Santa Monica Housing Commission
RAB Recommendations
Adopted 1 September 2022 by unanimous vote of all Commissioners present After considerable individual research, including RAB configurations, bylaws, and practices in other jurisdictions; trauma-informed community engagement; and consultation with attorneys from nonprofit Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) and National Housing Law Project (NHLP); as well as extensive input by Santa Monica Housing Authority program participants and other local residents; review of relevant Housing Authority staff report and recommendations; and extensive public discussion; the Santa Monica Housing Commission unanimously recommends the following to best support and empower Housing Authority program participants to exercise their federal right to self-representation:
1. The Housing Authority Board agrees to establish a Client Advisory Board (CAB) that represents all Housing Authority program participants, including Continuum of Care, HOME, Emergency, project-based HCV, and other voucher holders, in addition to tenant-based HCV holders, in compliance with 24 CFR § 903.13(a), which states "a Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA."
2. The CAB be composed of 7-15 Housing Authority clients, with the inclusion of at least one member from each major federally funded Housing Authority program
3. Program participants collectively decide for themselves how CAB members are chosen, CAB meeting frequency, content of CAB bylaws, and who will represent the CAB on the Housing Authority Board (including at least one tenant-based voucher holder, as required by federal regulation)
4. SMHA Board directs staff to immediately schedule an initial hybrid CAB meeting and mail notice of this meeting to all 1600+ Housing Authority program participant households. Notices should be written in English and Spanish, with options to request translation in additional languages, to ensure recipients’ understanding. Notices should be sent by physical mail, and additionally by email to clients who have also provided an email address
5. All CAB meetings be public and agendized and staff notify all SMHA program participants by both mail and email in sufficient advance
6. CAB members hold special or subcommittee meetings as needed In addition to regular meetings
7. The drafting and adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding between the CAB and SMHA Board, to be incorporated into the Housing Authority Board bylaws by reference and the Administrative Plan in its entirety
8. CAB bylaws be included in the Housing Authority Administrative Plan Item 7.A
09/13/22
1 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
9. SMHA use federal funds allocated for administrative costs to pay for the CAB communications detailed below*, basic administrative costs, and possible relevant educational and training opportunities
10.The CAB, once established, proposes an annual budget for approval by the Housing Authority Board. An initial budget may be estimated before the first CAB meeting based on the cost of the Housing Commission recommendations
11. Each CAB member receives a $50 stipend for each CAB meeting attended
12.Staff advise all clients and the CAB about all regular timelines for the Housing Authority planning process to ensure maximum participation
13.In future, CAB members periodically invite Housing Authority staff to provide educational presentations on the Annual, Administrative, and 5-Year Plans as needed
14.The Housing Commission has created an ad hoc CAB Subcommittee to provide input and guidance to Housing Authority clients as needed while they form the CAB. We also recommend extending invitations to Denise McGranahan of LAFLA, Darryn Mumphery of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC), Bridgett Simmons of the National Housing Law Project (NHLP), and other independent and knowledgeable people or groups to attend the first CAB meeting and act as resources to clients while they make initial CAB decisions
*Detailed recommendations for independent and fully accessible communications:
A. Dedicated phone number with TDD & TTY accessibility and outgoing messaging that will be recorded and maintained by the CAB
B. Physical city mailbox for written correspondence
C. CAB materials in all new client onboarding, including new and ported vouchers D. Continuing city email addresses for Housing Authority Board members E. All mailings to SMHA clients translated in their preferred languages F. Translation support at CAB meetings as needed
G. Occasional translator support for outgoing phone messages H. Physical and digital mailings to all SMHA participants to notify them of CAB meetings in sufficient advance
I. Surveys sent 2x/year to all SMHA clients for the first two years and annually thereafter
J. Occasional staff presentations at CAB meetings, by invitation, to inform CAB about the Annual, Administrative, and 5 Year Plans
Item 7.A
09/13/22
2 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
Notes on CAB costs and funding
The Housing Commission's recommendations involve three primary expense categories:
stipends, communications, and existing City infrastructure. ● Stipends would cost $350-750 per meeting for 7-15 CAB members ● Total listed communications, excluding initial website creation and existing city infrastructure, would cost approximately $590-775 per year ● Changing current staff mass mailing practices could dramatically reduce cost Federal funds are available to pay for all CAB related expenses.
Note on staff support
By design, these Housing Commission recommendations rely on minimal staff support.
Submitted by Michelle Gray, Santa Monica Housing Commission Chair, on 13 September 2022 via written public comment
Item 7.A
09/13/22
3 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Ryan Bell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Gleam Davis; David White
Subject: Input re Resident Advisory Board (RAB)
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board and SMHA Executive Director White, This letter is being submitted in support of the Santa Monica Housing Commission’s recommendations for the formation of the Santa Monica Client Advisory Board (CAB).
Tenants Together is a statewide coalition of local tenant organizations dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of California tenants to safe, decent, and affordable housing. As California’s only statewide renters’ rights organization, Tenants Together works to improve the lives of California’s tenants by supporting local groups like those in Santa Monica. Tenants Together seeks to support and strengthen the statewide movement for renters’ rights.
As such, Tenants Together recognizes the importance of meaningful Housing Authority client representation and recommend that such representation be as independent and self-directed as possible.
Our organization urges the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board to adopt the CAB recommendations that will be presented by the Santa Monica Housing Commission on September 13, 2022.
Sincerely,
Ryan Bell
________________________________
Ryan Bell - he/him
Southern California Regional Coordinator
Tenants Together
323.313.4035
www.tenantstogether.org
Item 7.A
09/13/22
4 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Deborah Lynch <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:17 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Theresa Marasco; Michelle Gray
Subject: 9/13/2022 Council Meeting Request for Presentation/Addressing the members
EXTERNAL
Please accept this request for time to address the meeting attendees for the Housing Commissions recommendations for a separate CAB (RAB) , and to add a few comments which I think are necessary.
Please know that I am also hoping to be a member of the first CAB, and hope to be an active and productive constituent of positive, incremental change for all tenants whom are voucher holders within the City of Santa Monica.
Three Primary Issues I wish to address:
1) To create a CAB to be functional within 1 months’ time to avoid further delays in addressing specific tenant requirements, questions regarding their vouchers, and enhanced representation within annual administrative and the 5 year planning process with the S.M. Housing Authority Program; 2) The need to address completely and in it’s entirety the difference of the CoC voucher (Continuum of Care) and standard voucher and what additional benefits this voucher provides as well as how to access those benefits as needed and without undue delay;
3) The desire and ultimate need to enact (or re‐enact) the provision for home ownership thru the S.M. voucher program – this is a humongous asset NOT be wasting and it is my understanding that the funds are available thru the Federal government for the housing program and indeed, already been distributed to those Cities….. why are we not using those funds? Cost is not a factor!
Thanking you in advance for considering my request for addressing the audience and the Board in the very important matter.
Sincerely,
Deborah Lynch
(310) 869‐6472
Sent from Mail for Windows
Item 7.A
09/13/22
5 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Michael Louis <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:45 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock
Subject: Agenda Item 7.A: Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches - City Council Meeting: September 13, 2022
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers, Santa Monica Housing Authority Board As board members, you have critically important choices to make tonight. Simply put, this item asks that you distinguish (and choose) between two concepts: 1. the human right of self-determination and selfrepresentation (for the poor, disabled, elderly, and working class), and 2. the human need to control, to further marginalize and disenfranchise these groups.
We all know which choice we say we prefer, in public. But how do we act when it comes time to walk the walk?
In my opinion, individuals who qualify (or will qualify) for federally subsidized housing and those clients who currently reside in such housing, do not seek or need sympathy from City Staff or Housing Authority Board for their hardship or life situation. They need action. They do not seek or need empathy or performative platitudes offered with the best of intentions from a distance — from the City staff offices or from the dais during Housing Authority Board/City Council Meetings. They need compassionate action. They need public officials and government employees to meet them where they are, as unique individuals. In need of self-representation. Not where Santa Monica City officials and many other governments across this land have historically left these groups. Without a voice. Without a unified voice and self-representation.
The human right to self-determination and self-representation along with the human right to independence and autonomy form the foundation of what we call a participatory democracy. Those who benefit from such a system have their agency recognized and nurtured. Their health, well-being, and life situation can stabilize or improve because they are valued as human beings. They are treated with dignity and respect.
As stated in the staff report for this item, the Housing Authority Board directed City staff to return with a discussion of options on alternative ways to facilitate Resident Advisory Board (RAB) input on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Plans. City staff’s report created in response to this Housing Authority Board’s direction came up with three options.
First, the report states: “Purpose of Resident Involvement In Public Housing ‘The role of a resident council is to improve the quality of life and resident satisfaction and participate in self-help initiatives to enable residents to create a positive living environment for families living in public housing.” (See Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations)”. This purpose of resident involvement would no doubt apply to all federal housing program participant representative bodies. Including the RAB.
Staff Option 1 - Facilitate Opportunities for RAB Members to Meet Virtually and Independently of SMHA Staff Option 2 - SMHA Organizes and Supports Virtual Annual RAB Workshop Staff Option 3 - Council-Appointed RAB Which Meets Quarterly Item 7.A
09/13/22
6 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
2 Options 2 and 3 involve unnecessary and intrusive City government engagement and entanglement. These options should be immediately taken off the table, and are frankly absurd given City staff’s historical animosity, resistance, and outright intransigence to allowing the formation of a fully functioning, independent and autonomous RAB. Meaning not a RAB that exists only on paper.
Choosing option 2 or 3 would be analogous in many respects to a situation where the first-ever Amazon Labor Union (ALU), formed in 2021, would require the Amazon Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself to be involved in “Organizing and Supporting Virtual Annual Employee Workshop” (Option 2) and the Amazon Executive Board and perhaps Jeff Bazos himself would be “Appointing Employee Union Representatives Which Meets Quarterly” (Option 3). While the RAB is clearly far from a “labor union”, it is a consumer union of sorts. Or it is intended to function like one in many respects.
Choosing Option 2 or 3 or anything else that resembles them, is essentially a form of union busting. This is obvious to anyone in the public or in public office who examines these issues in good faith. I believe that choosing Option 1 along with the following Housing Commission recommendations would be the best choice.
Below are my recommendations and discussion items, many of which are informed by and/or shared with those of the Housing Commission. Most, if not all of them are supported by a large number of RAB members, other Federal Housing Programs participants, and members of the public I have met informally with, as well as those I have watched while attending Housing Commission meetings. This is especially the case for the most recent meeting on 9/1/22, where the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB was a main topic. This historic and unprecedented meeting was attended by approximately 60 individuals — many of them RAB members. It was truely an inspiring evening.
1. The RAB: Optimal Participation, Independence, Inclusivity, Access, Representation a. Everything must be done, all the stops pulled out to ensure that the greatest amount of participation, access, and inclusivity will occur. Many US cities are trending in this direction.
HUD is encouraging and enabling this trend. The City of Santa Monica, which considers itself rather progressive and regularly promotes and celebrates diversity, should follow suit. Better put, it should lead other cities in the right direction. b. Fundamental recommendations of the Housing Commission (among others found in this public comment) are as follows:
i) that the RAB be as independent of City staff as humanly possible. ii) that there will be absolutely minimal staff involvement, in other words by invitation only. iii) support from the City will be limited to assistance with things such as access to translators, mailings and other functional/logistical supports to be determined by the RAB. iii) that staff will be welcome to show up to meetings a couple of times a year (by invitation) — perhaps more often — to explain various salient matters related to the RAB. c.
d.
2. Widening the Scope and Diversity of Federal Housing Program Participation . The Housing Commission recommends that the RAB include all federal housing program participants, within a larger more inclusive tent, not just limited to tenant-based Housing Choice voucher holders.
a. Federal housing program participants and RAB members have expressed resounding support for widening the umbrella.
b. It is crucial that the Housing Authority Board direct staff to schedule a RAB meeting immediately. It is recommended that invitations be sent out expeditiously so that interested clients can all meet for the first time, as soon as possible.
3. City Staff has a long history of either incompetence or intentional neglect or both, when it comes to facilitating the formation of a fully functional, independent RAB ( not just a RAB on paper). City staff should not be allowed to usurp/replace/undermine the authority of the Housing Commission in its crucial representation of stakeholders. The Housing Commission’s mandate is to advise the Housing Authority.
Item 7.A
09/13/22
7 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
3 a. It is evident that even by the current recommendations of staff, the City staff remain far out of touch with the clients’ actual needs.
b. Staff is responsible for years of problems and non-responsiveness to the needs of voucher holders.
c. After decades of lack of self-representation for clients, it’s inappropriate for Staff to be the ones making recommendations when their previous judgment has been so poor, and they have been so inaccessible, disconnected, and out of touch.
d. The authoritative source of recommendations to the Housing Authority is the Housing Commission. Not the staff. Santa Monica City staff has a whole history of bad decisions, especially with regard to RAB formation. Unfortunately, they are currently defending those bad decisions.
e. City staff has essentially no contact with clients. The Housing Commission, on the other hand, historically (for years, very often monthly and especially recently), has been actively engaged with clients. The Housing Commission has gone out of its way to solicit input directly and with candor from the clients. And every recommendation of the Housing Commission is informed by a genuine concern for what the clients actually need and want. f. With staff options 2 and 3, staff is clearly attempting to circumvent the Housing Commission — take them out of the review process. These last two options appear designed to simply get input all in one place and at the same time so that the Housing Commission will no longer participate in the Housing Authority planning process. This is extraordinarily problematic on so many levels. g. Staff is trying to conflate these two bodies, their jurisdictions and purviews. These are two distinct public bodies. Staff trying to cut the Housing Commission out of proceedings is just another way to disenfranchise, exclude, and sideline more housing clients. h. Merriam-webster defines disenfranchise as “broadly signifying depriving someone of any of a number of legal rights, it is most often used today of withholding the right to vote, or of the diminished social or political status of a marginalized group. [Also,] to deprive of some privilege or immunity; especially to deprive of the right to vote; disenfranchising the poor and elderly. If the Housing Commission is removed from the equation these groups are exactly who will be disenfranchised, sidelined, and excluded.
i. Anyone who is genuinely working in good faith should welcome all the work the Housing Commission has done and is set to do, regarding the RAB, and their good faith interactions with federal housing program participants. But it is clear City staff are still trying to minimize the participation of program participants (and the Housing Commission) in general, by saying IF we get a couple of people who are clients, then the Housing Commission doesn’t have to weigh in anymore. This is extremely problematic. Generally speaking, City staff employees are not reliable narrators for this highly nuanced cause. They are not appropriate sources of recommendations.
4. It is inappropriate at the very least and unlawful at most, that the Staff Report and recommendations for this item include political speech concerning an upcoming election regarding a ballot measure. This might be considered a form of electioneering. Although the law allows for some exceptions (for purely informational purposes, for example), a public official may not promote or try to influence the outcome of a ballot measure or candidate’s election, if that dissemination of information is conducted in the capacity of or during the course of work as a public official.
. Staff’s brief recommendation is essentially to postpone the forming of the RAB (or engagement in the necessary preparatory steps) until after the November election. a. Staff’s supporting reason: if the ballot initiative passes, staff could provide housing funds to support RAB efforts. And this could affect how the RAB forms and operates. Simply, this is staff repeating a political talking point. This is inappropriate in the context of a staff report and it is a ridiculous foundation for recommendations that affect thousands of Santa Monicans who’ve been waiting for 22 years to be able to exercise the right to self-representation. b. The formation of the RAB has nothing to do with this election year or a ballot measure. This has to do with the RAB only. For City Staff to try to mix it in with an election year, it gives the appearance that staff has its own agenda. That staff has a plan separate and apart for what is best for RAB members and the formation of a fully functioning independent RAB Item 7.A
09/13/22
8 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
4 c. City staff or any public official who will not allow or promote RAB independent selfrepresentation and self-determination are hiding behind process arguments. This is similar in some ways to when Republicans in Congress would not allow a Supreme court confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, just because it was to occur in the same election year. So, why would City staff use a process argument? Perhaps it is because they have run out of stalling tactics and other tricks in order to prevent the formation of a fully functioning, fully independent RAB.
d. Staff unnecessarily gave a plug for the ballot measure and used it as a tool to delay any action on the RAB. It is not only political speech, but it is also irrelevant because this involves people participating in federal housing programs. This participation is regulated by something entirely different. It has nothing to do with what is happening locally. e. This inappropriate political speech demonstrates what we advocates have been saying for years about City staff bias, especially with regard to the formation of the RAB. That staff has a strong tendency to insert themselves into having their own agendas that are in conflict with sound public policy and the spirit of participatory democracy. And again, this is also completely irrelevant because the issue at hand concerns federal programs and federal money.
It is worth reaffirming what has been mentioned in numerous public comments submitted by advocates to this Housing Authority Board, City Council, and past Housing Commissions — that this RAB is 20+ years overdue and there has been vigorous advocacy for the past almost 3 years. The Housing Authority Board and City of Santa Monica need to move on this. The time to act is now.
Thank you for considering my public input.
Michael Louis
Item 7.A
09/13/22
9 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:02 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Cc: Lana Negrete
Subject: 7-A (RAB) public comment
Attachments: PRRAC NHLP policy brief.pdf
EXTERNAL
This email, and the attachment, constitute my public input to item 7-A at the 9/13/22 meeting of the SMHAB.
I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission's well vetted recommendations regarding the formation of an autonomous, robust Resident Advisory Board that includes representatives of all the federally subsidized housing programs administered by the Santa Monica Housing Authority, with minimal staff involvement or and with zero impact on the City's budget. A proposed name would be "CAB," which stands for Client Advisory Board.
Here are the highlights of the recommendations:
a) RAB/CAB an entirely autonomous body, independent of staff, SMHAB, Housing Commission or any other city committee.
b) CAB includes solely participants of federally funded housing programs, and has anarrow jurisdiction that pertains to those federally funded programs, therefore cannot be combined with, or conflated with any other housing related city board or committee. c) CAB includes representatives from all major federally funded programs administered by SMHA, not just tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher holders. Therefore the CAB would include Continuum of Care representatives, HOME program participants and representatives of project-based Housing Choice Voucher holders. It makes sense for the CAB to be inclusive of all the federally funded programs administered by SMHA.
d) no city budget needed. Federal Housing Authority admin fees are supposed to be used for the CAB, plus soon there will be designated HUD funding for the RABs (there's advocacy at the federal level now via Congressman Andy Levin and PRRAC – Poverty and Race Research Advocacy Council and the National Housing Law Project). See the attached policy brief. https://www.prrac.org/expanding-federal-support-for-tenant-organizing-in-federally-assisted-housingand-the-housing-choice-voucher-program-february-2022/ d. minimal staff time involvement (mostly to facilitate communications, which is actually already REQUIRED by HUD's RAB guidelines). Staff will be asked to send out notices of CAB meetings, provide translation if needed, from time to time present to CAB on the proposed Admin Plan changes or parts of the Admin Plan – by CAB invitation only.
Item 7.A
09/13/22
10 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
2 e. MOU - Memorandum of Understanding between SMHA and CAB will serve as a document that spells out each party's responsibilities and duties. This was recommended by two specialized attorneys from PRRAC and NHLP. MOUs are very common in federally subsidized tenant participation.
I urge the SMHAB to support the Housing Commission recommendations and to direct staff to use Housing Commission recommendations as guidance for facilitating the formation of an autonomous CAB, including a direction for the staff to immediately notice the very first formal meeting of the Santa Monica CAB.
A notice of such a meeting should go out to all 1,677 voucher households by snail mail and by email if the family provided an email address.
At this meeting CAB will discuss more details on how they want to organize themselves (with Housing Commission subcommittee being available to CAB during this meeting as a resource, and reps from PRRAC, NHLP and LAFLA SM – also as a resource only). CAB will then start working on a proposed MOU to be presented to SMHAB at a later date to formalize and codify the CAB.
Participants of the SMHA-administered federally funded housing program have been waiting for this for DECADES, during which time the Santa Monica Housing Commission was violating federal regulations mandating at the very least a RAB.
Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Item 7.A
09/13/22
11 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:03 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; David White
Subject: Public Input - 9/13/2022 City Council Agenda Item 7A
EXTERNAL
Date: September 13, 2022
Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting September 13, 2022 Re: Public Comment - Agenda Item 7. STUDY SESSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
A.Section 8 Resident Advisory Board Approaches
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board; and Santa Monica Housing Authority Executive Director, David White:
First, I want to be clear that even though I am the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission, I am commenting as a person of the public, but more importantly, I am commenting as an actual RAB member and someone who has been a Housing Choice Voucher holder for more than 27 years.
I could go into great detail about the fact that the City of Santa Monica’s Housing Authority has not taken steps to ensure that there is an active, engaged, robust, well-informed Resident Advisory Board, but I and many others have done that over and over for the last 5 years only to be ignored. Real simple, there has NEVER been a real Resident Advisory Board in the City of Santa Monica.
Regardless of the justifications and misleading statements in the “staff report,” the clients of the Santa Monica Housing Authority have never had a real opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. The voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the city have NEVER been allowed to be heard. For over 22 years, the City of Santa Monica has been out of compliance with HUD’s federal mandate to provide us with the resources we need to be active and engaged such as a place to meet, a Zoom account to hold meetings in a hybrid setting, a website to provide information to the clients of the SMHA and have refused to allow us to choose our own leadership.
I respectfully request that the SMHAB vote to immediately create a CAB or Client Advisory Board to include all clients of the SMHA asap.
I am now requesting that the SMHAB do the following:
1. Adopt the recommendations of the Housing Commission that were voted on and approved by all present Housing Commissioners and the 66 people who attended the September 1, 2022, Housing Commission meeting
2. Immediately schedule 1st CAB meeting for 4-6 weeks from now
3. Mail meeting notice to all 1600+ HA clients, with translations (Housing Commission CAB Subcommittee can write the letter)
4. Take Housing Commission recommendations as direction for how to proceed, beginning with a meeting and letters to go out to all 1600 + SMHA clients
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Item 7.A
09/13/22
12 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
2 To help protect y
Micro so ft Office p
auto matic downlo
picture from the
Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 7.A
09/13/22
13 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
Expanding Federal Support for Tenant Organizing in Federally Assisted Housing and the Housing Choice Voucher Program February 2022
The federal government, through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides legal protection and financial support for tenant organizing in several of HUD’s housing programs. Unfortunately, the housing choice voucher (HCV) program lacks the same organizing protections, creating uneven tenant protections throughout HUD’s housing programs. The right to organize has long been viewed as a key component of successful HUD housing programs. HUD directs Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) and private owners to support tenant organizing by acknowledging tenant organizations, responding to their advocacy efforts, and, in some cases, provide funding. HUD’s regulations also protect tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing against retaliatory evictions for organizing.1
Voucher participants should have a right to organize, just as HUD has provided in the public housing and project-based rental assistance housing programs. HUD should promulgate tenant organizing regulations for the HCV program that allow for the greatest flexibility and have the lowest barriers to organizing. Additionally, HUD should fund voucher tenant organizing activities, as it has done for public housing tenants, but in a more consistent and meaningful way.
Federal Protections for Tenant Organizing – Public Housing Public housing tenants have a right to organize under 24 CFR § 964.11.2 This regulation establishes that any Public Housing Authority (PHA) that has a Public Housing Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) must recognize tenants’ right to organize, elect a resident council representing their interests, and have that resident council recognized by the PHA.3 The regulation encourages PHAs to collaborate with the elected residents to improve the community overall.
Under 24 CFR pt. 964, resident councils must be structured according to the statute for the organization to be considered legitimate. Members must be elected, and the council must create and adopt some sort of written procedures (like bylaws or a constitution) for governance.4 Resident councils can be comprised of members from one community, meaning multiple resident councils can exist within a PHA. These councils can represent a property or be city-wide.5 1 Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Revision of Tenant Participation Requirements in Accordance with 24 CFR Part 245 at 5-8 (Mar. 31, 2016), https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/16-05HSGN.PDF. 2 24 CFR § 964.11. 3 24 CFR § 964.11. 24 CFR § 964.3 (a). 4 24 CFR § 964.115.
5 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-50.
Item 7.A
09/13/22
14 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – HUD Assisted Multi-Family Housing HUD regulations convey the right to organize to tenants in properties that participate in HUD’s multi-family housing Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA) programs.6 These programs include
Project-based Section 8 Rental Assistance, Section 202, Section 811, and properties with specific HUD-held and HUD-insured mortgages.
7 24 CFR § 245.100 gives tenants in qualifying properties the right to “establish and operate a tenant organization.”8 These organizations are to be created and led by tenants to address community development concerns, issues regarding the building or its units, and the “terms and conditions of their tenancy.”9 Property owners and property managers are to “recognize…and give reasonable consideration to concerns raised by legitimate tenant organizations.”10
HUD regulation requires owners and managers to make reasonable efforts to accommodate tenants’ requests for accessible meeting spaces within the property for organizing activities or organizational operations. Property owners may charge tenants “reasonable, customary and usual” fees for the use of meeting spaces on the property.11
24 CFR pt. 245 also provides protection for the organizing activities of non-resident organizers working with tenants.12 Under 24 CFR § 245.100 tenants in HUD assisted multi-family housing cannot be evicted for organizing. The regulation also explicitly delineates several organizing activities property owners and managers must allow tenants to partake in without prior permission.13
Federal Protection for Tenant Organizing – Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Tenants in public housing properties that undergo RAD conversion retain the right to organize regardless of whether their development is converted to Section 8 Project-Based Voucher property or to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance property.14 It should be noted that resident organizing at properties converted to Section 8 Project-based Rental Assistance are subject to the 6 24 CFR § 245.10 states the right to organize is applicable to tenants living in: multi-family housing projects subject to a HUD insured or held mortgage under the National Housing Act; formerly HUD-owned projects; state or local housing finance agency projects; projects receiving project-based assistance under section 8 of the US Housing Act of 1937, but not when PHAs administer the project-based assistance; projects receiving enhanced vouchers under the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, the Emergency Low Income Housing Preservation Act of 1987, or the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997; projects receiving assistance under Section 202 Direct Loan or Supportive Housing for the Elderly programs; projects receiving assistance under the Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program. 7 Jessie Cassella, Understanding Project-Based Rental Assistance (Mar. 22, 2018), https://www.nhlp.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Saving-HUD-Homes-2-FINAL.pdf. 8 24 CFR 245.100. 9 Id. 10 24 CFR § 245.105. 24 CFR § 245.110 defines a “legitimate tenant organization” as an organization that has been “established by the tenants of a multifamily housing project covered under § 245.10 for the purpose described in § 245.100, and meets regularly, operates democratically, is representative of all residents in the development, and is completely independent of owners, management, and their representatives.” 11 24 CFR § 245.120 (c). 12 24 CFR § 245.120. 13 24 CFR § 245.115. 14 https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/TENANTORGANIZINGAFTERRAD.PDF; Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., Rental Assistance Demonstration – Final Implementation, Revision 4 at 129-34 (Sept. 5, 2019), Item 7.A
09/13/22
15 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
requirements in 24 CFR pt. 245 rather than those of part 964 – subjecting those tenants to the same right to organize regulations as tenants in HUD-assisted multi-family housing.15 Funding for Tenant Organizing
Through the ACC with HUD, PHAs are provided with funds to support public housing tenant participation activities. HUD gives PHAs $25 per unit each year via the Operating Fund Grant.16 This $25 allotment is to be used by PHAs to fund tenant participation activities, and at minimum, $15 of the $25 allocation must be used by resident councils for the support of training and organizing efforts.17 The $25 allotment has not increased since it was originally authorized and due in part to inflation, is generally too low to cover the cost of tenant participation activities.18 When there is no resident council, PHAs are encouraged to use their portion of the funding to encourage tenant participation activities, including training and capacity-building for residents to form a resident council.19 HUD allows PHAs to utilize a portion of that $15 to fund stipends for resident council officers serving as volunteers in their developments. These stipends are capped at $200 per month, per officer.20 PHAs are allowed to keep $10 of the $25 allotment to allowable expenditures, which includes a broad range of activities regarding tenant participation. These activities include community elections, printing, and meeting space rentals.21 Public housing converted under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD), whether converted to PBV or PBRA, retain the $25 per unit, per year allocation for tenant participation activities.
Resident organizations in RAD conversions must still receive at least $15 per unit, per year for tenant organizing activities.22
Currently, there is no regulatory requirement for HUD to provide funding to PBRA tenants for organizing activities. Section 514 of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRAA) authorizes HUD to spend up to $10 million annually from the Project Based Section 8 account, for tenant organizing, training and capacity-building.23 However, since 2001, HUD has committed approximately 7% of the available funding.24 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/H-2019-09-PIH-2019- 23_RAD_Notice%20Rev4_20190905.pdf. 15 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 16 24 CFR § 964.150; Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). 17 Id. 18 Josh Cohen, HUD Has Money for Tenant Organizing. Why Isn't the Agency Spending It? Shelterforce (2021), https://shelterforce.org/2021/03/19/hud-has-money-for-tenant-organizing-why-isnt-the-agency-spending-it/ 19 24 CFR § 964.150 (a). See National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-50. See also Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). Resident participation activities are not limited to organizing, however in this Notice organizing activities are explicitly mentioned by HUD as examples of appropriate ways to spend the allotted funds. 20 24 CFR § 964.150 (b). 21 Notice PIH 2021- 16 (HA). 22 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 23 42 USC § 1437f note. 24 The National Alliance of HUD Tenants estimates that HUD has committed only $13 million out of the $190 million that could have been used for this purpose.
Item 7.A
09/13/22
16 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
Tenant Organizing in the Housing Choice Voucher Program Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) tenants are typically scattered across a PHA’s service area, so tenants face additional barriers to their organizing efforts. Also, HUD’s regulations do not include the same legal protections for HCV tenants interested in organizing, nor does HUD provide funding for HCV tenants to organize. As with all voucher and public housing tenants, HCV tenants may participate in Resident Advisory Boards or become involved in the PHA Plan process.25 For broader organizing efforts, however, HCV tenants must turn to tenant organizing groups that operate more broadly within the community.
Recommendations (in brief)
The right to organize is vital and empowers tenants in federally assisted housing. 26 In order to move in the direction of progress on this issue, HUD should consider:
• Increasing the amount of funding per year, per unit for tenant participation activities across all of its housing programs;
• Creating right to organize protections for HCV tenants; • Providing funds for organizing activities amongst HCV tenants; • Funding, separately from the money allocated to fund resident organizing activities, for resident capacity building programs throughout the country in all of its housing programs; • Creating opportunities for dialogue and centering experiences of tenants when considering how to improve the agency’s federal housing programs.
Principles for a Right to Organize for Housing Choice Voucher Tenants Below is a brief initial outline of principles HUD should consider when developing organizing protections in the HCV program. The National Housing Law Project (NHLP) and Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) will continue to engage our partners about the best practices for organizing Voucher participants and will update this proposal regularly. NHLP and PRRAC are committed to continuing the conversation about the importance of HUD-assisted participants having the right to organize and look forward to working with Voucher participants, organizers, and HUD on this issue.
• A Voucher tenant organization should be defined similarly to 24 CFR § 245.110—an organization that meets regularly, operates democratically, is inclusive of the local voucher participants, and is independent from the PHA and owners (POAs). o HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of PHA or owner (POA) interference.
A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation. 25 National Low Income Housing Coalition, Advocates Guide 2020: A Primer on Federal Affordable Housing & Community Development Programs, 2-52. 26 The need for federal regulation around the right to organize and funding for organizing activities has been recognized by Congress. Our recommendations align with those delineated in the Tenant Empowerment Act, introduced by Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, and Maxine Waters. See “Tenant Empowerment Act of 2020” https://files.constantcontact.com/eee0e428701/f80f47a2-d611-4f27-8451-81cb2ac588ee.pdf Item 7.A
09/13/22
17 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
o All protections extended to Voucher tenant organizations should also be extended to any organizing committee(s).
o Individual tenants should be protected from any retaliation due to their participation in the tenant organization and, or participation in organizing activities.
o There should be an enforcement process for tenants and, or tenant organizations to submit allegations of interference or retaliation.
HUD must prioritize enforcement of all tenant organizing regulations and respond swiftly to allegations of POA retaliation and interference. HUD has a comprehensive enforcement process for the project-based rental assistance program that could be used as a model. See HUD H 2016-05.
HUD’s regulation must include an explicit protection against retaliation of PHA or owner (POA) interference.
• A rebuttable presumption that an adverse action taken within 6 months of the tenant’s participation in organizing activities is an act of retaliation.
o HUD should fund, separately from the money allocated to fund tenant organizing activities, tenant capacity building programs throughout the country. PHAs should invite tenant serving community organizations to participate in the HCV orientation meetings to provide information about tenant organizing.
• Possible Role of Voucher Tenant Organizations
o Represents voucher participants in making demands to the PHA regarding the operation and policies of the local Voucher program, such as but not limited to, commenting on PHA plans and policies, Voucher utilization, payment standards, problem landlords, list of available units, or housing search assistance; o Appoint HCV household member(s) to serve on the PHA board in addition to existing tenant directors;27
o Appoint representative(s) to serve on the Resident Advisory Boards (RAB); o Encourage Voucher participants to join the HCV organization, including during the initial Voucher briefings and reaching out to persons on the waitlist; HUD should mandate PHAs to provide notice to HCV tenants of the right to organize annually and amend the HCV tenancy addendum to include the right to organize.
PHAs should also include information about the right to organize to participating and potential participate landlords; the owner’s obligation to not retaliate or interfere with the right to organize must be memorialized in HUD’s HCV HAP form.
o Educate tenants on issues and/or operations that affect tenant and their living environment;
o Engaging in capacity building activities, specifically developing capacity about the Voucher program;
o Formulate responses to changes in the operation and policies for the Voucher program, and;
27 Where the state law requires an executive to appoint board members, the HCV tenant group should have the right to recommend to the appointing official a candidate to serve in the position.
Item 7.A
09/13/22
18 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22
o Organizing and advocating for federal, state and local housing policies and tenant protections, including but not limited to, source of income discrimination protections.
• Funding
o Voucher tenant organizing should be funded in a meaningful and consistent manner.28 Each year, per unit, HUD should make available funds for independent Housing Choice Voucher tenant organizations organized at the local, regional, or state level. Annually, the amount received per unit should incrementally increase.
If HUD decides to continue the practice of splitting the funding between the PHA and the resident groups, the majority of the money should go to the Voucher tenant organization(s).
o Organizing groups’ receipt of funding should not be contingent upon a Memorandum of Understanding or PHAs’ approval of the use of the funds. o Voucher tenant organizations should not be required to request the funding from the PHA and the funding should be automatically provided to the Voucher tenant organizing group.
o Voucher tenant organizations should have the discretion to pay their officers and members stipend and to hire paid organizers.
• Structure of Organization
o The regulations should not proscribe a specific organizational structure or mandate the organization have a specific number of officers. Being proscriptive in this manner may disqualify otherwise eligible groups because the group is just getting started, there are limited number of members who can serve as an officer, etc.
o Voucher tenant organizations should be permitted to form partnerships with other voucher tenant organizations, community organizations, organizers, and housing advocates to organize on issues important to Voucher participants. o All persons listed on leases should be able to participate in the tenant organization and organizing activities.
o Each organization should have the ability to decide who is eligible to vote. 28 If the $25 per unit per year funding for tenant participation had kept up with inflation, PHAs would receive $37.44 per unit per year for tenant participation activities. See Interim Instructions on Distribution and Use of Operating Subsidy Funds Received for Resident Participation Activities, Notice PIH 2001-03 (Jan. 18, 2001); Value of 2001 US Dollars Today, INFLATIONTOOL (Mar. 8, 2021, 1:10 PM), https://www.inflationtool.com/us-dollar/2001-topresent-value?amount=25.
Item 7.A
09/13/22
19 of 19 Item 7.A
09/13/22