[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55324-55327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28080]



[[Page 55323]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Department of Housing and Urban Development





_______________________________________________________________________



24 CFR Part 3500, et al.



Strengthening the Role of Fathers in Public Housing Families; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 55324]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Parts 5, 960, 964, 984, and 990

[Docket No. FR-4087-A-03]
RIN 2577-AB68


Strengthening the Role of Fathers in Public Housing Families

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 
Housing, HUD.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; Notice of withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the subject of ``Strengthening the Role of 
Fathers in Public Housing Families'' on July 30, 1996 (61 FR 39812), 
with a 45-day comment period. The ANPRM invited public comments on 
measures, practices, and authorizations to local public housing 
agencies in support of efforts to encourage absentee parents, 
especially but not necessarily limited to absentee fathers, to play a 
more responsible social and economic role in the lives of families in 
PHA-owned or assisted developments. Upon review of comments received in 
response to that ANPRM, the Department has determined that it is 
unnecessary to go forward with a regulatory change at this point, but 
that the purposes described in the ANPRM and in this Notice would be 
best served by proceeding with the development of less formal guidance 
material, described below.

DATES: The ANPRM on the subject of ``Strengthening the Role of Fathers 
in Public Housing Families,'' published on July 30, 1996 at 61 FR 39812 
is withdrawn as of October 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Trebelhorn, Technical 
Assistance and Planning Division, HUD, Room 4236, 451 Seventh Street 
SW, Washington, DC 20410-5000, telephone (202) 708-3642 (this is not a 
toll-free number). A telecommunications device for hearing- and speech-
impaired persons (TTY) is available at 1-800-877-8339 (Federal 
Information Relay Services). (This is a toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) on the subject of ``Strengthening the Role of Fathers in Public 
Housing Families'' on July 30, 1996 (61 FR 39812), with a 45-day 
comment period. HUD received comments from 32 entities, most of which 
were State or local housing agencies, and the substance of those 
comments is summarized below. In addition to comments received in 
response to the ANPRM, HUD convened a roundtable discussion on this 
subject in early September 1996, in which knowledgeable housing 
professionals and academics shared their thinking on measures that 
would encourage more responsible roles for fathers, and that would 
facilitate reuniting public housing families.
    The comments on the ANPRM and comments and observations from the 
roundtable generally suggest that a formal rulemaking might be 
unnecessary, and in the absence of a compelling need for regulatory 
action, the Department has determined not to proceed with publication 
of a Proposed Rule at this time. Therefore, consistent with the 
majority of the comments on the ANPRM and the draft proposed rule, and 
with the recommendations of the roundtable, HUD will sponsor 
development of a ``best practices'' guidebook or source book for use in 
local fatherhood initiatives. HUD, or a contractor under HUD 
supervision, will visit a substantial number of sites--probably 12 to 
15 locations beginning with and in addition to the known programs in 
Baltimore and Hartford--to gather information on best practices, 
procedures, attributes, and similar program elements or components of 
local programs compatible with the Department's goal of strengthening 
the role of fathers in public housing families.
    Based on information gathered in the course of the site visits, 
information developed from the roundtable and comments on the ANPRM, 
and any other information that becomes available, HUD will develop a 
guidebook or source book of materials for PHA managers planning a 
fatherhood initiative. The materials in this guide or source book will 
emphasize ``how- to'' information on program modules or components that 
can be replicated, as opposed to narrative descriptions or case 
studies; case studies are expected to be used for illustrative 
purposes, but are not to be the principal focus of the research project 
or the resulting guide or source book.
    Using inputs from the roundtable and the best practices study, HUD 
will use contracted resources to develop an Implementation Guide and a 
training package for use by PHAs electing to develop and implement a 
``fatherhood initiative.''
    The Guide would be a compendium of current thinking, reflecting but 
not duplicating the best practices material referenced above, that 
would be useful to housing authorities in initiating a local program to 
encourage or facilitate fathers' playing a more positive and 
responsible role in public housing families and communities. The 
training and implementation component is expected to include a short 
video to introduce HUD's interest in strengthening the role of fathers 
in public housing families, suitable for use with tenant groups and HUD 
field office staff as well as PHA personnel. It will also include 
detailed lesson plans and training materials for program managers at 
the PHA and project-site levels.

II. HUD Responses to Public Comments on the ANPRM

    In drafting the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, HUD assumed 
an initial goal of reuniting families and bringing absent fathers back 
into their children's homes. Responses to the ANPRM and explicit 
comments in HUD's roundtable suggest that the ANPRM blurred necessary 
distinctions among several important goals. These include, at least, 
(1) facilitating the return of absentee fathers to their families; (2) 
encouraging men who are living intermittently or clandestinely with 
their public housing families to come forward and assert a responsible 
social and financial role; (3) assuring that estranged parents accept 
financial responsibility for their children in public housing; and (4) 
making it possible for absentee fathers to connect or re-connect with 
their children in public housing communities.
    By subsuming these (and probably other) reasonable goals under a 
general statement of support for ``re-uniting families,'' the ANPRM 
assumed an active PHA role in areas and issues that generally are 
beyond the authority and the capacity of local housing agencies. HUD 
recognizes that the program outlined in the ANPRM required considerable 
refinement. The Department recognizes that many of the activities that 
would go into a local program for strengthening the role of fathers and 
encouraging fathers to play responsible roles in their children's 
growth and development fall more appropriately within the capacity and 
responsibility of social service agencies outside the housing 
authority.
    Therefore, any further initiative in this area--including the 
proposed best practices guide and implementation package--will 
necessarily place less emphasis on a presumed role for a housing 
authority. This Notice identifies

[[Page 55325]]

PHA actions or activities already authorized in statute and/or 
regulation that can be employed to further the goals described in the 
ANPRM. The proposed best practices guidebook will address additional 
measures that can be undertaken by a PHA and/or another service agency 
or contractor, and the implications of such measures for PHA 
management, including financial management.
    The ANPRM invited comments on several specific items, and most 
respondents commented on most of those elements. Those comments are 
summarized, under the subject area heading of the ANPRM that is 
addressed by the comment, as follows:
    1. To the extent that it may be necessary to encourage responsible 
behavior by an absent parent, HAs would be encouraged, but not 
necessarily required, to:
    a. Provide a priority for transfer among HA properties;
    Summary: The vast majority of respondents pointed out that PHAs 
already have the latitude to permit, authorize, or require transfers 
among their properties, and that such policies are spelled out in 
tenant selection and assignment plans; no further regulation should be 
necessary.
    Response: HUD accepts these comments, and acknowledges that 
transfer policies are best left to local decision-making. HUD will 
continue to examine the desirability or practicality of including in a 
transfer policy explicit recognition of requested transfers that would 
result in a family's better access to day care, or more convenient 
access to employment or job training, especially in cases involving a 
returning parent.
    b. Offer a priority for a Section 8 certificate or voucher 
(consistent with the principles of the Family Unification program);
    Summary: Most respondents were opposed to Federal preferences in 
any guise, including this one. Several comments suggested that a 
preference, especially a new preference, was unfair to applicants 
already on waiting lists, some for several years. Other comments made 
the point that offering public housing residents a priority for Section 
8 placement creates vacancies in public housing.
    Response: HUD accepts these criticisms, and does not plan to 
emphasize use of tenant selection preferences to further the goals 
described in the ANPRM.
    c. Exempt from rent determinations the incremental income of the 
returning parent for a period of up to three years without adverse 
effect on the HA's eligibility for operating subsidy under the PFS.
    Summary: Income disregards, rent forgiveness, and rent credits 
elicited more comment than almost any other part of the ANPRM. Only two 
respondents--both state housing agencies--opposed incentives of this 
kind, and several respondents recommended expansion of PHAs' latitude 
to disregard incremental income from a new job, income from a second 
job or second wage-earner (whether a new family member or not), or any 
earned income.
    Response: Under section 402 of the 1996 Continuing Resolution, PHAs 
are permitted to adopt optional earned income deductions in determining 
adjusted income (but are not eligible for commensurate increases in 
eligibility for operating subsidy); this provision was extended in 
section 201 of the Department's 1997 Appropriations Act and is in 
effect at least through September 30, 1997 pending additional 
legislation.
    In addition, the Department's recently-published Optional Earned 
Income Exclusions Final Rule, published May 5, 1997 (62 FR 24334), 
permits PHAs to adopt an exclusion for earned income; PFS Operating 
Subsidy will not increase to cover rental income reductions resulting 
from such exclusions, but will allow a PHA that achieves net increases 
in rents from earned income to maintain eligibility for subsidy up to 
an amount equal to the PFS operating subsidy shortfall (see also the 
Interim Rule on Performance Funding System--Incentives, published in 
the Federal Register on September 30, 1996 61 FR 51178).
    2. To obtain any benefits or incentives offered by an HA program, a 
returning parent would be required to enter into a formal agreement or 
contract, binding him or her to comply with the requirements of the HA 
lease and to make and honor commitments to family members and to the HA 
community. HUD requested public comments on the nature of such an 
agreement, and on the range of obligations that could reasonably be 
demanded of a returning parent. Should HUD create a model form of 
agreement for this purpose? Are there certain minimum requirements that 
HUD could itemize, and permit HAs to make additions to reflect local 
interests? Or should HAs be given maximum latitude to develop their own 
standards and agreements? 
    Summary: Responses to this item were nearly as varied as comments 
on income disregards, ranging from specific recommendations for 
contract language, to suggestions that all the requirements for 
positive parental behavior are already written into marriage vows and 
lawful marriage ought to be a major goal of fatherhood initiatives.
    Response: HUD's first conclusion is that the ANPRM was too narrowly 
focused to have introduced this subject as a contract between the PHA 
and a returning parent/father. As was correctly pointed out in the 
comments, the PHA already has a lease with the subject family, and if a 
returning father joins that household, he becomes subject to that 
lease. If there is another agreement, securing additional rights or 
privileges beyond those of the leasehold, that agreement would be 
between the program participant--the returning parent, presumably--and 
the service agency managing the fatherhood program. That service agency 
may or may not be a PHA; experiences related at HUD's roundtable 
suggested that in many cases, if not most often, the service agency 
would not be a PHA, but a wholly separate community services entity 
whose clientele could include PHA families but would not be limited to 
PHA families. The substance and the enforcement of any such additional 
agreement, and the range of benefits secured by the agreement--
employment, employment counseling, job training, behavior counseling--
would be entirely between the signatories; neither HUD nor the PHA need 
necessarily be involved in that agreement.
    HUD anticipates that the ``best practices'' study will develop a 
variety of agreements and components of agreements from which service 
providers, including any PHAs that elect to manage their own fatherhood 
initiative, can develop agreements suited to their specific situations.
    A second major observation is that, particularly in the context of 
returning parents and re-uniting families, agreements between the 
absentee parent and the service agency are necessarily secondary to an 
agreement between the public housing leaseholder and the absentee 
parent. If the parent or grandparent is living in public housing with 
the children, then as a practical matter, that person will exert far 
more influence and control than the PHA or the service agency over the 
terms under which the absentee parent establishes or re-establishes a 
relationship with the children.
    This observation also responds to several comments to the effect 
that restoring an absent parent to a household is not necessarily a 
good idea; sometimes the best resolution is for the absentee to remain 
absent. HUD's goal in fostering local fatherhood

[[Page 55326]]

initiatives is to facilitate plans that will enable absentee parents, 
especially fathers, to establish or re-establish positive social and/or 
economic links with their children, but HUD also recognizes that any 
such links must be mutually agreeable to the absentee and the custodial 
parent.
    Summary: There were specific comments to the effect that HUD and/or 
the PHAs should encourage, or even require, lawful marriages as part of 
this effort.
    Response: The policies and authorizations incident to this 
initiative are intended to facilitate the establishment or re 
establishment of positive social and economic links between absentee 
parents and their children in public housing communities; any explicit 
prescription concerning linkages or relationships among adult residents 
is beyond the scope of HUD rulemaking.
    3. HUD's position is that participants must be subject to 
admissions screening, to assure the rest of the community that the new 
or re-joining family member would not constitute any special threat to 
the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. 
    Summary: Respondents were nearly unanimous in favor of rigorous 
screening of all applicants, including persons joining or re-joining 
resident families.
    Response: HUD will instruct developers of subsequent guidance 
material to make explicit that housing authorities have the right to 
review and to reject persons proposing to join (or re-join) resident 
families, irrespective of the applicant's relationship to the resident 
family or of any prior leasehold interest enjoyed by that person: if 
someone has left the household, return is not necessarily automatic.
    Summary: Several comments suggested that there was an apparent 
conflict between the ``one-strike'' provisions of section 9 of the 
Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-120, 
approved March 28, 1996) (the ``Extension Act'') and out-reach efforts 
to engage absentee parents in public housing communities.
    Response: HUD has reviewed those comments and the cited statute, 
and is of the opinion that there is no conflict between this initiative 
and the Extension Act. Section 16(e)(2) of the Extension Act sets forth 
several exceptions to the Extension Act's rule that Public Housing 
authorities must deny assistance to persons who have a pattern of use 
of a controlled substance or a pattern of abuse of alcohol that 
interferes with the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of 
the premises by others. The Extension Act states that in determining 
whether to deny occupancy or assistance, a housing authority may 
consider whether an individual:

    (A) Has successfully completed a supervised drug or alcohol 
rehabilitation program and is no longer engaging in the use of a 
controlled substance or abuse of alcohol (as applicable); or
    (B) Has otherwise been rehabilitated successfully and is no 
longer engaging in the use of a controlled substance or abuse of 
alcohol (as applicable); or
    (C) Is participating in a supervised drug or alcohol 
rehabilitation program (as applicable) and is no longer engaging in 
the illegal use of a controlled substance or abuse of alcohol (as 
applicable).

    For purposes of screening tenants who would join or re-join public 
housing resident households, the PHA should take into consideration an 
applicant's participation in a Fatherhood Initiative. Where that 
services or counseling program includes a substance abuse counseling 
component, the housing authority may, but is not required to, accept 
that as compliance with the rehabilitation provisions of the one-strike 
limitations in section 16(e)(2), and permit an exemption from the 
prohibitions of sections 6(r) and 16(e)(1) of the United States Housing 
Act of 1937 (1937 Act).
    In addition to screening for admission or re-admission to residency 
in a public housing community, the issue of screening for acceptance 
into an employment, job training, or other social service program was 
subsumed in the ANPRM's reference to ``screening.'' In response to 
comments on the ANPRM and information shared at the roundtable, the 
Department recognizes that criteria for participation in a services 
program are not necessarily the same as tenant selection criteria. HUD 
anticipates that the best practices study will include a variety of 
selection factors and screening techniques from which service 
providers, including any PHAs that elect to manage their own fatherhood 
initiative, can develop procedures suited to their specific situations.
    4. Returning parents, or a parent newly accepting a responsible 
role in a family, would be required to participate in a parenting and/
or counseling program. To the extent that some returning parents may 
have been involved in domestic violence or abuse, such counseling or 
training must have been completed before admission or re-admission to 
the HA housing. Parenting training or counseling would be allowable 
budget costs for the HA.
    Summary: Respondents were generally in favor of parent training and 
counseling, and not necessarily limited to new or returning parents, 
but several PHAs objected to the suggestion that such services could be 
operated or financed by the housing authority.
    Response: HUD's response is to remind all concerned that certain 
PHA-provided tenant services and management of external services are 
already allowable costs under PFS procedures, at least to the extent 
that such services are part of an approved Family Self Sufficiency plan 
under section 23 of the 1937 Act.
    Where participation in a parenting class, anti-abuse counseling, or 
any other sort of behavior counseling is a component of a non-PHA 
service agency's program, the PHA has the latitude to accept or reject 
an applicant for admission (or re-admission) to public housing, 
irrespective of the applicant's participation in the training or 
counseling program, in accordance with the PHA's tenant selection and 
screening policies or procedures.
    5. The Hartford Family Reunification model includes an explicit 
requirement that returning parents be and remain free of substance 
abuse, including provisions for pre-admission testing and subsequent 
random testing for substance abuse. Testing is at the expense of the 
housing authority. HUD is interested in public comments on such drug 
abstinence and drug testing requirements and policies.
    Summary: As stated in the ANPRM, the discussion of drug abstinence 
and drug testing unfortunately blurs the distinction between public 
housing residency versus participation in employment, training, and 
services programs. Responding housing authorities were nearly unanimous 
in opposition to substance abuse testing requirements for returning 
fathers (although a few comments were positive toward universal 
substance abuse testing). Negative comments cited issues of 
discrimination against a particular segment of PHAs' clientele, the 
inappropriateness of PHAs' involvement in medical processes, PHAs' lack 
of capacity to manage or operate a substance abuse testing or 
identification program, and the costs of such an undertaking.
    Response: Where a service provider operates a fatherhood initiative 
that includes a substance abuse testing component, existing regulations 
authorize PHAs to take into account the results of testing for 
controlled substances in screening potential residents, including 
parents seeking to

[[Page 55327]]

re-establish residency with their families.
    PHAs can also condition continued rent abatement or income 
disregard benefits on a resident's successful participation in an 
employment, training, or services program, including success in 
abstinence from controlled substances where that abstinence is a 
condition of the program.

    Dated: October 17, 1997.
Kevin Emanuel Marchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 97-28080 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P