[ Reply ]
From: mmccreight@gbls.org
email: mailto:
link: http://
date:
Date: 1/11/01
Time: 5:19:59 PM
Remote Name: 63.78.124.10
At our last Public Housing/Voucher conference call, I indicated that I had prepared some draft questions/suggestions for revisions to the HUD 50058 (recertification) instruction booklet & new form, and wanted to get it out to others for review & comment before we shipped it to Pat Arnaudo at HUD (who attended the LALSHAC conference with Rod Solomon). Here's what I've prepared, which could be sent on behalf of the LALSHAC Public Housing & Voucher Group. Let me know what you think. I'd like to get this out by the end of next week, if possible. Thanks, Mac. Pat Arnaudo U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Washington, D.C.
Dear Pat:
As you know, we met with you and Rod Solomon at a conference of legal services housing advocates and clients in November, 2000 to discuss a variety of issues, including the implementation of revisions to the HUD 50058 form. You indicated that if we had any suggestions or problems that we noted with the revised form or HUD's instructions on the form, we should forward them to you. HUD issued a revised Draft Form HUD-50058 Instruction Booklet on January 4, 2001 on the MTCS 2000 web-site. While there are a number of improvements in this form over the prior set of instructions, there are still some issues/questions that we have which we'd like to share with you.
1. Temporary Deferral of Termination of Assistance (Non-citizen Rule)–See p. 17 and other locations in the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: No reference is made anywhere in the HUD 50058 form or the Instruction Booklet to temporary deferral of termination of assistance as an option under the non-citizen rule, even though HUD's regulation clearly provides that there may be some cases where this applies (particularly if there is an application for asylum or refugee status pending, where HUD regulations say there is no outside time limit of 18 months, as there is in other cases). See 24 CFR 5.518(b)(3). We would therefore recommend that fields be added to cover this contingency.
2. Interruptions of Assistance–See pp. 8 and 9 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: There is the question of what implications there are for interruptions in assistance measured by the form (1 month interruption in public housing, 4 months in tenant-based Section 8). See discussion of "New Admissions" and "End Participation" on these pages. Does anything beyond this mean that the participant may not be "continuously assisted" and therefore must be treated as a new admission? This could have serious repercussions for being able to continue assistance for families who leave the program for brief periods for legitimate reasons (for example, clients who are hospitalized or go into treatment programs). Section 8 tenant-based regulations leave the question of whether a participant is treated as "continuously assisted" up to each PHA, as enunciated in the PHA's administrative plan. See 24 CFR 982.54(d)(4)(ii); 24 CFR 982.201(d). There may also be a problem here particularly for those families who are participants in Section 8 program, who have had old HAP contracts terminated, but who take longer than 4 months to relocate. The Section 8 tenant-based regulations allows extensions beyond this time period at the PHA's discretion. In addition, treating these families as new admission means that income limits & targeting apply; for existing participants, though, the income limits are very different, and usually should not be applied.
3. Limits on Voucher Life Span; Interaction with Interim FMR Rule–see p. 9 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: There's the question of whether the measures on voucher life span are consistent with revised Section 8 regulations and how they would interact with the rule allowing PHAs to ask for increased FMR levels (from the 40th to the 50th percentile) due to lack of success in leasing up. See description of "Expiration of Voucher", which includes any term extensions, as well as "End Participation". For example, if a PHA has a plan that allows extensions beyond 120 days, does this mean that there is no measured impact through the 50058 instrument of lack of success in lease up within the 120 day period? Will this act as a disincentive for PHAs to have prolonged search periods, contrary to what's been advocated as a means of homeless prevention/remediation?
4. Relationship between Pro-Ration and "Flat Rents"–see pp. 68-69 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: While the revised Instruction Booklet and Appendix III now have a worksheet for calculating pro-rated rent for "flat rent" households, the methodology doesn't make a lot of sense. It's hard to imagine a situation in which the "maximum rent" would be higher than the flat rent–and if the "maximum rent" is equal to or less than the flat rent, the worksheet is never used. Therefore, pro-rated rent would ordinarily be used for "mixed households" until the point that the pro-rated rent would be equal to the flat rent. Is there something we aren't understanding here?.
5. Prompt on Hardship Exceptions to Minimum Rent–see pp. 36-37 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: The form prompts PHAs to ask (and therefore consider) whether a hardship exception to minimum rent applies, but there's no guarantee that the right questions were asked. Moreover, the instruction booklet refers to the PHA's policies but doesn't refer to the mandatory regulatory/statutory requirements for hardship waivers (i.e., PHAs are allowed to have additional discretionary criteria for hardship waivers, but they MUST follow the regulatory provisions and grant waivers or suspension of the minimum rent in the circumstances set forth in the regulations). Finally, for project-based subsidized owners, it is not the PHA policies, but HUD's policies, that govern.
6. Should There Be Other Prompts (Earned Income Disregard; Medical and Child Care Expenses): As we had discussed at the November, 2000 conference, should there be a similar prompt for earned income disregards, or other deductions which are considered important (medical/disability expenses, child care expenses)? If so, how do you insure the right questions are asked by the PHA or the owner? At least in the case of the earned income disregard, should there be a special PHA module which insures right questions are asked? [Recall LaVoy discussion on the pilots in Washington DC area about underpayment of subsidy and how right questions have to be asked to determine if error or not.] The description of the public housing earned income disregard in the list (p. 26 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet) is also somewhat incomplete, and should be fleshed out more to match the regulatory definition and to avoid misinterpretations.
7. Community Service Requirements (For Public Housing)–see p. 16, 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: Under the community service requirements, there's no option for "violated. but under make-up agreement" or "violated, but non-compliant household member has departed household", but these are clearly alternatives to simply "non-compliant" under the regulation (option 2). In addition, the list of exemptions is incomplete.
8. Prompt for Whether Household Is Homeless At Admission–see p. 18, 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: The form poses the question about whether a family is "homeless at admission"—how will this information be used? Will this be ranked against Continuum of Care criteria, or other? (To the extent that this form is used for the McKinney programs, it's absolutely necessary, since applicants may be ineligible for the assistance unless they are homeless, but the question is being asked for all categories of assistance.)
9. Special Treatment of Certain Types of Assets–see p. 21, 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: Regarding assets, it may be helpful to have instructions about the handling of spousal property where there is domestic violence (no true access), or property which is being inherited & where it is not clear it will have a true value after encumbrances. At the very least, there should be reference back to the HUD Handbook 4350.3 guidance.
10. Imputed Income Where Welfare Sanction In Effect–see p. 27, 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: Welfare sanctions—nothing regarding the offset of increases in other income to the imputed welfare income, or the requirement that the term of the sanction be stated. This is necessary under the regulations (see 24 CFR 5.615(c)), as well as to prompt rent re-determination after the sanction period is over.
11. Range of Permissive Deductions and Maximum Rents (Public Housing)–see pp. 32 and 68, 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: Note that under permissive deductions and the maximum rents for public housing, a PHA could have the income deduction range from $5/year to $90,000/year for any household, and the maximum rent range from $5/year to $3,000/year. This seems pretty wide, and should probably be discussed more. . 12. Hard to House Question–see p. 45 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: There is a "Hard to House" prompt in the 50058 form. What does this influence–the administrative fee for the PHA? Would or could these statistics be an element for other advocacy (for example, Con Plan issues, longer search periods for this group, increased payment standards, etc.)? If so, it would be useful to compile them in a way so that Resident Advisory Boards and other local advocates can be aware of them.
13. Potentially Misleading Guidance on Which Income Figure Used for Determining Eligibility–see p. 23 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: Under the general rules, it says "Do not consider income exclusions in the determination of eligibility for housing assistance. Consider income deductions in the determination of eligibility for housing assistance." This is the reverse of what's required by HUD regulations–exclusions are subtracted in determining "annual income", but deductions are NOT subtracted. See , 24 C.F.R. 5.653(e), 24 C.F.R. 960.202(c), 24 C.F.R. 982.201(b)(3), and 24 C.F.R. 5.609. The SOLE exception to this is the public housing earned income disregard, which is an exclusion that is NOT factored into income eligibility, but is otherwise factored into determining "annual income" See 24 C.F.R. 960.255(c). Once this is changed to be accurate, examples would help..
14. Repayment Agreements for Under-Reported or Misreported Income–see p. 11 of the 1/4/01 Instruction Booklet: There is a reference to repayment agreements for under-reported or misreported income, as well as lines 2f and 2g of the 50058 form. The Instruction Booklet should reference back to the general REAC guidance, i.e., that currently HUD is not requiring or encouraging repayment agreements related to the 1998 IRS income match, but is leaving action up to the PHAs/owners, to insure against any misinterpretation or "mixed messages" from HUD on this topic.