Policy Archives

Senate agrees with most House funding levels for rural housing programs

November 10, 2020/in Policy

In a draft bill released on November 10, 2020, the Senate proposes to fund most rural housing programs in fiscal year 2021 at the same levels supported by the House. The fiscal year started on October 1 and the federal government has been operating under a continuing resolution that provides funding through December 11. The House passed appropriations bills in July but the Senate released all 12 of its proposed measures for the first time on November 10. The Senate is not expected to pursue the standard process of marking up and voting on its bills; instead, they establish starting positions for negotiations on a final omnibus bill that would fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year.

Like the House, the Senate rejected most of the Trump Administration’s budget proposals for the USDA rural housing programs and would maintain most of them at FY20 levels. There are differences, however, for Section 521 Rental Assistance (RA) and rental preservation efforts.

The House and Senate both provide $1.410 billion for RA, the amount requested by the Administration. The House adheres to the budget request and includes $40 million for Section 542 vouchers within the RA total. The Senate proposes to provide $34 million for vouchers separately, but still uses the $1.410 billion total for RA.

Both the House and Senate offer less than the $40 million requested by the Administration for the Multifamily Preservation and Revitalization (MPR) program. The House provides $30 million, the Senate $28 million. The Senate also includes $2 million for preservation-related technical assistance.

The House and Senate bills both continue the requirement for 10 percent of most USDA Rural Development programs to be directed to persistent poverty counties, those where the poverty rate has exceeded 20 percent for at least 30 years.

USDA Rural Dev. Prog. (dollars in millions)	FY19 Final Approp.	FY20 Final Approp.	FY21 Admin. Budget	FY21 House Bill	FY21 Senate Bill
502 Single Fam. Direct Self-Help setaside*	$1,000 5*	$1,000 5*	0 0	$1,000 5*	$1,000 5*
502 Single Family Guar.	24,000	24,000	24,000	24,000	24,000
504 VLI Repair Loans	28	28	0	28	28
504 VLI Repair Grants	30	30	30	30	30
515 Rental Hsg. Direct Lns.	40	40	0	40	40
514 Farm Labor Hsg. Lns.	27.5	28	0	28	28
516 Farm Labor Hsg. Grts.	10	10	0	10	10
521 Rental Assistance	1,331.4	1,375	1,410**	1,410**	1,410
523 Self-Help TA	30	31	0	31	31
533 Hsg. Prsrv. Grants	15	15	15	15	15
538 Rental Hsg. Guar.	230	230	230	230	230
Rental Prsrv. Demo. (MPR)	24.5	28	40	30	28
542 Rural Hsg. Vouchers	27	32	40**	40**	34
Rural Cmnty. Dev’t Init.	6	6	0	6	6
Rental Prsrv. TA	1	1	0	0	2

* For the self-help setaside in Section 502 direct, the figures in the table represent budget authority, not program levels.
** The budget and the FY21 House bill would separate vouchers from MPR and move them into the Rental Assistance account. The Senate bill would not.

In Response to the Senate Budget Committee Majority Staff’s Report on Housing Program Consolidation

October 28, 2020/in Policy

For millions of low-income rural Americans, the USDA rural housing programs have provided the only path to affordable homeownership and reliable rental options in our nation’s smallest towns and rural regions. In defense of these communities, the Housing Assistance Council stands firmly opposed to the call for housing program consolidation in the Senate Budget Committee’s Majority Staff Report entitled “Housing Programs: The Need for One Roof.” Released in October 2020, following a hearing earlier in the fall on the same topic, this report takes the admirable goal of program streamlining to a counterproductive extreme.

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) at USDA is the only federal agency that focuses solely on affordable housing in rural America. Nearly 30 percent of all rural households are cost burdened – meaning that they pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income towards either rent or a mortgage. And when looking just at rural renters, the percent of cost burdened households is nearly 50 percent. The RHS programs are laser-focused on these families. They are designed to fill in the gaps in rural housing and rental markets. For example, to be eligible for the USDA single family home loan programs, an applicant must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere at reasonable rates and terms. Applicants are also permitted to purchase a home with little to no down payment, with a reduced interest rate and a term of over 30 years. These unique and critical factors alone indicate that the RHS programs are not duplicative of other programs at the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

The Budget Committee’s report notes that there is bipartisan agreement that the system of federal housing programs needs improvement. We agree. There is much work to be done to both streamline and fully fund our nation’s affordable housing system. Wholesale consolidation, however, is not the answer for our rural communities – as HAC has long maintained. Shoehorning rural places into urban models and programs has left a legacy of hollowing out in our most remote and underserved communities – and the recommendations in this report would inadvertently continue that trend.

HAC’s comments to the FHFA aim to improve Duty to Serve program

October 26, 2020/in Federal Register Comments Duty to Serve

The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) offered comments on Duty to Serve as the Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) react to the housing and economic challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and work to plan for the future of Duty to Serve. Our country is facing an unprecedented health and economic challenge, and Duty to Serve remains critically important to help rural areas weather the storm.

HAC’s comments covered all three Duty to Serve markets (rural housing, manufactured housing, and affordable housing preservation) and called for:

More transparent data availability so that stakeholders can better understand Duty to Serve progress and areas for improvement.
Continued investment in building partnerships with existing housing providers including local, regional and national nonprofits; tribes; and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) who already work in high-need communities,
More ambitious loan purchase goals in all three Duty to Serve markets.

HAC firmly sees Duty to Serve as a social justice issue. In an era in which racial and economic inequities are top-of-the-fold news stories, we can use Duty to Serve to go past minimum promised levels of loan purchase and try to fundamentally shift the lives of Black, Hispanic, Indigenous and persistently poor families.

Click here to read HAC’s full comment letter.

HAC asks HUD to protect transgender people

September 22, 2020/in Policy

The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) submitted comments on September 22, 2020 opposing the proposed regulation titled “Making Admission or Placement Determinations Based on Sex,” issued recently by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD’s proposal would allow homeless shelters and some other facilities with HUD funding to discriminate against transgender or gender-nonconforming people by treating them according to the gender they were assigned at birth rather than the gender with which they identify. As HAC’s comments explain, this policy would allow a shelter – or every shelter – to refuse to admit people who do not fit stereotypes of male or female. Legitimizing discrimination is not acceptable at any time, and it is particularly cruel now when the U.S. housing and homelessness crisis has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. HAC urges HUD to reject the proposed rule.

HAC Condemns Weak Fair Housing Rule

August 7, 2020/in Policy

The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) strongly opposes the dismantling of the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule. A new Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulation, announced in July and published in the Federal Register on August 7, willfully overlooks the history of racist housing policies that has created deep and persistent segregation in our country – in rural places, cities and suburbs – and ignores our moral obligation to correct segregation and its harmful effects.

The 2015 AFFH rule required that communities receiving federal subsidies must analyze racial segregation in housing and submit plans to reverse such trends. Even before this latest move to entirely dismantle AFFH, HUD’s current leadership weakened that regulation. The newest version, however, is essentially a full rollback of AFFH, asking local governments merely to “take any action that is rationally related to promoting one or more attributes of fair housing.”

This change contravenes the Fair Housing Act of 1968 – and it is especially egregious at this point in history, when Americans are finally recognizing the damage caused by our society’s racial inequities. Every family deserves a safe, affordable home in an inclusive community. HAC calls on HUD and all Americans to work together to end the cycle of racially segregated and under-resourced communities, and to protect and advance the intent of the Fair Housing Act.

HAC has previously submitted comments supporting the creation of the 2015 AFFH rule and, later, opposing its rollback:

Thank you for supporting rural housing programs

July 23, 2020/in Policy

HAC would like to thank the more than 100 organizations who signed on in support of rural housing’s inclusion in the next COVID-19 relief package! We value and appreciate your partnership. To view the final letter, click here.

Rural communities have been deeply impacted by coronavirus outbreaks and related economic challenges. Having access to a safe, healthy and affordable home is foundational to weathering the storm of this pandemic, and added funding for USDA’s Rural Housing Service programs will be important to ensuring that rural residents aren’t left behind. Congress is currently working to negotiate the next COVID-19 relief package, and we are hopeful that Congressional leaders will prioritize the need for rural housing funding in that effort.

HAC urges support of rural housing programs in Covid-19 relief efforts

July 15, 2020/in Advocacy, Coronavirus, Coronavirus In Rural America, Policy Coronavirus, Federal Funding

HAC would like to thank all of the organizations that expressed their support of rural housing programs!

101

Organizations

Congress is currently working to negotiate a fourth COVID-19 relief package. Rural housing programs have yet to receive any supplemental funding to address this growing crisis in small towns and rural communities. HAC is circulating a sign-on letter to Congressional leadership in support of including rural housing funding in the next relief package. You can view the text of the letter here. As a valued friend of HAC, we hope that you will add your organization’s name to this effort.

If you have any questions, please reach out to HAC’s Government Relations Manager, Samantha Booth, at samantha@ruralhome.org. The deadline to sign on is Wednesday, July 22nd. We appreciate your help.

FY21 USDA Appropriations Process Moves to House Floor

July 14, 2020/in Policy

UPDATED July 14, 2020 – The House of Representatives is expected to consider the Agriculture funding measure, H.R. 7610, during the week of July 20. It will be part of a “minibus” package of four appropriations bills, along with the State, Interior and Veterans Affairs Departments. The House Appropriations Committee approved the Ag bill on July 9.

July 7, 2020 – On July 6, 2020 the House Subcommittee on USDA Appropriations approved a funding bill for fiscal year 2021, which begins October 1, 2020. The bill keeps most rural housing programs at their FY20 funding levels, with increases for Section 521 Rental Assistance and Section 542 vouchers requested in the Administration’s budget. There is no funding for the rental preservation technical assistance program.

The full House Appropriations Committee will mark up the bill on July 9 and then it can proceed to a vote in the House itself. The Senate has not yet begun work on FY21 appropriations and will not meet again until July 20.

The bill would make two changes in language related to rental housing preservation. First, vouchers would be available for tenants in properties whose mortgages are “prepaid or otherwise paid off” after September 30, 2005. Past appropriations have limited vouchers to properties “prepaid” after that date and have excluded tenants in properties where mortgages have matured or been foreclosed upon.

Second, the bill adopts a shift proposed in the Administration’s budget. In past years, appropriations bills have put the MPR rental preservation program and vouchers in a single pool of money. In practice, this has meant MPR funds have been used to fill shortfalls in voucher funding. This House bill moves the voucher program into the Rental Assistance account, separating it from MPR.

The bill includes last year’s language allowing property owners to request 20-year terms for Rental Assistance contracts. It also continues incentives for nonprofits to purchase and preserve properties, including a return on investment and an asset management fee of up to $7,500 per property.

USDA Rural Development Appropriations

USDA Rural Dev. Prog. (dollars in millions)	FY19 Final Approp.	FY20 Admin. Budget	FY20 Final Approp.	FY21 Admin. Budget	FY21 House Bill
502 Single Fam. Direct Self-Help setaside*	$1,000 5*	0 0	$1,000 5*	0 0	$1,000 5*
502 Single Family Guar.	24,000	24,000	24,000	24,000	24,000
504 VLI Repair Loans	28	0	28	0	28
504 VLI Repair Grants	30	0	30	30	30
515 Rental Hsg. Direct Lns.	40	0	40	0	40
514 Farm Labor Hsg. Lns.	27.5	0	28	0	30
516 Farm Labor Hsg. Grts.	10	0	10	0	10
521 Rental Assistance	1,331.4	1,335**	1,375	1,410**	1,410**
523 Self-Help TA	30	0	31	0	31
533 Hsg. Prsrv. Grants	15	0	15	15	15
538 Rental Hsg. Guar.	230	250	230	230	230
Rental Prsrv. Demo. (MPR)	24.5	0	28	40	30
542 Rural Hsg. Vouchers	27	32**	32	40**	40**
Rural Cmnty. Dev’t Init.	6	0	6	0	6
Rental Prsrv. TA	1	0	1	0	0

* For the self-help setaside in Section 502 direct, the figures in the table represent budget authority, not program levels.
** The budget and the FY21 House bill would separate vouchers from MPR and move them into the Rental Assistance account.

HAC’s Response to CRA Modernization Plan

April 9, 2020/in Federal Register Comments Community Reinvestment Act

The Housing Assistance Council submitted comments to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on their proposal to modernize the Community Reinvestment Act.

For numerous reasons, The Housing Assistance Council does not support the OCC and FDIC’s proposal. HAC appreciates efforts and ideas in the plan to improve CRA’s reach and effectiveness in rural communities. These proposed improvements, however, are far outweighed by a considerable number of ill-conceived and unsubstantiated aspects of the plan that run counter to the intent, value, and effectiveness of CRA. Furthermore, the Housing Assistance Council is disappointed that the OCC and FDIC did not include the Federal Reserve as part of this proposal. Uniform implementation and oversight is critical for an effort as far reaching and important as CRA. Additionally, with the health and economic catastrophe created by the COVID-19 pandemic, there should be an indefinite suspension of the CRA comment period. The comment period deadline, which was initially proposed for only 60 days, should have been at least 120 days even under the best of circumstances.

The Housing Assistance Council unequivocally supports the Community Reinvestment Act and what it stands for. In any effort to modernize or modify CRA, it is imperative to fully consider the impact of those modifications and to ensure that CRA continues to build upon its unparalleled legacy of expanding access to financial products and services. HAC believes CRA can be modernized and improved, but it is important to acknowledge that CRA has been responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in capital investments to underserved communities. Without CRA, many communities would lack access to capital, revitalization efforts would have not occurred, and disinvestment would be more common. CRA should build upon its established platform for improving communities’ access to credit, not jeopardize the ethos, intent, and effectiveness of this vital institution.

HAC Opposes Fair Housing Rule Change

March 17, 2020/in Policy

HAC has taken a firm stance against the Administration’s proposed change to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulations. In comments submitted on March 16, 2020, HAC wrote, in part:

The definition [of affirmatively furthering fair housing] now proposed – “acting in a manner consistent with reducing obstacles within the participant’s sphere of influence to providing fair housing choice” – asks very little. It omits any vision of a truly fair community, contemplating only the actions that can be taken by a single entity without any far-reaching goals. Taken with the rest of the proposal’s weakened provisions, this definition inappropriately downgrades the importance of AFFH activities. . . .
HUD proposes to measure whether a jurisdiction is affirmatively furthering fair housing by examining its lack of adjudicated fair housing violations, the availability of affordable housing and the availability of affordable housing in decent condition. Yet none of these is a determinant of fair housing choice.

HAC’s full comments are here and the complete comment docket is here.