<Back>


June 8, 2005

Honorable Arlen Specter
Chairman
Senate Judiciary Committee
711 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee


Dear Chairman Specter:

    The undersigned organizations are writing to express concern about several provisions contained in the Housing Title of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA).  While we support this overall bill, we must urge certain changes and elimination of 3 provisions from the bill. 
  
    First let us state that we are fully supportive of the overall goals of the Act to combat domestic violence nationwide and applaud Congress for its work to enhance protections and programs for victims of such abuse. We are pleased to read in a report written by Senator Joe Biden (D-FLDE) that the VAWA is working, citing a 50 percent drop in domestic violence since its enactment. While much work is left to be done as you begin your deliberations to reauthorize this program, we would like to bring to your attention a few new provisions and ask that you reconsider their inclusion in the billl until they can be fully reviewed relative to their impact on existing law and industry practices..

    To address the housing needs of victims, Title VI, Sections 41404, 41405, and 602 of the Act provides grant money to create and sustain emergency shelters for women and children as well as funds to create transitional housing facilities. We fully support the continued funding of such programs as appropriate and necessary services the federal government should provide for victims of abuse. 
     
    However, we believe certain changes are needed to make these grants work most effectively.  First, we believe Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) should be permitted to apply for all grants under this program.  As written, grant applicants may partner with PHAs, but PHAs themselves are not eligible to apply for grants under section 41404.  Given PHAs’expertise with housing assistance, we believe PHAs should have the opportunity to apply for these grants to serve victims of abuse.  In addition, the grants under Section 41404 may create obligations on the part of PHAs to establish new selection preferences and to fund vouchers.  However, PHAs are not required to be partners in the grant, although administrative and financial responsibilities are imposed upon them.  We believe this language should be changed to require grantees to partner with PHAs if housing assistance, such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, is provided.
     
    In addition, Sections 603 and 604 dramatically changes the goals and usage of the planning and reporting requirements of housing authorities.  By requiring reporting of one specific operational issue within the 5-year plan and the Annual pPlan, this section 603 would run counter to years of efforts to simplify PHA planning and reporting requirements.  It would dramatically change policies that are currently in place and being implemented.  Such a change would place a high administrative burden on PHAs and should be removed from the bill. Similarly, Section 604 “Housing Strategies” runs counter to recent efforts
to improve and streamline the Consolidated Plan by adding an additional reporting section regarding victims of domestic violence.
     
    Of particular concern is that the draft bill dramatically changes requirements on housing providers relative to their leasing practices. Specifically, we must urge the elimination of Sections 606, 607 and 608 of Title VI, for the following reasons.

    Sections 606 and 607 of Title VI amend the Section 8 voucher program and the Public Housing program respectively.  These sections attempt to protect an individual’s status as a victim of domestic violence from being a basis of denial for program assistance or eviction.  Wehile we understand this objective,  strongly support this goal.  However, the language as written is confusing, complicated and directly conflicts with existing law and other important HUD rules related to these housing programs.  The probable effect of these provisions will be to reverse progress made through federal policy in creating safe living environments in public and assisted housing over the past decade. In addition, State and local governments have individual laws regarding evictions.  Since each state and locality is different, an overriding federal law could dramatically change protections for renters and owners alike. 

    The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (passed by Congress in 1998) provided a number of provisions to improve access to housing and provide protections to make all federally-assisted housing safe for families. For example, HUD’s “One Strike”current occupancy policy requires that “any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy.”  This policy has been upheld by the Supreme Court and is designed to protect all residents of federally assisted housing.    We believe that the policy prescribed in this bill could inadvertently give protection to household members and guests engaged in any criminal activity or acts of violence if the tenant has claimed to be a victim of domestic violence. Also, the provisions in the bill fail to recognize that the intervention of a third party, such as the PHA, is often needed to end the cycle of violence so that the victims and their children may seek assistance. 
      
    In addition, State and local governments have individual laws regarding evictions.  Since each state and locality is different, an overriding federal law could dramatically change protections for renters and owners alike.  All of these laws carefully balance the interests of housing providers and residents and should not be tampered with lightly.  These laws and policies exist to provide safe, affordable housing for all residents.  Sections 606 and 607 complicate and conflict with many of these existing laws.
     
    Recognizing the seriousness of the problem of domestic violence, many PHAs have already enacted policies specifically designed to protect victims from eviction and to assist in making them safer.  In a survey of its members, the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) found that the majority of the PHAs have detailed referral policies for counseling, and secret relocation if necessary.  Many PHAs have multi-step processes for dealing with incidents of domestic violence, such as:  (1)  site managers are alerted and refer victims to the appropriate social service agencies; (2)  if the police are involved, the perpetrator is issued a restraining order; (3)  once the restraining order is issued, the PHA immediately changes the locks on the victim’s apartment, and removes the abuser from the lease; and (4) the PHA may, in certain circumstances, transfer the victim out of the apartment altogether.  Some PHAs give domestic violence victims not already in public housing top priority on waiting lists.  These types of protections are extremely effective and can be done within the context of existing laws and regulations.
     
    Another provision of the draft bill that is cause for concern is Section 608.    This provision expands Fair Housing Act protection by adding victims of domestic abuse as a protected class. On the surface, this protection appears warranted. However, we believe such a drastic change needs to be fully debated by the relevant  Housing Committees and advocates rather than simply adding it to this legislation. Changes of this magnitude require thoughtful analysis and debate.  We understand this section is expected to be removed, and we strongly urge that it be eliminated.

    As an industry, we fully support efforts to provideing housing opportunities to victims of abuse.  However, the changes included in this legislation have far-reaching implications and warrant broader discussion.  Given the importance of this overall legislation, and need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, we urge the Committee to withdraw sections 606, 607, and 608 from the bill.  These sections constitute a major policy shift within HUD’s assisted housing programs. and merit a full vetting through the appropriate Committees before passage.
     
    Thank you.
   

American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
Council of Large Public Housing Authorities
Institute of Real Estate Management
National Affordable Housing Management Association
National Apartment Association
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials
National Association of REALTORS®
National Housing Conference
National Leased Housing Association
National Multi Housing Council
Public Housing Authorities Directors Association