Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
3.9 Civil Rights and Housing for Homeless Individuals with disabilities
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

3.9 Civil Rights and Housing for Homeless Individuals with disabilities

  • 428 views
Published

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
428
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Definition of PSH - A cost-effective combination of permanent, affordable housing with services that helps people live more stable, productive lives.
  • The state proposes to not only to expand the current system of care, but to create a number of recovery-oriented system enhancements in both services and housing, designed to assure that each person choosing to move from an IMD has the best opportunity for a successful transition to community living
  • End of 1 st year - (I) offered placement in a Community-Based Setting to a minimum of 256 Class Members who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Commlmity-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed 256 PSH lmits for the benefit of Class Members. End of 2 nd year - (1) offered placement in a Community-Based Setting to a minimlill1 of 640 Class Members (including the 256 referenced in subparagraph S(c) above) who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed 640 PSH units for the benefit of Class Members. End of 3 rd year – offered placement to at least forty percent (40%) of all individuals who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed the corresponding number of PSH units or other Community-Based Settings sufficient for tIlese individuals. For purposes of tlus subparagraph, tIlese individuals include the total of (1) all Class Members as of tile end of the second year after tile finalization of the Implementation Plan who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting, and (2) all former Class Members who have already transitioned from the IMD to a Commllluty-Based Setting or to anotIler community setting since finalization of the Implementation Plan. offered placement to at least seventy percent (70%) of all individuals who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed the corresponding nmnber of PSH units or other Community-Based Settings sufficient for these individuals. For purposes of this subparagraph, these individuals include the total of (I) all Class Members as of the end of tile third year after the finalization of the Implementation Plan who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting, and (2) all fomler Class Members who have already transitioned from the IMD to a Community-Based Setting or to another community setting since finalization of the Implementation Plan. After the end of the fifth year following finalization of the Implementation Plan, Class Members who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting, who do not oppose transition to a CommunityBased Setting and whose Service Plans provide for placement in Community-Based Settings shall be offered the opportunity to move to those settings and shall receive appropriate services consistent with the Service Plan within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of the Service Plan.
  • End of 1 st year - (I) offered placement in a Community-Based Setting to a minimum of 256 Class Members who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Commlmity-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed 256 PSH lmits for the benefit of Class Members. End of 2 nd year - (1) offered placement in a Community-Based Setting to a minimlill1 of 640 Class Members (including the 256 referenced in subparagraph S(c) above) who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed 640 PSH units for the benefit of Class Members. End of 3 rd year – offered placement to at least forty percent (40%) of all individuals who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed the corresponding number of PSH units or other Community-Based Settings sufficient for tIlese individuals. For purposes of tlus subparagraph, tIlese individuals include the total of (1) all Class Members as of tile end of the second year after tile finalization of the Implementation Plan who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting, and (2) all former Class Members who have already transitioned from the IMD to a Commllluty-Based Setting or to anotIler community setting since finalization of the Implementation Plan. offered placement to at least seventy percent (70%) of all individuals who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting; and (2) developed the corresponding nmnber of PSH units or other Community-Based Settings sufficient for these individuals. For purposes of this subparagraph, these individuals include the total of (I) all Class Members as of the end of tile third year after the finalization of the Implementation Plan who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting and who do not oppose moving to a Community-Based Setting, and (2) all fomler Class Members who have already transitioned from the IMD to a Community-Based Setting or to another community setting since finalization of the Implementation Plan. After the end of the fifth year following finalization of the Implementation Plan, Class Members who are assessed as appropriate for living in a Community-Based Setting, who do not oppose transition to a CommunityBased Setting and whose Service Plans provide for placement in Community-Based Settings shall be offered the opportunity to move to those settings and shall receive appropriate services consistent with the Service Plan within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date of the Service Plan.

Transcript

  • 1. Civil Rights and Housing for Homeless Individuals with Disabilities By Michael Allen Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC National Alliance to End Homelessness July 14, 2011 Washington, D.C.
  • 2. Contact Information
    • Michael Allen
    • Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC
    • 1225 19th Street, N.W., Suite 600
    • Washington, D.C.  20036-2456
    • 202/728-1888, ext. 114
    • FAX:  202/728-0848
    • E-mail: mallen@relmanlaw.com
    • Website: www.relmanlaw.com
  • 3. Federal Civil Rights Law Applicable to Homelessness
    • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
    • Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Fair Housing Act
  • 4. Section 504
    • Applies only to “recipients of federal funds”
    • Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability
    • Requires covered entities to change rules, policies and practices if necessary to benefit people with disabilities
  • 5. Americans With Disabilities Act
    • Applies to “public services”
      • Programs or activities carried out by state or local government, or through contract with private entities
    • Applies to “places of public accommodation”
      • Can include city-run shelters
  • 6. Americans With Disabilities Act
    • Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability
    • Requires covered entities to change rules, policies and practices if necessary to benefit people with disabilities
    • Requires that public entities provide services in the “most integrated setting” appropriate to needs of people with disabilities
  • 7. Fair Housing Act
    • Applies to virtually all “dwelling units”
    • Forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status and disability
  • 8. Definition of Disability
    • a mental or physical impairment , such as:
      • Blindness
      • Mobility impairment
      • HIV infection
      • Mental retardation
      • Alcoholism/drug addiction
      • Psychiatric disability
      • Deafness
  • 9. Definition of Disability
    • … which substantially limits one or more major life activities , such as those related to:
      • walking
      • hearing
      • social interaction
      • seeing
      • breathing
      • self-care
  • 10. Congressional Intent on Disability
    • " [A] clear and comprehensive national mandate to end discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to bring those individuals into the economic and social mainstream of American life."
  • 11. Text of the ADA
    • “ ...no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
  • 12. Federal Regulations (DOJ)
    • “ A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”
    • 28 C.F.R. §130(d)
  • 13. “ Most Integrated Setting” means…
    • “ ... a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible .”
    • 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, App. A, p. 450
  • 14. Olmstead: The Bottom Line
    • Unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities in institutions constitutes discrimination based on disability.
    • States required to provide community-based services rather than institutional placements for individuals with disabilities
  • 15. Olmstead Reasoning
    • “… unjustified isolation...is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability.”
    • “ [I]nstitutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life. . . .”
  • 16. Olmstead Reasoning
    • “ [C]onfinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment.”
  • 17. Broad Coverage
    • The same principles apply not only to people who are currently institutionalized unnecessarily, but also to people at risk of unnecessary institutionalization because of the lack of community-based housing and supportive services.
  • 18. Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Patterson
    • 9/8/09: New York fails to offer housing in most integrated setting to people with psychiatric disabilities; n early 4000 people in adult homes eligible for supported housing
    • 3/1/10: State must develop sufficient supported housing units to ensure that all adult home residents can live in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs
  • 19. United States v. Georgia
    • 10/19/10: Settlement
      • Georgia will stop admitting individuals with developmental disabilities to its state-run hospitals by July 1, 2011, and will transition all individuals with developmental disabilities already living in the hospitals to community settings by July 1, 2015..
      • By July 1, 2015, Georgia has agreed to provide services in community settings for 9,000 individuals with mental illness who currently receive services in the state hospitals, are frequently readmitted to state hospitals, are frequently seen in emergency rooms, are chronically homeless or are being released from jails or prisons.
  • 20. Fair Housing Act Enforcement
    • No inquiry about disability
    • No denial or segregation because of disability
    • Reasonable accommodation in rules and policies
    • Equal treatment mandate
  • 21. “ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”
    • Every jurisdiction/entity receiving federal housing and community development funds is obligated to take affirmative steps to expand fair housing choice for members of the FHA’s seven protected classes
      • 1200 CDBG recipients (states/municipalities)
      • 3000+ housing authorities
      • Thousands of subsidized housing providers
  • 22. AFFH Statutory Authority
    • FHA requires HUD to “administer [housing] programs…in a manner affirmatively to further the policies of [the Fair Housing Act],” including the general policy to “provide, within constitutional limits, for fair housing throughout the United States.”
      • 42 USC §3608(e)(5).
  • 23. “ No Certification, No Money”
    • 42 U.S.C. §5304(b)(2): “ Any grant under [the CDBG program] shall be made only if the grantee certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary that … the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.] and the Fair Housing Act [42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.], and the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing.”
  • 24. CDBG/Con Plan AFFH Regs
    • A grantee is “required to submit a certification that it will affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will (1) conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction; (2) take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis; and (3) maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard.”
      • 24 C.F.R. § 570.601(a)(2)
      • 24 CFR § 91.225(a).
  • 25. Impediments
    • In your own communities, what impediments to fair housing choice do homeless and low-income people experience on the basis of:
      • Disability?
      • Race?
      • National Origin?
      • Familial Status?
  • 26. Impediments
    • Are these impediments reflected in your community’s Analysis of Impediments (AI)?
    • Does the AI describe (and commit to take) appropriate actions to overcome these impediments?
    • If “no” is the answer, your community may be failing in its AFFH obligation, and its federal funding may be at risk
  • 27. Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless v. City of Atlanta, et al.
    • HUD Administrative Complaint filed 9/6/10, alleges that City and others:
      • Have discriminated on the basis of race, color and disability
      • Have interfered with Task Force funding and efforts to create supportive housing and employment opportunites
      • HUD is currently investigating
  • 28. Civil Rights and Housing for Homeless Individuals with Disabilities www.csh.org NAEH Annual Conference – Washington D.C. July 13-15, 2011
  • 29. Who is CSH?
    • CSH helps communities create permanent housing with services to prevent and end homelessness.
    • CSH’s Project Related Assistance
      • Predevelopment Funding
      • Technical Assistance
      • Systems Advocacy
  • 30. Williams v Quinn
    • Class Action Lawsuit
    • Filed in 2005
    • Lawsuit alleged that IL was in violation of Title II of ADA and Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act by “needlessly segregating” plaintiffs
    • Class of 4,500 IL resident with Serious Mental Illness living in Institutions of Mental Disease (IMDs)
  • 31. Williams Consent Decree
    • “ All persons with SMI currently residing in IMDs in IL have the right to choose to live in community-based settings and that the State has an obligation to expand the current community-based service system to support the needs of those individuals.”
  • 32. Williams Consent Decree
    • “… aim of providing services to an individual in the least restrictive and most integrated setting possible”
    • “… Recovery Principles should guide all systems reform efforts and frame the development and expansion of all services.”
  • 33. Williams Implementation Plan
    • Outreaching to Class Members
    • Creating individualized evaluations and service planning
    • Transitioning to least restrictive housing
    • Providing community-based service
  • 34. Williams Consent Decree
    • Housing Requirements:
      • 1 st year – 256 Class Members offered placement in Community-Based Setting & develop 256 PSH units
      • 2 nd year – 640 Class Members offered placement in Community-Based Setting & develop 640 PSH units
      • 3 rd year – Offered placement to at least 40% & develop corresponding number of PSH units
  • 35. Williams Consent Decree
    • Housing Requirements Continued:
      • 4 th Year – Offered placement to at least 70% & develop corresponding number of PSH units
      • 5 th year - Offered placement to at least 100% & develop corresponding number of PSH units
      • After 5 th year - offered the opportunity to move and shall receive appropriate services consistent with Service Plan within 120 days of the date of the Service Plan
  • 36. Policy Considerations
    • Integrated housing – no more than 25% of a developments units can be targeted to Class Members
    • Housing models/options
    • Housing resources
    • Supportive services resources
    • State and local resources
    • Nursing home lawsuit
  • 37. Lindsey Bishop 312-332-6690 ext.12 [email_address]
  • 38. Civil Rights and Housing for Homeless Individuals with Disabilities National Alliance to End Homelessness Annual Conference – Washington D.C. July 13-15, 2011
  • 39. New Hope Apartments, Peoria, IL
    • 79 efficiency apartments, SRO
    • Tenants: homeless, disabled
    • On-site amenities include TV rooms, laundry & exercise rooms, garden patio
    • 24/7 front desk coverage
    • On-site case management – SSOC
    • Offices for 2 non-profits
  • 40.  
  • 41. New Hope Apartments
    • Tax Credit Project – Oversight, compliance
    • $12 million project, $8 million in construction
    • Operational funding secured, all units subsidized
  • 42. Background
    • SSOC had 30 units permanent supportive housing (PSH)
    • Renting a poorly maintained building
    • Local CoC: Community needs more PSH
    • Started looking for a site in the 1990’s; more seriously in 2003
  • 43. Background (cont.)
    • Warehouse Overlay District (oW)
    • Old warehouses, industrial uses
    • Vision
      • Gentrification; loft apartments
      • New Urbanism; walkable downtown
    • Riverfront museum planned
    • Heart of Peoria Plan
      • Duany – New Urbanism guru
  • 44. Site Selection
    • Zoning for oW District
      • Offices on street level, residential above offices
    • Verbal acknowledgement from city staff that no zoning changes required
    • July 2004 - SW Washington building identified
    • Located across the alley from existing 30-unit SRO
  • 45. Special Use Required
    • November 2004, 8:30 am
      • Heart of Peoria Meeting
      • Neighborhood business owner objected to New Hope Apt
      • 2 City staff argued on need for Special Use
    • 10:30 am – Call from Director of Planning and Zoning that Special Use was required
  • 46. Legal Issues
    • We contended: the proposed development was a permitted use under the oW District
    • City requirement for Special Use:
      • Fair Housing violation
      • American with Disabilities Act violation
    • Requested Reasonable Accommodation
  • 47. Exhaust Administrative Remedies
    • Jan 2005 – Zoning Commission to request Special Use for Rooming House
    • We questioned the Findings of Fact process
    • Mar 1 – Zoning Commission Special Meeting to establish Findings of Fact
  • 48. Exhaust Administrative Remedies (cont.)
    • Mar 15 – City Council expected to vote on Zoning Commission recommendation – remanded back to Zoning
    • June 9 – Zoning Board of Appeals – Not a rooming house
  • 49. Pursuing Fair Housing Issues
    • Met with Fair Housing department at HUD’s Chicago filed office
    • Including William Caruso, John Marshall Law School
    • Filed 903.1 Fair Housing Complaint
  • 50. Legal Action
    • July 2005 - Filed lawsuit against the City of Peoria
    • Kept the project on the City’s radar screen
  • 51. “ Denouement”
    • Congressman LaHood intervened
    • Meeting of all players
    • Alternate site #1 proposed – Inappropriate
    • Alternate site #2 proposed – Current location
    • Opponents objected
    • Power Play – LaHood’s aid:
    • “ You can’t object to every site”
  • 52. Completion Timeline
    • Dec 2005 – 1 st tax credit application
    • April 2006 – 2 nd tax credit application
    • June 2006 – Tax credits awarded
    • March 2007 – Started construction
    • March 2008 – Construction completed, started lease-up
    • Dec 2008 – 100% occupancy
  • 53. Side Note
    • City of Peoria’s current Warehouse District zoning:
    • No offices providing support services
  • 54. Understanding NIMBY
    • Fear of the unknown
    • Limited knowledge – negative anecdotal, usually irrelevant to proposed development
    • Trust – Human nature to trust who you know
  • 55. Overcoming NIMBY
    • Power
    • Political advocate
    • Be ready to compromise
    • Litigation
  • 56. Avoiding NIMBY
    • Proactive
    • Build relationships
    • Develop trust
  • 57. Tools and Resources
    • Corporation for Supportive Housing
    • Knowledgeplex.org??
    • Affordable Housing Toolkit
    • JG: Check NIMBY files
  • 58. Contact Information:
    • Jane Genzel
    • Peoria Opportunities Foundation
    • 301 NE Jefferson
    • Peoria, IL 61603
    • 309-672-5212
    • [email_address]