List of Findings and Recommendations

Finding IV.B.1:

The number of discrimination allegations filed with HUD and state and local fair housing enforcement agencies is very low, given statistical and anecdotal evidence that housing discrimination is widespread.

Finding IV.B.2.a:

Three-quarters of all claims (4,210 of 5,924 in FY 2000) are dismissed without being converted to complaints and therefore are not subjected to full investigation.

Finding IV.B.2.b:

From FY 1996 through FY 2000, HUD reported both complaints and claims (whether dismissed or maturing into complaints) to Congress and the public. It is only through creative arithmetic that HUD has made it appear that fair housing receipts have not declined.

Recommendation IV.B.2.a:

In reporting to Congress and the public, HUD should be required to distinguish between fair housing complaints and other receipts, such as claims or inquiries, so that a fair assessment of the agency's success can be made.

Finding IV.B.2.c:

After HUD adopted a new intake process in FY 1996, emphasizing the assessment of claims to determine whether they warranted full investigation, the number of HUD complaints filed dropped even further. By FY 2000, complaints (N = 1,988) were at 30 percent of their FY 1992 level.

Finding IV.B.2.d:

On February 1, 2001, HUD abandoned its claims assessment process in favor of a system that gives investigators 20 days to process an inquiry to determine whether it will be filed as a complaint. HUD did not supply data by which the effectiveness of this new approach can be gauged.

Recommendation IV.B.2.b:

Congress should closely monitor HUD's new intake protocol to ensure that it does not inappropriately discourage the filing of fair housing complaints and does not inappropriately prevent the conversion of inquiries into complaints.

Finding IV.B.5.a:

Disability complaints now compose the largest percentage of HUD complaints. Complaints of disability discrimination have composed a growing percentage of HUD and FHAP receipts. In FY 1999 and FY 2000, nearly 42 percent of all HUD complaints included allegations of disability discrimination, more than any other protected class.

Finding IV.B.5.b:

The growth of disability complaints cannot be attributed to a single cause but is undoubtedly influenced by the growing recognition that people with disabilities are entitled to equal housing opportunity under the FHA.

Finding IV.B.5.c:

HUD has contributed to the growth in disability complaints through its support of private fair housing enforcement agencies under FHIP. HUD has awarded FHIP grants to full-service enforcement agencies handling disability complaints and to other advocacy groups focused exclusively on education about, outreach to, and enforcement of the rights of people with disabilities.

Recommendation IV.B.5:

HUD should continue to explore ways that it can use FHIP and contract funds to support collaborative work between full-service fair housing agencies and organizations representing people with disabilities.

Finding IV.B.6.a:

Throughout the 1990s, HUD devolved substantial authority to its HUBs and allowed them great autonomy to structure intake, complaint processing, investigation, and cause determinations.

Finding IV.B.6.b:

In the mid- and late 1990s, Headquarters FHEO ceased its close oversight of HUB operations, opting instead for "remote monitoring." The result has been significant differences in practice among HUBs, including markedly different treatment of disability complaints.

Finding IV.B.6.c:

There is great variability in numbers of complaints (overall and on the basis of disability) filed by HUD's 10 HUBs and by FHAPs that is not adequately explained by differences in populations served by each HUB.

Finding IV.B.6.d:

The management style currently employed by Headquarters FHEO tends to reinforce significant regional variations in enforcement practice, resulting in different treatment of disability (and other) complaints depending on the state in which a complainant lives and whether the complaint is handled by HUD or by an FHAP.

Recommendation IV.B.6.a:

HUD should assess the intake process at each HUB and at each FHAP to determine whether the historically low number of complaints (overall or on the basis of disability) reflects impediments for victims of discrimination in using the Title VIII administrative complaint system.

Recommendation IV.B.6.b:

HUD should identify best practices among HUBs and FHAPs concerning community outreach, intake, case processing, investigation, and cause determination and require HUBs and FHAPs that do not already do so to use them.

Recommendation IV.B.6.c:

Headquarters FHEO should take active steps to deal with these regional differences so that the quality of justice does not depend on place of residence, or should assume greater central authority over the Title VIII complaint process.

Finding IV.B.7:

There are significant differences between the HUBs with respect to the percentage of Title VIII complaints alleging disability discrimination. Five of the HUBs (Chicago, Atlanta, Ft. Worth, Philadelphia, and Kansas City) are consistently below the national norm, giving rise to a concern that disability issues may not be getting appropriate attention. The Chicago HUB, which historically files the greatest number of overall fair housing complaints, has been at or below average for disability complaints every year since the FHAA was passed.

Recommendation IV.B.7.a:

HUD should assess the intake process at each HUB and at each FHAP to determine whether the historically low number of complaints (overall or on the basis of disability) reflects impediments for victims of discrimination in using the Title VIII administrative complaint system.

Recommendation IV.B.7.b:

Headquarters FHEO should take active steps to deal with these regional differences so that the quality of justice does not depend on place of residence, or should assume greater central authority over the Title VIII complaint process.

Finding IV.B.8:

Among HUD and FHAP disability complaints, reasonable accommodation is the most frequent issue, representing 41.6 percent of HUD cases and 38.5 percent of FHAP cases in FY 2000. Design and construction accessibility issues rank next (9.1 percent of HUD cases and 8.8 percent of FHAP cases).

Finding IV.C.1:

By enforcing accountability, HUD was able to reduce agencywide administrative closure rates from 48 percent in FY 1993 to 15 percent in FY 1997. When the performance measures were deleted from appraisals in FY 1998, the administrative closure rate went back up to 19 percent. In FY 1999, it was 20 percent, and in FY 2000, it had gone up to 21 percent.

Recommendation IV.C.1:

HUD should establish and enforce accountability and job performance standards modeled on those in place during FY 1995 through FY 1997 to ensure that the administrative closure method is not overused.

Finding IV.C.2:

During every year since FY 1989, disability cases have been significantly more likely than other cases to be closed by conciliation. While FHAP disability complaints are more likely than FHAP nondisability complaints to be resolved by conciliation, FHAPs appear to rely on conciliation somewhat less than HUD, in terms of both disability cases and other cases.

Finding IV.C.3.a:

Since FY 1996, HUD has closed at least one-third of its complaints (and FHAPs have closed at least 41 percent) with a finding that no cause existed to believe discrimination had occurred.

Finding IV.C.3.b:

Since FY 1996, disability complaints were closed with a finding of no cause at a slightly lower rate. This may result from the fact that HUD disability complaints are more likely to be resolved earlier in the process, especially through conciliation, and that fewer nonmeritorious cases are left at the cause/no cause decision point.

Finding IV.C.4.a:

Since FY 1990, complaints of disability discrimination have lagged significantly behind the average HUD case in probability of cause finding.

Finding IV.C.4.b:

Of the 12,017 disability complaints filed with HUD from 1990 through 2000, the agency found reasonable cause to believe discrimination had occurred in just 284 cases, or 2.4 percent of all cases.

Finding IV.C.4.c:

When HUD finds cause in only 1 out of 40 disability cases, it may be sending a message to the disability community that victims of disability discrimination are unlikely to secure relief through filing a HUD complaint.

Recommendation IV.C.4.a:

HUD should take steps to improve its credibility with disability groups and advocates by aggressively pursuing disability discrimination complaints and widely publicizing favorable results.

Finding IV.C.4.d:

HUD cause findings have declined dramatically, from 325 in FY 1994 to 96 in FY 2000

Finding IV.C.4.e:

There are significant differences among HUBs concerning the overall number of disability complaints and the percentage of cause findings in disability cases since FY 1990. In absolute numbers and in terms of percentage of caseload, the New York HUB ranked highest in disability complaints with cause findings over the 11-year period (57 cause findings, or 4.9 percent of its disability cases) and the Kansas City HUB ranked lowest (11 cause findings, or 0.9 percent of its disability cases).

Finding IV.C.4.f:

Such regional variations are attributable to cultural differences between regions of the country and personnel assigned to the respective HUBs. The management style currently employed by Headquarters FHEO tends to reinforce significant regional variations in enforcement practice, resulting in different treatment of disability (and other) complaints depending on the state in which a complainant lives and whether the complaint is handled by HUD or by an FHAP.

Finding IV.C.4.g:

Victims of discrimination are discouraged from using the Title VIII administrative process at HUD and FHAPs for a variety of reasons, including an unwelcoming intake process, inordinate delays in assessing and investigating claims, relatively small monetary awards achieved through HUD and FHAP conciliation, and a generalized sense that the administrative process rarely achieves results that outweigh the personal costs of filing a claim or complaint.

Recommendation IV.C.4.b:

Congress should require HUD to conduct a study to determine why the absolute number and percentage of cause findings (especially those in disability cases) have declined so precipitously, and why there are such wide variations on these indicators among the HUBs.

Recommendation IV.C.4.c:

Headquarters FHEO should take active steps to deal with these regional differences so that the quality of justice does not depend on place of residence, or should assume greater central authority over the Title VIII complaint process.

Finding IV.C.4.g:

FHAP cause findings have declined from 545 in FY 1990 to 158 in FY 2000.

Finding IV.C.4.h:

From FY 1992 through FY 2000, FHAPs charged 347 of the 8,683 disability cases they handled, or 4 percent of total complaints. This rate is 40 percent higher than the rate for HUD-processed disability complaints for the same period.

Recommendation IV.C.4.d:

HUD should conduct an analysis to determine why FHAPs, on average, charge 40 percent more of the disability complaints they handle. HUD should identify and distill the practices that have led to this success and require their use by HUDs and FHAPs that do not already employ them.

Finding IV.C.4.i:

There are wide and troubling variations from region to region among the FHAPs. For instance, Boston region FHAPs found cause in 8.7 percent of disability complaints, and Philadelphia area FHAPs found cause in 8.0 percent. By contrast, Ft. Worth area FHAPs found cause in 0.6 percent of all disability complaints, and those in the Seattle and Denver regions found cause in 2.5 and 2.7 percent of all disability cases, respectively.

Recommendation IV.C.4.e:

Headquarters FHEO should take active steps to deal with these regional differences so that the quality of justice does not depend on place of residence. Alternatively, Headquarters should assume greater central authority over the Title VIII complaint process.

Finding IV.D.2.a:

At the end of FY 2000, a victim of disability discrimination could expect to have waited 13 months since the filing of a complaint and to have no clear indication how soon the complaint might come to a hearing or otherwise be resolved.

Finding IV.D.2.b:

The average age of HUD complaints, measured from filing to date of closure, has risen from 96 days in FY 1989 to 137 days in FY 1992 to 497 days in FY 2000.

Finding IV.D.2.c:

The aging of complaints has occurred as the number of complaints investigated by HUD has declined by 70 percent.

Recommendation IV.D.2:

HUD should analyze its management practices to determine why case handling has become so inefficient, and should report its findings to Congress and the public.

Finding IV.D.2.d:

The aged case backlog serves as an important indicator to complainants and fair housing advocates of the likelihood of a prompt adjudication of the complainant's grievance. This, in turn, may well determine whether the complainant will decide to make use of the federal enforcement process.

Finding IV.D.2.e:

At the close of FY 1998, 69 percent of HUD's pending complaints had exceeded the statutory 100-day maximum for investigation and determination of cause. At the close of FY 1998, 78 percent of HUD's pending complaints had gone past 100 days. At the close of FY 1998, 68 percent of HUD's pending complaints had surpassed the deadline. During these three fiscal years, the Denver HUB was the worst performer (81 percent of cases older than 100 days) and Kansas City was the best (44 percent of cases older than 100 days).

Finding IV.D.2.f:

FHAP processing time to closure for all complaints came close to meeting the 100-day mandate during FY 1989 and remained below 140 days through FY 1993. Processing times rose steadily through FY 1997 (when they reached 317 days). Thereafter, they have declined nearly 30 percent; during FY 2000, FHAP complaints took an average of 220 days from filing to closure or cause determination.

Finding IV.D.2.g:

FHAPs have been able to process fair housing complaints more quickly than HUD. In the last four years for which data are available, FHAPs have investigated and closed cases about 100 days faster than HUD. With respect to disability claims, FHAPs work more quickly as well, averaging 75 fewer days than HUD per disability complaint.

Finding IV.D.3:

Congress appears to be unaware of the scope of HUD's aged case problem and the effect it has on complainants and public confidence in the administrative enforcement system.

Recommendation IV.D.3:

Congress should closely scrutinize HUD's aged case portfolio and provide oversight and funding to correct it.

Finding IV.D.4.a:

Congress required the HUD Secretary to send the 100-day letters only where it was "impracticable" to complete an investigation within 100 days, but the drafters of the FHAA did not anticipate that such a large percentage of the inventory would exceed the statutory deadlines. At present, the 100-day letters are the rule, rather than the rare exception Congress intended. In essence, the letters have become a formality observed in almost every case. HUD's intermittent reporting of these facts to Congress may have made it more difficult for the oversight committees to understand and respond to the aged case crisis.

Finding IV.D.4.b:

At every stage of the process, HUD and the FHAPs are failing to meet the time lines set out in the FHA. The 100-day letters tell only a part of the story; once a case exceeds 100 days from filing, there are no ongoing requirements that HUD or an FHAP report to complainants or respondents about the status of a case. Often, when investigations take more than 500 days, the dearth of communication with the parties effectively sends the message that no work is being done toward resolving the underlying complaint.

Finding IV.D.4.c:

Through FY 1994, HUD was able to conciliate cases in 150 days or fewer. Beginning in FY 1995, the time it took to resolve complaints began to increase dramatically, finally reaching 314 days in FY 2000. There appears to be no clear correlation between the prevalence of conciliations and the time expended to close a conciliated case. For example, in FY 1992, HUD successfully conciliated 2,058 cases, or 32 percent of all complaints (582 of these cases alleged disability discrimination, representing 33 percent of all conciliated cases). That year, the average age of all conciliated cases was less than 100 days. This was accomplished at a time when FHEO had 309 FTEs devoted to enforcement. In FY 2000, HUD conciliated only 904 cases, or 41 percent of all complaints (324 of these complaints alleged disability discrimination, representing 48 percent of all conciliated cases). The FY 2000 average age of conciliated cases was 314 days, at a time when HUD had 319 FTEs devoted to enforcement.

Finding IV.D.4.d:

During the past two fiscal years, FHAPs have been able to conciliate cases four to five months faster than HUD.

Recommendation IV.D.4.a:

HUD should analyze its management practices to determine why case handling has become so inefficient and should report its findings to Congress and the public.

Recommendation IV.D.4.b:

HUD should identify best practices among HUBs and FHAPs concerning the rapid conciliation of cases (especially disability cases) and require HUBs and FHAPs that do not already do so to use these practices.

Finding IV.D.4.e:

In FY 2000, with 319 enforcement FTEs, it took HUD more than 650 days on average, and about 570 days for a disability case, to reach a finding of no cause.

Finding IV.D.4.f:

By contrast, over the past four fiscal years, FHAPs have actually brought down the average time to reach a finding of no cause to 258 days, or more than a year faster than HUD in FY 2000.

Finding IV.D.4.g:

The aging of cases amounts to a self-inflicted wound:

The longer it takes HUD to process a case, the more likely that witnesses and evidence will evaporate, the more likely a case will remain idle in HUD's inventory, and the more likely HUD will have to consign it to administrative closure or terminate it as a no cause case.

Recommendation IV.D.4.c:

HUD should determine how FHAPs have been able to reach determinations of no cause in less than half the time it takes HUD and should implement practices to ensure that HUD cases are treated as expeditiously.

Recommendation IV.D.4.d:

Congress should earmark funding for HUD to substantially reduce its aged case portfolio and to ensure that the problem does not recur.

Finding IV.D.4.h:

HUD takes five times as long to make cause determinations as Congress intended when it passed the FHAA, although they require at least the same level of investigation as no cause cases. In FY 2000, HUD made cause determinations about 150 days faster on average (and 75 days faster on average for disability complaints).

Recommendation IV.D.4.e:

HUD should analyze the success of FHAPs in reaching cause determinations more quickly than the HUBs and should require HUBs to incorporate these best practices.

Recommendation IV.D.4.f:

Congress should require HUD to take immediate steps to assess the reasons for the aged case problem at HUBs and FHAPs. Congress should then provide adequate funding to support a corrective plan to ensure that investigations and cause or no cause determinations are made within 100 days of a complaint being filed.

Finding IV.E.1:

With respect to monetary compensation to victims of discrimination, total compensation and average compensation have increased, but largely because of a small number of large settlements in fair lending and design and construction cases. Excluding a single lending settlement in FY 2000, total compensation and average compensation per HUD case would have fallen to historic lows.

Finding IV.E.2:

Monetary compensation seems to be benefiting fewer and fewer complainants, declining from a high of 997 HUD cases in FY 1992 to only 400 HUD cases in FY 2000. FHAPs followed a similar path, from a high of 1,067 cases in FY 1996 to only 590 cases in FY 2000.

Finding IV.E.3:

Among HUD-processed complaints since 1989, average disability compensation ($6,732 per conciliated case) ranks fourth behind national origin, color, and race. Among FHAP-processed complaints since 1989, average disability compensation ($3,932 per conciliated case) ranks second behind color.

Recommendation IV.E.1:

HUD should focus its resources on securing resolution of (and compensation in) a broad range of fair housing complaints rather than focusing on settlement of cases designed primarily to garner the most publicity for the agency.

Recommendation IV.E.2:

HUD should identify best practices in each area above and attempt to replicate these practices across its enforcement programs. For example, if a region or FHAP is doing a particularly good job regarding quick processing or good conciliations or high levels of monetary compensation or good disability outreach, HUD should try to bottle it and make it available to the entire fair housing community, beginning with HUBs and FHAPs but including FHIPs and other advocates.

Finding IV.F.1:

Despite clear authority in the FHAA, HUD has used the Secretary-initiated complaint option on only two occasions.

Recommendation IV.F.1:

As part of its comprehensive effort to more effectively enforce the FHA, HUD should make much more extensive use of Secretary-initiated complaints.

Finding IV.F.2.a:

The relative dearth of cause findings has meant that few complaints ever reach an ALJ hearing.

Finding IV.F.2.b:

Because of the low caseloads, the expertise of HUD ALJs is drastically underused.

Recommendation IV.F.2:

As part of a comprehensive plan to more effectively enforce the FHA, HUD should strive to increase its use of ALJs by processing cases more quickly and issuing charges in a greater percentage of cases.

Finding V.C.1:

TEAPOTS does not include enough information about Section 504 complaints and compliance reviews to permit it to be used as a planning and evaluation document. FHEO has just begun to add Section 504 to TEAPOTS. TEAPOTS may need to be expanded to include data about Section 504 compliance reviews for it to be a fully effective data collection system. FHEO has not had sufficient resources to create effective data collection systems or to provide adequate IT support services to FHEO staff to enable them to provide reliable, consistent data or to use FHEO's data systems effectively.

Recommendation V.C.1:

FHEO should make its data systems a priority. HUD should fund FHEO's data systems and resources adequately. FHEO should determine whether to add fields to TEAPOTS that would make it as effective a data system as possible for planning, coordinating, and evaluating purposes.

Finding V.C.2:

FHEO has not developed an adequate, consistent, and reliable data system for its Section 504 enforcement actions. As a result, it has not been able to learn from its successes or its mistakes, make the best arguments for adequate funding, plan or allocate resources in a reasonable way, or justify the actions that it has taken or proposes to take.

Recommendation V.C.2:

FHEO should add the same Section 504 complaint and compliance review data to the data system it currently maintains to track its enforcement of the FHA. In addition, FHEO should systematize the requests, timing, and storage of data that it must collect for its annual reports to Congress, to the Department of Justice, and to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Recommendation V.C.3:

FHEO should review the data collection system that the Office of Coordination and Review uses to collect governmentwide Section 504 data from all federal agencies and consider how best to collect, maintain, and use the HUD data and make it available to the public. FHEO should provide adequate resources to its data collection system and to the IT staff that support it.

Recommendation V.C.4:

Headquarters should involve field staff in solving the data collection and data maintenance problems. The data system should be able to identify common enforcement problems and discrimination trends to enable FHEO and HUD to target enforcement activities.

Finding V.E.2.a:

FHEO has drafted an Assisted Housing Provider Compliance Review Manual that provides a detailed approach, is easy to follow, and has been effectively combined with on-site compliance reviews. FHEO has not finalized the manual, nor has it developed similar manuals for reviews of other recipients, such as states, cities, and agencies that receive funding from the Office of Community Planning and Development. FHEO has combined compliance reviews with training.

Recommendation V.E.2.a:

FHEO should finalize the Assisted Housing Provider Compliance Review Manual and should publish similar manuals for each type of recipient. The development of the manuals should accompany increased resources for continued training and compliance reviews. The manuals should contain instructions on contacting local advocacy groups, tenant organizations, and any other local group that has experience with the recipient; inviting the contacts to submit information before the compliance review or meeting with the compliance team before the review; and obtaining information from FHEO after the compliance review for the purpose of developing methods of encouraging and helping the recipient to comply with Section 504.

Recommendation V.E.2.b:

FHEO should continue to combine training with compliance reviews. It should review the merits and problems of the approach and address them both. Some of the issues to review are the amount of on-site time; the number of FHEO staff involved; coordination and staff from field and Headquarters program offices; and inclusion of general or regional counsel staff, Department of Justice staff, or staff from other federal or state agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Education and Transportation.

Recommendation V.E.2.c:

FHEO should continue to target its compliance reviews based on number of complaints, input from advocates and recipients, news articles, and current Department of Justice guidance.

Finding V.E.2.b:

The Section 504 enforcement program has never been adequately staffed in Headquarters or in the field, nor has it been provided with adequate resources.

Recommendation V.E.2.d:

The Section 504 enforcement program must be fully staffed in Headquarters and in the field and should be adequately funded to support a departmentwide Section 504 enforcement program.

Finding V.F.1:

HUD has not coordinated its Section 504 enforcement responsibilities to take advantage of critical program or departmental efforts. It does not have a method for conducting ongoing discussions about the impact of departmental actions and policies on Section 504 enforcement. It does not work with other federal or state agencies or with the Justice Department Office of Coordination and Review. It does not communicate regularly and effectively with consumers or their representatives or with the agencies and advocates that represent them on their discrimination, housing, or community development issues.

Recommendation V.F.1:

FHEO should develop a Section 504 program that includes short-term and long-term strategies and goals for enforcing Section 504; a review of the successful ways FHEO has coordinated with other HUD offices; establishment of systems for communicating within HUD and with consumers and recipients; evaluation methods; coordination of its technical assistance branch, its FHA branch, and its Section 504 enforcement branch; review of, evaluation of, and plans for improving responses to, investigations of, and enforcement of Section 504 complaints; review of, evaluation of, and plans for a compliance program that results in rational and effective use of compliance reviews; and sufficient resources to implement a Section 504 program.

Finding V.G.1:

FHEO has not developed a standardized system for determining when compliance reviews of HUD recipients would advance FHEO's and HUD's civil rights goals. HUD and DOJ criteria for identifying targets of compliance reviews have not been used consistently by field offices and have not been used at all by field offices that have not conducted compliance reviews or have targeted only housing authorities.

Recommendation V.G.1:

HUD's compliance program should include all HUD recipients and should be an integral part of its goal of affirmatively furthering fair housing. FHEO's compliance program must be based on articulated criteria that can be measured and communicated within FHEO and HUD and to recipients and the public. HUD must ensure that each of its program offices provides FHEO with relevant information about the compliance of its recipients and cooperates with FHEO in its compliance program.

Finding V.H.1:

FHEO and PIH have conducted joint ventures that have not been documented. Their results are therefore not available for planning, budgeting, technical assistance, or further joint ventures.

Recommendation V.H.1:

FHEO and its departmental partners should document and evaluate their joint efforts. FHEO and PIH should make their joint report available within HUD and to the public. To the extent possible, FHEO and PIH should issue documents reflecting past coordinated efforts. Both offices should institute a system to ensure that future efforts are similarly recorded and made public.

Finding V.H.2:

Enforcement of Section 504 is a departmental responsibility. Without the support of HUD leadership and the cooperation of HUD's program offices, FHEO has limited ability to ensure the law's enforcement.

Recommendation V.H.2:

HUD should establish a secretarial-level office whose responsibility is to conduct a "civil rights impact statement" for each of its initiatives. Similar to an environmental or business impact statement, the civil rights analysis will clarify whether a funding program's decision, action, or interpretation will affect its civil rights program and whether it will promote, hinder, or have no impact on the accomplishment of HUD's civil rights goals.

Finding V.I.1.a:

FHEO limited compliance reviews to housing authorities for many years. It investigated only Title VI or Section 504 compliance when it could have investigated both simultaneously. When FHEO adopted its multistatute approach and issued multijurisdictional guidance, compliance reviews became more efficient. Except for a brief period, FHEO's compliance review strategy in many field offices was to review every housing authority and to review every one again. FHEO's efforts to create a compliance review strategy that used reviews to focus on known civil rights problems was logical and effective. The effort ended when FHEO staffing levels were reduced and remaining staff and resources for compliance reviews were diverted to FHA complaint investigations.

Recommendation V.I.1.a:

FHEO should adopt an expanded version of its previously successful compliance review strategy as part of its Section 504 program. It should target its compliance reviews according to enforcement strategies that have had the greatest likelihood of accomplishing specific programmatic goals, and it should conduct multistatute reviews. The goals should include expanding recipients' understanding of and compliance with Section 504 requirements; coordinating with HUD program offices and expanding their ability to ensure recipients' compliance with Section 504; and increasing the public's knowledge of and support for Section 504 and related civil rights laws.

Finding V.I.1.b:

FHEO successfully obtained one of the most extensive VCAs in its history by working in conjunction with the OGC and PIH. The team received full support from departmental and program leadership. Without that support, the team would not have had the time, the resources, or the authority to develop solutions to enforcement and program interpretation problems that had prevented earlier compliance efforts. The NYCHA approach could have been replicated with other housing authorities, but HUD did not provide the necessary resources to do so.

Recommendation V.I.1.b:

FHEO should review the approach that resulted in the NYCHA VCA and determine what resources and support would be necessary to apply it to other recipients. FHEO should also publish its evaluation of the NYCHA approach and use it to further its training, technical assistance, and enforcement efforts.

Finding V.I.3.a:

FHEO's Austin VCA is replicable, but no other FHEO agreement with a city accomplishes as much. The probable reasons for the breadth of the VCA and its successful implementation are a combination of Headquarters support, dedicated field staff, willing city officials, and, possibly most important, a local advocacy group that knew the city, understood Section 504 and the FHA, and persisted with both FHEO and the city until it achieved the goals of its complaint.

Recommendation V.I.3.a:

FHEO should replicate the resources and sustained support that were necessary to bring the city of Austin into compliance with Section 504. FHEO should encourage staff to work with local agencies and advocacy groups in identifying discrimination issues, forging solutions, and monitoring agreements.

Recommendation V.I.3.b:

HUD should enforce the Section 504 responsibilities of cities, counties, and states to ensure that all of their programs and activities meet the regulatory requirements. For example, every city should ensure that 5 percent of the city's housing program is fully accessible to residents with mobility impairments. See, for example, the city of Austin's program. Every state should ensure that all of its programs promote the ability of individuals with cognitive and mental disabilities to gain access to the same benefits and services as all other state residents.

Finding V.J.1:

When recipients violate VCAs, HUD does not take enforcement action against them. HUD treats VCAs as "educational documents," and the compliance review process as an "educational process," rather than as a means of enforcing civil rights laws.

Recommendation V.J.1:

All VCAs must be enforced after their time limits expire and the recipient has not fulfilled the VCA's terms. FHEO shall immediately forward the VCA to the Office of General Counsel for enforcement. The OGC shall initiate administrative proceedings within two months of receiving the referral from FHEO. OGC and FHEO shall give the recipient one month to comply with the terms of the VCA before initiating enforcement actions.

Recommendation V.J.2:

FHEO must develop protocols with the grant-award program to ensure that if funds are granted, they be conditioned upon the recipient's correcting the violations according to an existing VCA. HUD should make clear that failure to comply with the terms of the VCA shall result in enforcement and temporary denial of all future funds to the recipient, including funds that have been approved but are awarded on a periodic basis.

Recommendation V.J.3:

HUD should publish all VCAs on the HUD Web site and include the name of the FHEO contact for questions from the public and other recipients.

Finding V.K.1:

FHEO has successfully operated under the multistatute guidance for several years. The results of investigating a recipient's compliance with two or more civil rights laws simultaneously has had obvious efficiency benefits for the recipient, the beneficiaries, and HUD.

Recommendation V.K.1:

HUD should continue to follow the multistatute guidance. The agency should conduct an evaluation of how the field offices use the guidance, identify any differences, and develop guidance to address gaps and to reinforce successful outcomes. HUD should also define successful outcomes in terms of numbers of beneficiaries assisted, timeliness of the operation, satisfaction of the parties involved, funds and time spent, and replicability of the effort.

Finding V.L.1:

FHEO has not maintained the Section 504 guidance that it has issued in any systematic way. It has not maintained the systems that once existed, and it has not created a system for maintaining such guidance now. It is critical that the source for policy decisions, the decisions themselves, and the resulting guidance be continually available to HUD staff and to the public.

Recommendation V.L.1:

FHEO should create a method as soon as possible for collecting all Section 504 policies, guidance, notices, and interpretive materials in a single location. Each of the documents should be identified by issuance date, location (i.e., where it first appeared), history, and current force. FHEO should allocate sufficient resources to this project so that a system of locating and maintaining such information can be established and maintained. FHEO should make these historical documents and future documents available to HUD staff and to the public in a user-friendly format that is searchable by word or concept.

Finding V.M.1:

HUD has too narrowly defined "recipient" to exclude housing providers who benefit from federal financial assistance. HUD's assigning housing authorities with the responsibility of monitoring private housing providers' compliance with the civil rights laws has been unworkable.

Recommendation V.M.1:

HUD should review its policy decision and issue an interpretation of the responsibilities of federally subsidized private housing providers that is effective and enforceable.

Finding V.M.2.a:

HUD's Occupancy Task Force issued numerous recommendations in 1994 as to how the funding programs could incorporate disability rights requirements into their operations. The Offices of Housing and Community Planning and Development did not adopt the majority of the recommendations. The recommendations resulted from agreement among public and private housing providers, advocates for elders and people with disabilities, and management organizations.

Recommendation V.M.2.a:

HUD should review and incorporate as many of the Occupancy Task Force recommendations as are applicable to HUD's current Housing and Community Planning and Development programs. It should determine whether the recommendations can be applied to programs and initiatives that did not exist in 1994 and the most effective ways of applying them.

Finding V.M.2.b:

The Secretary's Office on Disability Policy brought Section 504 and fair housing disability issues to the attention of HUD's leadership. It encouraged the Secretary and his staff to meet with disability rights advocates, and it resulted in greater recognition among program staff of the implications of program regulations and guidance for individuals with disabilities.

Recommendation V.M.2.b:

HUD should maintain the Secretary's Office on Disability Policy. HUD should assign it joint oversight with the Office of Administration, FHEO, and the Office of General Counsel for HUD's Section 504 federally conducted responsibilities insofar as necessary to ensure that no HUD program operates in inaccessible buildings; that HUD conducts an effective self-evaluation of its policies, regulations, guidance, and practices; and that HUD drafts an employment needs assessment, develops a transition plan to correct deficiencies, and secures sufficient funding to implement the recommendations from its assessments and evaluations.

Recommendation V.M.2.c:

The Office on Disability Policy should have a director with experience in disability rights. The director should have at least one staff person for each of HUD's offices, including FHEO. Each staff person shall be familiar with the operations and statutory responsibilities of the particular office. The staff person responsible for FHEO shall maintain continuing communication with the Assistant Secretary of FHEO and shall ensure that the two offices coordinate their activities. The office shall be responsible for conducting a "disability impact study" of HUD's major initiatives, which will include specific recommendations for changes, expansions, and consultation with the civil rights community.

Finding V.N.1.a:

HUD has, for the past three years, included specific civil rights information in its Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs). The information is limited and is not preserved in any form other than NOFAs. It has also issued notices to program recipients about civil rights obligations in the context of specific HUD grant programs.

Recommendation V.N.1.a:

HUD should continue to include civil rights requirements, especially Section 504 and other funding-related requirements, in NOFAs and other communications with recipients. HUD should maintain the information in a retrievable system for recipients and the public. HUD should assign sufficient staff and resources to the grant programs and to FHEO, both to provide adequate technical assistance for voluntary compliance and to make the enforcement warnings credible.

Finding V.N.1.b:

FHEO and HUD have begun to use the Web to provide information to the public about programs, regulations, notices, and related sources of information and assistance. The FHEO Web page is promising, but is difficult to navigate and does not include all of HUD's past and current civil rights information and documents.

Recommendation V.N.1.b:

HUD and FHEO should maximize their use of their Web sites. All HUD and FHEO information, guidance, and requirements related to civil rights compliance and enforcement should be on the Web sites. In particular, information that is not retrievable in any other way should be on the Web sites. This includes information in grant documents, such as the SuperNOFA, that defines eligibility for HUD funding in terms of civil rights compliance.

Finding VI.B.3.a:

HUD's current Strategic Plan and APP do not contain adequate measures to address and correct the enforcement and compliance issues addressed in this study.

Recommendation VI.B.3.a:

HUD and its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity should review and revise both the current Strategic Plan and future APPs to include clearer goal-setting for case-processing issues. Such goals should be outcome-based and subject to monitoring activity designed to improve performance.

Finding VI.B.3.b:

HUD's current Strategic Plan and APP lack specific measures and indicators for enforcement and compliance strategies to address housing discrimination against people with disabilities. Current strategies for studies and training about accessible housing only include fair housing violations and not Section 504 violations.

RecommendationVI.B.3.b:

HUD and its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity should develop more focused goals in its Strategic Plan and future APPs that will directly address and increase enforcement of the FHA and Section 504, overall and for people with disabilities.

Finding VI.B.3.c:

HUD's current Strategic Plan and APP lack any reference to using Section 504 to address housing discrimination against people with disabilities.

Recommendation VI.B.3.c:

HUD should revise its Strategic Plan and improve future APPs by including specific measures and indicators to reduce housing discrimination against people with disabilities using HUD's Section 504 compliance authority.

Finding VI.B.4.a:

HUD has failed to make strong commitments to civil rights enforcement and compliance activities in its current planning and implementation process.

Finding VI.B.4.b:

The most recent BOP for FHEO, like the Strategic Plan and the APP, does not establish performance-based measures designed to produce more effective enforcement and compliance.

Recommendation VI.B.4.a:

FHEO should develop more performance measures related to improved civil rights enforcement, including measures for improved performance of FHA and Section 504 complaint investigations and Section 504 compliance reviews.

Finding VI.B.5.a:

FHEO's current devolved organizational structure has not improved the delivery of civil rights enforcement and compliance activities.

Recommendation VI.B.5.a:

FHEO's organizational structure should be reevaluated to identify the changes that should be made to improve civil rights enforcement and compliance delivery.

Finding VI.B.7.a:

FHEO needs to continue and expand its on-site monitoring process. It should monitor more specific BOP and APP goals as recommended above, and it should use its on-site monitoring process as a way of ensuring that performance standards are met and field staff are performing adequately.

Finding VI.B.7.b:

An on-site monitoring process should have as its primary goal the assurance of prompt, effective enforcement and compliance outcomes. Benchmarks for performance should be set and monitored. Offices that do not meet these benchmarks should receive direct technical assistance and sanctions, if necessary, to improve performance.

Recommendation VI.B.7.a:

FHEO should continue its on-site monitoring process and ensure that it includes adequate benchmarks, actual observation and review of performance, and outcome-based reviews so that the process improves its enforcement and compliance operations consistent with the other recommendations of this report.

Finding VI.B.8.a:

FHEO lacks sufficient performance-based criteria for its employees to ensure that they perform at appropriate levels.

Recommendation VI.B.8.a:

FHEO should implement performance-based elements for staff engaged in enforcement and compliance functions.

Finding VI.B.8.b:

HUD lacks legal information resources that are critical to its enforcement and compliance work in enforcing Section 504 and the FHA.

Recommendation VI.B.8.b:

At a minimum, HUD should provide access to comprehensive fair housing legal information that is searchable by name of case, issue, or keyword. The information that should be made available includes information on FHA and housing-related Section 504 state and federal judicial decisions, determinations that there is or is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the FHA has occurred, determinations by HUD that there is compliance or noncompliance with Section 504, conciliation agreements, VCAs, settlements in FHA cases, and legal and interpretive opinions issued by the Office of General Counsel on significant issues relating to the FHA and Section 504. This information should be made available to HUD staff and to the public, and it should be made available in accessible and alternative formats.

Recommendation VI.B.8.c:

HUD should immediately provide access for FHEO and counsel staff to the searchable, ADA-compliant fair housing and civil rights case database available online through the National Fair Housing Advocate.

Finding VI.C.1.a:

HUD's staffing of FHA and Section 504 enforcement activities has decreased significantly over the past 11 years.

Finding VI.C.1.b:

During the past four years, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has not been given adequate staffing resources to perform its enforcement work.

Finding VI.C.1.c:

As staffing increases to appropriate levels, additional supervisors will be necessary to oversee day-to-day activities effectively.

Recommendation VI.C.1.a:

At a minimum, FHEO should be provided with enough skilled nontemporary staff FTEs to ensure that each investigator carries no more than 15 FHA cases or the equivalent at any time. Additional staffing should be provided to ensure that enforcement activities under Section 504 are conducted at a meaningful level in each HUB.

Recommendation VI.C.1.b:

At a minimum, FHEO should be provided with enough supervisory staff to permit a ratio of one supervisor to every seven or eight investigators. An analysis similar to the PriceWaterhouse study of staffing needs for compliance activities should be conducted, and staff should be increased accordingly.

Finding VI.C.1.d:

For at least the past four years, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has not been provided with enough resources to perform a reasonable amount of compliance activity.

Finding VI.C.1.e:

HUD's doubling of enforcement activities took valuable staff and resources away from compliance activities.

Finding VI.C.1.f:

Compliance activities suffer when staff are reassigned to perform other demand-driven activities.

Finding VI.C.1.g:

FHEO's compliance review process has not been the subject of a significant external review in the same way that PriceWaterhouse reviewed the FHA process.

Recommendation VI.C.1.c:

FHEO should be provided with adequate staff, in addition to enforcement staff, to ensure that compliance activities are ongoing, consistent, and completed in a timely manner. Organizational structures should ensure that staff are allocated in a way that permits compliance staff to be protected from such demands to ensure that compliance work is an ongoing and consistent process.

Recommendation VI.C.1.d:

FHEO's compliance review process should be reviewed and analyzed by an external entity, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, and its operations revised for greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Finding VI.C.1.h:

There is inadequate information from which to determine whether staff attorneys have been provided in adequate numbers to support FHA and Section 504 activities.

Recommendation VI.C.1.e:

HUD's Office of General Counsel should evaluate its staffing of the fair housing and civil rights enforcement functions to ensure that there are adequate numbers of staff attorneys to support those functions. No case should be delayed and no rights should be jeopardized because of lack of available legal resources.

Recommendation VI.C.1.f:

HUD should consider whether its civil rights attorneys should report to the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, after implementing a more effective legal guidance delivery system.

Finding VI.C.2.a:

The absence of fair housing deliverables and outcomes, the lack of a carefully constructed case-tracking system for cases funded through FHIP, and the absence of institutional knowledge about the best or most effective of the programs funded through FHIP are significant shortcomings in an important program.

Recommendation VI.C.2.a:

FHIP should move expeditiously to develop a comprehensive, organized system to identify outcomes, information, and materials developed as a result of the program and to make them available to the public and especially to organizations and individuals that deal with fair housing issues.

Recommendation VI.C.2.b:

FHIP should develop a case-tracking system for use by FHIP recipients, with read-only access by FHIP monitors, to collect reportable data to assist in quantifying the activities of recipients funded by FHIP. Such a data system should have the capability of being used by FHIP recipients to track, monitor, and report on their own activities.

Recommendation VI.C.2.c:

The changes proposed to FHIP in this report should include input from current and potential FHIP recipients and other interested stakeholders to ensure that the program changes result in a more efficient and effective use of federal dollars. Finding VI.C.2.b:

FHIP serves an important function in supporting fair housing rights. As currently constituted, however, the program has operated ineffectively and inefficiently.

Finding VI.C.2.c:

FHIP does not provide adequate systematic support for an ongoing fair housing presence nationally.

Recommendation VI.C.2.d:

FHIP's private enforcement initiative should be reconstituted to provide funding to full-service private fair housing groups based on a formula grant approach. The funding should be tied to eligibility criteria based on the current statute; it should be based on population in the service area served by a group; and it should be tied to increased training and technical assistance and performance monitoring.

Recommendation VI.C.2.e:

FHIP should develop a formula-based funding structure that enables new organizations to become qualified to participate in the private enforcement initiative as full-service organizations, as FHAP funds new participants in its capacity-building program.

Recommendation VI.C.2.f:

FHIP's education and outreach and national initiatives should continue to be funded competitively, with improvements as recommended by the HUD Inspector General.

Finding VI.C.2.d:

FHAP has not developed the significant operational problems that have been found in FHIP.

Finding VI.C.2.e:

FHAP could be improved by more aggressive monitoring of case processing, by improved training and technical assistance, and by taking effective action to correct situations where substantial equivalency standards are not met.

Recommendation VI.C.2.g:

FHEO should be provided with adequate resources to develop a more effective training, technical assistance, and monitoring program to improve the performance of FHAP agencies, including the establishment of a risk-based monitoring process.

Finding VI.C.2.f:

FHEO provides funding to FHAP agencies for special enforcement initiatives but lacks a system for collecting data about the nature of these initiatives or their outcomes. The standards for receipt of this special funding are not onerous.

Recommendation VI.C.2.h:

FHEO should develop a process for collecting and making available the outcomes of its special enforcement initiatives program for FHAP agencies.

Recommendation VI.C.2.i:

FHEO should review and strengthen the criteria for receipt by FHAP agencies of special enforcement initiatives funding and should collect and disseminate to the public information about their outcomes.

Finding VI.C.3:

FHEO receives inadequate contract and printing funding to allow it to perform its statutorily required duties.

Recommendation VI.C.3:

FHEO's contract budget should be increased immediately, to at least double FHEO's expenditure in 1994, to $5.2 million. Future funding levels should be maintained at similar or higher levels to provide needed reliability in planning. FHEO should be given staff support to assist in the prompt allocation and obligation of these funds. FHEO's printing budget should be similarly increased.

Finding VI.C.4:

FHEO travel funding has remained static over the past seven years, resulting in an overall loss of funds in real dollars.

Recommendation VI.C.4:

HUD should provide adequate travel funding, based on realistic budget projections from field and Headquarters staff, to permit on-site investigations and compliance reviews, attendance by staff at investigation- and compliance-related activities, and attendance by staff at training events and at public events that will enhance FHEO's education and outreach activities.

Finding VI.D.1.a:

FHEO has generated guidance and interpretations about the application of civil rights laws, but it is not currently using a mechanism to make this guidance available to the public.

RecommendationVI.D.1.a:

FHEO should develop and implement a more comprehensive system to make its interpretations of civil rights laws generally available. HUD should provide adequate staffing and funding to support this effort.

Finding VI.D.1.b:

FHEO's enforcement handbook provides important procedural and substantive guidance. It is a useful first step in setting standards for proper performance of fair housing enforcement activities.

Recommendation VI.D.1.b:

FHEO's enforcement handbook should be completed and updated, considered to be binding guidance for FHEO and FHAPs alike, and available publicly.

Finding VI.D.2:

FHEO lacks a unified, systematic mechanism for providing substantive and technical training to its enforcement and compliance staff, other than annual FHAP/FHIP conferences that are attended by only a few FHEO staff.

Recommendation VI.D.2:

HUD should fund, and FHEO should establish, a civil rights training academy that will provide basic and advanced skills, substantive skills, and technical training as described in this report for its own staff and for legal counsel.

Finding VI.D.3.a:

HUD's current Housing Discrimination Study testing the incidence of discrimination in housing does not study the incidence of discrimination against people with disabilities.

Recommendation VI.D.3.a:

HUD should conduct a single national study to identify the incidence and dimensions of discrimination against people with disabilities, similar to its current Housing Discrimination Study.

Finding VI.D.3.b:

HUD has not conducted any national study of the ways in which discrimination against people with disabilities manifests itself, nor any study of discrimination against people with disabilities in HUD-funded properties.

Recommendation VI.D.3.b:

HUD should initiate a national study of the ways in which discrimination against people with disabilities manifests itself and a national study of discrimination against people with disabilities in HUD-funded properties.

Finding VI.D.4:

HUD would benefit by increasing the visibility and activities of an Office of Disability Policy.

Recommendation VI.D.4:

An Office of Disability Policy should be funded and staffed appropriately to permit increased input on disability-related activities, including enforcement and compliance, at the highest decision-making level within HUD.

Finding VI.D.5:

There continues to be a need to educate the public about the nature and extent of housing discrimination against people with disabilities.

Recommendation VI.D.5:

HUD, together with community stakeholders, should consider conducting town meetings in several locations around the country to better inform the public, people with disabilities, housing providers, and HUD about disability-based housing discrimination.

List of Tables and Charts

Tables

Table III-1 -- FHAP Regional Agencies

Table IV-1 -- Characteristics of "Claims" and "Complaints"

Table IV-2 -- HUD Complaints Filed, by HUB

Table IV-3 -- Complaints Filed with HUD, by Protected Class

Table IV-4 -- Percentage of HUD Title VIII Complaints That Allege Disability, by HUB and Fiscal Year

Table IV-5 -- HUD Case Issue Codes

Table IV-6 -- HUD Cases Involving Disability Claims

Table IV-7 -- FHAP Cases Involving Disability Claims

Table IV-8 -- HUD Cause Findings, All Cases, Fiscal Years 1998-2000

Table IV-9 -- HUD Disability Complaints and Cause DeterminationsThereon (1990-2000)

Table IV-10 -- FHAP Disability Complaints and Cause Determinations Thereon (1990-2000)

Table IV-11 -- Average Age (in Days) of Open HUD Disability Complaints, by Year

Table IV-12 -- Average Age of Open HUD Disability Complaints, by HUB and by Year

Table IV-13 -- Average Age of Open FHAP Disability Complaints, by HUB and by Year

Table IV-14 -- Total Monetary Compensation, by Year

Table IV-15 -- Number of Cases with Monetary Compensation, by Year

Table IV-16 -- Average Compensation in Conciliated Cases (in dollars)

Table IV-17 -- Average Compensation per Conciliated Case, 1989-2000 (in dollars)

Table IV-18 -- Monetary Compensation in HUD Conciliated Disability Cases, By Year, by HUB (Average Compensation per Case)

Table IV-19 -- Monetary Compensation in FHAP Conciliated Disability Cases, by Year, by HUB (Average Compensation per Case)

Table IV-20 -- Comparison of HUD and FHAP Regions with Respect to Monetary Compensation

Table IV-21 -- Outcomes in ALJ Disability Cases

Table V-1 -- State of Fair Housing--Complaints

Table V-2 -- State of Fair Housing--Compliance Reviews

Table V-3 -- FHEO Salaries and Expenses Documents and October 2000 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Draft Report

Table V-4 -- Implementation Reports (E.O. 12250)

Table VI-1 -- Funding for the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, FY 1990-FY 2000

Table VI-2 -- FHIP Funding Addressing Discrimination Against People with Disabilities, FY 1990-FY 2000

Table VI-3 -- Fair Housing Assistance Program Budget Requests and Appropriations, FY 1990-FY 2000

Table VI-4 -- HUD Allocation of Contract Funding to FHEO, FY 1994-FY 2000

Table VI-5 -- Travel Allocations and Expenditures for FHEO, FY 1994-FY 2000

Charts

Chart III-1 -- Progress During HUD National Enforcement Action Doubling Period, FYE1997-December 31, 2000

Chart IV-1 -- Total Receipts (HUD and FHAPs) by Fiscal Year

Chart IV-2 -- HUD Receipts v. FHAP Complaints

Chart IV-3 -- HUD Receipts, FY 1989-FY 2000

Chart IV-4 -- Complaints Filed with HUD

Chart IV-5 -- FHAP Complaints, FY 1989-FY 2000

Chart IV-6 -- Disability as Percent of FHAP Complaints

Chart IV-7 -- Cases Conciliated as Percentage of HUD Closures

Chart IV-8 -- FHAP Cases Conciliated: All Cases v. Disability

Chart IV-9 -- No Cause Findings as Percentage of HUD Closures

Chart IV-10 -- FHAP No Cause Closures: All Cases v. Disability

Chart IV-11 -- Cause Findings by Fiscal Year

Chart IV-12 -- HUD Cause Percentage: All Cases v. Disability

Chart IV-13 -- FHAP Cause Percentage: All Cases v. Disability

Chart IV-14 -- Age to Cause or Closure: All HUD Cases v. HUD Disability Cases

Chart IV-15 -- Age to Cause or Closure: All FHAP Cases v. FHAP Disability Cases

Chart IV-16 -- HUD Age to Conciliation/Settlement: All Cases v. Disability

Chart IV-17 -- FHAP Age to Conciliation/Settlement: All Cases v. Disability

Chart IV-18 -- HUD Age to No Cause: All Cases v. Disability

Chart IV-19 -- Age of HUD Cause Findings: All Cases v. Disability

Chart VI-1 -- Current FHEO Organizational Chart

Chart VI-2 -- FHEO Staffing Levels, FY 1989-FY 2000

Chart VI-3 -- Staffing of FHEO's Enforcement Activity, FY 1989-FY 2000

Chart VI-4 -- Staffing of FHEO's Compliance Activities, FY 1989-FY 2000

List of Acronyms

ADA -- Americans with Disabilities Act

ADAPT -- Americans Disabled for Attendant Programs Today

ALJ -- administrative law judge

APP -- Annual Performance Plan

BOP -- Business Operating Plan

CCCR -- Citizens' Commission for Civil Rights

CDBG -- Community Development Block Grant

CFR -- Code of Federal Regulations

CPD -- Community Planning and Development

DAS -- Deputy Assistant Secretary

DOJ -- Department of Justice

FHA -- Fair Housing Act

FHAA -- Fair Housing Amendments Act

FHAP -- Fair Housing Assistance Program

FHEO -- Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

FHIP -- Fair Housing Initiatives Program

FTE -- full-time-equivalent

FY -- Fiscal Year

GAO -- Government Accounting Office

GPRA -- Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

HEW -- Health, Education, and Welfare

HHS -- Health and Human Services

HOPWA -- Housing for People with AIDS

HUB -- housing field office

HUD -- Housing and Urban Development

IT -- information technology

LOF -- Letter of Findings

MCATS -- Management and Complaint Automated Tracking System

NCD -- National Council on Disability

NOFA -- Notice of Funding Availability

NYCHA -- New York City Housing Authority

OFHEO -- Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

OGC -- Office of General Counsel

OIG -- Office of Inspector General

PIH -- Public and Indian Housing

PVA -- Paralyzed Veterans of America

SMART -- Safe, Mixed-income, Accessible, Reasonably priced, and Transit-oriented

TAG -- technical assistance guidance

TEAPOTS -- Title VIII Paperless Office Tracking System

TRACE -- Section 504 Complaints Computer Tracking System

TRO -- temporary restraining order

USC -- United States Code

VCA -- Voluntary Compliance Agreement

APPENDIX IV

Supplementary Charts and Tables

Appendix IV-1

The following chart shows the number of complaints received during the past three fiscal years, compared to the number of claims received and the number of complaints filed by HUD. By comparing "claims received" to "complaints filed," we derive a figure that represents the likelihood of a claim maturing into a complaint.

Appendix IV-2

Incidence of Disability, by State (Source: U.S. Census, 1990)

Appendix IV-3

[D]

[D]

Appendix IV-4

FY 1998 HUD Cases Exceeding 100-Day Limit (by percentage of open and closed cases)

This chart demonstrates that at the close of FY 1998, 69 percent of HUD's pending complaints had exceeded the statutory 100-day maximum for investigation and determination of cause. The Denver HUB was the worst performer, with 81 percent of pending complaints considered aged. Kansas City was the best HUB, with 41 percent of cases exceeding the 100-day limit.

FY 1999 HUD Cases Exceeding 100-Day Limit (by percentage of open and closed cases)

This chart demonstrates that at the close of FY 1998, 78 percent of HUD's pending complaints had exceeded the statutory 100-day maximum for investigation and determination of cause. The San Francisco HUB was the worst performer, with 92 percent of pending complaints considered aged. Kansas City was the best HUB, with 52 percent of cases exceeding the 100-day limit.

FY 2000 HUD Cases Exceeding 100-Day Limit (by percentage of open and closed cases)

This chart demonstrates that at the close of FY 1998, 68 percent of HUD's pending complaints had exceeded the statutory 100-day maximum for investigation and determination of cause. The Denver HUB was the worst performer, with 84 percent of pending complaints considered aged. Kansas City was the best HUB, with 40 percent of cases exceeding the 100-day limit.

Appendix IV-5

[D]

Appendix IV-6

In addition to monetary relief, HUD also keeps data on the number of cases in which complainants use conciliation to get "housing relief," typically defined as getting a rental unit or being able to purchase a home as a result of the conciliation. The number of cases in which complainants in the HUD system are getting housing relief has gone down dramatically since FY 1992.

HUD Conciliated Cases with Housing Relief, by Year, by HUB (Case Count)