Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee
Major Publicly Assisted Housing Programs (1997)
In 1997, the program review committee completed a study focusing on major publicly assisted housing programs in Connecticut. Three primary agencies -- the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the quasi-public Connecticut Housing and Finance Authority, and the state agency administering housing, the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) -- finance and oversee public housing programs using federal, state, or bond funds. The three funding sources infuse hundreds of millions of dollars in capital to housing programs. The Department of Social Services (DSS) also has a housing role, overseeing the state-administered Section 8 program and the state-funded Rental Assistance Program (RAP).
Six of the 30 committee recommendations in the housing report were incorporated into legislation. The legislation did not pass during the 1998 session, but provisions of the report concerning consolidating or repealing some of DECD's statutory reporting requirements were passed in 1999 in P.A. 99-94. The vast majority of the recommendations were administrative, and both DECD and DSS have made some progress over the last three years in correcting some of the deficiencies program review found during the study. However, DECD continues to oppose proposals the committee made in some areas. These are noted in the table below.
In 2000, a new contractor was selected to operate DSS housing programs. The administrative transition is still underway. As a result, most of the progress made by the agency in complying with the committee's recommendations has slipped and implementation has been set back. Therefore, the committee recommends continuing compliance reports on DSS.
|
Summary of Compliance with Committee Recommendations |
||
|
Recommendation |
Status |
DECD Response |
|
DECD should make rehabilitation of existing housing a priority. |
Partial |
Since August 1997, $26 million has been spent on rehabilitation of state-assisted housing units (although $4.5 million of that was spent on demolition of Rice Heights per P.A. 98-176). The last allotments of that money were made by the State Bond Commission in December 2000. The allocations were: $1.5 million to New Britain; $2 million to Stamford; and approximately $2.4 million (ranging from $300,000 to almost $500,000) to six separate local housing authorities. |
|
DECD should develop a list of family obligations for tenants to sign in order to live in state-assisted housing. |
None |
DECD continues to oppose developing such a list. |
|
DECD should hire an additional staff person to monitor developer filings for affirmative action requirements. |
Partial |
The department has not hired any additional staff. DECD did contract with a law firm to conduct 54 close-out reviews of the civil rights component of the Small Cities community development block grant funds. DECD is currently securing the same firm to conduct 23 additional reviews. DECD also contracted with the Connecticut Fair Housing Center to conduct 12 training sessions on fair housing -- 500 people from various agencies, including DECD and DECD-funded agencies as well as lenders and real estate agents participated. |
|
By January 1, 1999, DECD should develop an asset management system, with specific indicators like vacancy rates, turnaround times, work-order information, and the like. |
None |
DECD does not anticipate making any progress toward implementing this recommendation in the next 12-24 months. DECD supports the proposal, but indicates it had to resolve major problems with housing authorities in Meriden, Hartford, New Britain and Stamford, leaving no time to work on the asset management system. |
|
DECD should include affordable private housing in its definition and inventory of "affordable housing." |
None |
DECD continues to oppose this proposal and does not intend to comply. |
|
Recommendation |
Status |
DSS Response |
|
DSS should monitor contractor Section 8 utilization rates and ensure a 95 percent rate is achieved. |
Partial - slipped in 2000 |
In 1999, DSS reported progress in achieving a 95 percent utilization rate. In 2000, DSS could not report on its progress, due to contractor changes still underway. |
|
DSS should direct its housing subcontractors to step up recertification efforts for RAP. |
Partial - slipped in 2000 |
The administrative transition of contractors has set back recertification efforts. |
|
DSS should purchase an automated system for operating Section 8 and RAP. |
Partial - slipped in 2000 |
DSS purchased an automated system that was subsequently found to be unsatisfactory. The new contractor has recommended a different system, which is in development. |
|
DSS and housing agencies should track and evaluate results of unit inspections. |
Partial - slipped in 2000 |
In 1999, DSS planned on using its new automated information system to track and report on inspections. However, as noted, the change in contractor has set back implementation of this recommendation. |
|
DSS should establish rent reasonableness procedures. |
None |
Last year DSS reported it would consider hiring a consultant to develop information for all areas of state. This was not further developed in 2000. |
|
DSS and housing agencies should check landlord history with local tax and building officials. |
Partial |
Local assessor offices are contacted re: landlord histories, but no further inquires are made. |