?Euro
f? ?tab U.S. Department 01? Housing and Urban Development
0" . .
.. Georgia State Office
:3 - . .
a I Five Pomts Plaza
4O Marietta Street

Atlanta, GA 30303-2806

March 27, 2014

Certi?ed Mail - Return Receipt Reguested

Ailrick Young, Assistant Executive Director
Laurel Housing Authority

701 Beacon Street

Laurel, Mississippi 39440

Subject: Title VI Letter of Findings for the
Limited Compliance Review of the Laurel Housing Authority
Case Number: (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1973)

Dear Mr. Young:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, Atlanta Regional Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity (the Department) has completed its limited compliance review
of the Laurel Housing Authority opened December 16, 2013. The review was initiated as the
result of irregularities identified during a review of the housing authority?s application to
participate in the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. The review was conducted under
the authority of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) and its implementing
regulations.

Title VI mandates that person in the United States shall, on the ground of race,
color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance?
(42 U.S.C. 2000d). LHA is a recipient of Federal financial assistance and is therefore subject
to Title VI.

Based on evidence collected during the compliance review, the Department has
determined that the Laurel Housing Authority is in noncompliance with Title VI.

I. BACKGROUND

In February of 2013, the Laurel Housing Authority (LHA) submitted two applications to
participate in the Department?s Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD), 1SI
Component.l RAD allows a public housing agency with significant capital needs to convert their
Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) to a long-term Section 8 rental assistance contract. Under
15' Component, public housing agencies (PHAs) and Moderate Rehabilitation properties (Mod
Rehab) may choose between two forms of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment (HAP)
contracts: project-based vouchers (PBVs) or project-based rental assistance (PBRA). According

 

RAD is authorized by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (PL. 112?55,
approved November 18. 2011) which provided ?scal year 2012 appropriations for HUD.

to its RAD applications, LHA wanted to convert 130 family ACC units at its Beacon Homes site
to PBV units. LHA proposed demolition of all 130 units slated for conversion and construction
of 100 elderly?only apartments (all two bedroom units) and 30 family apartments (25 three
bedroom units and five four bedroom units) on the existing site.

The Department?s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) reviews all
RAD applications and significant amendments to applicants? Public Housing Agency plans
(PHA Plan) and all RAD FHEO Accessibility and Relocation Plan Checklists (FHEO Checklist)
to determine consistency with applicable civil rights laws, regulations and civil rights-related
program requirements. During the FHEO review of the significant amendment to its
PHA plan, several potential problems related to the relocation of residents from the Beacon
Homes site were identified.2 Based on the information submitted by LHA it was unclear when
impacted residents would be relocated and to where those residents would be relocated.
Furthermore, it was unclear whether plans were in compliance with the RAD program?s
requirement that any residents temporarily relocated to facilitate rehabilitation or construction
have a right to return to an assisted unit at the development once rehabilitation or construction is
completed.3 The RAD Notice prohibits permanent involuntary displacement of the project?s
residents as the result of RAD conversion.?4

On June ll, 2013, requested (through the RAD team) that LHA provide
information regarding the tenants? right to return to the redeveloped property, and a description
of the relocation benefits that would be provided to the tenant?s pursuant to the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Preperty Acquisition Act of 1970 

On July 18, 2013, LHA submitted relocation information initially provided to the Special
Applications Center (SAC) of the Department in conjunction with a demolition and disposition
application submitted in January 2013 for the same 130 units in the Beacon Homes
deveIOpment.6 According to this relocation plan, 125 of the 130 units were occupied at the time
of application and 321 residents, including 183 children would be impacted. Additionally, this
application provided that Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) would be provided to all displaced
tenants who wanted them and indicated that the estimated relocation costs associated with the
demolition were $121,550.

On July 29, 2013, FHEO received an FHEO Checklist that indicated that no tenants
would be displaced as a result of the conversion. FHEO contacted RAD team members about
the discrepancies between the checklist and the previously submitted relocation plan and asked
for clarification.

On August 20, 2013, FHEO received two new FHEO Checklists from LHA. In the
relocation plan section of the form, LHA provided the following narrative:

 

2 LHA submitted its signi?cant amendment on June 7, 2013.

3 See PIH Notice 2012-32, Section 1.6.02

4 See Notice 2012-32. Section 1.5.3.

5 The RAD program requires that any relocation of residents comply with the URA. See PIH Notice 2012-32,
Section 1.4.A.3.

6 The demolition and disposition application was never approved by the SAC or reviewed by FHEO.

2

All units have been vacated voluntarily by residents. There has been no conversion of
assistance since all have been relocated to Laurel Housing Authority public housing units
or to units qualified under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program.

Despite these assertions, the attachments included with the forms indicated that 18
families voluntarily left the public housing program and received no HCV or replacement public
housing units and 27 families were ?evicted for violations of public housing requirements.? 7
Because of these inconsistencies, FHEO initiated a targeted compliance review to determine
whether a violation of Title VI occurred.

II. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

FHEO reviewed the tenant files for 27 heads of household who were evicted, according
to LHA.8 All of the evicted tenants were African American. The evidence collected shows that
none of the tenants vacated their units as a resolt of a judicial action that satis?ed the due process
requirements found in the regulations. Additionally, LHA did not use an administrative
grievance procedure that was consistent with regulatory requirements.

The evidence also showed that five tenants were evicted for alleged drug activity inside
their units, but the tenant files provided by LHA include no supporting evidence for those claims
beyond allegations from a LHA staff member. 9 The evidence also shows that these tenants were
not provided the requisite two-day written notice that LHA staff would be entering their units
when the alleged drug activity occurred as required by HUD regulation.lo This failure to provide
notice may coastitute a violation of the tenants? constitutionally protected right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.?

A. The Manner in which LHA Conducted the RAD Conversion of Beacon Homes
Adverselv Affected African American Tenants in Noncompliance with Title VI.

The Beacon Homes units that were the subject of RAD conversion request were
occupied primarily by African American tenants. Since LHA planned to demolish the site and
rebuild, all of the tenants living there would need to be relocated to other public housing units, be
provided Housing Choice Vouchers or be provided other comparable housing opportunities.'3

 

7 According to the information provided by LHA with its August 20, 2013 submission, 127 families would be
displaced as the result of the demolition of the Beacon Homes site.

8 The names of the tenants evicted, along with the basis for the evictions provided by LHA is included in Appendix
I.

9 A staff member identi?ed in tenant ?les as ?Investigator Pitts" is the sole accuser in all live instances of alleged
drug activity. basis for eviction in four of the ?ve cases was ?suspected marijuana" in the tenant?s units and
in one case was ?marijuana found in unit.? No evidence was included in the tenant ?le indicating what happened to
the marijuana found in the tenant?s unit and there was no evidence that the police were ever noti?ed.

?0 24 can. 

PHAs are allowed to enter a tenant?s unit without notice only in those instances where there is ?reasonable cause
to believe an emergency exists.? 24 CPR. See also, U.S. Const. Amend IV.

12 The Beacon Homes site was 97.6% African American.

'3 See PIH Notice 2012-32, Section 1.6112 and Section 1.7.13.2.

3

During thee course of our review, we determined that 27 tenants were evicted from the
Beacon Homes siti all of these individuals were African American.

1. There is No Evidence that Evicted Beacon Homes Tenants Received Required Due
Process.

Notice of lease termination or eviction must state specificg Grounds for termination and
must inform the tenant of her light to respond; the lright to examine relevant documents; and
whether the tenant has a right to request a hearing.4

The United States Housing Act of 1937 requires that a PHA provide tenants with the
opportunity for an administrative hearing before initiating eviction proceedings 1n local or state
landlord tenant courts. 15 Department regulations provide that PHAs may terminate tenancy only
for ?serious or repeated violation of material terms of the lease,? such as failure to pay rent
timely; failure maintain a household in a decent, safe and sanitary manner; exceeding income
limits or; other good cause, including criminal activity.16

Based on the regulations, PHAs can evict tenants two ways: (1) by bringing a court action
or; (2) by bringing an administrative action if the law of the jurisdiction permits eviction by
administrative action, after a due process administrative hearing.? For certain Criminal?related
evictions, PHAs may bypass the administrative hearing requirement, but only in those instances
in which HUD has made a determination that local law requires a pre? ?eviction court hearing that
provides the basic elements of due process. 8These determinations are published in the Federal
Register. 9All evictions, o'whether judicial or administrative, must afford the tenants with the
elements of due process

The elements of due process are defined as (1) adequate notice to the tenant of the
grounds for terminating the tenancy and for eviction; (2) the right of the tenant to be represented
by counsel; (3) an opportunity for the tenant to refute the evidence presented by the PHA
including the right to confront and cross?examine witnesses and to present any affirmative legal
or equitable defense she might have and; (4) a decision on the merits?

When criminal activity is at issue, HUD regulations permit a PI-IA to evict a tenant by
judicial action without providing a separate administrative hearing. In these instances, the PHA
must determine that the tenant has engaged in criminal activity regardless of whether the person

 

?4 24 CPR. 966.40 24 c.1311. 

?5 42 U.S.C. 1437d(k)(2013).

?3 24 can. 

'7 24 (3.1211. 966.4 (2005)

?3 24 (3.13.11. 

?9 24 can. 

20 42 U.S.C. 1437d(k)(2013). HUD issued a due process determination for Mississippi that was published in the
Federal Register on September 1 I, i996. This determination recognized the unlawful entry and detainer action in
the County and Circuit Courts under Section 89-7?1 et seq. of the Mississippi Code Annotated. See 61 Fed. Reg. 177
(September 11, 1996).

1? 24 CPR. 

13 24 CER. 

has been arrested or convicted for such activity and without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.23
If the PHA claims that drug?related activity has occurred, proof that illegal diugs were involved
will be needed, as well as ?some proof tying the sale, possession, use, manufacture etc. of the
drugs to the tenant being evicted 

If HUD has issued a due process determination25 and the PHA is terminating the lease
through the judicial eviction procedures for which HUD has issued a due process determination,
the regulations contain three bases for termination that are not subject to the grievance
process: (1) criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right of other residents to
peaceful enjoyment of the property; (2)any violent o1 dru g-related criminal on 01 off the
propeity; or (3)any criminal activity resulting 1n the felony conviction of a household member. 26

In all 27 instances of eviction reviewed by FHEO, the evidence indicates that the
elements of due process weie not met. ?7 Twenty-five of the case files include notices to vacate
thei1 units that included the reason for eviction and articulated the tenant 5 light to challenge the
eviction through the grievance process; to 1eview and copy files ielevant to the eviction; and

right to be 1ep1esented by counsel 1n court In two files, no notice to vacate was provided by
LHA to the tenants, which may constitute a violation of HUD regulations.

A review of the tenant files showed that eight of the 27 tenants required to leave the
pr'Opeity received notices that the decision to evict was upheld after an info1mal hea1ing;
no information was piovided regalding the substance of those hearings, or whether the tenants
even attended. Regulations require that tenants have an opportunity to refute the evidence
presented by the PHA, including the right to confiont and moss- examine witnesses, present
affirmative or equitable defenses and receive a decision on the mer.its2 9011 Feb1ua1y 19, 2014,
FHEO asked LHA staff if theie was any information related to these evictions that was not
included in the initial response to the data request; staff indicated that they submitted all
documents in their possession. As a result, we can only conclude that these informal hearings
(for which there is no record in 19 instances) did not meet the requisite due process obligations.
Additionally, the fact that LHA did not use the judicial eviction procedure determined by HUD
to be consistent with the basic elements of due process, further supports the conclusion that
tenants were treated in a manner inconsistent with Federal law and HUD regulations, as well as
own grievance procedure.

2. Tenants Did Not Receive Reasonable Advance Notice that LHA Staff Would Enter
their Units as Reguired by Federal Law and HUD Regulations

HUD regulations require that PHAs provide ?reasonable advance notification" before

 

33 24 C. F. 11.1, 91136. 41115101119005).
'4 Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook, 203 (2003).
?5 Notices listing the judicial procedures for which the Department has issued due process determinations are
p?ublished' 1n the Federal Register as is required by 2441'. CF. R. 966. 
(?24 C. F. R. 9613 51(2005].
See Appendix I.
?5 24 
?9 24 11. 966 551(c)(3) (1111211115),

entering a tenant?s unit.30 The FHA may enter a unit without the requisite notice when there is
?reasonable cause to believe? that an emergency exists and if the tenant and all adult members of
the household are not present.? Entry for security purposes by PHA staff or police departments
is not considered an emergency under this section of the regulations.32 Police departments must
have a search warrant or exigent circumstances to enter a tenant?s unit.33

On five occasions, tenants were evicted for having ?suspected marijuana? or for
?marijuana found? in their units. However, LHA provided no evidence that written notice was
provided to tenants two days prior to the entry of their units, or any evidence of a police officer
serving a search warrant or determining that exigent circumstances that would allow entry
without a warrant existed.

In the absence of any evidence that LHA staff provided notice before entering these
tenants? units; any evidence that an emergency existed that would constitute an exception to the
notice requirement; or any evidence of search warrants or exigent circumstances, we can only
conclude that LHA staff entered these tenants? units without proper notice in violation of HUD
regulatiOns.

3. Methods of Administering its Public Housing Program. its Failure to Follow
Federal Law, Department Regulations and Failure to Follow its Own Grievance
Procedure Negatively Affected African American Tenants

All of the tenants impacted by the actions documented in this letter were African
American. The manner in which LHA administered its public housing program adversely
affected tenants who were disproportionately African American.

The Title VI implementing regulations promulgated by HUD provide the following:

recipient. ..may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize
criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting persons to
discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin or have the effect of
defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program
or activity as respect to persons of a particular race, color, or national origin. 4

The fact that failure to follow Federal law, HUD regulations and its own
grievance procedure impacted exclusively African American residents supports a finding that
actions were not compliant with Title VI.

 

30 written statement specifying the purpose of the PHA entry delivered to the dwelling unit at least two days

before such entry shail be considered reasonable advance noti?cation," 24 CPR. 
3? 24 can. If no adults are present when PHA staff enters a unit, staff must leave a written
notice that includes the time. date and purpose for entering.
Public Occupancy Guidebook, 200 [2003).
Id.
34 24 can. 

 SUMMARY OF CONCERNS

A. Program Concern: Potential Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property

Acquisitions Policies Act Violations.

The URA applies to the relocation of persons from real property as a direct result of
acquisition, rehabilitation, or-demolition for a federally funded program or project.35 Based on
the evidence we have reviewed, we conclude that all of the tenants diSplaced from the Beacon
Homes property were moved so that the property could be demolished in furtherance of the
RAD transaction. While a determination of those tenants? eligibility to receive benefits under
the URA is beyond the sc0pe of this review, we have serious concerns that individuals who were
eligible did not receive benefits to which they were entitled. As such, this matter will be
referred to the HUD Regional Relocation Specialist for review.

B. Program Concern: Potential Violation of the RAD Notice.

Based on the evidence we have reviewed, we are concerned that LHA may have violated
some provisions of the RAD Notice, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. The RAD Notice requires that any relocation conducted in conjunction with a RAD
conversion comply with the URA.36

2. The Notice expressly prohibits the permanent involuntary displacement of tenants as the
result of a project?s conversion of assistance.? The 27 evictions we examined during the
course of our compliance review may be inconsistent with this RAD requirement.
Additionally, we have serious concerns that the tenants affected by conversion
have not been afforded their right to return to the converted project as is required by the
RAD Notice.38

Since these potential violations are beyond the scope of this review, we will refer these
matters to RAD senior management for review.

C. Title VI Finding.

Based on the foregoing, the Department has concluded that the Laurel Housing Authority
has failed in its obligation to administer its programs and activities in compliance with Title VI
of the Civil Rights of 1964 and that it has used excluded persons from participation in a federally
assisted programs on the basis of race in violation of 24 CFR and 24 CPR
and has used criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting
persons to discrimination on the basis of race in violation of 24 CFR 

 

35 See 42 Use. is 4601 e: seq).

3" see PIH Notice 2012-32, Section 1.4.A.3.
37 See PIH Notice 2012?32. Section 1.5.13.
38 See PIH Notice 2012-32, Section 1.6.02.

IV. CONCLUSION

As set forth in detail in Section 11 above, the Department?s investigation found that the
Laurel Housing Authority failed to comply with Federal law, HUD regulations and its own
grievance policy. This failure had a negative effect on African American tenants in
noncompliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of these findings, LHA
will immediately be placed on the civil rights threshold list and will be ineligible for Notices of
Funding Availability (NOFAs) and other funding opportunities provided by the Department and
ineligible for consideration of any future RAD applications until these matters are resolved to
satisfaction.

The Department would like to resolve these matters as soon as possible. Such resolution
will include the corrective actions necessary to resolve these findings. This resolution must also
address any and all damages resulting from the actions taken by LHA against the tenants listed in
Appendix I. This resolution must be reduced to a written Voluntary Compliance Agreement
(VCA) with a clear timetable for implementation. See 24 CPR. After you receive
this LOF, I will centact you to coordinate mutually convenient dates to negotiate the terms of the
VGA.

Please note that under the Freedom of Information Act, it may be necessary to release this
document and related correspondence and records upon a third party?s request. In the event the
Department receives such a request, we will protect, to the extent provided by law, personal
information, which, if released, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

The Department looks forward to a prompt resolution of this matter. If you have
questions, please contact me at 404?331?5001 or by email at Carlos.Osegueda@hud. gov.

Sincerely,



aw

Carlos Osegueda
FHEO Region IV Director
Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
cc:
Marcia Lewis, Acting Director Jackson HUB of Public and Indian Housing
Margaret Salazar, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Affordable Housing Preservation
Krista Mills, Director, FHEO Programs and Compliance Division, Region IV
Marilyn M. Moore?Lemons, FHEO Field Office Director, Mississippi

Appendix I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tenant Name Status Basis for Eviction Received Notice Received Notice
to Vacate Referencing
Informal
Hearing
Vanessa Evicted Unknown 
Ainsworth
Maranda Bruce Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
account
Eureeka Carr Evicted ?Chronically? delinquent 
account; informal hearing
denied in writing.
LaFrance Evicted Tampering with smoke 
Cooley detector
Shaquilla Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
Edward account
Totoro Evans Evicted ?suspected? 
marijuana/one strike
&?chronically? delinquent
account
Renee Hardy Evicted Relative with a bench 
warrant in apartment/one
strike
Robin Hasberry Evicted ?suspected? 
marijuana/one strike
Danval Jones Evicted tampering with smoke 
detector
Shonmeal Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
Lewis account
Lester Evicted Unknown 
McClellan
Benita Evicted ?suspected? 
McCullum marijuanafone strike
Lashebia Evicted marijuana in 
McGill apartment/one strike
Misty McLeod Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
account
Leroy McNairy Evicted Incarcerated extended 
period of time
Elizabeth Evicted Malcolm Love was 
Miller arrested running out of the

 

 

back of the tenant?s unit.
Love had an outstanding
bench warrant and tenant
was present during the
incident. One strike for
criminal activity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tenant Name Status Basis for Eviction Received Notice Received Notice
to Vacate Referencing
Informal
Hearing
Gregory Evicted Tampering with smoke 
Perryman detector
Swazilyn Evicted Boyfriend Mitch 
Pollock Washington crashed a car
into her apartment/one
strike lease violation for
criminal activity
Dorothy Evicted ?suspected? 
Quarells marijuanafone strike
Gloria Rogers Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
account
Quiana Shelby Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
account
Oshanna Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
Simmons account
Noetta Evicted Failed three housekeeping 
Straughn inspections
Taneshia Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
Turner account
Laco ya Ward Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 
account
Shilk Watkins Evicted ?suspected? 
marijuanafone strike
Vera Williams Evicted ?chronically? delinquent 

 

 

account