ELDERLY; HANDICAPPED; HOUSING (GENERAL); MENTAL HEALTH;

HOUSING - ELDERLY;

You asked for options the legislature could take for separating non-elderly people with disabilities, particularly those with a mental disability, and elderly people in state-assisted low-income senior housing projects. We have also included background on previous efforts to address this issue in Connecticut.

SUMMARY

Federal law and a Massachusetts law provide models for creating elderly only and senior preference facilities. Federal law allows a public housing authority (PHA) to apply to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requesting that a HUD-financed project be designated elderly only. A 1995 Massachusetts law established placement preference percentages that set a goal to limit to 13. 5% the amount of a state-assisted low-income senior housing project that can be occupied by non-elderly disabled individuals.

The General Assembly could (1) mirror federal law by enacting legislation allowing local PHAs to designate certain state-assisted senior housing, or portions of it, as elderly only or (2) create a preference system similar to Massachusetts’. (Connecticut law is silent on the matter. )

Tensions between elderly and non-elderly disabled people in Connecticut projects have existed for several years (attachment 1 is a copy of a 1994 OLR report on the topic). In 1997, a working group studied the issue of integrating elderly and disabled people living in senior housing. The group found that while conflict existed in some public housing facilities, it was not widespread and could be resolved without capping the number of disabled units at that time, according to OLR report 98-R-0124 (see attachment 2).

Legislation enacted in 1998 required the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to give grants to housing authorities, municipal developers, and nonprofit corporations operating elderly housing to hire service coordinators to assist residents in maintaining independent living. It also required creation of a statewide electronic database on the availability of housing accessible to, or adaptable for use by, people with disabilities.

State law also encourages the DECD commissioner to provide grants, within available appropriations, for expanding independent living opportunities (small, noninstitutionalized living units) for low- and moderate-income people with disabilities (CGS § 8-119t). This program has not been funded, according to DECD’s Mike Santoro.

MODEL APPROACHES

HUD allows PHAs to request that a HUD financed project be designated elderly only. Massachusetts law established placement preference percentages for the amount of a state-assisted senior housing project that can be occupied by non-elderly disabled individuals.

HUD

Since 1992, federal law has allowed public housing authorities to designate a project or portion of a project as elderly only or disabled only (42 USC § 1437e; 24 CFR § 945). A PHA that wants such a designation must (1) develop a designated housing allocation plan that is consistent with HUD guidelines (a housing plan must justify the need to designate and ensure that the affordable housing needs of the whole community would be met) and (2) submit it to HUD for review, according to HUD’s website. (No plan is required to maintain a mixed population, i. e. , both elderly and disabled. )

According to HUD, lifestyle differences and other tensions between elderly and non-elderly public housing residents were prevalent in the early 1990s, and a 1990 ruling in Cason v. Rochester Housing Authority, 748 F. Supp. 1002 (W. D. N. Y. 1990), highlighted the issues. (The Federal Court found that the Rochester Housing Authority had discriminated against three women with disabilities using HUD “independent living” guidelines, which HUD subsequently changed), according to HUD’s History of Designated Housing.

PHA professional organizations sought a solution for resolving issues between the elderly and young disabled people, according to HUD, and in 1992 Congress enacted the Cranston-Gonzalez Affordable Housing Act. HUD issued regulations in 1994 that it reports were unpopular with PHAs, which considered the law and rules complicated.

The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act, which took effect in 1996, was designed to make the designation process easier. It superseded the 1992 act. Attachment 3 is a copy of the HUD history and a list of HUD requirements (from a 1997 notice that is still valid) for designation.

Massachusetts

A 1995 Massachusetts law, commonly referred to as the “mixed population” law, applies to state-funded elderly housing projects, which, like Connecticut's, are opened to elderly people and younger people with disabilities. The law sets goals for setting aside portions of the units in these projects for the two groups (i. e. , 86. 5% for elderly and 13. 5% for people with disabilities) and provides funds for (1) on-site coordinators to help both groups resolve problems and better access services, (2) rent subsidies to help people with disabilities afford privately owned accessible units, and (3) a statewide registry of accessible units to help people find housing (Mass. Gen. Law Ann. Ch 121B Sec. 39).

The law also required:

1. stricter applicant screening, including criminal background checks;

2. service coordinators to assist both the elderly and non-elderly in obtaining the necessary services;

3. 800 new rent vouchers for disabled people to rent privately owned accessible units; and

4. streamlining the eviction process to enable housing authorities to remove troublesome tenants more quickly.

The mixed population law was enacted in response to years of complaints from elderly tenants and housing authority operators about the growing number of non-elderly disabled residents moving into elderly housing and the rising tensions between the two groups.

Massachusetts’ Placement Preferences. The law requires housing authorities to use placement preferences to reach a specific proportion between elderly and non-elderly disabled tenants. The goal is to rent 86. 5% of the units to elderly people (those over 60) with the remaining 13. 5% going to those with disabilities.

If the percentage of elderly households in a project is below 86. 5%, the authority must select elderly applicants from its waiting list until the goal is reached. If there are no elderly applicants, then the authority must select “near elderly” applicants, ages 50-59, in the interim. If no near elderly are on the list, authorities select non-elderly disabled applicants.

If the percentage of non-elderly disabled households is below 13. 5%, then the authority must give half of its openings to such applicants until it reaches the goal (the other half going to elderly people). The law forbids evicting any lawful residents in order to reach the goal. Attachment 4 is a copy of the law.

Evaluation of Models

Federal law. A November 1998 U. S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report, “Assisted Housing – Occupancy Restrictions on Persons with Disabilities,” reported that the majority of elderly housing projects had not used the 1992 law allowing elderly-only designations to restrict the number of people with disabilities in projects. In most of the elderly housing projects at the time, elderly people occupied 90% of units and non-elderly people with disabilities occupied 8% overall (percentages that had been steady since the law’s enactment in 1992, the report noted).

Disabilities advocates stated in reaction to GAO’s findings that few projects used the 1992 act to limit the number of disabled people because many projects were already imposing such restrictions, possibly illegally, before the act passed. Advocates said that such practices occurred because of discrimination against people with disabilities, ignorance of the law, and HUD’s occupancy regulations, according to the report. Attachment 5 is a copy of the GAO report.

Massachusetts. Several Massachusetts housing officials reported that its law has been useful in decreasing tension between seniors and non-elderly disabled. But some advocates for people with disabilities say in parts of Massachusetts, like Boston, there is not enough housing to accommodate all those in need, and the law’s placement preferences make it more difficult for disabled people to find housing in these areas. Attachment 6 is a copy of OLR report 2002-R-0133, with more information about Massachusetts’ experience with the law.

OPTIONS FOR CONNECTICUT

The General Assembly could enact a law similar to HUD’s that would allow a town’s PHA to designate a state-assisted senior housing project as elderly only (or disabled only). Such a law could require towns to provide the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA), which acquired senior housing and other state-assisted projects from DECD in 2003, with a plan (a requirement of which could be including strategies for housing people with disabilities) and to meet certain guidelines before the designation is approved. In towns with projects approved for an elderly only designation, CHFA could seek to finance more housing for non-elderly people with disabilities, including projects operated by PHAs.

To limit funding and study the impact of allowing elderly only designations, the legislation could create a pilot program in certain towns. Connecticut has 92 state-assisted senior housing projects that consist of 6,809 units, according to the CHFA’s legislative liaison, Peg Fitzgerald.

Massachusetts’ law attempts to ensure that a state-assisted senior housing project does not become disproportionately occupied by younger disabled people. Connecticut could adopt a law similar to that of Massachusetts. But doing so could inadvertently result in more people with disabilities living in a particular project or town. For example, in East Windsor, the percentage of non-elderly disabled people in senior housing is below Massachusetts’ 13. 5% target.

Connecticut could instead enact legislation with a target percentage less than Massachusetts’ in conjunction with efforts to create more supportive housing. A variation on the option could be including the ability to further decrease the percentage (moving toward elderly only) based on the amount of housing for young disabled people that a town creates (i. e. , a sliding scale).

Increasing the state’s efforts to create supportive housing is another option, especially if tensions between elderly and non-elderly disabled people tend to be with people who are mentally ill or dually diagnosed (i. e. , people with mental disabilities who also are diagnosed with drug or alcohol addiction), as has been reported anecdotally. The focus of this option would be finding these individuals supportive housing while allowing non-elderly disabled individuals with physical handicaps to fill vacancies in senior housing.

Additionally, Connecticut has already enacted legislation similar to aspects of Massachusetts’ law (e. g. , resident service coordinators and a state-wide database). Increasing funding for additional coordinators and funding additional rental certificates for private rentals could enhance existing efforts.

Another possibility, building on existing law, would be to allow a PHA to evict people based on reasons currently allowable for rejecting an applicant seeking state-assisted senior housing during the screening process (e. g. , an applicant may be denied housing based on alcohol abuse or a recent history of disruptive or dangerous behavior that endangers others (CGS § 8-116c)). This could further clarify what non-compliance means as grounds for eviction, in addition to current law, which includes (as illegal conduct or serious nuisance as grounds for eviction), assaulting the landlord or other tenants; using the premises for gambling or prostitution; or using it to sell drugs (CGS §§ 47a-15 and -31).

EFFORTS IN CONNECTICUT

Background

In 1963, the legislature amended the definition qualifying elderly low-income individuals to live in state-assisted senior housing to include anyone under age 65 who was certified as totally disabled by the Social Security Agency (CGS § 8-113a). (A 1991 amendment added those certified as totally disabled by other federal agencies. )

According to Ivan Pour, president of the Connecticut chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, in the late 1960’s, about 5% of the units in state-assisted senior housing projects were dedicated to people with disabilities, most of whom tended to be physically disabled. But as more individuals with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities entered the public housing stream due to deinstitutionalization and a lack of supportive housing, the number of non-elderly disabled people has increased significantly, Pour said.

1997 Interim Working Group

A working group consisting of members of the Select Committees on Housing and Aging met during the interim in 1997 to study the issue of integrating elderly and disabled people who dwell in senior housing. The groups found that conflict existed in public housing facilities shared by the elderly and disabled non-elderly, but the problem was not widespread and could be resolved without capping the number of disabled units at that time. It also found that the elderly residents who were threatened, intimidated, frightened, inconvenienced, or made uncomfortable by a younger person’s actions or gestures should receive immediate help from the housing authority officials to protect their health and well-being, among other things.

1998 Legislation

In 1998, a new law required DECD to give grants to housing authorities, municipal developers, and nonprofit corporations operating elderly housing to hire service coordinators to assist residents in maintaining independent living. It allowed the grants to be used to assess residents' individual needs, maintain regular contact with the

residents, monitor support services delivery, advocate changes in services, and provide mediation and conflict resolution. The law also required creation of a statewide electronic database on availability of housing accessible to, or adaptable for use by, people with disabilities (CGS §§ 8-114d and 8-119x).

For FY 2003-04, funding for the coordinators and database is listed as $ 617,654 for both items, DECD’s Santoro reported. Sixteen projects (including East Hartford, but not East Windsor) have received funding for a resident service coordinator thus far in FY 2003-04, according to DECD.

Handicapped-Accessible Housing. DECD established a statewide electronic database on the availability of handicapped-accessible or adaptable housing units. The database is coordinated by a contractor, Coop Initiatives Inc. , according to Santoro. The law required DECD to consult with the Department of Social Services, state building inspector, Office of Protection and Advocacy, Department of Information Technology, and Office of Policy and Management.

Supportive Housing

The Corporation for Supportive Housing and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) started a major new supportive housing project called the Supportive Housing Pilots Initiative in 1998. The goal was to create 600 new service-supported housing units for individuals and families with mental illness or chemical dependency.

In 2000, the legislature appropriated $ 2. 1 million to DMHAS for Phase I of the program to provide support services to 240 families and individuals. DMHAS selected 50 providers statewide to receive the funds, many of which used the state commitment of service funds to leverage federal HUD rent subsidies. HUD awarded over $ 6 million in rent and operating subsidies for participants through its Continuum of Care and Mainstream Section 8 programs. Most of the housing strategies in phase I took advantage of existing apartments in the private marketplace, according to OLR report 2002-R-0671. Attachment 7 is a copy of the report.

According to Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness website, the supportive Housing Pilots Initiative is currently creating over 650 units.

JH: ts