Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "122244346",
    "label": "Disabilities – Housing Disregards Rule and Legislative Proposals",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122244346"
}

{
    "id": "122244346",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122244346",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Disabilities – Housing Disregards Rule and Legislative Proposals",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122244346",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Andrea Kane's Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2007/2007-0143-f_Seg03/42-t-7367479-20070143F-Seg3-037-011-2018.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2007/2007-0143-f_Seg03/42-t-7367479-20070143F-Seg3-037-011-2018.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2007/2007-0143-f_Seg03/42-t-7367479-20070143F-Seg3-037-011-2018.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/122244346",
    "naId": 122244346,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7367479-20070143F-Seg3-037-011-2018"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2007/2007-0143-f_Seg03/42-t-7367479-20070143F-Seg3-037-011-2018.pdf",
    "mediaId": "64af42f30c87cccc",
    "ocrText": "FOIA Number: 2007-0143-F\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the William J. Clinton\nPresidential Library Staff.\nCollection/Record Group:\nClinton Presidential Records\nSubgroup/Office of Origin:\nDomestic Policy Council\nSeries/Staff Member:\nAndrea Kane\nSubseries:\nOA/ID Number:\n20326\nFolderID:\nFolder Title:\nDisabilities-Housing Disregards Rule and Legislative Proposals\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nS\n95\n3\n3\n1\nBarbara Sard <[email protected]>\n09/08/2000 03:22:49 PM\nPlease respond to Barbara Sard <[email protected]>\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\[email protected]\nCC:\nAnn O'Hara <[email protected]>, Jonathan Harwitz <[email protected]>, Henry Korman\n<[email protected]>\nSubject: Proposed New Rule on Rents for Working Persons with Disabilities (and others); new Center paper\nThis listserve on issues related to the intersection of housing and welfare reform has taken an unexpected\nsummer off due to Jeff Lubell's leaving the Center to be Director of the Office of Policy Development at\nHUD. We hope to have a replacement on board shortly. This alert about an opportunity to comment on a\npotentially important change in federal regulations, however, could not wait. I also want to draw\nsubscribers' attention to a brief paper issued by the Center at the end of June about recent data from a\nstudy of the Minnesota welfare reform demonstration that showed dramatically greater progress on\nemployment and earnings for families with housing assistance. The report, entitled \"Research Evidence\nSuggests that Housing Subsidies Can Help Long-term Welfare Recipients Find and Retain Jobs,\" is at\nhttp://www.cbpp.org/6-27-00hous.htm.\nThe federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a notice for public comment\non Aug. 21, 2000 that may be of great interest to agencies and advocates that are concerned about\nassisting persons with disabilities who live in all types of federally-assisted housing to enter the workforce.\nThe proposed changes would also assist families with child care expenses (regardless of disability). The\ncomment deadline is October 20, 2000. The notice also invites comment on the question of whether HUD\nshould expand the current policy that disregards earnings of certain public housing tenants in calculating\ntheir rental obligation to Section 8 tenants, regardless of disability.\nThe proposed rule is briefly described below. To be brief, only the major aspects of the proposed\nchanges are stated here. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the proposed rule at www.hudclips.org\nunder \"FR Notices Seeking Public Comment.\" The docket number is FR-4608-P-01; the notice is\ncurrently # 14 on this list, Determining Adjusted Income in HUD Programs Serving Persons With\nDisabilities.\nHUD has proposed to extend current rules that require certain deductions from income in determining\nadjusted income and calculating rent in the public housing and Section 8 programs to additional\nHUD-assisted housing programs. The additional programs that would be covered include: the Shelter\nPlus Care and the Supportive Housing Programs under the McKinney Homeless Assistance Act; the 202\nand 811 programs for the elderly and disabled, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the Housing\nOpportunities for Persons with AIDS program, and certain others.\na.. All households in the newly covered programs would be entitled to deduct \"reasonable child care\nexpense necessary to enable a member of the family to be employed or to further his or her education.\"\nb.. In addition, households would be able to deduct a portion of expenses for attendant care and auxiliary\napparatus for any member of the family who is a person with disabilities, if necessary to enable any\nmember of the family to be employed. This applies to expenses necessary for a person with disabilities to\nwork, as well as expenses for the care of a disabled child or other adult in the household that enables\nanother family member to work.\nC.. Elderly or disabled families would also be able to deduct a portion of unreimbursed medical\nexpenses. This is limited to households in which the head, spouse or sole member is age 62 or older or a\nperson with disabilities. It does not apply to other families with a disabled child.\nSecond, HUD has proposed to extend the current policy requiring the disregard of earnings of certain\npublic housing tenants (including but not limited to persons with disabilities) to disabled families in four\nadditional programs: the Section 8 Voucher Program, the McKinney Supportive Housing Program, the\nHOME Investment Partnerships Program and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program.\nHouseholds would qualify for the disregard if the head, spouse or sole member is a person with\ndisabilities who has gone to work or increased his or her earnings after being largely unemployed for the\nprevious year, while participating in an economic self-sufficiency or other job training program, or within\nsix months of receiving certain benefits under the TANF or Welfare-to-Work programs. For a qualified\nhousehold, all of the increased earnings are disregarded in determining rent for 12 months. In the second\n12-month period, half of the rent increase otherwise due is phased in.\nHUD has also invited the public to comment on whether this special two-year phased disregard of\nearnings in determining rent should apply to the project-based Section 8 program, and to families other\nthan those with disabilities in the tenant-based Section 8 program. Because a family's rent obligation in\nthe Section 8 programs is generally 30 percent of adjusted income, disregarding all of an individual's\nearnings for 12 months is a savings to the family of $3 for every $10 of earnings during that period; the\nsecond year of the disregard is a savings of half that amount. Protection against an immediate rent\nincrease when earnings increase may encourage more families to work or make the initial expenses of\nwork easier for them to bear. No research is available on the effect of the earnings disregard policies in\nthe public housing program. Research in welfare programs has shown that generous earnings disregard\npolicies do elicit greater employment, but the policies still entail additional costs.\nAmong the issues to consider in commenting on the question of whether the earnings disregard should be\nexpanded to the Section 8 programs is what trade-offs may result and their relative value. The cost of\nexpanding this earnings disregard policy to the Section 8 programs would be borne by the federal\ngovernment, not the PHAs or owners. The cost of this policy change, however, may diminish the\navailability of funds to expand the number of families participating in the programs or to make other\nimprovements in the programs.\nBarbara Sard, Director of Housing Policy\nCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities\nLocal phone: 617-566-1154\nLocal fax:\n617-232-2903\natt1.htm\nHonorable Dennis Hastert\nSpeaker of the House\nof Representatives\nWashington, DC 20515\nDear Mr. Speaker:\nI am pleased to transmit three legislative proposals which\nwould create earned income disregards for disabled families\nparticipating in HUD's rental assistance or rent supplement\nprograms, or for families with a disabled member or members who\nare receiving assistance (other than voucher assistance) under\nsection 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. These\ndisregards would be similar to the disregard currently\nimplemented for public housing tenants and found in section 3 (d)\nof the United States Housing Act of 1937, except that the new\ndisregards would apply only insofar as any increase in a family's\nearned income is attributable to the employment of the family\nmember or members with disabilities.\nThese proposed changes are part of an Administration-wide\neffort to assist individuals with disabilities achieve\nemployment. As the recent tenth anniversary of the Americans\nwith Disabilities Act made so clear, we have come far in the past\ndecade, but there is much more that we can do to recognize the\nvalue and abilities of all Americans. Enactment of these\nlegislative proposals would be an important step in the right\ndirection.\nA section-by-section explanation accompanies this letter and\nsets forth more fully the contents of this proposed legislation.\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised that there\nis no objection to the submission of this legislation from the\nstandpoint of the Administration's program.\nI am sending a similar letter to the President of the\nSenate, Al Gore.\nSincerely,\nAndrew Cuomo\nEnclosures\nh:\\gll\\2001-leg.pro\\income-disregard-trans-house\nHonorable Al Gore\nPresident of the Senate\nWashington, DC 20510\nDear Mr. President:\nI am pleased to transmit three legislative proposals which\nwould create earned income disregards for disabled families\nparticipating in HUD's rental assistance or rent supplement\nprograms, or for families with a disabled member or members who\nare receiving assistance (other than voucher assistance) under\nsection 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. These\ndisregards would be similar to the disregard currently\nimplemented for public housing tenants and found in section 3 (d)\nof the United States Housing Act of 1937, except that the new\ndisregards would apply only insofar as any increase in a family's\nearned income is attributable to the employment of the family\nmember or members with disabilities.\nThese proposed changes are part of an Administration-wide\neffort to assist individuals with disabilities achieve\nemployment. As the recent tenth anniversary of the Americans\nwith Disabilities Act made SO clear, we have come far in the past\ndecade, but there is much more that we can do to recognize the\nvalue and abilities of all Americans. Enactment of these\nlegislative proposals would be an important step in the right\ndirection.\nA section-by-section explanation accompanies this letter and\nsets forth more fully the contents of this proposed legislation.\nThe Office of Management and Budget has advised that there\nis no objection to the submission of this legislation from the\nstandpoint of the Administration's program.\nI am sending a similar letter to the Speaker of the House of\nRepresentatives, Dennis Hastert.\nSincerely,\nAndrew Cuomo\nEnclosures\nh:\\gll\\2001-leg.pro\\income-disregard-trans-senate\n7/24/00\n3:10 p.m.\nCalculation of Income\nDraft Legislation\nEARNED INCOME DISREGARD\nFOR THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM\nSection\nwould amend section 236 (f) (2) of the National\nHousing Act to create an earned income disregard similar to that\nfound in section 3 (d) of the United States Housing Act of 1937\nwhich would be applicable to disabled families participating in\nthe rental assistance program. The amendment would define\n\"person with a disability\" and \"disabled family\" in a manner\nconsistent with section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National\nAffordable Housing Act, and would apply only to the extent that\nthe earned income of the family increases due to the employment\nof a family member with a disability. On a technical level, the\namendment would also divide section 236 (f) (2) into logical\nparagraphs.\nIn addition to making changes to the RAP program, this\nsection would update definitional cross-references in sections\n221 (f) and 231 (f) of the National Housing Act, regarding\nhandicapped person: and handicapped family respectively, so\nthat these references refer to section 811 of the Cranston-\nGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act instead of to section\n202 of the Housing Act of 1959. The section 202 program formerly\ncovered both elderly persons and persons with disabilities.\nSection 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing\nAct carved out a separate program for disabled persons, which\nsucceeded section 202 in this respect.\nh:\\gll\\2001-leg.pro\\incd-rap.sec\n7/24/00\n3:00 p.m.\nCalculation of Income\nDraft Legislation\nEARNED INCOME DISREGARD\nFOR THE RENT SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM\nSection\nwould amend section 101 (e) of the Housing and\nUrban Development Act of 1965 to create an earned income\ndisregard similar to that found in section 3 (d) of the United\nStates Housing Act of 1937 which would be applicable to disabled\nfamilies participating in the rent supplement program. The\namendment would define \"person with a disability\" and \"disabled\nfamily\" in a manner consistent with section 811 of the Cranston-\nGonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, and would apply only to\nthe extent that the earned income of the family increases due to\nthe employment of a family member with disabilities.\nh:\\gll\\2001-leg.pro\\inc-d-rs.sec\n7/24/00\n10:00 a.m.\nCalculation of Income\nDraft Legislation\nEARNED INCOME DISREGARD\nFOR SECTION 8 NON-VOUCHER ASSISTANCE\nSection\nwould amend section 3 (d) of the United States\nHousing Act of 1937 to make the earned income disregard in that\nsection applicable to families receiving section 8 non-voucher\nassistance whose members include a person or persons with\ndisabilities. The disregard would apply only to the extent that\nthe earned income of the family increases due to the employment\nof such person or persons with disabilities, and only after the\nSecretary issues any regulations necessary for implementation.\nh:\\gll\\2001-leg.pro\\inc-d-s8.sec\nFOR INTERNAL USE ONLY\nQUESTIONS AND ANSWERS\nIncentives for Employment\nQ: What's new here?\nA: The most significant change here is extending the earned income disregard, as it\napplies to individuals with disabilities, to HUD's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher\nprograms as well as to a few other programs, in addition to the public housing program to\nwhich it already applies. The rule also will make clear that certain deductions to adjusted\nannual income - including a $400 mandatory deduction for any disabled family plus\ncertain deductions to off-set medical expenses, reasonable attendant care and auxiliary\napparatus expenses, and certain child care expenses - apply to all HUD housing\nassistance\nQ: So the deductions are nothing new?\nA: It is significant that for the first time in one single regulation, HUD will clarify that\nthese important deductions apply across the board. This clarification re-emphasizes\nHUD's commitment to assisting individuals with disabilities reach their full potential.\nQ: How much will this new regulation cost?\nA: We believe the costs will be minimal. [HUD estimates that the first year cost of the\nnew income disregard will be about $21.4 million and about $51.7 million per year after\nthat.]\nQ: How many people will this serve?\nA: This change could serve as many as nearly 227,000 people [HUD estimates the\nmaximum number of recipients to be 226,980]. That is the number eligible, so the actual\nnumber of recipients is likely to be lower, but that gives you the potential.\nQ: Isn't this a pretty minimal benefit?\nA: Not at all - this was, after all, the centerpiece of the changes in the recent sweeping\npublic housing reform act that HUD is now implementing. Just as this was an important\nwork incentive for residents of public housing, so too will it be for disabled recipients of\nother HUD assistance.\nQ: Why don't you extend these benefits to all housing assistance recipients? Why just\nindividuals with disabilities?\nA: This new rule targets an issue of uniquely pressing concern - the employment of\nindividuals with disability. The percentage of individuals with significant disabilities\nwho are unemployed has been estimated at as high as 70 to 75%, a rate higher than any\nother comparable group, and it certainly makes sense to start with the most intractable\nproblems before tackling others. However, providing work supports and incentives for\nwelfare recipients and other low-income families is a high priority for this\nAdministration, and we are exploring options for extending similar work incentives to all\nhousing assistance recipients.\nQ: But doesn't this just create an incentive for individuals to claim disability?\nA: We certainly hope not. Any time you have a program that benefits individuals with\ndisabilities, there is the risk that it will create a perverse incentive, but we have\nconfidence in the ability of HUD to monitor its grantees to ensure that the program is not\nmisused.\nQ: When will these changes take effect?\nA: We are currently developing a proposed rule, and the Administration must complete\nthe ordinary rule-making process before these changes become final. They are slated to\ntake effect in FY2001.\nQ: Why don't these changes apply to all HUD programs?\nA: HUD has examined its statutory authority and has extended these benefits, for\nindividuals with disabilities, to those programs in which the Department has\nadministrative authority to do so. For the remaining programs, the Administration will\nwork with Congress to give HUD the necessary authority.\nQ: But does the statutory authority have anything to do with these being disability-\nrelated benefits?\nA: No. We are in the process of exploring options for extending these benefits to all\nlow-income working families in assisted housing. However, this proposed rule responds\nspecifically to one of the recommendations of the President's Task Force and will address\nthe unique and pressing need to help more individuals with disabilities move into the\nworkforce. Extending the disregards to a broader population could have greater cost\nimplications that need to be considered.\nAccess Housing 2000\nQ: How many people will this serve?\nA: The proposed demonstration project begins with four hundred beneficiaries, but at full\nimplementation it would ideally reach two thousand. The larger partnership will serve as\nmany individuals as resources can be found, but will hopefully serve as a vital conduit for\nresources from a wide variety of public and private sources, including foundations.\nQ: How will the disparate components of the demonstration project work together?\nA: The idea at the core of the proposed demonstration project is that there are a variety of\ndisparate resources that can work in conjunction to help facilitate the transition from\ninstitutional settings to community living for individuals with disabilities. The agencies\ninvolved will sit down together and also with the many other partners we hope to see\ninvolved in local coalitions to help this effort to work out the best mechanisms for getting\nall the resources possible to the recipients. Obviously, the agencies will have to work\nwithin their existing authority, but there are many creative ways that current resources\nmay be targeted to produce the best results.\nQ: When do you expect the demonstration program to be up and running?\nA: There are many operational details to be worked out, but the partners are committed to\ntaking the framework agreement announced today and bringing it to fruition as soon as\npossible.\nQ: Who else would you like to see involved in this?\nA: As many other government agencies and private entities as we can. Access Housing\n2000 is about partnership and about focusing the attention of the nation on the pressing\nneed to assist individuals with disabilities make the transition from institutional settings\nto community living.\nQ: How much money is Robert Wood Johnson Foundation getting out of this?\nA: No grant or contract funds have been awarded, and all funds will have to go through\nthe necessary process.\nQ: Aren't you turning people out in to communities that may not be ready for them?\nA: It is important with any program like this to prepare not just the individual but also\nthe community for the transition out of institutional care, and we hope that some of the\ntargeted outreach does just that. Serves that may be provided in conjunction with the\nhousing vouchers include counseling to assure the successful transition into community\nliving.\nQ: Haven't you had a hard time obligating your Section 8 vouchers - why delay any\nfurther?\nA: We have not had any difficulties obligating vouchers designated for individuals with\ndisabilities, and we don't anticipate that this proposed demonstration project would create\nany.\nQ: Where are these vouchers coming from?\nA: The initial group of 400 vouchers is from a FY2000 congressional appropriation\nspecifically targeted for non-elderly persons with disabilities. Appropriations will need\nto be identified for additional vouchers in future years\nQ: Will individuals in institutions get to jump the waiting lines at public housing\nauthorities where other, equally worthy people aren't being served?\nA: The 400 vouchers is a new commitment of funds and has been specifically designated\nby Congress for non-elderly persons with disabilities.\nHome Ownership Letter\nQ: Is this creating an unnecessary risk for the FHA insurance fund?\nA: No, the mortgagee letter simply points out credit factors and considerations that are\nunique to persons with disabilities, but that are well within FHA's overall structure of\nsound underwriting principles. FHA/HUD knows from years of experience that many\npersons with disabilities have sufficient resources, capacity and determination to be\nsuccessfully home owners.\nQ: When will the letter go out?\nA: We anticipate that the letter will be sent out this week.\nQ: How many FHA mortgagees will receive the letter?\nA: The Mortgagee Letter will go all of FHA's approximately 10,000 lender partners.\nQ: What kind of flexibility do they have to actually make home ownership a reality for\nindividuals with disabilities?\nA: FHA leads the market in permitting flexible underwriting on very low down payment\nloans. Through this Mortgagee Letter, FHA is formally re-emphasizing existing\nunderwriting guidelines that encourage our lender partners to fairly account for tax free\ndisability income from state and federal sources and consider compensating factors in the\ncase of borrowers who do not meet FHA's prescribed debt to income standards. This is\nanother example of how FHA serves borrowers who have the capacity to be successful\nhomeowners, but who are not well served by the conventional market, due to modest\nblemishes on their credit record. FHA is more tolerant of modest credit problems in the\npast, and this Mortgagee Letter expressly demonstrates how lenders can fairly and\naccurately assess the credit worthiness of persons with disabilities.\n\"Nestor M. Davidson\" <[email protected]>\n07/25/2000 12:21:37 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nSubject: Re: HUD income deductions/disregards\nYes, we sent to Lisa yesterday. Basically, the number for the reg is nearly\n227,000.\nPlease see attached for details.\n(See attached file: eligible persons income disregard.doc)\nNB: This document tracks the number eligible (both for the reg change and for\nthe proposed legislative change) and therefore is the largest number. The number\nactually availing themselves of this benefit may be less, and is a figure that\nis out of our control.\[email protected] on 07/25/2000 11:54:57 AM\nTo: Nestor M. Davidson/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD\nCC: [email protected],[email protected],\[email protected],[email protected]\[email protected]\nSubject: Re: HUD income deductions/disregards\ndid you get this data on # of people who would potentially benefit from\ndisregard change?\n(Embedded\nimage moved \"Nestor M. Davidson\" <[email protected]>\nto file:\n07/23/2000 09:33:30 PM\nPIC03142.PCX)\nRecord Type: Record\nTo: Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP\nCC: Margy Waller/OPD/EOP, J. Eric Gould/OPD/EOP, Lisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP\nSubject: Re: HUD income deductions/disregards\nI've request the data -- I'll get you what we have as soon as I get it in\nthe\nmorning.\[email protected] on 07/23/2000 09:11:12 PM\nTo: Nestor M. Davidson/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD\nCC: [email protected],[email protected],\[email protected]\nSubject: Re: HUD income deductions/disregards\nIt would be really helpful to get the actual # of people that could benefit\nfrom the disregard changes based on these assumptions. I could probably\nfigure it out, but I'd really prefer if someone there could do the math.\nThe assumptions focus on the dollar impact, not the # of people. Just an\noutside estimate for 1st year and outyears would be very helpful, so we\ncould say something like \"These changes could provide work incentives for\nup to XX people with disabilities.\" Based on the assumptions, it looks\nlike the impact is mostly on reducing rent for people already in the\nprogram as opposed to making more people eligible, but maybe I'm missing\nsomething.\nEric/Lisa, I assume we'll want to have such a number for our Q&As.\n(Embedded\nimage moved \"Nestor M. Davidson\" <[email protected]>\nto file:\n07/23/2000 08:44:56 PM\nPIC14476.PCX)\nRecord Type: Record\nTo: Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP\nCC:\nSubject: Re: HUD income deductions/disregards\nHere's the budget breakdown document we sent to OMB. The deductions\nclarification will have no budgetary impact.\nThanks.\n(See attached file: Incomedisregard.doc)\n- Incomedisregard.doc\n- PIC14476.PCX\n- PIC03142.PCX\n- eligible persons income disregard.doc\nMessage Copied To:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP\nJ. Eric Gould/OPD/EOP\nLisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP\nFrancis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/24/2000 04:20:06 PM\nRecord Type: Record\nTo:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP@EOP, Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP, James F. Jordan/OMB/EOP@EOP,\nFrancis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSubject: Re: OMB comments--Earned Income Disregard Rule\nForwarded by Andrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP on 07/24/2000 04:30 PM\nJoseph F. Lackey Jr.\n07/24/2000 04:18:55 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSubject: Re: OMB comments--Earned Income Disregard Rule\nForwarded by Joseph F. Lackey Jr./OMB/EOP on 07/24/2000 04:21 PM\n\"Camille E. Acevedo\" <[email protected]>\n07/24/2000 02:05:55 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nJoseph F. Lackey Jr./OMB/EOP\nCC:\n\"Nestor M. Davidson\" <[email protected]>\nSubject: Re: OMB comments--Earned Income Disregard Rule\nJoe,\nHere is more information responding to question #2. Camille\n**\n(2) What statutory authority does HUD have to apply the earned income\ndisregard to HOME, HOPWA, Supportive Housing for the Homeless, and Section\n8 (tenant-based)?\nThe HOME program (per section 104(9) and(10) of the CHAS law) states that the\nvarying median income definitions of low- and very-low income families shall be\n\"as determined by the Secretary.\"\nHOPWA does the same. Section 859(a) does cite section 8 to the end that rental\nassistance \"shall be provided to the extent practicable in the manner provided\nfor under section 8\" (emphasis added). This provision refers to rental\nassistance, not income, and vests in the administrator discretion whether it\nwould be practicable to follow the temporary ineligibility of section 8 income\ndisregards.\nThe Supportive Housing for the Homeless statute contains no income limitations.\nSection 426(d) of Mckinney states that assisted tenants \"may be required to pay\nan occupancy charge in an amount determined by the recipient providing the\nproject, which may not exceed the amount determined under section 3(a) of the\"\nUSHAct of 1937. HUD can amend the regulations to signal the use by the provider\nof disregards in establishing its occupancy charges.\nNot all \"section 8 (tenant-based)\" assistance falls within the permitted\ndisregards. Section 8 vouchers, provided under section 8(o), are not subject to\nthe temporary ineligibility pending advance appropriation action per section\n3(d)(4) of the 1937 Act. As section 3(d) does not cover section 8(o), the\nSecretary under his section 3(b)(4) authority to define \"income\" can provide for\ndisregards in the voucher program (into which all certificates will eventually\nbe merged in September 2001).\nForwarded by Camille E. Acevedo/OGC/HHQ/HUD on 07/24/2000\n02:02 PM\nFrom: Camille E. Acevedo on 07/24/2000 01:29 PM\nTo: [email protected] @MTA\nCC: Nestor M. Davidson/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD\nSubject: Re: OMB comments--Earned Income Disregard Rule (Document link:\nDatabase 'Camille Acevedo', View '($Sent)')\nJoe,\nPlease see responses below. Camille\[email protected] on 07/24/2000 10:47:12 AM\nTo: Camille E. Acevedo/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD\nCC:\nSubject: OMB comments--Earned Income Disregard Rule\n1) What is the rational behind applying the earned income disregard to only\nthe disabled assisted-housing population?\nEstimates of unemployment for individuals with significant disabilities range as\nhigh as 75%, making this perhaps the disadvantaged group with the single highest\nunemployment rate. As part of an Administration-wide effort to examine avenues\nfor opening up opportunities for employment for adults with disabilities, HUD\nfelt that it was appropriate to begin with a target group that clearly has such\na significant need.\n2) What statutory authority does HUD have to apply the earned income\ndisregard to HOME, HOPWA, Supportive Housing for the Homeless, and Section\n8 (tenant-based)?\nProgram counsel can provide a more detailed response for these programs if you\nwould like but the brief and simple answer is that nothing in the authorizing\nlegislation for these programs prohibits application of earned income disregard.\n3) We have seen cost estimates for $15 million and $21 million in the first\nyear of implementation. Please explain the difference between the two\nestimates.\nThe $15 million is for the Section 8 tenant based program. The $21 million\nincludes HOPWA, Homeless and HOME funding as well. These programs were added\nafter the intitail discussions over Section 8.\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/24/2000 06:09:13 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nLisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP@EOP, Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP, Margy Waller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSubject: FINAL VERSION OF ADA RULE (FR-4608)\nHere's the update:\n(1) The final version of the rule is attached. Once OMB officially clears the rule (that should be taking\nplace as I type), HUD plans to transmit the rule to the Hill tomorrow.\n(2) The letters or cover sheets for the legislative proposal will be circulated to the distribution list shortly.\nI'll email you an advance copy now.\nForwarded by Andrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP on 07/24/2000 06:15 PM\n\"Camille E. Acevedo\" <[email protected]>\n07/24/2000 04:17:03 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nJoseph F. Lackey Jr./OMB/EOP, Andrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP\nCC:\nSubject: FINAL VERSION OF ADA RULE (FR-4608)\nJoe, Andrea,\nHere's the final version both in redline/strikeout and clean. Please don't\nhesitate to call if you have any questions. I should be at my desk the rest of\nthe afternoon. Thanks very much for your help. I'll check out the legislative\nactivity as you requested.\nCamille\n(See attached file: FR4608-REDLINE-JY24.doc)(See attached file:\nFR4608-CLEAN.DOC)\n-\nFR4608-REDLINE-JY24.doc\n-\nFR4608-CLEAN.DOC\nDEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT\n24 CFR Parts 5, 92, 200, 236, 574, 582, 583, 891, 982\n[Docket No. FR-4608-P-01]\nRIN 2501-AC72\nDetermining Adjusted Income in HUD Programs Serving\nPersons with Disabilities: Requiring Mandatory\nDeductions for Certain Expenses; and\nDisallowance for Earned Income\nAGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD.\nACTION: Proposed rule.\nSUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend HUD's regulations in part 5, subpart\nF, to include additional HUD programs in the list of programs that must make\ncertain deductions in calculating a family's adjusted income. These\ndeductions primarily address expenses related to a person's disability, for\nexample medical expenses or attendant care expenses. The purpose of this\namendment is to expand the benefits of these deductions to persons with\ndisabilities served by HUD programs not currently covered by part 5, subpart\nF. Second, the proposed rule would add a new regulatory section to part 5 to\nrequire for some but not all of these same programs the disallowance of\nincreases in income as a result of earnings by persons with disabilities. HUD\nbelieves that making these deductions and disallowance available to persons\nwith disabilities through as many HUD programs as possible will assist persons\nwith disabilities in obtaining and retaining employment, which is an important\nstep toward economic self-sufficiency.\nDATES: Comments Due Date: [Insert date 60 days from publication. ]\nADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on this rule to\nthe Office of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Room 10276, Department\nof Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410.\nCommunications must refer to the above docket number and title. A copy of\neach communication submitted will be available for public inspection and\ncopying during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time) at\nthe above address.\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the HOME Investment Partnerships\nProgram, contact Mary Kolesar, Office of Community Planning and Development,\nDepartment of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW,\nWashington, DC, 20410, telephone (202) 708-2470.\nFor the Housing Choice Voucher Program, contact Patricia Arnaudo, Office\nof Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451\nSeventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20410, telephone (202) 708-0744.\nFor the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program, contact\nDavid Vos, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing\nand Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20410,\ntelephone (202) 708-1934.\nFor the Rent Supplement Program, contact, Willie Spearmon, Office of\nHousing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW,\nWashington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-3000.\nFor the Rental Assistance Payment (RAP) Program, contact Willie\nSpearmon, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451\nSeventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-3000.\nFor the Section 202 Supportive Housing Program for the Elderly\n(including Section 202 Direct Loans for Housing the Elderly and Persons with\nDisabilities), contact Aretha Williams, Office of Housing, Department of\nHousing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410,\ntelephone (202) 708-2866.\nFor the Section 811 Supportive Housing Program for Persons with\nDisabilities, contact Gail Williamson, Office of Housing, Department of\nHousing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410,\ntelephone (202) 708-2866.\nFor the Shelter Plus Care Program, contact Jean Whaley, Office of\nCommunity Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban\nDevelopment, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20410, telephone (202)\n708-2140.\nFor the Supportive Housing Program (McKinney Act Homeless Assistance),\ncontact Clifford Taffet, Office of Community Planning and Development,\nDepartment of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW,\nWashington, DC, 20410, telephone (202) 708-1234.\nFor all of the above telephone numbers, persons with hearing or speech-\nimpairments may call 1-800-877-8339 (Federal Information Relay Service TTY).\n(Other than the \"800\" number, the telephone numbers are not toll-free\nnumbers.)\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:\nI.\nThis Rule - Background and Proposed Amendments\nHUD's FY 1999 Appropriations Act, which included the Quality Housing and\nWork Responsibility Act of 1998 (as title V of the FY 1999 HUD Appropriations\nAct) (the entire FY 1999 Appropriations Act, including title V, is Pub.L. 105-\n276, approved October 21, 1998, and frequently referred to as the \"Public\nHousing Reform Act\") enacted landmark measures in HUD programs, including many\nof the reforms sought by Secretary Cuomo, such as transforming public housing,\ncreating additional housing assistance vouchers, merging the Section 8\ncertificate and voucher programs, and enabling more families to obtain FHA\nmortgages to become homeowners. Since the Public Housing Reform Act became\nlaw, HUD has published many rules and notices implementing the important\nchanges in HUD programs required by the Act. While the majority of these\nchanges are applicable to HUD's public housing and Section 8 programs, HUD has\nbeen able to extend, administratively at times, the benefits of some of these\nlandmark measures to HUD programs not specifically identified by the statute.\nThe particular focus of this rule is to extend the benefits of (1) deducting\ncertain expenses as provided by the Public Housing Reform Act (currently\napplicable only to public housing and Section 8 housing (tenant-based and\nproject-based) ) ; and (2) disregarding certain increases in earned income as\nprovided by the Public Housing Reform Act (currently applicable only to public\nhousing) to persons with disabilities served by certain other HUD programs.\nThese deductions and the disregard of earned income constitute an important\nstep in helping persons with disabilities find employment and retain\nemployment.\nHUD is aware that the lack of accessible, affordable housing continues\nto be a barrier to the ability of persons with disabilities to take advantage\nof economic opportunities in many communities across the country. The\navailability of accessible, affordable housing and the location of that\nhousing can be the key to persons with disabilities in obtaining employment.\nEstimates concerning unemployment indicate that the unemployment rate among\npersons with significant disabilities is in the range of 70% to 75, among the\nhighest of disadvantaged groups in the nation. To minimize the barriers to\naccessible, affordable housing, HUD is continually examining its programs to\ndetermine ways, through administrative initiatives or legislative or\nregulatory changes, that may assist in breaking down these barriers. HUD has\nidentified two changes that it can make through rulemaking that HUD believes\nwill encourage and facilitate employment of persons with disabilities, and may\nbe implemented administratively in several HUD programs.\nThe first amendment proposed by this rule involves extending the\napplicability of certain mandatory deductions in calculating family adjusted\nincome to other HUD programs that serve persons with disabilities. Section\n508 of the Public Housing Reform Act amended section 3 (b) of the U.S. Housing\nAct of 1937 (1937 Act) to change the calculation of adjusted income by adding\na number of mandatory deductions to determine adjusted income. These\nmandatory deductions include disability-related expenses, including medical\nexpenses and attendant care expenses, as well as child-care expenses, and\nother expenses that would benefit persons with disabilities.\nThese\ndeductions, currently applicable to public housing and Section 8 housing\n(tenant-based and project-based), can be found in 24 CFR 5.611 (a) (see the\nMarch 29, 2000, final rule at 65 FR 16717, first column; see also the\ndefinition of \"responsible entity\" in 24 CFR 5.100, which only covers public\nhousing and Section 8 housing). Because several HUD non-public housing or\nSection 8 programs define \"low-income\" or \"very low-income\" persons or\nfamilies by referencing the 1937 Act definitions, or provide for family income\nto be determined in accordance with the requirements of the 1937 Act, or both,\nHUD can apply the mandatory deductions in § 5.611 (a) to several HUD programs.\nIn fact, for many of the HUD programs included in this rule, these programs\nwere able to apply the deductions listed in § 5.611 before the amendments made\nby the March 29, 2000 final rule. Therefore, it is appropriate and beneficial\nthat these programs continue to be able to take advantage of these deductions.\nThe March 29, 2000 final rule, however, did not address these programs. The\nMarch 29, 2000 final rule was limited to public housing and Section 8 tenant-\nbased and project-based assistance. This rulemaking is issued to continue the\napplicability of these deductions to non-public housing and non-Section 8\nhousing programs. Although these deductions, because of the type of\ndeductible expenses primarily benefit persons with disabilities, they are\ndeductions that are eligible to all persons and families served by the\nprograms listed above, not only persons or families with disabilities.\nAdditionally, unless specifically provided in the program regulations amended\nby this rule, these deductions do not replace other deductions made available\nto persons with disabilities or to other persons or families as provided in\nthe program regulations.\nThe HUD programs to which these deductions would be applicable are as\nfollows: HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME Program), Housing\nOpportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), Rent Supplement Payments Program,\nRental Assistance Payments Program, Section 202 Supportive Housing for the\nElderly, Section 202 Direct Loans for Housing the Elderly and Persons with\nDisabilities, Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities,\nthe Shelter Plus Care Program, and the Supportive Housing Program (McKinney\nAct Homeless Assistance). As the list of HUD programs reflects, many of the\nprograms are not directed to providing assistance only to persons with\ndisabilities, but persons with disabilities are included in the populations\nserved by these programs.\nWith respect to the HOME Program, the regulations for this program\ncurrently provide (in 24 CFR 92.203) for the calculation of adjusted income to\napply the deductions in 24 CFR 5.611. However, the applicability of these\ndeductions can be clarified and HUD makes the clarification in this proposed\nrule by defining \"responsible entity\" in part 5 to include HOME Program\nparticipating jurisdictions.\nWith respect to the Rent Supplement Program, the regulations for this\nprogram, previously codified in 24 CFR part 215, were removed from title 24 of\nthe Code of Regulations in April 1996 because the Rent Supplement Program is\nan expiring program. New assistance has not been provided under this program\nfor many years, and HUD is closing out the program. HUD retained a \"savings\nclause\" however to ensure that the existing assistance provided by this\nprogram continues to be governed by the regulations in effect before their\nremoval, and any subsequent amendments that HUD may make to these regulations.\nThe savings clause is found in 24 CFR part 200, subpart W (see 24 CFR\n200.1302). The amendments that HUD has made to the Rent Supplement\nregulations, since the 1996 removal, are found in 24 CFR 200.1303.\nThe Rental Assistance Payments Program is also an inactive program. The\nregulations for this program are codified in 24 CFR part 236, subpart D.\nSection 236.1 of these regulations provide notice that a moratorium against\nissuance of commitments to insure new mortgages under section 236 of the\nNational Housing Act (NHA) was imposed January 5, 1973. Section 236(n) of the\nNHA prohibits the insurance of mortgages under section 236 after November 30,\n1983, except to permit the refinance of a mortgage insured under section 236,\nor to finance pursuant to section 236 (j) (3), the purchase, by a cooperative or\nnonprofit corporation or association, of a project assisted under section 236.\nAs a result of the statutory provisions, HUD removed the majority of the\nregulations in 24 CFR part 236, subpart A, that provided the eligibility\nrequirements for section 236 mortgage insurance. Subpart A of part 236 also\nincludes a savings clause that advises that the regulations formerly in\nsubpart A remain applicable to section 236 mortgages. Subpart A includes a\nregulatory section on annual income exclusions. HUD recognized that it was\nappropriate to retain a section on annual income exclusions because these\nexclusions may be revised by statute from time to time. For the Rental\nAssistance Payments Program, this proposed rule amends that section, which is\n§ 236.3.\nFor both the Rent Supplement Program and the Rental Assistance Payments\nProgram, this proposed rule also updates the definitions for certain terms,\nthat appear in HUD regulations, including \"disabled person\" and \"handicapped\nperson, by replacing them with the term \"person with disabilities which\nappears in section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing\nAct (42 U.S.C. 8013). For the definition of \"handicapped families, certain\nFederal Housing Administration statutes cross-reference the definition of the\nterm n section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 which program, for purposes of\nproviding housing for handicapped and/or disabled persons, was replaced by\nsection 811. There is no longer a definition for \"handicapped person\" or\n\"handicapped families\" in the Section 202 or Section 811 statutes. Section\n811, however, does have a definition of \"person with disabilities\" which is\nroughly synonymous with the former Section 202 terms.\nThe second amendment proposed by this rule is to expand the \"earned\nincome disregard\" that is now applicable only to HUD's public housing program\nto the calculation of income for persons with disabilities in four HUD\nprograms that statutorily permit this expansion. HUD's public housing\nregulations provide in 24 CFR 960.255 for the exclusion from the calculation\nof annual income those increases in income that result from employment,\nparticipation in an economic self-sufficiency or other job training program,\nor assistance received from a state program for temporary assistance for needy\nfamilies (TANF). The four HUD programs for which HUD has the authority to\nimplement the earned income disregard for persons with disabilities are: HOME,\nthe Housing Choice Voucher Program (which is the merged Section 8 certificate\nand voucher programs, the Section 8 tenant-based programs), HOPWA, and\nSupportive Housing Program (McKinney Act Homeless Assistance). In extending\nthe earned-income disregard to these four HUD programs, HUD recognizes that\nthe Public Housing Reform Act specifically directed the earned-income\ndisregard to be applied to public housing. Application of the earned-income\ndisregard to Section 8 assistance (tenant-based or project-based) was not\nexplicitly addressed in the statute, as it was for public housing and as were\nother changes that explicitly addressed both public housing and Section 8\nhousing programs. HUD has determined, however, that the language of the\nstatute provides the flexibility to extend the earned-income disregard to\nSection 8 tenant-based rental assistance programs. HUD is therefore extending\nthe earned-income disregard to the four programs identified above that provide\nfor Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, but at this time, however, HUD\nis limiting the extension of the earned-income disregard, to persons with\ndisabilities, the group served by HUD with the highest unemployment rate. HUD\nis analyzing the extension of the earned-income disregard to all families\nserved by HUD in these programs, and welcomes comment on this issue.\nThe specifics of the mandatory deductions to be made are found in\n§ 5.611 of this proposed rule, and for the earned income disregard in new\n§ 5.617 that is added by this proposed rule. The March 29, 2000 final rule\nremoved the previous version of $ 5.617, captioned \"Reexamination and\nverification\" which addressed income reexamination and verification. With the\nremoval of this regulatory section, HUD is using § 5.617 to address disregard\nof earned income for persons with disabilities. In addition to these\namendments, HUD amends § 5.601 of subpart F to include reference to the HUD\nprograms to which applicability of the mandatory deductions and earned income\ndisregard is being proposed by this rule. HUD amends the definitions in\n§ 5.603 to include a definition of \"responsible entity\" to cover the entities\nthat have responsibility for administering the HUD program to be referenced in\n§ 5.601. HUD also makes conforming amendments to the regulations that govern\nthese programs (e.g., the regulations in parts 200, 236, 574, etc.) to provide\na cross-reference to the amended and, if applicable, the new regulatory\nsection in part 5, subpart F. By the time of issuance of the final rule, HUD\nmay determine that additional conforming amendments must be made in the\ncovered program regulations, and HUD will make these additional amendments at\nthe final rule stage.\nHUD believes that the regulatory changes proposed by this rule represent\nan important step forward in helping to remove financial barriers that make it\ndifficult for persons with disabilities to obtain employment, and to keep\nemployment once obtained. The hope is that the financial savings to a person\nwith disability that this rule would provide presents an incentive to that\nperson to continue working, or if not working, to seek employment.\nAdditionally, HUD believes that not only are the changes beneficial to the\npersons with disabilities that are served by the HUD programs identified\nabove, they are also beneficial to the owners and entities that administer the\nHUD assisted housing for these persons and families. These proposed\namendments provide, to the extent permitted by statute, greater uniformity in\ndetermining annual income for HUD programs that serve persons with\ndisabilities, and hopefully through this uniformity minimize the\nadministrative burden that results from the different requirements under\ndifferent programs for persons and families in similar or identical\ncircumstances.\nII. Findings and Certifications\nEnvironmental Impact\nA Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has\nbeen made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which\nimplement section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.\nThe Finding is available for public inspection between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.\nweekdays in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General\nCounsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10276, 451 Seventh\nStreet SW, Washington, DC 20410.\nRegulatory Planning and Review\nThe Office of Management and Budget has reviewed this proposed rule\nunder Executive Order 12866 (captioned \"Regulatory Planning and Review\") and\ndetermined that this rule is a \"significant regulatory action\" as defined in\nsection 3 (f) of the Order (although not an economically significant regulatory\naction under the Order). Any changes made to this rule as a result of that\nreview are identified in the docket file, which is available for public\ninspection during regular business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.) at the\nOffice of the General Counsel, Rules Docket Clerk, Room 10276, U.S. Department\nof Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC\n20410-0500.\nRegulatory Flexibility Act\nThe Secretary has reviewed this proposed rule before publication and by\napproving it certifies, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5\nU.S.C. . 605(b)), that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on\na substantial number of small entities. This rule is limited to expanding\nexisting mandatory expense deductions and earned income disregard to the\ncalculation of income for persons with disabilities in other HUD programs by\nwhich the program participants will benefit, and the owners of the housing\nassisted by these programs will benefit from the uniformity in the program\nadministration this rule presents and the simplicity. Notwithstanding HUD's\ndetermination that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a\nsubstantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comment\nregarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's\nobjectives as described in this rule.\nExecutive Order 13132, Federalism\nThis final rule does not have federalism implications and does not\nimpose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or\npreempt State law within the meaning of Executive Order 13132 (entitled\n\"Federalism\").\nUnfunded Mandates Reform Act\nTitle II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-\n1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their\nregulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private\nsector. This rule does not impose, within the meaning of the UMRA, any\nFederal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments or on the private\nsector.\nList of Subjects\n24 CFR Part 5\nAdministrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Drug abuse, Drug\ntraffic control, Grant programs--housing and community development, Grant\nprograms--Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs--housing and\ncommunity development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance,\nPets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping\nrequirements.\n24 CFR Part 92\nAdministrative practice and procedure, Grant programs--housing and\ncommunity development, Grant programs--Indians, Low and moderate income\nhousing, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping\nrequirements.\n24 CFR Part 200\nAdministrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal employment\nopportunity, Fair housing, Home improvement, Housing standards, Incorporation\nby reference, Lead poisoning, Loan programs--housing and community\ndevelopment, Minimum property standards, Mortgage insurance, Organization and\nfunctions (Government agencies), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping\nrequirements, Social security, Unemployment compensation, Wages.\n24 CFR Part 236\nGrant programs--housing and community development, Low and moderate\nincome housing, Mortgage insurance, Rent subsidies, Reporting and\nrecordkeeping requirements.\n24 CFR Part 574\nAIDS, Community facilities, Disabled, Emergency shelter, Grant\nprograms--health programs, Grant programs--housing and community development,\nGrant programs--social programs, Homeless, Housing, Low and moderate income\nhousing, Nonprofit organizations, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping\nrequirements, Technical assistance.\n24 CFR Part 582\nHomeless, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,\nSupportive housing programs--housing and community development, Supportive\nservices.\n24 CFR Part 583\nHomeless, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,\nSupportive housing programs--housing and community development, Supportive\nservices.\n24 CFR Part 882\nGrant programs--housing and community development, Homeless, Lead\npoisoning, Manufactured homes, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping\nrequirements.\n24 CFR Part 891\nAged, Capital advance programs, Civil rights, Grant programs--housing\nand community development, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs--\nhousing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mental\nhealth programs, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.\n24 CFR Part 982\nGrant programs--Housing and community development, Housing, Rent\nsubsidies.\nAccordingly, HUD proposes to amend parts 5, 200, 236, 574, 582, 583,\n882, 891 and 982 of title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:\nPART 5 GENERAL HUD PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS; WAIVERS\n1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority: 42 U.S.C. . 3535 (d), unless otherwise noted.\n2. The heading for subpart F is revised to read as follows:\nSubpart F -- Section 8 and Public Housing, and Other HUD Assisted\nHousing Serving Persons with Disabilities: Family Income and Family Payment;\nOccupancy Requirements for Section 8 Project-Based Assistance\n3. Section 5.601 is amended to read as follows:\n§ 5.601 Purpose and applicability.\nThis subpart states HUD requirements on the following subjects:\n(a) Determining annual and adjusted income of families who apply for or\nreceive assistance in the Section 8 (tenant-based and project-based) and\npublic housing programs;\n(b) Determining payments by and utility reimbursements to families\nassisted in these programs;\n(c) Additional occupancy requirements that apply to the Section 8\nproject-based assistance programs. These additional requirements concern:\n(1) Income-eligibility and income-targeting when a Section 8 owner\nadmits families to a Section 8 project or unit;\n(2) Owner selection preferences;\n(3) Owner reexamination of family income and composition.\n(d) Determining adjusted income, as provided in § 5.611 (a) and (b), for\nfamilies who apply for or receive assistance under the following programs:\nHOME Investment Partnerships Program (24 CFR part 92) ; Rent Supplement\nPayments Program (24 CFR part 200, subpart W) ; Rental Assistance Payments\nProgram (24 CFR part 236, subpart D); Housing Opportunities for Persons with\nAIDS (24 CFR part 574) ; Shelter Plus Care Program (24 CFR part 582) ;\nSupportive Housing Program (McKinney Act Homeless Assistance) (24 CFR part\n583) ; ; Section 202 Supportive Housing Program for the Elderly (24 CFR 891,\nsubpart B) ; Section 202 Direct Loans for Housing the Elderly and Persons with\nDisabilities (24 CFR part 891, subpart E) and the Section 811 Supportive\nHousing for Persons with Disabilities (24 CFR part 891, subpart C). Unless\nspecified in the regulations for each of the programs listed in paragraph (d)\nof this section or in another regulatory section of this part 5, subpart F,\nthe regulations in part 5, subpart F, generally are not applicable to these\nprograms.\n(e) Determining earned income disregard for persons with disabilities,\nas provided in § 5.617, for the following programs: HOME Investment\nPartnerships Program (24 CFR part 92) ; Housing Opportunities for Persons with\nAIDS (24 CFR part 574) ; Supportive Housing Program (McKinney Act Homeless\nAssistance) (24 CFR part 583) ; and the Housing Choice Voucher Program (24 CFR\npart 982)\n4. In § 5.603, paragraph (a) (1) is amended and a new definition of\n\"responsible entity\" is added to read as follows:\n§ 5.603 Definitions.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n(a) Terms found elsewhere in part 5.\n(1) Subpart A. The terms 1937 Act, elderly person, public housing,\npublic housing agency (PHA), responsible entity and Section 8 are defined in\n§ 5.100.\n*\n*\n*\nResponsible entity. For § 5.611, in addition to the definition of\n\"responsible entity\" in § 5.100, and for § 5.617, in addition to only that\npart of the definition of \"responsible entity\" in § 5.100 which addresses the\nSection 8 program covered by § 5.617 (public housing is not covered by\n§ 5.617), \"responsible entity\" means:\n(1) For the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the participating\njurisdiction, as defined in 24 CFR 92.2;\n(2)\nFor the Rent Supplement Payments Program, the owner of the\nmultifamily project;\n(3) For the Rental Assistance Payments Program, the owner of the\nSection 236 project;\n(4)\nFor the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)\nprogram, the applicable \"State\" or \"unit of general local government\" or\n\"nonprofit organization\" as these terms are defined in 24 CFR 574.3, that\nadministers the HOPWA Program;\n(5) For the Shelter Plus Care Program, the \"Recipient\" as defined in 24\nCFR 582.5;\n(6) For the Supportive Housing Program, the \"recipient\" as defined in\n24 CFR 583.5;\n(7) For the Section 202 Supportive Housing Program for the Elderly, the\n\"Owner\" as defined in 24 CFR 891.205, and for Section 202 Direct Loans Housing\nthe Elderly and Persons with Disabilities), the \"Borrower\" as defined in 24\nCFR 891.505; and\n(8) For the Section 811 Supportive Housing Program for Persons with\nDisabilities, the \"owner\" as defined in 24 CFR 891.305.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n5.\nRevise § 5.611 to read as follows:\n§ 5.611 Adjusted income.\nAdjusted income means annual income (as determined by the responsible\nentity, defined in § 5.100 and § 5.603) of the members of the family residing\nor intending to reside in the dwelling unit, after making the following\ndeductions:\n(a)\nMandatory deductions.\nIn determining adjusted income, the\nresponsible entity must deduct the following amounts from annual income:\n(1) $480 for each dependent;\n(2) $400 for any elderly family or disabled family;\n(3) The sum of the following, to the extent the sum exceeds three\npercent of annual income:\n(i)\nUnreimbursed medical expenses of any elderly family or disabled\nfamily; and\n(ii)\nUnreimbursed reasonable attendant care and auxiliary apparatus\nexpenses for each member of the family who is a person with disabilities, to\nthe extent necessary to enable any member of the family (including the member\nwho is a person with disabilities) to be employed. This deduction may not\nexceed the earned income received by family members who are 18 years of age or\nolder and who are able to work because of such attendant care or auxiliary\napparatus; and\n(4) Any reasonable child care expenses necessary to enable a member of\nthe family to be employed or to further his or her education.\n(b) Additional deductions.\n(1)\nFor public housing, a PHA may adopt\nadditional deductions from annual income. The PHA must establish a written\npolicy for such deductions.\n(2) For the HUD programs listed in § 5.601 (d), the responsible entity\nshall calculate such other deductions as required and permitted by the\napplicable program regulations.\n6. A new § 5.617 is added to read as follows:\n§ 5.617 Self-sufficiency incentives for persons with disabilities --\nDisallowance of increase in annual income.\n(a) The disallowance of increase in annual income provided by this\nsection is applicable only to the following programs: HOME Investment\nPartnerships Program (24 CFR part 92) ; Housing Opportunities for Persons with\nAIDS (24 CFR part 574) ; Supportive Housing Program (24 CFR part 583) ; and the\nHousing Choice Voucher Program (24 CFR part 982)\n(b) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this\nsection.\nDisallowance. Exclusion from annual income.\nPreviously unemployed includes a person with disabilities who has\nearned, in the twelve months previous to employment, no more than would be\nreceived for 10 hours of work per week for 50 weeks at the established minimum\nwage.\nQualified family. A disabled family residing in housing assisted under\none of the programs listed in paragraph (a) of this section or receiving\ntenant-based rental assistance under one of the programs listed in paragraph\n(a) of this section:\n(i) Whose annual income increases as a result of employment of a family\nmember who is a person with disabilities and who was previously unemployed for\none or more years prior to employment;\n(ii) Whose annual income increases as a result of increased earnings by\na family member who is a person with disabilities during participation in any\neconomic self-sufficiency or other job training program; or\n(iii) Whose annual income increases, as a result of new employment or\nincreased earnings of a family member who is a person with disabilities,\nduring or within six months after receiving assistance, benefits or services\nunder any state program for temporary assistance for needy families funded\nunder Part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act, as determined by the\nresponsible entity in consultation with the local agencies administering\ntemporary assistance for needy families (TANF) and Welfare-to-Work (WTW)\nprograms. The TANF program is not limited to monthly income maintenance, but\nalso includes such benefits and services as one-time payments, wage subsidies\nand transportation assistance -- provided that the total amount over a six-\nmonth period is at least $500.\n(c) Disallowance of increase in annual income.\n(1) Initial twelve month exclusion. During the cumulative twelve month\nperiod beginning on the date a member who is a person with disabilities of a\nqualified family is first employed or the family first experiences an increase\nin annual income attributable to employment, the responsible entity must\nexclude from annual income (as defined in the regulations governing the\napplicable program listed in paragraph (a) of this section) of a qualified\nfamily any increase in income of the family member who is a person with\ndisabilities as a result of employment over prior income of that family\nmember.\n(2) Second twelve month exclusion and phase-in. During the second\ncumulative twelve month period after the date a member who is a person with\ndisabilities of a qualified family is first employed or the family first\nexperiences an increase in annual income attributable to employment, the\nresponsible entity must exclude from annual income of a qualified family fifty\npercent of any increase in income of such family member as a result of\nemployment over income of that family member prior to the beginning of such\nemployment.\n(3) Maximum four year disallowance. The disallowance of increased\nincome of an individual family member who is a person with disabilities as\nprovided in paragraph (c) (1) or (c) (2) is limited to a lifetime 48 month\nperiod. The disallowance only applies for a maximum of twelve months for\ndisallowance under paragraph (c) (1) and a maximum of twelve months for\ndisallowance under paragraph (c) (2), during the 48 month period starting from\nthe initial exclusion under paragraph (c) (1) of this section.\n(d) Inapplicability to admission. The disallowance of increases in\nincome as a result of employment of persons with disabilities under this\nsection does not apply for purposes of admission to the program (including the\ndetermination of income eligibility or any income targeting that may be\napplicable).\nPART 92 -- HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM\n7. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority: 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d) and 12701-12839.\n8. In § 92.203, a new paragraph (d) (3) is added to read as follows:\n§ 92.203 Income determinations\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n(d) (3) The participating jurisdiction must follow the requirements in\n§ 5.617 when making subsequent income determinations of persons with\ndisabilities who are tenants in HOME-assisted rental housing or who receive\ntenant-based rental assistance.\nPART 200 -- INTRODUCTION TO FHA PROGRAMS\n9. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority. 12 U.S.C. 1701-1715z-18; 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d)\n10. Section 200.1303 is revised to read as follows;\n§ 200.1303 Annual income exclusions for the Rent Supplement Program.\n(a) The exclusions to annual income described in 24 CFR 5.609 (c) apply\nto those rent supplement contracts governed by the regulations at 24 CFR part\n215 in effect immediately before May 1, 1996 (contained in the April 1, 1995\nedition of 24 CFR, parts 200 to 219), in lieu of the annual income exclusions\ndescribed in 24 CFR 215.21 (c) (contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24\nCFR, parts 200 to 219)\n(b) The mandatory deductions described in 24 CFR 5.611 (a) also apply to\nthe rent supplement contracts described in paragraph (a) of this section in\nlieu of the deductions provided in the definition of \"adjusted income\" in 24\nCFR 215.1 (as contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 200 to\n219).\n(c) The definition of \"persons with disabilities\" in paragraph (c) of\nthis section replaces the terms \"disabled person\" and \"handicapped person\"\nused in the regulations in 24 CFR part 215, subpart A (as contained in the\nApril 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 200 to 219). Person with disabilities,\nas used in this part, has the same meaning as provided in 24 CFR 891.305.\nPART 236 -- MORTGAGE INSURANCE AND INTEREST REDUCTION\nPAYMENT FOR RENTAL PROJECTS\n11. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority. 12 U.S.C. 1701-1715z-1; 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d).\nSubpart D -- Rental Assistance Payments\n12. Section 236.710 is revised to read as follows;\n§ 236.710 Qualified tenant.\n(a) The benefits of rental assistance payments are available only to an\nindividual or a family who is renting a dwelling unit in a project that is\nsubject to a contract entered into under the requirements of this subpart or\nwho is occupying such a dwelling unit as a cooperative member. To qualify for\nthe benefits of rental assistance payments, the individual or family must\nsatisfy the definition of Qualified Tenant found in § 236.2 of subpart A\n(contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 220 to 499)\n(b) To receive rental assistance under this subpart, the income or the\nindividual or family must be determined to be too low to permit the individual\nor family to pay the approved Gross Rent with 30 percent of the individual's\nor family's Adjusted Monthly Income, as defined in § 236.2 of subpart A\n(contained in the April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 220 to 499).\nDetermination of the Adjusted Monthly Income must include the deductions\nrequired for adjusted income in 24 CFR 5.611 (a) in lieu of the deductions\nprovided in the definition of \"adjusted income\" in 24 CFR 236.2 (contained in\nthe April 1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 220 to 499)\n(c) For requirements concerning the disclosure and certification of\nSocial Security Numbers, see 24 CFR part 5, subpart B. For requirements\nregarding the signing and submitting of consent forms for the obtaining of\nwage and claim information from State Wage Information Collection Agencies,\nsee 24 CFR part 5, subpart B. For restrictions on financial assistance to\nnoncitizens with ineligible immigration status, see 24 CFR part 5, subpart E.\n(d) The definition of \"persons with disabilities\" in paragraph (d) of\nthis section replaces the terms \"disabled person\" and \"handicapped person\"\nused in the regulations in 24 CFR part 236, subpart A (contained in the April\n1, 1995 edition of 24 CFR, parts 220 to 499) Person with disabilities, as\nused in this part, has the same meaning as provided in 24 CFR 891.305.\nPART 574 -- HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS\n13. The authority citation for part 574 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority: 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d) and 12901-12912.\n14. Paragraph (d) (1) of § 574.310 is revised to read as follows:\n§ 574.310 General standards for eligible housing activities.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n(d) Resident rent payment. Except for persons in short-term supported\nhousing, each person receiving rental assistance under this program or\nresiding in any rental housing assisted under this program must pay as rent,\nincluding utilities, an amount which is the higher of:\n(1) 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income (adjustment\nfactors include the age of the individual, medical expenses, size of family\nand child care expenses and are described in detail in 24 CFR 5.609). The\ncalculation of the family's monthly adjusted income must include the expense\ndeductions provided in 24 CFR 5.611 (a), and for eligible persons, the\ncalculation of monthly adjusted income also must include the disallowance of\nearned income as provided in 24 CFR 5.617, if applicable;\n(2) 10 percent of the family's monthly gross income; or\n(3) If the family is receiving payments for welfare assistance from a\npublic agency and a part of the payments, adjusted in accordance with the\nfamily's actual housing costs, is specifically designated by the agency to\nmeet the family's housing costs, the portion of the payment that is designated\nfor housing costs.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nPART 582 -- SHELTER PLUS CARE\n15. The authority citation for part 582 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority: 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d) and 11403-11407b.\n16. Section 582.310 is revised to read as follows:\n§ 582.310 Resident rent.\n(a) Amount of rent. Each participant must pay rent in accordance with\nsection 3 (a) (1) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a (a) (1)),\nexcept that in determining the rent of a person occupying an intermediate care\nfacility assisted under title XIX of the Social Security Act, the gross income\nof this person is the same as if the person were being assisted under title\nXVI of the Social Security Act.\n(b) Calculating income. (1) Income of participants must be calculated\nin accordance with 24 CFR 5.609 and 24 CFR 5.611(a).\n(2) Recipients must examine a participant's income initially, and at\nleast annually thereafter, to determine the amount of rent payable by the\nparticipant. Adjustments to a participant's rental payment must be made as\nnecessary.\n(3) As a condition of participation in the program, each participant\nmust agree to supply the information or documentation necessary to verify the\nparticipant's income. Participants must provide the recipient information at\nany time regarding changes in income or other circumstances that may result in\nchanges to a participant's rental payment.\nPART 583 -- SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROGRAM\n17. The authority citation for part 583 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority citation: 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d) and 11389.\n18. In § 583.315, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:\n§ 583.315 Resident rent.\n(a) Calculation of resident rent. Each resident of supportive housing\nmay be required to pay as rent an amount determined by the recipient which may\nnot exceed the highest of:\n(1) 30 percent of the family's monthly adjusted income (adjustment\nfactors include the number of people in the family, age of family members,\nmedical expenses and child care expenses) The calculation of the family's\nmonthly adjusted income must include the expense deductions provided in 24 CFR\n5.611 (a), and for persons with disabilities, the calculation of the family's\nmonthly adjusted income also must include the disallowance of earned income as\nprovided in 24 CFR 5.617, if applicable;\n(2) 10 percent of the family's monthly gross income; or\n(3) If the family is receiving payments for welfare assistance from a\npublic agency and a part of the payments, adjusted in accordance with the\nfamily's actual housing costs, is specifically designated by the agency to\nmeet the family's housing costs, the portion of the payment that is designated\nfor housing costs.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nPART 891 -- SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES\n19. The authority citation for part 891 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q, 42 U.S.C. 1437f, 3535 (d) and 8013.\n20. In § 891.105, the definitions of Annual Income, Total Tenant\nPayment, and Utility Allowance are revised as follows:\n§ 891.105 Definitions.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nAnnual income as defined in part 5, subpart F, of this chapter. In the\ncase of an individual residing in an intermediate care facility for the\ndevelopmentally disabled that is assisted under title XIX of the Social\nSecurity Act and this part, the annual income of the individual shall exclude\nprotected personal income as provided under that Act. For purposes of\ndetermining the total tenant payment, the income of such individuals shall be\nimputed to be the amount that the household would receive if assisted under\ntitle XVI of the Social Security Act.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nTotal tenant payment means the monthly amount defined in, and determined\nin accordance with part 5, subpart F, of this chapter.\nUtility allowance is defined in part 5, subpart F, of this chapter and\nis determined or approved by HUD.\n21. In § 891.520, the definitions of Gross Rent, Tenant Rent, Total\nTenant Payment, Utility Allowance, and Utility Reimbursement are revised to\nread as follows:\n§ 891.520 Definitions applicable to 202/8 Projects.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nGross rent is defined in part 5, subpart F, of this chapter.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nTenant rent means the monthly amount defined in, and determined in\naccordance with part 5, subpart F, of this chapter.\nTotal tenant payment means the monthly amount defined in, and determined\nin accordance with part 5, subpart F, of this chapter.\nUtility allowance is defined in part 5, subpart F, of this chapter and\nis determined or approved by HUD.\nUtility reimbursement is defined in part 5, subpart F, of this chapter.\nPART 982 -- SECTION 8 TENANT BASED ASSISTANCE: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM\n22. The authority citation for part 982 continues to read as follows:\nAuthority: 42 U.S.C. 1437f and 3535 (d)\n23. In § 982.201, paragraph (b) (2) is revised to read as follows:\n§ 982.201 Eligibility and targeting.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\n(b)\n*\n*\n*\n(3) The annual income (gross income) of an applicant family is used\nboth for determination of income-eligibility under paragraph (b) (1) of this\nsection and for targeting under paragraph (b) (2) (i). In determining annual\nincome of an applicant family which includes persons with disabilities, the\ndetermination must include the disallowance of increase in annual income as\nprovided in 24 CFR 5.617, if applicable.\n*\n*\n*\n*\n*\nDated:\nAndrew Cuomo, Secretary\n7/24\nAndrea Decolon-\n- Steve talking to Michael now - as\nthe costs are randing errors S an mesize- -\n\\\nnile can probly be dearedin next 1.2 days\n= - legist will toke a little more time - LRD needs\nmore info\nINCOME DISREGARD CALCULATION\nEstimation of cost per unit for persons newly receiving the disregard:\n.13 proportion of certificates and vouchers used by disabled\n.78 proportion of the above who are eligible at the initiation of the program:\n.11 are ineligible because they are already working; .11 are ineligible because they\nhave not been served by Section 8 for at least 12 months\n.145 rate of return to work among unemployed HUD-assisted disabled in present\nenvironment:\nwe have no good estimate of this parameter. Project Network control group\nworked on average 3.5 months over 2 years following random assignment. We\nuse 3.5/24 as source of parameter\n$4000 increase in income if employed:\nAverage income in 1996 for disabled employed in certs and vouchers was about\n$5000. We assume $1000 loss in unearned income from other sources\naccompanies $5000 increase in earnings.\n1.09 inflation from 1996\n.3 proportion of income that must be contributed to rent\nBasic Formula for all calculations\n% Disabled Units .78* .145* $4000* 1.09* .3* = cost per unit\nExample Calculation\nOutlay estimation for FY 2001 for Section 8 Tenant based\n.13 X .78 X .145 X. $4000 X 1.09 X .3 = $ 19. 23 per unit\n$19.23 per unit * 1.6 million unit* = $30.8 million\nNormal .5 lag assumption on outlays implies $15.4 million first year outlays\nCosts ($)\nDisabled\nSources of unit data\nUnits\n(FY 2001)\nImplemented by rule:\nSection 8 Tenant based\n15.4 mil\n13%\nPD&R/MTCS\nAIDS\n1.8 mil\n25 K units\nPD&R\nHomeless\n2.2mil\n30 K units\nPD&R\nHOME\n2.0 mil\n28 K units\nPD&R\nNeed statutory language:\nSection 8 Project based\n11.4 mil\n11%\nFY 2001 Budget/Tracs\nRent Supplement (5%)\n77K\n5%\nFY 2001 Budget/APP\nSection 236 (5%)\n824K\n5%\nFY 2000 Budget/APP\nSection 202 (11%)\n440K\n11%\nHsg/GAO Report\nSection 811 (100%)\n2.0 mil\n100%\nHsg/GAO Report\nShelter Plus Care\n1.4 mil\n19 K units\nCPD\nMod. Rehab. SRO\nN/A\n0\nCPD\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP, Francis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP@EOP, Margy\nWaller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nJoseph F. Lackey Jr./OMB/EOP@EOP, Lisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP@EOP, J. Eric Gould/OPD/EOP@EOP\nSubject: HUD income deductions/disregards -- answers\nNestor Davidson worked with Camile Acevedo Sunday evening to get answers to most of my questions.\nSee answers in blue below. OMB: apparently you'd already asked some questions and made some\nsimilar edits but we didn't know that. We also didn't realize you'd gotten assumptions/costs estimates\nfrom HUD, which they've just forward to me. How are you going to deal with the costs?\nForwarded by Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP on 07/23/2000 08:52 PM\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP, Francis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP@EOP, Margy\nWaller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSubject: HUD income deductions/disregards\nsorry - one more that I thought I'd included in the first batch\np. 26, line19-22: don't we need to add \"based on employment of a person with a disability\" after \"income\"\non line 22? otherwise, this could be read to include increased income by a non-disabled family member\n(for example in a family with a disabled child and a non-disabled adult). OK - I'm tired. I had included this\nas #10 in first set. HUD thinks it's fine as is since this is cross-referencing 5.617 where it's spelled out\nspecifically. I can live w/ it as is.\nForwarded by Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP on 07/23/2000 07:04 PM\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP, Francis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP@EOP, Margy\nWaller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSubject: HUD income deductions/disregards\none more edit:\np. 4, lines 4-5: sentence is awkward. Clarify as follows \"disregarding certain increases in earned income,\nnow-currently applicable only to public housing, for to persons with disabilities served by certain other\nHUD programs.\nForwarded by Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP on 07/23/2000 06:52 PM\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP, Stephen W. Ruszczyk/OMB/EOP@EOP, Margy\nWaller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nLisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP@EOP, J. Eric Gould/OPD/EOP@EOP\nSubject: HUD income deductions/disregards\nHere are my questions about HUD's proposal. OMB: given the tight timelines, I'd like to share these\nquestions with Nestor Davidson at HUD who is coordinating the various ADA-related deliverables and\nwith Becky Ogle at the Task Force. If I don't hear back from you in the next little while, I'm going to go\nahead and do that so HUD can start getting some responses together. While I don't think any of these\nquestions are sufficient to stop the rule -- which makes a lot of sense in the context of work incentives for\npeople with disabilities -- I do think we need to have good answers and justifications.\nLegislative proposal\nI'm trying to understand more about the 3 programs that would require a legislative change in order to\napply the income disregards.\n1. Does \"section 8 non-voucher programs\" mean Section 8 project-based rental assistance? YES It\nappears that Section 8 tenant-based assistance is included in the rule under the \"Housing Choice\nVoucher Program (certificates and vouchers). YES. Distinction reflects the source of their authority to\nmake the change administratively - doesn't extend to project based.\n2. is the \"rent supplement program\" under section 101 the expiring program referred to in the rule (see p.\n6, line 10-11)? YES If so, how important is it to extend the disregards to this program? Helps ensure\ncomprehensive fix.\n3. similarly, is the rental assistance program under section 236 the \"inactive\" program referred to on p. 6,\nline 19 of the rule? If so, how important is it to extend the disregards to this program? Same as #2.\n4. Is the proposed legislative language regarding income disregards and phase-out basically identical to\nthe existing statutory language for public housing? Yes\n5. What is the Cranston-Gonzalez defn of person w/ a disability and disabled family? How disabled are\npeople covered by these definitions? Are they generally people who are working or can work? Are they\nlikely to be eligible for SSI? Section 811 defn is similar to the defn in 1937 Act, which references Section\n223 of Soc Sec Act (see p. 19 line 17 of rule).\nGeneral questions\n1. Is there any data on the number/incidence of persons with disabilities in the various housing programs\nbeing covered by the income disregard in the proposed rule and legislation? Even if precise estimates\naren't available, we need to have some sense whether the changes will help a few people or a lot. See\nHUD assumptions sent to OMB earlier in the week.\n2. How will sponsors of public housing reform act respond to proposal to amend that act to extending\nearned income disregards? Similarly, how will they react to extending disregards through regulations?\nWhy did the act only apply disregards to public housing in the first place? How will people react to\nextending earned income disregards only to people with disabilities? What about other low-income\nworking families, families moving from welfare to work, etc? Haven't vetted with Hill but don't anticipate\nnegative response. Focus on QHWRA was on reforming public housing, so disregards were focused on\nPH residents. Rationale for focusing on people with disabilities is their very high incidence of\nunemployment, and the government wide effort to increase employment opportunities for this targeted\npopulation. HUD has authority to extend to other families, and this is something that could be explored in\nanother context, but would obviously be more costly.\nRule questions\n1. Are there cost implications for the proposed rule? Yes - see estimates sent to OMB. $21.4 M for FY\n2001, about double that in out years.\n2. p. 7. line 15 says disregard changes are 'statutorily permitted\". What is authority for extending the\ndisregards to the other 4 program? Is this authority limited to people with disabilities? If not, what is\nHUD's rationale for only extending it to this group? While there is obvious merit in providing work\nincentives for people with disabilities, we're going to need to be able to justify why we're not doing this for\nother populations. Source of authority is 1937 Act - these 4 programs linked to that Act. QHWRA only\naddressed PH but lawyers don;t believe this precludes discretion for these other programs. Authority is\nNOT limited to people with disability.\n3. What is the definition of 'disability' used for extending disregards to the other 4 programs? How do we\naddress the real or perceived concern that making the disregards available only to people with disabilities\ncreates an incentive for others to qualify as 'disabled'?\nSee #5 under legislative questions for defn. This is a risk anytime we provide different incentives for one\ngroup, but there is a long-standing defn of disability.\n4. p. 4, line 14: what does \"being compiled\" mean? HUD should use whatever figures we typically cite on\nthe unemployment rate of people with disabilities. Language suggested by Becky Ogle. Apparently it's a\nfairly soft estimate and this is the best way to describe it. I checked with Eric and he concurred.\n5. p. 4, line 20-25: this sentence is confusing and needs to be rewritten. Does statutory changes refer to\nthose made by public housing reform act? If so, the change for disregards only applies to public housing.\nwill do\n6. For both deductions and disregards, will the changes primarily have the result of reducing or stabilizing\nthe rent payments of already eligible people with disabilities, or will it expand the number of people who\nare eligible? think its the latter but will check w/ program office\n7. p. 7, line 19: change \"state assistance\" to \"Temporary Assistance for Needy Families\".\ndouble checking with program office that this doesn't cause any problems.\n8. Sec 5.611: While the purpose is to apply this existing definition of mandatory deductions, including\ndisability-related costs, to more programs, will it also have the effect of changing mandatory deductions\nfor non-disabled individuals in the other programs? No because its really just clarifying existing law &\npolicy anyway.\n9. p. 16, line 3: what is effect of expanding permissive deductions to all programs (by removing 'for public\nhousing only')? Is this expansion only for people with disabilities? what is authoritty? Not creating new\nauthority - just making sure this new provision doesn't override permissive exclusions that already exist in\nthese programs.\n10. p. 26, line 20: is it accurate just to say \"which includes persons with disabilities\"? Doesn't the\nincreased income have to be earned by a person with disabilities too? yes, but since it cross-references\nmore specific definition in 5.617 it's probably OK\n10. Sec. 5.617: Again, what is authority/justification for limiting this expansion only to persons with\ndisabilities? High level of unemployment, persisent problem, agency wide effort to address, much more\nexpensive to address for the rest of the population. Should reference to \"persons\" on line 14 also include\n\"families\"? No - this is referencing the income of the individuals.\n11. As I read this, the language in each non public-housing program makes clear that the disregards only\napply to persons with disability, but since all of 5.617 only applies to persons with disabilities, shouldn't\nyou also specify within the definitions of 'previously unemployed' and 'qualified family\"? For example, p.\n16, line 22 would read \"a person with a disability who has earned Line 28 would read \"member with a\ndisability who was unemployed... and so on on lines 31 and line 2 of p. 17. Already addressed in OMB's\nedits.\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/21/2000 05:28:31 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\njoseph f. lackey jr./omb/eop@eop, margy waller/opd/eop@eop, james f. jordan/omb/eop@eop, francis S.\nredburn/omb/eop@eop\nbcc:\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\nAt this point in time, if you wanted it referenced all they could say in an MOU or in the ADA anniversary\nmaterials is that the final rule is under review at OMB and will be published shortly. (Joe, correct me if I'm\nwrong here.) We anticipate the rule will be cleared next week, but which particular day is still TBD.\nIn regards to the ADA anniversary, Jim and I are working with HUD and other VP/WH counterparts to\ndecide what can be announced next week. We will have a better idea on Monday when we've had a\nchance to go through another reg they recently submitted as the top priority for the anniversary.\nAndrea Kane\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\njoseph f. lackey jr./omb/eop@eop, margy.waller/opd/eop@eop, james f. jordan/omb/eop@eop, francis S.\nredburn/omb/eop@eop\nbcc:\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\ngreat - I know y'all are swamped. Of course, HUD called me to protest striking the reference to the rule.\nThe bottom line is, IF we wanted to let them reference it at all in the MOU, or if they want to reference it in\nADA-anniversary related press paper for next week, what is the most they can actually legally say?\nAndrea E. Jacobson\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/21/2000 01:56:57 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCamile\nAndrea Kane\nmoin A HAD expand aspart\nRecord Type:\nRecord\ndisney\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP, Stephen W. Ruszczyk/OMB/EOP@EOP, Margy\nWaller/OPD/EOP@EOP\ncc:\nLisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP@EOP, J. Eric Gould/OPD/EOP@EOP\nSubject: HUD income deductions/disregards\nHere are my questions about HUD's proposal. OMB: given the tight timelines, I'd like to share these\nquestions with Nestor Davidson at HUD who is coordinating the various ADA-related deliverables and\nwith Becky Ogle at the Task Force. If I don't hear back from you in the next little while, I'm going to go\nahead and do that so HUD can start getting some responses together. While I don't think any of these\nquestions are sufficient to stop the rule -- which makes a lot of sense in the context of work incentives for\npeople with disabilities -- I do think we need to have good answers and justifications.\nLegislative proposal\nI'm trying to understand more about the 3 programs that would require a legislative change in order to\napply the income disregards.\nCD\n1. Does \"section 8 non-voucher programs\" mean Section 8 project-based rental assistance? It appears:\nthat Section 8 tenant-based assistance is included in the rule under the \"Housing Choice Voucher\nProgram (certificates and vouchers).\non reagins we\n2. is the \"rent supplement program\" under section 101 the expiring program referred-to in the rule (see p.\nexisting morets want to\n6, line, 10-11)? If so, how important is it to extend the disregards to this program? (Y) 5,000\n3. similarly, is the rental assistance program under section 236 the \"inactive\" program referred to on p. 6,\nline 19 of the rule? If so, how important is it to extend the disregards to this program? Same\n4. Is the proposed legislative language regarding income disregards and phase-out basically identical to\nthe existing statutory language for public housing?\n4\nhell check\n5. What is the Cranston-Gonzalez defn of person w/ a disability and disabled family? How disabled are\npeople covered by these definitions? Are they generally people who are working or can work? Are they\nlikely to be eligible for SSI? 811 to simian to define in 1937 Pet: section 223 of 506\nScamins Act longtonn conninued a-bitantially impectes\nGeneral questions\n1. Is there any data on the number/incidence of persons with disabilities in the various housing programs\nbeing covered by the income disregard in the proposed rule and legislation? Even if precise estimates\nused\naren't available, we need sent to have some sense whether the changes will help a few people or a lot.\nrash\ndata\nto\ncarner\n13% by\n2. How will sponsors of public housing reform act respond to proposal to amend that act to extending\ndisabled.\nfrom\nearned income disregards? Similarly, how will they react to extending disregards through regulations?\nWhy did the act only apply disregards to public housing in the first place? How will people react to\nextending earned income disregards only to people with disabilities? What about other low-income\nworking families, families moving from welfare to work, etc? Bout unnent very whire Taxeled There charges\n1st 2001\nind 420 to\nRule questions\n1. Are there cost implications for the proposed rule?\n$15.4m Ec & tenant based\naddress\npersisten\nwill email\n1.8 HOUR\n7.2 Homelers\n2.0 itome Proflam\n& TO extend to other\nTabill dable in at\nhave your unsel, ut by costs\n1937 These are 4 linked\nArt\n2. p. 7. line 15 says disregard changes are 'statutorily permitted\". What is authority for extending the\ndisregards to the other 4 program? Is this authority limited to people with disabilities? If not, what is\nThe more\nHUD's rationale for only extending it to this group? While there is obvious merit in providing work\nincentives for people with disabilities, we're going to need to be able to justify why we're not doing this for\nother populations.\n3. What is the definition of 'disability' used for extending disregards to the other 4 programs? How do we\naddress the real or perceived concern that making the disregards available only to people with disabilities\ncreates an incentive for others to qualify as 'disabled'?\n4. p. 4, line 14: what does \"being compiled\" mean? HUD should use whatever figures we typically cite on\nthe unemployment rate of people with disabilities.\nper Becon\none\n5. p. 4, line 20-25: this sentence is confusing and needs to be rewritten. Does statutory changes refer to\nher\nthose made by public housing reform act? If so, the change for disregards only applies to public housing.\n6. For both deductions and disregards, will the changes primarily have the result of reducing or stabilizing\nthe rent payments of already eligible people with disabilities, or will it expand the number of people who\nare eligible? Think its The latter but discharg programage\n7. p. 7, line 19: change \"state assistance\" to \"Temporary Assistance for Needy Families\". citizend proformather\n8. Sec 5.611: While the purpose is to apply this existing definition of mandatory deductions, including\ndisability-related costs, to more programs, will it also have the effect of changing mandatory deductions\nfor non-disabled individuals in the other programs? NO past camping\n9. p. 16, line 3: what is effect of expanding permissive deductions to all programs (by removing 'for public\nhousing only')? Is this expansion only for people with disabilities? what is authoritty?\nMokes sure Mrs doenny aremating plum. deductions L(NO) Dent\n10. p. 26, line 20: is it accurate just to say \"which includes persons with disabilities\"? Doesn't the\nincreased income have to be earned by a person with disabilities too?\n10. Sec. 5.617: Again, what is authority/justification for limiting this expansion only to persons with\ndisabilities? Should reference to \"persons\" on line 14 also include \"families\"? indendises Miss case, shd be\n11. As I read this, the language in each non public-housing program makes clear that the disregards only\napply to persons with disability, but since all of 5.617 only applies to persons with disabilities, shouldn't\nyou also specify within the definitions of 'previously unemployed' and 'qualified family\"? For example, p.\n16, line 22 would read \"a person with a disability who has earned...\" Line 28 would read \"member with a\ndisability who was unemployed.. and so on on lines 31 and line 2 of p. 17.\nMade already per\nCM3 suggidar\nalmo #12\n42 USC 1437a\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/21/2000 05:40:34 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP, Joseph F. Lackey Jr./OMB/EOP@EOP, James F.\nJordan/OMB/EOP@EOP\nbcc:\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\nThe reg is called, \"Determining Adjusted Income in HUD Programs Serving Persons with Disabilities:\nRequiring Mandatory Deductions for Certain Expenses; and Disallowance for Earned Income.\" The\npurpose of the rule, as it is currently written, is to: (1) make mandatory certain deductions when\ncalculating a disabled household's adjusted income in some of HUD's assisted-housing programs (it's\nalready being done in some, the regs just need to be cleaned up) and (2) apply the earned income\ndisregard (currently only applied to public housing) to four other assisted-housing programs (HOME, Sec\n8, HOPWA, and Supportive Housing for the Homeless).\nMargy Waller\nMargy Waller\n07/21/2000 05:32:37 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nbcc:\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\nWhat is the 'other reg'?\nAndrea E. Jacobson\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/21/2000 05:28:31 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\njoseph f. lackey jr./omb/eop@eop, margy waller/opd/eop@eop, james f. jordan/omb/eop@eop, francis S.\nredburn/omb/eop@eop\nbcc:\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\nAt this point in time, if you wanted it referenced all they could say in an MOU or in the ADA anniversary\nmaterials is that the final rule is under review at OMB and will be published shortly. (Joe, correct me if I'm\nwrong here.) We anticipate the rule will be cleared next week, but which particular day is still TBD.\nIn regards to the ADA anniversary, Jim and I are working with HUD and other VP/WH counterparts to\ndecide what can be announced next week. We will have a better idea on Monday when we've had a\nchance to go through another reg they recently submitted as the top priority for the anniversary.\nAndrea Kane\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\njoseph f. lackey jr./omb/eop@eop, margy waller/opd/eop@eop, james f. jordan/omb/eop@eop, francis S.\nredburn/omb/eop@eop\nbcc:\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\ngreat - I know y'all are swamped. Of course, HUD called me to protest striking the reference to the rule.\nThe bottom line is, IF we wanted to let them reference it at all in the MOU, or if they want to reference it in\nADA-anniversary related press paper for next week, what is the most they can actually legally say?\nAndrea E. Jacobson\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/21/2000 01:56:57 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\njoseph f. lackey jr./omb/eop@eop, margy waller/opd/eop@eop, James F. Jordan/OMB/EOP@EOP,\nFrancis S. Redburn/OMB/EOP@EOP\nbcc:\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\nThanks We'll look into this.\nAndrea Kane\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP@EOP, Joseph F. Lackey Jr./OMB/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nSubject: Re: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\nnot to drag you into a whole new thing, but just wanted to highlight our recommendation to strike reference\nto sec 8 homeownership rule in the MOU below. I assume you'll concur but if HUD pushes back, it would\nbe helpful if you'd weigh in.\nForwarded by Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP on 07/21/2000 01:10 PM\nAndrea Kane\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nLisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP@EOP\ncc:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nbcc:\nRecords Management@EOP\nSubject:\nRe: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS HOUSING 2000\nApparently HUD and HHS had already agreed to scale back the IDA piece, but the version below doesn't\nreflect that. I;ve talked to Becky and apparently she's talked to Bob Williams and they're OK with a scaled\nback IDA section. I'm having trouble opening the file so I can't do a redline/strikeout, but here are our\nchanges:\nP. 2, 1st graph: strike the clause about IDAs here since we want to downplay.\nP. 3, A. Drop last sentence since this rule is still in clearance.\nP. 3, B. Revise IDA paragraph as follows: HHS will work with other public and private agencies and\nfoundations to identify strategies for enabling individuals with disabilities and their families to establish\nIndividual Development Accounts. Under the Assets for Independence Act IDA demonstration program,\nthese accounts are currently used to help a low-income individuals and families save for homeownership,\npost-secondary education, and capitalization of small business, and the President has proposed also\nallowing them to be used to save for a car needed to get or keep a job.\nLisa M. Brown\nLisa M. Brown\n07/21/2000 11:24:29 AM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nCC:\nMichelle M. Aronowitz/WHO/EOP@EOP\nSubject:\nSECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON ACCESS\nHOUSING 2000\nHHS and HUD have been working on this MOU between the two of them and the Robert Wood Johnson\nFoundation to be signed TODAY and announced by the VP on Tuesday as part of the ADA celebration. It\nhas come together very quickly in the past ten days. I am not sure who needs to review it -- Michelle\nAronowitz and I are reviewing it right now and have some comments. Do you want/need to review it?\nDoes it need to be cleared by OMB? In particular, there is a reference to the homeownership rule on\npage 3 that WE want to make sure is accurate. THANKS!\nIf you get any comments to me, Michelle and I will communicate all our comments to HUD. Note that we\nneed to get back to HUD as soon as possible.\nForwarded by Lisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP on 07/21/2000 11:13 AM\n\"Nestor M. Davidson\" <[email protected]>\n07/21/2000 08:57:13 AM\nRecord Type: Record\nTo:\nLisa M. Brown/OVP/EOP\nCC:\nSubject: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON ACCESS\nHOUSING 2000\nLet's chat about this soon, but please e-mail any comments. Thanks!\nForwarded by Nestor M. Davidson/OGC/HHQ/HUD on 07/21/2000\n09:04 AM\nFrom: Camille E. Acevedo on 07/20/2000 08:00 PM\nTo: Joan W. DeWitt/PDR/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Mark D. Shroder/PDR/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Robert A.\nLeonard/PDR/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Cheryl D. Kent/FHEO/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Gabriel\nNemeth/FHEO/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Milton Turner/FHEO/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Maureen E.\nWalker/FHEO/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Pamela D. Walsh/FHEO/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Arlene L.\nHalfon/FHEO/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Gerald J. Benoit/PIH/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Susan M.\nLoritz/PIH/HUD/GOV@HUD, Michael S. Dennis/PIH/HHQ/HUD@HUD, HARRY L.\nCAREY/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Estelle D. Franklin/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD, EILEEN F.\nRAY/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD, ROBERT S. KENISON/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD, MICHAEL H.\nREARDON/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD, BETTY B. PARK/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD, STEVEN L.\nBALIS/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Frank J. Vaccarella/CIR/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Ronald Y.\nSpraker/ADMIN/HHQ/HUD@HUD\nCC: Deborah Vincent/PIH/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Nestor M. Davidson/OGC/HHQ/HUD@HUD,\nJeffrey M. Lubell/PDR/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Amy E. Wilkinson/FHEO/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Rod\nSolomon/PIH/HHQ/HUD@HUD, Nancy Kirshner-Rodriguez/CIR/HHQ/HUD@HUD. David\nM. Gibbons/CFO/HHQ/HUD@HUD\nSubject: SECRETARY'S MOU WITH HHS AND ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION ON\nACCESS\nHOUSING 2000\nDear Colleagues,\nAs part of the Administration's upcoming initiative to highlight past,\nfuture and ongoing efforts and achievements to support persons with\ndisabilities, another feature of HUD's contribution is a memorandum to be\nentered into with HHS as well as the National Program Office on\nSelf-Determination, a project of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundatoin to launch a\npublic private partnership entitled Access Housing 2000. The attached draft MOU\nprovides the details. The Secretary needs to sign this MOU no later than c.o.b.\ntomorrow.\nThe Secretary will be seeking the concurrences of your Assistant\nSecretaries and the General Counsel. We will be circulating the signature\npackage for concurrence as early as possible tomorrow.\nThis is a very brief document, if you would review and advise of any\ncomments to me no later than 11:00 am tomorrow, July 21, 2000, it is very much\nappreciated.\nIf there are others in your office who you think should review this, please\nforward to them. (I have included your Deputy Assistant Secretaries in this\nmessage so that they may review while staff is reviewing and if they believe\nthat this should be immediately forwarded to your Assistant Secretary).\nThanks everyone for your assistance on this Secretary and Administration\npriority.\n(See attached file: MOU 720b.doc)\n- MOU 720b.doc\nMessage Sent To:\nJ. Eric Gould/OPD/EOP@EOP\nAndrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP\nJeanne Lambrew/OMB/EOP@EOP\nChristopher C. Jennings/OPD/EOP@EOP\nDevorah R. Adler/OPD/EOP@EOP\nMessage Copied To:\nj. eric gould/opd/eop@eop\njeanne lambrew/omb/eop@eop\nchristopher C. jennings/opd/eop@eop\ndevorah Γ. adler/opd/eop@eop\nmichelle m. aronowitz/who/eop@eop\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP@EOP\nZoe M. Neuberger/OMB/EOP@EOP\nMessage Copied To:\nandrea kane/opd/eop@eop\njoseph f. lackey jr./omb/eop@eop\nmargy waller/opd/eop@eop\njames f. jordan/omb/eop@eop\nfrancis S. redburn/omb/eop@eop\nAndrea E. Jacobson\n07/21/2000 06:37:06 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nMargy Waller/OPD/EOP@EOP, Andrea Kane/OPD/EOP@EOP\nCC:\nJoseph F. Lackey Jr./OMB/EOP@EOP\nSubject: HUD'S RULE TO PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT ON DISABILITY\nWe received the rule on Tuesday, however, there is a legislative proposal that arrived at OMB today that\nwe still have not seen. Both of you are on the distribution list and will receive copies when our legislative\nreview division sends it out (tonight I think).\nBy the way, we just had a call with Lisa Brown and Eric Gould. They told us that it is not entirely\nnecessary that the rule be cleared before Tuesday's announcement, rather it's important that the VP\nand/or President can announce the impending publication of such a rule. We believe this shouldn't be a\nproblem, but Steve hasn't had a chance to see the reg yet.\nForwarded by Andrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP on 07/21/2000 06:42 PM\n\"Camille E. Acevedo\" <[email protected]>\n07/18/2000 02:37:11 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nAndrea E. Jacobson/OMB/EOP\nCC:\nSubject: HUD'S RULE TO PROMOTE EMPLOYMENT ON DISABILITY\nAndrea,\nThanks for letting me know that Steve Ruszczyk will be involved in this\nrule. May I impose upon you to forward the attached draft to him. I am not\nsure that I have his name fully spelled out for email purposes.\nThis rule is being submitted officially today - it's a clean line-numbered\ncopy. The attached draft is the same as the official submission content-wise,\nbut I have prepared the regulatory text in redline/strikeout so that your office\ncan see how existing regulatory text is being changed to address the policy in\nthis rule. I know this helps your review for rules assigned to you and I\ndidn't know if this would be helpful to Steve. If not, we can just delete.\nAlso, please note that we have added a new section 5.617 to part 5, subpart\nF. New section 5.617 is based on\n$960.255 (paragraphs (a) through (c)) in the\npublic housing regulations (specifically added by the March 29, 2000 Admissions\nand Occupancy final rule). I have done this in redline/strikeout also so that\nyou can see how 960.255(a) thru (c) was revised to be 5.617.\nThanks very much for passing this on to Steve. I know at one time I had\nhis email address, but who knows what I did with it.\nCamille\n(See attached file: HUD-DISABILITY-RULE-JY18TH.DOC)\n-\nHUD-DISABILITY-RULE-JY18TH.DOC\nMarshall J. Rodgers\n07/21/2000 06:59:44 PM\nRecord Type:\nRecord\nTo:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nCC:\nSee the distribution list at the bottom of this message\nSubject: LRM MJR67 - - HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Draft Bill on Earned Income Disregard for the\nRental Assistance Program\nThis draft bill may be a part of a White House announcement on Tuesday marking the ten year\nanniversary of the ADA. The speaker letter and sectional analysis will be circulated under a\nseparate cover.\nThe draft bill is attached in WordPerfect format:\nHUD disc.wpd\nhud rap.wpd hud rsp.wpd hud sect 8.wpd\nForwarded by Marshall J. Rodgers/OMB/EOP on 07/21/2000 06:49 PM\nLRM ID: MJR67\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET\nWashington, D.C. 20503-0001\nFriday, July 21, 2000\nLEGISLATIVE REFERRAL MEMORANDUM\nTO:\nLegislative Liaison Officer - See Distribution below\nFROM:\nIngrid M. Schroeder (for) Assistant Director for Legislative Reference\nOMB CONTACT:\nMarshall J. Rodgers\nPHONE: (202)395-7813 FAX: (202)395-6148\nSUBJECT:\nHOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Draft Bill on Earned Income Disregard\nfor the Rental Assistance Program\nDEADLINE:\nCOB Tuesday, July 25, 2000\nIn accordance with OMB Circular A-19, OMB requests the views of your agency on the above subject\nbefore advising on its relationship to the program of the President. Please advise us if this item will\naffect direct spending or receipts for purposes of the \"Pay-As-You-Go\" provisions of Title XIII of\nthe Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.\nCOMMENTS: This draft bill may be a part of a White House announcement on Tuesday marking the ten\nyear anniversary of the ADA. The speaker letter and sectional analysis will be circulated under a\nseparate cover.\nDISTRIBUTION LIST\nAGENCIES:\n110-Social Security Administration - Judy Chesser - (202) 358-6030\n52-HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES - Sondra S. Wallace - (202) 690-7760\n62-LABOR - Robert A. Shapiro - (202) 219-8201\n129-VETERANS AFFAIRS - John H. Thompson - (202) 273-6666\n61-JUSTICE - Robert Raben - - (202) 514-2141\n71-National Council on Disability Jeffrey T. Rosen - (202) 272-2004\n100-President's Ctte on the Employment of People WDisabilities - John Lancaster - (202) 376-6200\nEOP:\nMichael Deich\nAlan B. Rhinesmith\nFrancis S. Redburn\nAndrea E. Jacobson\nStephen W. Ruszczyk\nJack A. Smalligan\nDavid W. Beier\nAndrea Kane\nMargy Waller\nJustine F. Rodriguez\nJoseph J. Minarik\nMatthew L. Bennett\nScott Beale\nJoseph F. Lackey Jr.\nSarah Rosen Wartell\nWilliam B. Boning\nTed Zegers\nMark D. Magana\nBrian S. Mason\nRobert G. Damus\nJ. Eric Gould\nLisa M. Brown\nRobert F. Mahaffie\nJames F. Jordan\nEric W. Hunn\nToni S. Hustead\nWinifred Y. Chang\nRebecca Hunter\nEllen J. Balis\nCourtney B. Timberlake\nElizabeth A. Bernhard\nAlison Perkins-Cohen\nRobert Donnelly\nJeffrey A. Farkas\nJames J. Jukes\nIngrid M. Schroeder\nLRM ID: MJR67\nSUBJECT: HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Draft Bill on Earned Income\nDisregard for the Rental Assistance Program\nRESPONSE TO\nLEGISLATIVE REFERRAL\nMEMORANDUM\nIf your response to this request for views is short (e.g., concur/no comment), we prefer that you respond by\ne-mail or by faxing us this response sheet. If the response is short and you prefer to call, please call the\nbranch-wide line shown below (NOT the analyst's line) to leave a message with a legislative assistant.\nYou may also respond by:\n(1) calling the analyst/attorney's direct line (you will be connected to voice mail if the analyst does\nnot answer); or\n(2) sending us a memo or letter\nPlease include the LRM number shown above, and the subject shown below.\nTO:\nMarshall J. Rodgers Phone: 395-7813 Fax: 395-6148\nOffice of Management and Budget\nBranch-Wide Line (to reach legislative assistant): 395-3925\nFROM:\n(Date)\n(Name)\n(Agency)\n(Telephone)\nThe following is the response of our agency to your request for views on the above-captioned subject:\nConcur\nNo Objection\nNo Comment\nSee proposed edits on pages\nOther:\nFAX RETURN of\npages, attached to this response sheet\nMessage Sent To:\nFY 2001 - Number of people eligible for program\nImplemented by rule:\nSection 8 Tenant based\n162, 240\nAIDS\n19,500\nHomeless\n23,400\nHOME\n21, 840\nNeed statutory language:\nSection 8 Project based\n120,465\nRent Supplement\n814\nSection 236\n18,097\nSection 202\n4,639\nSection 811\n21,087\nShelter Plus Care\n15, 163\nMod. Rehab. SRO\n0\nINCOME DISREGARD CALCULATION\nEstimation of cost per unit for persons newly receiving the disregard:\n.13 proportion of certificates and vouchers used by disabled\n.78 proportion of the above who are eligible at the initiation of the program:\n.11 are ineligible because they are already working; .11 are ineligible because they\nhave not been served by Section 8 for at least 12 months\n.145 rate of return to work among unemployed HUD-assisted disabled in present\nenvironment:\nwe have no good estimate of this parameter. Project Network control group\nworked on average 3.5 months over 2 years following random assignment. We\nuse 3.5/24 as source of parameter\n$4000 increase in income if employed:\nAverage income in 1996 for disabled employed in certs and vouchers was about\n$5000. We assume $1000 loss in unearned income from other sources\naccompanies $5000 increase in earnings.\n1.09 inflation from 1996\n.3 proportion of income that must be contributed to rent\nBasic Formula for all calculations\n% Disabled Units .78* .145* $4000* 1.09* .3* = cost per unit\nExample Calculation\nOutlay estimation for FY 2001 for Section 8 Tenant based\n.13 X .78 X .145 X. $4000 X 1.09 X .3 = $ 19.23 per unit\n$19.23 per unit * 1.6 million unit* = $30.8 million\nNormal .5 lag assumption on outlays implies $15.4 million first year outlays\nCosts ($)\nDisabled\nSources of unit data\nUnits\n(FY 2001)\nImplemented by rule:\nSection 8 Tenant based\n15.4 mil\n13%\nPD&R/MTCS\nAIDS\n1.8 mil\n25 K units\nPD&R\nHomeless\n2.2mil\n30 K units\nPD&R\nHOME\n2.0 mil\n28 K units\nPD&R\nNeed statutory language:\nSection 8 Project based\n11.4 mil\n11%\nFY 2001 Budget/Tracs\nRent Supplement (5%)\n77K\n5%\nFY 2001 Budget/APP\nSection 236 (5%)\n824K\n5%\nFY 2000 Budget/APP\nSection 202 (11%)\n440K\n11%\nHsg/GAO Report\nSection 811 (100%)\n2.0 mil\n100%\nHsg/GAO Report\nShelter Plus Care\n1.4 mil\n19 K units\nCPD\nMod. Rehab. SRO\nN/A\n0\nCPD"
}