The wonderful info below is shared from our friends at Access Living and Mr. Steve Gold...
Dear Access Living friends and allies,
Affordable, accessible, integrated housing is one of the most difficult challenges facing people with disabilities. At Access Living, we get calls every day from people seeking help finding a place to live, and we are constantly seeking ways to expand housing opportunities, especially for people with disabilities who have low income. Systems advocacy in housing is quite complex, and has not quite ever gotten the attention in the disability community that it really deserves. However, we have a new development to share.
On June 4, 2013, after many months of deliberation, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued new guidance to states to urge them to create more housing opportunities for people with disabilities exiting nursing homes and institutions, or who are at serious risk of being forced to live in such facilities. The HUD guidance is at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-086.
This is a critical opportunity for advocates. If you have not already, please share this guidance with your community. Additionally, below my signature I have included a commentary on the new guidance from Steve Gold, who is the attorney who argued the Olmstead case before the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1999 (and won, of course).
Amber Smock
Director of Advocacy, Access Living
****
HUD Issues Olmstead Guidance - Let's Use It!
Information Bulletin #382
(6/2013)
On June 4, 2013 HUD released a "Statement" on the Role of Housing in Accomplishing the Goals of Olmstead. Here is the link to HUD's Statement:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-086 Then click on "Read HUD's new guidance" for the full Statement.
This Information Bulletin quotes some points and suggests what advocates should look for and what can be done if your local and State recipients of HUD funds do not comply.
HUD emphasizes the critical role housing plays in implementing the Olmstead and the ADA's "most integrated setting" mandate by "increasing the housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities who are transitioning from, or at serious risk of entering, institutions, hospitals, nursing homes, adult care facilities, and other restrictive, segregated settings."
Advocates throughout the country have repeatedly testified that the lack of affordable, integrated, accessible housing is and has been a very significant barrier for people institutionalized (who cannot afford or locate housing because they have no money or their money goes to the institution) and people at risk of institutionalization (who, to stay out of an institution, must have accessible units in the community).
Advocates know that HUD funded programs, in the past, have not focused on and have not required public recipients of HUD funds to focus on Olmstead and the ADA mandates for integration. The HUD Statement is intended to ensure compliance with Olmstead and the ADA.
HUD recognizes that "a *critical* consideration in each state is the range of housing options available in the community for individuals with disabilities and whether those options are *largely limited* to living with other individuals with disabilities, or whether those options include *substantial* opportunities for individuals with disabilities to live and interact with individuals without disabilities."
HUD provides three *examples* of integrated housing:
In another example [#4], HUD reminded both public housing agencies and other recipients of HUD assistance that "certain *preferences* [both with regards to actual housing and housing vouchers] that will enable
individuals with disabilities" are permissible." No more excuses that HUD-funded programs cannot establish preferences to assist institutionalized persons to return to the community or to prevent the institutionalization of people who are at risk of such institutionalization.
A fifth example focused on "reasonable accommodations/modifications" (e.g., increasing the payment standard for Housing voucher for accessible units, or an extra bedroom for equipment or live-in aide).
The Statement pointed out that "HUD *requires* recipients of HUD assistance [that includes public housing agencies, housing vouchers, the HOME tenant-based rental assistance vouchers, CDBG, and lots of other
recipients] to take affirmative steps to further fair housing. The *affirmatively furthering fair housing* (AFFH) obligation offers an opportunity for HUD and the recipients of HUD assistance to support Olmstead implementation by engaging in activities that will benefit individuals transitioning from institutions or at serious risk of institutionalization by providing integrated, affordable and accessible housing options in community-based settings."
What advocates should do to find out if HUD really means it? Here are a few possible strategies:
These local and State recipients of HUD funds are in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. HUD should be notified of these violations so it can remedy the situation and ensure people are not unnecessarily institutionalized.
File a Complaint (be as specific as possible) with HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington, D.C. and send a copy of your Complaint to Jeanine Worden, Associate General Counsel,
Jeanine.M.Worden@HUD.gov, or to Sara Pratt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Sara.K.Pratt@HUD.gov.
All asterisks are added.
Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues.
Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at
http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects.
Information Bulletins will also be posted on my blog located at
http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/
To contact Steve Gold directly, write to
stevegoldada1@gmail.com or call 215-627-7100. Ext 227.
Dear Access Living friends and allies,
Affordable, accessible, integrated housing is one of the most difficult challenges facing people with disabilities. At Access Living, we get calls every day from people seeking help finding a place to live, and we are constantly seeking ways to expand housing opportunities, especially for people with disabilities who have low income. Systems advocacy in housing is quite complex, and has not quite ever gotten the attention in the disability community that it really deserves. However, we have a new development to share.
On June 4, 2013, after many months of deliberation, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued new guidance to states to urge them to create more housing opportunities for people with disabilities exiting nursing homes and institutions, or who are at serious risk of being forced to live in such facilities. The HUD guidance is at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-086.
This is a critical opportunity for advocates. If you have not already, please share this guidance with your community. Additionally, below my signature I have included a commentary on the new guidance from Steve Gold, who is the attorney who argued the Olmstead case before the U.S. Supreme Court back in 1999 (and won, of course).
Amber Smock
Director of Advocacy, Access Living
****
HUD Issues Olmstead Guidance - Let's Use It!
Information Bulletin #382
(6/2013)
On June 4, 2013 HUD released a "Statement" on the Role of Housing in Accomplishing the Goals of Olmstead. Here is the link to HUD's Statement:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-086 Then click on "Read HUD's new guidance" for the full Statement.
This Information Bulletin quotes some points and suggests what advocates should look for and what can be done if your local and State recipients of HUD funds do not comply.
HUD emphasizes the critical role housing plays in implementing the Olmstead and the ADA's "most integrated setting" mandate by "increasing the housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities who are transitioning from, or at serious risk of entering, institutions, hospitals, nursing homes, adult care facilities, and other restrictive, segregated settings."
Advocates throughout the country have repeatedly testified that the lack of affordable, integrated, accessible housing is and has been a very significant barrier for people institutionalized (who cannot afford or locate housing because they have no money or their money goes to the institution) and people at risk of institutionalization (who, to stay out of an institution, must have accessible units in the community).
Advocates know that HUD funded programs, in the past, have not focused on and have not required public recipients of HUD funds to focus on Olmstead and the ADA mandates for integration. The HUD Statement is intended to ensure compliance with Olmstead and the ADA.
HUD recognizes that "a *critical* consideration in each state is the range of housing options available in the community for individuals with disabilities and whether those options are *largely limited* to living with other individuals with disabilities, or whether those options include *substantial* opportunities for individuals with disabilities to live and interact with individuals without disabilities."
HUD provides three *examples* of integrated housing:
1. "scattered-site" apartments providing permanent supportive housing [that could be rented with Section 8 vouchers],HUD told "public housing agencies and other HUD-assisted housing providers to work with state and local governments to provide integrated, affordable and accessible housing options for individuals with disabilities who are transitioning from, or at serious risk of entering, institutions or other segregated settings." (Let's hope they will work also with advocates and people with disabilities.)
2. tenant-based rental assistance [a housing voucher authorized in the HOME Investment Partnership program, administered nationally at both the State and local levels] that enables individuals with disabilities to lease housing in integrated developments, and
3. apartments for individuals with various disabilities scattered throughout public and multifamily housing developments."
In another example [#4], HUD reminded both public housing agencies and other recipients of HUD assistance that "certain *preferences* [both with regards to actual housing and housing vouchers] that will enable
individuals with disabilities" are permissible." No more excuses that HUD-funded programs cannot establish preferences to assist institutionalized persons to return to the community or to prevent the institutionalization of people who are at risk of such institutionalization.
A fifth example focused on "reasonable accommodations/modifications" (e.g., increasing the payment standard for Housing voucher for accessible units, or an extra bedroom for equipment or live-in aide).
The Statement pointed out that "HUD *requires* recipients of HUD assistance [that includes public housing agencies, housing vouchers, the HOME tenant-based rental assistance vouchers, CDBG, and lots of other
recipients] to take affirmative steps to further fair housing. The *affirmatively furthering fair housing* (AFFH) obligation offers an opportunity for HUD and the recipients of HUD assistance to support Olmstead implementation by engaging in activities that will benefit individuals transitioning from institutions or at serious risk of institutionalization by providing integrated, affordable and accessible housing options in community-based settings."
What advocates should do to find out if HUD really means it? Here are a few possible strategies:
1. Do your local and state Consolidated Plans show that all of the above five examples are being implemented? Or even planned for the future? For example, are there "preferences" in both actual housing and housing choice vouchers (aka Section 8) for people institutionalized or at risk?If there are people in institutions whom you, the advocates, know are institutionalized because of housing - either because they do not have funds for rent, security deposits, etc., or because they cannot locate accessible units they can afford, then your local and State recipients of HUD funds have failed to "affirmatively further fair housing."
2. Do your local and/or State recipients of HOME Investment Partnership federal funds provide for tenant-based rental assistance for people institutionalized or at risk? Have any been actually provided in the past to end institutionalization? Are they needed in your State?
3. Has your public housing authority provided for scattered-site accessible housing throughout your community? Are more needed? Planned for?
These local and State recipients of HUD funds are in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act. HUD should be notified of these violations so it can remedy the situation and ensure people are not unnecessarily institutionalized.
File a Complaint (be as specific as possible) with HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Washington, D.C. and send a copy of your Complaint to Jeanine Worden, Associate General Counsel,
Jeanine.M.Worden@HUD.gov, or to Sara Pratt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement, Sara.K.Pratt@HUD.gov.
All asterisks are added.
Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey continues.
Back issues of other Information Bulletins are available online at
http://www.stevegoldada.com with a searchable Archive at this site divided into different subjects.
Information Bulletins will also be posted on my blog located at
http://stevegoldada.blogspot.com/
To contact Steve Gold directly, write to
stevegoldada1@gmail.com or call 215-627-7100. Ext 227.
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment