Mr. STAREK. I would like to pursue a topic begun by Mr. Butler. I am curious about the number of complaints pursuant to title VI of the 1968 Civil Rights Act which have been withdrawn. Specifically, is there any evidence that these complaints have been withdrawn due to the considerable backlog in the processing? Mr. BLAIR. Withdrawn by the claimant? Mr. STAREK. Yes. Mr. BLAIR. They are withdrawn for a number of reasons. Sometimes they are taken to a state court, and sometimes into Federal court. Sometimes they lose interest. Sometimes because we just cannot get to them. But the number of withdrawn complaints are very small, indeed, throughout the country. Mr. STAREK. Does HUD have any statistics on the percentage of complaints which are being counted as backlog, but are being processed by agencies? TITLE VIII REFERRED COMPLAINTS IN PROCESS AT STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES Complaints referred to State and local agencies show up immediately in our statistics. Although indicated, there were 574 complaints that are more than 150 days old, there are as of February 28, 1976, a total of 682 cases that the State and local agencies have in their inventory. As mentioned above, these complaints will count as HUD upen complaints and represent 53 percent of the total open title VIII complaints as of the end of February, 1976. Mr. BLAIR. Yes, we do. In fact, this was one of the things we are going to submit for the record. We have a number of cases so categorized. We have it here by total number of complaints received throughout the country, which during the last fiscal year was 3,131. This is what we basically have. I think, to answer your question, I would just refer you to the statistics in this table. [The tables referred to appear at pp. 196-199.] Mr. STAREK. I would like to switch over to questions with regard to section 8. Referring to Page 6 of your testimony, I hope you can elaborate on the kinds of assistance which HUD is providing to families who wish to participate in this program. I think it was the item No. 4 to which you referred. Mr. RHINELANDER. Your question relates to this? Mr. RHINELANDER. The general framework is that the section 8 existing program is run through public housing authorities, and we require the authorities to develop a plan which includes the four steps I described in my statement. This is a requirement on the public housing authority. Mr. EDWARDS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. STAREK. Certainly. Mr. EDWARDS. Then the housing authority is not permitted to rent the units themselves, is that correct? Mr. RHINELANDER. The concept of the section 8 existing program is a finders-keepers concept. The individual who is entitled to receive section 8 assistance looks for housing in the community. Mr. EDWARDS. Is that the law or is that your regulations? Mr. RHINELANDER. It is both. We have in the regulations more specifics of the overall statutory scheme. 71-095 76-14 Mr. EDWARDS. This was not so in section 23? Mr. RHINELANDER. This is different. The individual can look within the community and find housing. Mr. EDWARDS. And get turned down. Mr. RHINELANDER. If the individual is turned down, he has a course of action if he was turned down for discriminatory reasons. The whole concept of section 8 is that an individual can stay in his present residence unit, provided that unit meets minimum standards which we have in the program; but the individual is permitted to look throughout the community. In my statement, I described the situation in St. Petersburg, where the individuals receiving such assistance have in fact found units throughout the community, and less than 10 percent of them are leasing the same unit. Mr. EDWARDS. What is the ethnic breakdown? Mr. BLAIR. We do not have at hand more specific numbers. Just to re-emphasize, once a decision has been made, a family can move to anywhere within the jurisdiction of that public housing authority. I think this is good. Mr. STAREK. Do you believe that the finders-keepers policy is in fact achieving spatial desegregation? Mr. RHINELANDER. It is. The number of units actually occupied so far is not that large a figure. I think the program has promise over earlier programs; and I think the finders-keepers concept is a positive concept. By permitting the individual to decide for himself or herself where he or she wants to live, we have a new thrust and, I think, an important step forward. Mr. STAREK. I believe on page 9 of your testimony, you referred to a special allocation which will be made available to area wide bodies in metropolitan areas with areawide fair housing plans. I wonder if you could elaborate on this? Mr. RHINELANDER. I will submit, for the record, a copy of the press release of March 3, which describes the outlines of this new proposal, including the eligibility requirements for awards. I can either read it or summarize it or submit it for the record. Mr. STAREK. I think you could just submit it for the record. [A copy of the press release follows:] "$20 MILLION TO BE ALLOCATED FOR AREA WIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PLANS" Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Carla A. Hills has announced that HUD intends to allocate $20 million in supplemental Section 8 funds to communities participating in "Areawide Housing Opportunity Plans." The HUD initiative, authorized under the Housing Assistance Payments program, is intended to stimulate federally-assisted housing opportunities for lower income families. The areawide planning organizations must submit plans that meet minimum eligibility requirements to be considered for supplemental funding. The plan must address areawide housing assistance needs and goals, increase housing opportunities for lower income families outside the community where they currently live, and it must be endorsed by at least 80 percent of the local government units served by the planning organization. The organization must demonstrate that the plan can be implemented and that additional units actually will be built with the supplemental funds. (A list of proposed eligibility requirements accompanies this release.) HUD requires the planning organizations to prepare regional housing allocation plans as a condition for continued planning assistance funds under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954. The program and anticipated eligibility requirements are being announced in advance of publication in the Federal Register to allow interested areawide planning organizations and their member jurisdictions to begin considering participation. The proposed regulations will be published later this month. The funds announced today are in addition to those already allocated by HUD under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. The Act requires a proportional allocation on the basis of the relative needs as to population, housing overcrowding, housing vacancies, amount of substandard housing, and other objectively measurable conditions. The supplemental allocations will be equivalent to at least 20 percent, but not more than 50 percent, of the total FY 76 Section 8 allocations to areas and communities served by the areawide planning organization. PROPOSED MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION 8 FUNDING TO COMMUNITIES PARTICIPATING IN "AREAWIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY PLANS" To receive consideration for supplemental Section 8 units, an “Area wide Housing Opportunity Plan" must contain each of the minimum requirements below. In the event that qualifying plans exceed the available Section 8 units, special preference factors will be applied. These will be announced in the Federal Register as part of the program regulations. 1. An assessment, on an area wide basis, of the housing assistance needs of lower income households. 2. An assessment of the housing assistance needs of lower income persons (including households expected to reside in the community as a result of existing or planned employment opportunities) by household type and present form of housing tenure, including households displaced or to be displaced; or an estimate of households acceptable to HUD, with a specific timetable for completion. 3. Goals for the distribution of lower income housing on an annual basis which reflect the needs identified above. 4. Provision for encouraging greater housing opportunities for lower income households outside their current jurisdictions. 5. Individual agreements between the area wide planning organization and each participating jurisdiction within the area served by the organization (or an equivalent provision acceptable to HUD) on the goals for the number of lower income housing units to be provided each year. To qualify for these supplemental allocations, the goals and needs in the Housing Assistance Plans (HAPS) of participating jurisdictions must be consistent with the goals and needs contained in these agreements. 6. The Plan must be endorsed by the various levels of government involved. 7. The Plan must have been endorsed by 80 percent of the units of local government in the area served by the areawide review agency, which represent at least 75 percent of the population of the area. There must be adequate enabling legislation for lower income housing within all participating jurisdictions. 8. The planning organization must demonstrate that the Plan can be implemented and that an additional allocation of Section 8 units can be used. HUD will consider the status of current allocations in awarding supplemental allocations. Mr. DODD. First of all, I apologize for arriving late. If I go over some territory you have already covered, just excuse me. First of all, I wonder if you could give me some idea on how often these referrals are actually made, and how long it takes for a complaint between the time the complaint is filed with HUD and the actual resolution in court? Mr. BLAIR. You are talking about a basic complaint from beginning to end? Mr. DODD. One that goes beyond conciliation. Mr. BLAIR. Normally, a case is investigated within 90 days. Some go beyond that. Conciliation takes a little longer. If, in fact, we indicate conciliation has failed, then they can take their case to court. It is then according to when they get their attorney, and when their attorney files. Mr. DODD. There is no followup? Mr. BLAIR. It is almost impossible to go beyond that. The statute itself authorizes us to investigate. It indicates that we should conciliate, which is a voluntary effort. If our conciliation fails, that is the end for us. Once we know it fails, we give a notice to the claimant to take the matter to court. That would go on the court's docket. The statute states that the court should move that case with some dispatch; however, there is no guarantee that it will. Mr. DODD. I recognize some of the bureaucratic problems that your agency would have. However, I think it would be very worthwhile to know what happens to these cases. Once the parties come to you for conciliation, and that breaks down and it goes into the judicial system, I would think you would want to follow up. Mr. BLAIR. I would say Mr. DODD. I mean, if you had 130,000 cases to follow, or something like that, I could understand your hesitation. But, with 3,000 cases that you have, and assuming that of that number, 1,000 end up not reconciled, it seems to me it would be a very simple thing to do and valuable in evaluating your own program. Mr. RHINELANDER. Not all cases where conciliation fails end up in court. Mr. DODD. Fine. What happens to them? Mr. BLAIR. The majority of the cases filed with our Department are poor people who feel they have been discriminated against. They do not secure an attorney to take their matter into court. The statute is inadequate in that it does not make a provision for that. We have investigated a case; found reason to believe there was discrimination; we have indicated that they may take it into the court; then we have no authority to go beyond that. That is one of the weaknesses. Mr. DODD. Surely. Mr. BLAIR. Our mechanism has been set up. Sometimes we have found methods of getting things done in that process which is completely voluntary. Mr. EDWARDS. If the gentleman would yield? How many conciliation offices do you have to do this work? Mr. BLAIR. We have approximately 90 compliance staff people. Mr. EDWARDS. Is that an adequate staff? Mr. BLAIR. For compliance and conciliation purposes, I would say yes. Mr. EDWARDS. Then, why a backlog? Mr. BLAIR. Because the conciliation is just one facet of the total. The conciliation procedures are absolutely voluntary. Our problems, basically, are not necessarily just the conciliation. It is really in the investigation. Mr. EDWARDS. Are you recommending a change in the law? Mr. RHINELANDER. We are not making any recommendations at this time. Mr. EDWARDS. We have got a housing bill coming up in a few months. Why not? Mr. DODD. How can you study something you do not collect any information on? Mr. RHINELANDER. I think there are two aspects of the question. One is looking at the mechanism of title VIII and the question of whether or not it could be made more effective; and the other is following the case histories in which conciliation has not been effective. In many cases, presumably, the individual who filed the complaint found other housing. We do not have any full data on that. We have to get better data in the Department. Mr. DODD. Let me just go back. Mr. Blair, you indicated that there is something that would prohibit the collection of this data? Mr. RHINELANDER. I do not believe that there is anything to keep us from seeking that data today. Mr. DODD. Then, you do not see the need for it? Mr. BLAIR. This basically has not been identified as a need in the past. Mr. RHINELANDER. Where cases are in the courts, they were brought by individuals. The judicial records probably contain this information. Mr. DODD. I do not understand why you do not want it. Mr. RHINELANDER. We can certainly find out what information they have in these matters. Mr. DODD. I am surprised you have not. Do you think you would like to have cease and desist power, to have some teeth, rather than just be acting as conciliators? Mr. RHINELANDER. I think that there is a real problem in not having any enforcement power. We are looking at alternatives. Ms. MCNAIR. Essentially, I think that your testimony indicates that in the 8 years of its existence, section 3 of the 1968 act has not been enforced by HUD. You state also that Mr. Blair is now heading a task force that will investigate how to implement grievance procedures under section 3. What exactly will that task force do? Is it going to study whether or not there is a section 3 mandate-which there clearly is or what? Mr. RHINELANDER. This is a question that Mr. Blair can better answer. Mr. BLAIR. Section 3 more or less explicitly states that to the extent feasible, you are to provide training and employment to lower-income persons. Our problems are a little more than what that statute states. When you start doing that, you are dealing with the local unions. In the last several months, we established a task force to review the process in order to find out where the problems lie and the means of getting them solved. Regardless of how we come out of this, we are going to need funds. The recommendations of a task force are to make sure that we are all working on the same wavelength, so funds can be provided and we can solve some of the problems dealing with the local unions, contractors, and how we can get some of these people involved. |