New Brunswick area regarding credit counseling, financial literacy, or other related consumer financial education.
  • Comply with HUD’s Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Advertising of Housing, Credit, and Other Real Estate-Related Transactions through Digital Platforms for all OceanFirst’s advertising and targeting.
The OceanFirst Bank agreed to resolve the complaint voluntarily and HUD issued no findings related to the complaint’s allegations.

Monday, September 9, 2024

HUD Announces New Voucher Flexibility to Support Community Living for People with Disabilities

 

In recognition of the 34th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Olmstead v. L.C. decision, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has announced new policy actions aimed at enhancing community living options for people with disabilities. These changes provide public housing agencies (PHAs) with new flexibilities to better utilize Mainstream Vouchers, a critical federal program offering rental assistance to non-elderly persons with disabilities.

Key updates include extended housing search times, the removal of residency preferences for voucher recipients, and new options for PHAs to prioritize direct referrals from healthcare and disability agencies. These changes aim to address barriers in the housing search process and strengthen partnerships that support independent living for people with disabilities.

The Mainstream Voucher waivers and alternative requirements announced today help address some of the barriers to housing search among non-elderly people with disabilities identified in a study published by HUD on June 27, 2024. The study, “Housing Search Assistance for Non-Elderly People with Disabilities,” found that people with disabilities face various challenges in searching for housing. They have difficulty securing services and supports before their voucher expires, navigating the housing search process and overcoming screening requirements, accessing reasonable accommodations or necessary modifications that are more than what a landlord is required to provide, and covering moving and initial living expenses.

HUD has expanded the Mainstream Voucher program by over 20,000 vouchers under the Biden-Harris Administration, furthering efforts to make accessible and affordable housing a reality for all.

Read the August 27, 2024 HUD press release.

Wednesday, August 14, 2024

HUD Approves Settlement with California Housing Providers Resolving Claim of Disability Discrimination

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has entered into a Conciliation Agreement between Burbank Housing Management Corporation, Burbank Housing Development Corporation, BHDC Parkwood Apartments, LLC, Oak Ridge Apartments Associates LP, and James Perez, requiring the respondents to pay $41,500 in compensation to the complainant. The Agreement resolves allegations that the respondents violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants with disabilities. Read the Agreement here.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination because of disability, including refusing to allow reasonable accommodations that would otherwise permit tenants with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) prohibits the exclusion or discrimination of qualified individuals based on disability in any program receiving federal financial assistance, including from HUD.

The Agreement began with a complaint alleging that the Sonoma County, California, based housing providers interfered with the rights of tenants with disabilities to obtain reasonable accommodations, and that the respondents, who are receive HUD and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding, were in noncompliance with Section 504. The Respondents denied the allegations in the Complaint and agreed to settle the matter. The Conciliation Agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt by the Respondents and no determination has been issued by HUD about this.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the housing providers will pay $41,500 to the complainant. They will also ensure their reasonable accommodation policies are in compliance with the Fair Housing Act and Section 504 and that they process reasonable accommodation requests in a timely manner. Both HUD and USDA will monitor the Agreement.

People who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 877-8339 (Relay) or at hud.gov/fairhousing.

Read the July 2, 2024 HUD press release. 

HUD Charges Colorado Appraiser, Appraisal Management Company, and Lender with Race Discrimination

 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged multiple entities with housing discrimination for issuing a biased appraisal and then denying a refinance loan application in Denver, Colorado. HUD’s Charge against the appraiser, Maksym Mykhailyna; appraisal company, Maverick Appraisal Group; appraisal management company, Solidifi U.S. Inc.; and lender, Rocket Mortgage, LLC, alleges that the appraiser issued a discriminatory appraisal that undervalued a Black homeowner’s property on the basis of her race. The Charge further alleges that when the homeowner complained to Rocket Mortgage, Rocket Mortgage would only approve her refinance loan application based on the appraised value that she alleged was discriminatory. Read the Charge.

HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that Maksym Mykhailyna and his appraisal company, Maverick Appraisal Group, issued an insupportably low appraisal of a duplex owned by a Black woman in a predominantly white area of Denver. Other recent appraisals of the same property had steadily increased in value, yet this appraisal resulted in a dramatic drop, despite the Denver market experiencing substantial growth in home values at that time. To reach that low number, the appraisal was rife with inaccuracies and unsupportable methodological choices (such as relying on comparable properties in neighborhoods with greater Black populations and excluding potential comparable properties in neighborhoods with greater white populations) that not only artificially lowered the appraised value but deviated from Mr. Mykhailyna’s own methodology and findings about the relevant neighborhood in appraising similar, nearby properties with White owners. Both Solidifi and Rocket Mortgage reviewed the appraisal report but failed to correct it despite several red flags. When the homeowner complained to Rocket Mortgage, she was told she could only proceed with her loan application based on the appraisal that she alleged was discriminatory; ultimately, her application was denied.

A US Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s Charge unless any party to the Charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an administrative law judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the homeowner for her losses as a result of the discrimination, injunctive relief, other equitable relief to deter further discrimination, payment of attorney fees, and civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If a federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the homeowner.

Anyone who believes they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY). Additional information is available at https://www.hud.gov/fairhousing.
 
HUD’s National Fair Housing Training Academy website contains a flowchart of the appraisal process as well as trainings related to combating and investigating appraisal bias.

HUD Charges Wisconsin Housing Provider with Discriminating Against a Tenant with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on July 19, 2024 charged Tammy and Ramiro Estrada, the owner of a duplex in Appleton, Wisconsin, with violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a tenant with a disability a reasonable accommodation to allow the tenant to live with her assistance animals.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination because of disability, including the denial of reasonable accommodations. Individuals with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations when necessary for equal access to their home, including the use of assistance animals. Also, individuals are protected from coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference when they assert their fair housing rights or file a complaint with HUD.

HUD’s Charge alleges that the owners denied the tenant’s request by applying unlawful breed restrictions, fines, and fees to the request. They also interfered with the Complainant’s attempt to obtain a service dog and threatened them with eviction, eventually non-renewing their lease and citing the reasonable accommodation requests in the non-renewal notice. The tenants had to rent more expensive housing elsewhere.

A US Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s Charge unless any party to the Charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an administrative law judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the family for their losses because of the discrimination, injunctive relief and other equitable relief to deter further discrimination, payment of attorney fees, and civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the family.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) 800-927-9275 (TTY). Additional information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing. Housing providers and others can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications to individuals with disabilities here.

Read the July 19, 2024 HUD press release.

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

HUD Charges Wisconsin Housing Provider with Discriminating Against a Tenant with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged Tammy and Ramiro Estrada, the owner of a duplex in Appleton, Wisconsin, with violating the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a tenant with a disability a reasonable accommodation to allow the tenant to live with her assistance animals.

Under the Fair Housing Act, individuals with disabilities have the right to reasonable accommodations when such accommodations are necessary to afford them equal access to their home, including the use of assistance animals. Individuals also are legally protected from coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference when they assert their fair housing rights or file a complaint with HUD.

HUD’s Charge alleges that the owners applied unlawful breed restrictions, fines, and fees to the the Complainant's accommodation request. Respondents also interfered with her attempt to obtain a service dog and threatened eviction, eventually non-renewing their lease. citing the reasonable accommodation requests in the non-renewal notice. As a result, the tenants were forced to rent more expensive housing elsewhere.

A U.S. Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s Charge unless any party to the Charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If an administrative law judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, the judge may award damages to the family for their losses because of the discrimination. injunctive relief, other equitable relief to deter further discrimination, payment of attorney fees, and civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the family.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) 800-927-9275 (TTY). Additional information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing. Housing providers and others can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications to individuals with disabilities here. Materials and assistance are available for persons with limited English proficiency. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact HUD using the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

Read the July 19, 2024 HUD release.

PD&R Quarterly In-Person & Virtual Update on Source of Income Discrimination will be on July 25th

 

On Thursday, July 25th, HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) will host a hybrid PD&R Quarterly Update on source of income (SOI) discrimination and laws. Over the past 20 years, evidence of discrimination against housing choice voucher holders has grown. Over half of voucher households live in states and localities that have adopted ordinances to prevent this kind of discrimination - such as Maryland. Go to the Source of Income Protections for Housing Choice Voucher Holders website of HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing to see jurisdictions that have adopted SOI protections.

Thursday, July 25, 2024
2:00-4:00 pm ET
Hybrid Event
HUD Headquarters
451 7th Street SW
Washington, DC 20410

                                             Click Here to Register

Attending this HUD event will be researchers, municipal and state government officials, and fair housing practitioners. They will discuss recent passage of local anti-discrimination ordinances; evaluate research about the impacts of these anti-discrimination laws; and discuss challenges to the enforcement of these ordinances.

Data Spotlight - Veronica Helms Garrison, Analyst, PD&R/HUD

Panel Discussion: Overview of Source of Income Protections and What the Research Tells Us About Their Effectiveness - Panelists are:

Panel Discussion: Lessons from State and Local Implementation - Panelists are:


*****

Tuesday, July 9, 2024

HUD Approves Settlement with California Housing Providers Resolving Claim of Disability Discrimination

The HUD-brokered Conciliation Agreement between Burbank Housing Management Corporation, Burbank Housing Development Corporation, BHDC Parkwood Apartments, LLC, Oak Ridge Apartments Associates LP, and James Perez, requires the respondents to pay $41,500 in compensation to the complainant. The Agreement resolves allegations that the respondents were in noncompliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and also violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against tenants with disabilities. Read the Agreement here.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) forbids the exclusion or discrimination of qualified individuals based on disability in any program receiving federal financial assistance, including those from HUD.

The matter began with a complaint alleging that the Sonoma County, California, based housing providers interfered with the rights of tenants with disabilities to obtain reasonable accommodations, and that the respondents, who are recipients of HUD and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding, were in noncompliance with Section 504. The Respondents denied the allegations in the Complaint and agreed to settle the matter. The Conciliation Agreement does not constitute an admission of guilt by the Respondents and no determination has been issued by HUD in this matter.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the housing providers will pay $41,500 to the complainant. The housing providers will also ensure their reasonable accommodation policies are in compliance with the Fair Housing Act and Section 504 and that they process reasonable accommodation requests in a timely manner. HUD and USDA will monitor the Agreement.

People who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 877-8339 (Relay) or at hud.gov/fairhousing.

Read the July 2, 2024 HUD release.

Friday, June 28, 2024

Health Equity Research Finds Housing Vouchers Improve Physical Health

An academic study published in Health Affairs (vol. 43, no. 2) has found that federal housing vouchers for low-income families alleviate family stress and nurture child development, thus confirming this intuitive connection with statistical support. The study - entitled "Experimental Evidence Shows That Housing Vouchers Provided Measurable Benefits, Including Parent Stress Reduction" - found that individuals in families who received a voucher "were 50% less likely to have high blood pressure, 90% less likely to report home heating issues, 80% less likely to miss a rent payment, and 40% less likely to lack sufficient living space. They were also five times less likely to feel unsafe in their neighborhood." The study utilized the Housing and Children’s Healthy Development study, the only randomized controlled trial of housing vouchers (conducted in the Cleveland, Ohio, and Dallas, Texas, metropolitan areas).

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates around 60% of its annual budget ($30 billion) to the Housing Choice Voucher program (HCV). This program serves around 1.3 million families, including over 2.2 million children each year. Only one-quarter of eligible households actually receive assistance, with around 3.9 million eligible families, including more than 6.6 million children, not receiving the vouchers they qualify for. Thus. four times as many Americans, including many children, are entitled to this support but do not get it because it is difficult to get a housing voucher because of high demand and long waiting lists stemming from program underfunding. Multiple eligibility criteria, bureaucratic procedures, and unequal distribution further complicate access to the HCV program. 

The shortage of housing vouchers deeply impacts low-income and marginalized communities by exacerbating “weathering,” a recent concept in public health research that compares the human body to a structure exposed to harsh environmental conditions over time. The absence of stable housing means that individuals have relentless stress, worsened socio-economic hardships, and the development of serious health problems such as hypertension and diabetes. This chronic stress response - known as “allostatic load" - hastens an individual's health decline. To combat these disparities, the study advocates incorporating housing solutions into community development in order to foster resilience and equitable outcomes. Tackling housing instability is key to lessening the damaging health effects.

All relevant research in this area has emphasized the importance of stable housing for mental health, social engagement, community involvement, and overall well-being. It has been found that unstable housing leads to higher risks of eviction and financial instability while stable housing results in better health and educational outcomes, especially for children. Those households spending a large portion of their income on rent report worse health and often delay medical care, which negatively affecting caregiver health and maternal mental well-being, while increasing child hospitalization rates. Children in rent-burdened households also have lower health ratings and are less likely to stay in school.

Read the June 24, 2024 NCRC article.

Read the February 2024 Health Affairs research article.

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

HUD and Rocket Mortgage, LLC Reach Agreement on Montana Fair Lending Complaint for Home Purchase within Tribal Lands

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s Conciliation Agreement with Rocket Mortgage, LLC resolves allegations that Rocket Mortgage denied a mortgage loan application based on race because the home being purchased was located within the Tribal boundaries of a federally recognized reservation. Read the Agreement.

The case originated when a complaint was filed by a couple applying for a mortgage to purchase a single-family home within the boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation in St. Ignatius, Montana. Rocket Mortgage denied the loan application. As a result, complainants allege they were forced to pay a higher interest rate and accept a loan from another lender on less-favorable terms. The agreement resolves the complaint with Rocket Mortgage.

The agreement secures $65,000 compensation to complainants, requires Rocket Mortgage to provide fair lending training to its employees, and requires Rocket Mortgage to abide by fair lending requirements for applicants seeking residential mortgage credit located within the boundaries of a Native American reservation. Additionally, Rocket Mortgage will invest at least $30,000 to provide financial support for programs that improve housing conditions, consumer financial literacy and education, outreach and homeownership education or counseling for Native Americans. Rocket Mortgage also agreed to conduct outreach through its website and social media platforms describing the company’s broad range of financing options available to eligible applicants whose loans are secured by property located within the boundaries of Native American reservations.

People who believe they have experienced discrimination may file a complaint by contacting HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 877-8339 (Relay).

Housing discrimination complaints may also be filed at hud.gov/fairhousing.

Read the May 13, 2024 HUD article.

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

HUD Charges Grapevine, Texas Housing Authority with Disability Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has charged the Grapevine Housing Authority (“GHA”); Jane Everett, Executive Director of GHA; and Bonnie McHugh, Vice-Chair of the GHA Housing Commission, with discriminating against, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for a tenant with a disability. Read the charge.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on disability. This includes prohibiting housing providers from making housing unavailable to persons based on disability. The Act also requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodation when necessary for persons with disabilities to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their homes.

Grapevine is located in northeast Tarrant County in the Mid-Cities suburban region between Dallas and Fort Worth and includes a larger portion of Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport than other cities. The population was 50,631 (2020).

HUD’s Charge of Discrimination alleges that the Grapevine Housing Authority, Ms. Everett, and Ms. McHugh terminated the lease of a tenant with diabetes following a medical episode caused by his blood sugar levels. They subsequently denied his reasonable accommodation request and continued eviction proceedings against him even after his doctor had provided evidence that his symptoms were managed following a change in medication and purchase of a medical alert bracelet.

A US Administrative Law Judge will hear HUD’s charge unless any party to the charge elects to have the case heard in federal district court. If a judge finds, after a hearing, that discrimination has occurred, they may award damages to the complainant for his losses as a result of the discrimination. The judge may also order injunctive relief and other equitable relief, to deter further discrimination, as well as payment of attorney fees. In addition, the judge may impose civil penalties to vindicate the public interest. If the federal court hears the case, the judge may also award punitive damages to the complainant.

People who believe they are the victims of housing discrimination should contact HUD at (800) 669-9777 (voice) or (800) 927-9275 (TTY) or file a complaint here: www.hud.gov/fairhousing/fileacomplaint.

Housing providers and others can learn more about their responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications for individuals with disabilities here. More information is available at www.hud.gov/fairhousing.

*****

Read the March 25, 2024 HUD release.