Final Report Continuation Review of the North …...March 31, 2016 Final Report Continuation Review...

Final Report

Continuation Review of the North Carolina Human Relations

Commission

March 31, 2016

Final Report

Continuation Review of the North Carolina Human Relations Commission

Table of Contents

Section Page Number

1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................1

1.a. Descriptive Information .......................................................................................................1

1.b. Fair Housing Assistance Program ........................................................................................1

1.c. Funding ................................................................................................................................1

1.c.1. Federal Funds – Fair Housing Assistance Program ..............................................................1

1.c.2. State-appropriated Funding ................................................................................................2

2. Current Environment ...........................................................................................................3

2.a. Description of the NC Human Relations Commission .........................................................3

2.b. Categorization of Mission, Goals, Objectives ......................................................................4

2.c. Program Activities ...............................................................................................................6

2.d. Resource Allocation .............................................................................................................9

3. Program Performance .........................................................................................................9

3.a. Discussion and Analysis of Performance Metrics and Data ................................................9

3.b. Discussion of Achievement of Objectives......................................................................... 10

3.b.1. Case Processing ................................................................................................................ 10

3.b.2 Training about Requirements of the Fair Housing Acts ................................................... 11

3.b.3 Education/Outreach Activities ......................................................................................... 12

3.b.4. Community Relations Clearinghouse ............................................................................... 13

3.b.5. Performance of the NC Human Relations Commission (Board) ....................................... 13

4. Link Between Funding/Resources and Statewide Societal Impact .................................. 14

5. Program Justification ........................................................................................................ 14

5.a. Rationale for Recommended Funding Level .................................................................... 14

5.b. Consequences of Discontinuing or Reducing Program Funding....................................... 15

Final Report


Table of Contents (continued)

Section Page Number

6. Recommendations to Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness ........................................... 17

6.a. Recommendations to Improve Services ........................................................................... 17

6.a.1. Tracking Complaints Filed by Veterans ............................................................................ 17

6.b. Recommendations for Reducing Costs or Duplication ..................................................... 17

6.b.1 Provision of Fair Housing Training by Webcast or Skype ................................................. 17

6.b.2. Distribution of Training Materials Electronically .............................................................. 18

6.b.3. Participation in Commission (Board) Meetings by Teleconference ................................. 18

6.c. Recommendations for Statutory, Budgetary or Administrative Changes Needed to Improve

Efficiency and Effectiveness of Services Delivered to the Public ..................................... 18

7. External Factors ................................................................................................................ 18

7.a. Policy Issues for Consideration by General Assembly ..................................................... 18

7.a.1. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing .............................................................................. 18

7.a.2. Affordable Housing as a Protected Class .......................................................................... 18

7.b. Other Relevant Information ............................................................................................. 19

List of Tables

Table Page

Table 1-1. Summary of Federal Funding Received by the NCHRC (FHAP Budget) for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015 ........................................................................2 Table 1-2. Return of NCHRC’s State-appropriated Funds by Fiscal Year .................................3

Table 2-1. Functions of the NC Human Relations Commission ...............................................4

Table 2-2. Summary of FY 2015 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) Program Activities for Staff in the NC Human Relations Commission ..................................7 Table 3-1. Case Closure Data for the NCHRC FHAP .............................................................. 10

Table 3-2. Comparative Data for Fair Housing Case Closure ................................................ 11

Table 3-3. Summary of Trainings Delivered by the NC Human Relations Commission in FY 2015 ........................................................................................ 12 Table 3-4. Summary of Inquiries Received by NCHRC’s Community Relations Clearinghouse ...................................................................................................... 13 Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis of Average Age at Case Closure ....................................... 16

Table A-1. Breakdown of Funding Received from the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) .......................................................................... 20

Table B-1. Breakdown of Expenditures of the NC Human Relations Commission

by Fiscal Year ....................................................................................................... 23

Table C-1. Summary of Fair Housing Cases Investigated by the NC Human Relations

Commission in FY 2015 ........................................................................................ 25

Table D-1. Population Statistics for North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia

and Mississippi .................................................................................................... 29

Table D-2. Fair Housing Staff Positions in North Carolina and South Carolina FHAPs .......... 30

Table D-3. Comparative Case Closure Data for North Carolina and

South Carolina FHAPs .......................................................................................... 30

Table D-4. Case Closure Data for States without a FHAP Program; Cases are Investigated

In HUD’s Atlanta Regional Office ......................................................................... 31

Table D-5. Comparison of Case Closure by Number Fair Housing Investigative Staff in States

With and Without a FHAP .................................................................................. 31

List of Appendices

Appendix Page Number

A. Federal Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) Budget and Expenditures .................. 20

B. Appropriated Budget and Expenses for the Human Relations Commission, Expenditures, FY 2011 through 2015 ............................................................................... 23 C Summary of FY 2015 Fair Housing Case Closures ............................................................. 25

D. Comparative Analysis of Performance Requirements ..................................................... 29

E. Response to Section 6.20 (c) ............................................................................................ 32

1

Final Report


1. Executive Summary

The North Carolina Human Relations Commission fulfills statutory functions, as well as functions

that are not mandated by federal or state laws, to enhance the quality of life of North Carolinians.

The Commission, funded by federal grant funds and the state-appropriated budget, works closely

with North Carolina residents to improve housing, education and employment through effective

community relations. It administers the North Carolina Fair Housing Act and serves as an

informational clearinghouse, providing technical assistance and referrals on issues that impact the

everyday lives of North Carolinians. The Commission also works closely with local human

relations commissions to channel effective communication among races.

1.a Descriptive Information

The Commission (staffed division) is a small division of state government located in the

Department of Administration. The staff currently consists of a total of 8 active staff members, and

one vacancy that is currently being filled. The NC Human Relations Commission (board) is

composed of 22 members appointed by the Governor (18), the Speaker of the House (2) and the

President Pro-Tempore of the Senate (2). The Commission board is supported by the Commission

staff and the Department of Administration.

1.b Fair Housing Assistance Program

The NC Human Relations Commission (staffed division) is certified by the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) as a substantially equivalent fair housing agency. This substantial

equivalence allows the Commission (staffed division) to participate in HUD’s Fair Housing

Assistance Program (FHAP). This status allows HUD to use the services of substantially equivalent

State and local agencies in the enforcement of fair housing laws, and to reimburse these agencies for

services that assist HUD in carrying out the spirit and letter of the federal Fair Housing Act. A

variety of FHAP funds are available to agencies with substantial equivalence certification.

Comparative analysis of the performance of the NCHRC FHAP, the South Carolina Human Affairs

Commission (SCHAC) and HUD’s Atlanta Regional Office showed that the performance of

NCHRC exceeded that of SCHAC and of the fair housing investigative team at HUD’s Atlanta

Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO).

1.c Funding

1.c.1. Federal Funds – Fair Housing Assistance Program

In FY 2015, the federal FHAP provided a total of 28% of NCHRC’s funding, while 72% of its

funding was state-appropriated. NCHRC (staffed division) received a total of $233,400 from the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for case processing, cause cases (cases in

which NCHRC found that the law had been violated), administrative costs and staff training for the

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/partners/FHAP

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/partners/FHAP

2

period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. This cost-reimbursement funding will be presented

as the FY 2016 budget for the Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP).

These FHAP funds were awarded in four categories: case processing, cause cases, training, and

administrative costs. The Commission uses these funds to cover the following expenses:

1.71 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) – bilingual investigator and intake specialist,

Travel (expenses associated with fair housing investigations, training and

education/outreach events) and registration for fair housing conferences,

Legal services associated with case processing and subscriptions to legal databases,

Office supplies associated with maintenance of fair housing case files,

Education/outreach materials,

Indirect costs charged by the Department of Administration’s Office of Fiscal Management

for grant management, and

Shipment costs (mail and FedEx).

Summaries of revenues and expenditures for the past five years are presented in the table below.

Details are presented in Appendix A.

Table 1-1. Summary of Federal Funding Received by the NCHRC (FHAP Budget) for Fiscal Years

2011 through 2015

Cash Reimbursement Total Federal Funds Received1

July 1, 2014 through

June 30, 2015

$233,4001


June 30, 2014

$181,3721


June 30, 2013

$152,3481


June 30, 2012

$250,2031


June 30, 2011

$268,1541

1Includes training funds that are restricted to the provision of fair housing training for staff members

and Commissioners.

1.c.2. State-appropriated Funding

During the same time period (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015), the Commission (board and

staffed division) received an appropriated budget of $588,500 and expended a total of $551,552,

with a balance of $36,948 that was reverted. For the past five years, the NC Human Relations

Commission has reverted unused appropriated funds, as shown in the table below.

3

Table 1-2. Return of NCHRC’s State-appropriated Funds by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Appropriated Budget Expenditures Amount Reverted

2015 $588,500.00 $551,552.21 $36,947.79

2014 $607,148.00 $566,581.14 $40,566.86

2013 $760,649.00 $605,747.32 $154,901.68

2012 $738,107.00 $596,787.95 $141,319.05

2011 $715,723.00 $657,666.97 $58,056.03

The current staff size of the Human Relations Commission (9 FTEs) reflects a reduction from a

staffing of 18 FTEs in 2009. Despite the decrease in staffing during this time period and the

corresponding increase in case load for investigators, there has not been an adverse impact on

performance. In fact, case processing performance has improved as shown by reduction in age at

case closure.

Detailed budget information, e.g., a summary of appropriated budgets and expenditures for FYs

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, is presented in Appendix B.

2. Current Environment

The North Carolina Human Relations Commission works closely with residents across North

Carolina communities to enhance their quality of life by facilitating improvements in housing,

employment and education. The Commission administers the North Carolina Fair Housing Act and

also provides a clearinghouse where North Carolina residents can seek information and referrals

about these and other issues that impact their daily lives.

2.a. Description of the NC Human Relations Commission

The Commission (staffed division) is a small division of state government located in the

Department of Administration. The staff currently consists of a total of 9 full time equivalent staff

members. The NC Human Relations Commission (board) is composed of 22 members appointed

by the Governor (18), the Speaker of the House (2) and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate

(2). The Commission board is supported by the Commission staff and the Department of

Administration.

The Commission (board) originated in 1963 as the Good Neighbor Council. At that time, the

objective of the Commission was to ease race-related tensions across North Carolina. Since then,

the focus of Commission has evolved to addressing issues that fundamentally impact the quality of

life of North Carolina residents, as shown by the four subcommittees of the Commission:

Education/Youth,

Employment/Training,

Fair Housing, and

Public Safety.

4

Both the board and the division work with North Carolina residents to provide opportunities in

housing, education, public safety and employment, with the objective of improving social and

economic well-being throughout the state.

2.b. Categorization of Mission, Goals, Objectives

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in housing-related transactions and employment

practices. The Human Relations Commission staff investigates allegations of housing

discrimination under the state and federal Fair Housing Acts and facilitates resolution of these

complaints for NC residents. To that end, the Commission staff is charged with enhancing public

awareness of anti-discrimination laws and promoting equity in the areas of housing, employment,

public accommodations, education, justice and governmental services.

The major function of the division is to administer the state and federal Fair Housing Acts. The

division receives housing discrimination complaints and conducts investigations, giving strong

emphasis to neutrality during the entirety of the investigation. Throughout each investigation,

divisional staff attempts to conciliate the disputes and bring the parties to a voluntary agreement. If

the investigation shows that the law has been violated, and the parties do not conciliate, then the

division brings a legal action to enforce the law. N.C.G.S. § 41A-7(h), (k) & (l). The division’s

staff attorney files suit on behalf of the complainant in either Superior Court or the Office of

Administrative Hearings (OAH), based on the parties’ election. N.C.G.S. § 41A-7(k). NCHRC’s

attorney conducts the litigation, and NCHRC pays the legal expenses, N.C.G.S. § 41A-7(k) & (l).

Complainants may be represented by their own attorneys and join the suit in their own names, but

they do not have to do so.

In addition, the staff fosters strong community relations by providing education/outreach and

training about fair housing and other relevant issues to the general public and private-sector

organizations. These functions are presented in the table below.

Table 2-1. Functions of the NC Human Relations Commission

Authority Description

Statutory

N.C.G.S § 143B-391 (2), (3), (8), (9), and

(11),

N.C.G.S § 41A -7(a) (as part of certification

by HUD)

42 U.S.C. § 3610 (f)(3)

42 U.S.C. § 3609

Criterion for Fair Housing Assistance

Program substantial equivalence

% Budget (federal) – 100% travel,

% Budget1 (appropriated) – 3% personnel

services that include:

preparation of training materials,

Awareness of Fair Housing Law

requirements

Training property managers,

landlords, architects, real estate

agents, municipal organizations and

consumers about requirements of the

state and federal Fair Housing Acts

and landlord/tenant issues;

Participating in education/outreach

events to disseminate information

about housing issues facing North

Carolina residents

5

time travelling to and from training

venue, and

delivering training.

% Budget2 (federal) – 3%

participating in conferences and

outreach events.

1(38 days of training for 37 trainings/248

working days per calendar year/5 FTEs

covered by state-appropriated funds) = 3% 2(11 days of training/(248 working days per

calendar year)/1.71 FTEs (FHAP) = 3%

Statutory

N.C.G.S § 41A-7

% Budget (federal) – 100% travel,

% Budget (federal) – 88%, personnel

services (100% of 1.71 FTEs)

% Budget (appropriated) – 97% personnel

services

Investigating and resolving allegations of fair

housing discrimination

From the standpoint of neutrality,

investigating and resolving

allegations of fair housing

discrimination and finalizing these

investigations, with the goal of

conciliating/settling cases before

judicial adjudication, if possible. If

necessary, NCHRC legal counsel

may initiate legal actions to enforce

the law.

Statutory

N.C.G.S. § 143B-391(8)

% Budget (federal) – 100% travel


services

Awareness of new laws and regulations

Providing training to local

organizations about HUD’s new

Affirmatively Furthering Fair

Housing regulations from the

perspective of the potential loss of

federal assistance, e.g., Community

Development Block Grant funding, if

states and local agencies do not

support fair housing efforts and

programs

Statutory

N.C.G.S § 143B-426.34B (d)


services

Providing administrative support and

guidance to the MLK Commission

Statutory

N.C.G.S. § 143B-392(d)


services

Providing administrative support and

technical assistance to the NC Human

Relations Commission board

Statutory

N.C.G.S. § 143B-391 (2) and (5)

Clearinghouse to establish a strong

framework for community relations

6

% Budget3 (appropriated) – 6.0% personnel

services 3(263 inquiries) x (0.5 hr/inquiry)/2080 working

hours/year) = 6% (primarily 1 FTE)

Serving as a clearinghouse for

dissemination of information/referrals

about housing opportunities, health

concerns, employment law,

educational opportunities and

community service

Statutory

N.C.G.S. § 143B-391 (9)

% Budget (appropriated) – 0.3 % personnel

services

Cooperating with, and advising, local human

relations commissions across the state

Statutory

N.C.G.S. § 143B-391 (8)

% Budget (appropriated) – 0.1 % personnel

services

Providing cultural diversity training to local

law enforcement officers and municipal

officials

2.c. Program Activities

The NC Human Relations Commission staff fulfills its statutory commitments by:

investigating and resolving allegations of housing discrimination before these complaints are

filed in court, whenever possible;

training consumers, property owners, landlords, architects, real estate agents, developers and

property managers about the requirements of the state and federal Fair Housing Acts,

including housing accessibility;

disseminating information about the requirements of state and federal housing laws,

including the state and federal Fair Housing Acts and the new federal Affirmatively

Furthering Fair Housing Rule, N.C.G.S § 143B-391 (2), (3), (8), (9), and (11); N.C.G.S §

41A -7(a) (as part of certification by HUD); 42 U.S.C. § 3610 (f)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 3609;

participating in community education and outreach events, with the objective of sharing

information about housing programs; and

providing technical and administrative assistance to the Martin Luther King, Jr. and the NC

Human Relations Commissions.

NCHRC also serves the general public, as well as internal and external partners, by offering a

Community Relations Clearinghouse for technical assistance on subjects that include housing,

education, employment law, and governmental issues.

A summary of NCHRC’s programmatic activities for FY 2015 is presented in Table 2-2.

7

Table 2-2. Summary of FY 2015 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015) Program Activities for

Staff in the NC Human Relations Commission

Activity Description Outcome

Trainings

38 labor days;

3% state-appropriated

budget;

100% of travel costs

are covered by federal

budget.

% Budget (federal) – 100%

travel,

% Budget1 (appropriated) –

3% personnel services that

include:

preparation of training

materials,

time travelling to and

from training venue,

and

delivering training.

% Budget2 (federal) – 3%

participating in

conferences and

outreach events.

1(38 days of training for 37

trainings/248 working days

per calendar year/5 FTEs

covered by state-appropriated

funds) = 3% 2(11 days of training/(248

working days per calendar

year)/1.71 FTEs (FHAP) =

3%

Fair Housing trainings -- 37

trainings delivered

572 individuals reached/2164

outreach materials distributed

% Budget (appropriated) –

0.1 % personnel services

Cultural diversity trainings –

6 trainings delivered

Human Relations Orientation

trainings – 2 trainings

delivered

55 individuals reached/58

outreach materials distributed

Outreach

Approximately 110

22 events 3774 individuals

reached/2721 materials

8

hours;

20 events conducted

by bilingual

investigator;

100 hours covered by

federal FHAP funds –

3%;

distributed

Community Relations

Clearinghouse

Approximately 263

inquiries,

Approximately 6%

state-appropriated

budget

Inquiries about topics that

included:

Landlord/tenant,

Housing assistance,

Customer service –

private sector,

Employment,

Bullying,

Americans with

Disabilities Act,

Golf club discounts,

Medical issues

following treatment,

Disability,

Vehicle codes,

Bed bugs,

Homelessness,

Service Animals

263 inquires

Administrative Assistance to

MLK Commission

Labor -- 1% State

appropriated budget

Assistance with:

Meetings,

Development of the

request for proposal,

Evaluation of

applications,

Award of grants,

Planning the MLK Let

Freedom Ring Bell

Ringing Service and

reception for State

Employees MLK

Holiday Observance

Program

Awarded two grants for a

total of $5,000.

Administrative Assistance to

Human Relations

Commission

Labor – 1% state-

Assistance with:

Meetings,

Subcommittees, Legal issues

9

appropriated budget

2.d. Resource Allocation

In FY 2015, the federal FHAP provided a total of 28% of NCHRC’s funding, relative to 72% from

state-appropriated funds. The staffed division receives both federal and state financial support,

with a FY 2015-2016 state-appropriated budget of 545,407, plus FY 2015 federal funding of

$233,400 from a HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) grant. This grant supports the

investigation of allegations of fair housing discrimination, enforcement when investigations show

that the law was violated, staff training, education/outreach, travel, and covers the salary of 1.71

Full Time Equivalents (FTEs).

The principal focus of the division is to address the statutory requirements of the state and federal

Fair Housing Acts.

A detailed summary of budgets and expenditures for the FHAP and state-appropriated funds are

presented in Appendices A and B, respectively.

3. Program Performance

In FY 2015, NCHRC met or exceeded HUD’s performance metrics for closure of fair housing

cases. Data are presented in the table below and in Appendix B.

3.a. Discussion and Analysis of Performance Metrics and Data

The NHCRC (staffed division) captures performance metrics for the following activities:

Case Processing -- investigating allegations of fair housing discrimination (case processing

and enforcement actions, if necessary),

Training on requirements of the Fair Housing Acts, and

Delivery of education/outreach activities.

HUD emphasizes efficiency in processing, i.e., investigation and closure, of fair housing cases. As

a result, HUD established FHAP performance requirements for thoroughness of case processing,

minimum percentage (50%) of cases closed in less than 100 days and case age at closure. HUD’s

requirements also require that FHAPs engage communities and affirmatively seek to eliminate

prohibited practices under the Fair Housing Act by delivering fair housing trainings and

participating in education/outreach events.

In FY 2015, NCHR exceeded HUD’s performance requirements for each of these criteria. Results

of a comparative analysis showed that NCHRC also exceeded the performance of the South

Carolina FHAP, the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, as well as HUD’s fair housing

investigative program in the Atlanta Regional Office.

3.b Discussion of Achievement of Objectives

3.b.1. Case Processing

10

In FY 2015 (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015), the division investigated and closed a total of 57

cases; this closure rate includes 35 cases (61%) closed within 100 days (exceeding HUD’s closure

performance requirement of 50% closure within 100 days.) The closure of 57 cases also exceeded

HUD’s population-based criterion of 50 cases for the NCHRC. Data showed that, of the 57 cases,

the Commission found No Reasonable Cause for discrimination in 28 (47%) of these cases; one

case (2%) was closed as Reasonable Cause for Discrimination; 18 (32%) cases were conciliated and

5 cases were closed administratively (e.g., failure to cooperate or withdrawn). A summary of

closing data is presented in Table 3-1 and a listing of the FY 2015 cases is presented in Appendix C.

In FY 2014 and FY 2015, respectively, NCHRC closed 55% and 61% of its cases in less than 100

days, exceeding HUD’s performance requirement that at least 50% of cases be closed in less than

100 days. Data are presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1. Case Closure Data for the NCHRC FHAP

Case Closure Data for NCHRC FHAP

FY 2014 FY 2015

No Cause 30 (52%) 28 (49%)

Conciliation 11 (19%) (including 3 post-

cause conciliations)

18 (32%) (including 3 post-cause

conciliations)

Withdrawal with

Resolution

5 (9%) 5 (9%)

Administrative

Closures

8 (14%) 5 (9%)

Judicial Dismissal 1 (2%) 0

Reasonable Cause* 3 (5%) 1 (2%)

Total 58 (100%) 57 (100%)

Average Age of Cases

at Closure (days)

117 127

Cases Closed Within

100 Days

32 (55%) 35 (61%)

*Reasonable cause cases stay open for litigation, but the investigation is considered closed.

Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, NCHRC requested information about

performance metrics of other states with fair housing investigative/enforcement programs.

Analysis of this information showed that NCHRC’s performance not only exceeded HUD’s

requirement of closing at least 50% of its cases in less than 100 days, but also exceeded that of other

programs. For example, the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission is a FHAP, as is NCHRC.

Comparative analysis (provided in Appendix D) showed that, in FY 2014 and FY 2015 the NCHRC

closed 55% and 61%, respectively, of its cases in 100 days or less; whereas, South Carolina closed

34% and 27% within 100 days, for these fiscal years, respectively.

If a state does not have a FHAP, allegations of fair housing discrimination are forwarded to HUD’s

Atlanta Regional Office for investigation and closure. Examples of states in HUD’s Atlanta

Region, Region IV, without a FHAP are Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. Closure data for AL,

11

GA and MS showed that NCHRC’s performance also exceeded that of the Atlanta Regional Office

in FYs 2014 and 2015. Comparative case closure data indicated that NCHRC’s performance

exceeded the performance of HUD’s Region IV staff for FY 2014 and FY 2015 investigations of

complaints filed from AL, GA and MS. from are presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. Comparative Data for Fair Housing Case Closure

FHAP or State Percentage of Cases Closed in 100 Days or Less

FY 2014 FY 2015

NCHRC 55% 61%

SC Human Affairs

Commission

34% 27%

AL* 28% 51%

GA* 44% 38%

MS* 39% 44%

* Investigated by HUD’s Atlanta Regional Office

From July 1, 2015 to the March 1, 2016, NCHRC closed 26 cases, including:

Determination of No Reasonable Cause for Discrimination – 19,

Conciliation – 5,

Withdrawal with Resolution – 1, and

Administrative Closure -- 1.

3.b.2. Training about Requirements of the Fair Housing Acts

In FY 2015, the North Carolina Human Relations Commission conducted 37 fair housing trainings,

six cultural diversity trainings and two human relations trainings, in 27 different counties in North

Carolina. (All travel expenses associated with the fair housing trainings were covered by federal

FHAP funds, rather than state appropriated funds.) A summary of these trainings is presented in

Table 3-2.

12

Table 3-3. Summary of Trainings Delivered by the NC Human Relations Commission in FY 2015

Type of Training Number

Conducted

in FY 2015

Individuals Reached Fair Housing

Education/Outreach Materials

Distributed

Fair Housing for

Property Managers/Real

Estate Agents

21 387 1798

Fair Housing for

Consumers, English and

Spanish

4 80 180

Fair Housing

Compliance

12 105 186

Total 37 572 2164

Human Relations

Orientation Training

2 12 36

Cultural Diversity 6 55 58

Total 8 67 94

Grand Total 45 639 2258

NCHRC investigators distribute and collect evaluation forms at the conclusion of each training

session; the average evaluation rated 4.84/5.00 points or 97%. As a rule, organizations that receive

NCHRC’s training and outreach programs acknowledge the value of the training/outreach and

consistently request that the Investigator return to deliver training/outreach on an ongoing basis.

From July 1, 2015 to the March 1, 2016, the NCHRC has conducted 27 trainings that included:

Fair Housing for Property Managers - 21,

Fair Housing Compliance - 4, and

Cultural Diversity for Municipal Officials and Law Enforcement Officers – 2

The average evaluation for these trainings was 4.80/5.00, or 96%.

3.b.3. Education/Outreach Activities

During FY 2015, NCHRC staff participated in 22 education/outreach events that included 12 events

targeting the Latino population. NCHRC staffed an exhibit booth with fair housing outreach

materials at seven of these events. NCHRC reached a total of 3135 individuals and distributed a

total of 463 outreach materials. As a result of delivering the trainings and participating in

education/outreach events, NCHRC reached a combined total of 3774 individuals, distributing 2721

fair housing outreach materials.

From July 1, 2015 to March 1, 2016, NCHRC staff members have participated in three

education/outreach events and reached approximately 375 individuals during these events.

3.b.4. Community Relations Clearinghouse

13

In FY 2015, NCHRC responded to 263 inquiries from the general public. (See Table 3-4 for details

about these inquiries.) From July 1, 2015 to March 1, 2016, NCHRC has responded to 183

inquiries about topics that include, but are not limited to, affordable housing, landlord/tenant issues,

employment law and discrimination, reasonable accommodation, service animals, vacation property

and consumer services.

Table 3-4. Summary of Inquiries Received by NCHRC’s Community Relations

Clearinghouse

Function of Community Relations

Clearinghouse

Overview of Inquiries Received

Dissemination of information/referrals about

housing opportunities, health concerns,

employment law, educational opportunities and

community service

Inquiries about topics that included:

Landlord/tenant,

Housing assistance,

Customer service – private sector,

Employment,

Bullying,

Americans with Disabilities Act,

Golf club discounts,

Medical issues following treatment,

Disability,

Vehicle codes,

Bed bugs,

Homelessness,

Service Animals,

Occupancy requirements,

Building codes,

Permitting,

Emotional Support Animals,

Design/Construction Accessibility

Requirements

Systemic complaints,

Foreclosure issues

3.b.5. Performance of the NC Human Relations Commission (Board)

Because of issues facing North Carolina residents, the NC Human Relations Commission (board)

established four subcommittees -- Fair Housing, Public Safety, Education, Employment/Job

Training. These committees worked together to propose initiatives that were shared with the entire

Commission. Commissioners have also reached out to establish collaborate with local Human

Relations Commissions in their districts.

4. Link Between Funding/Resources and Statewide/Societal Impact

14

The North Carolina Human Relations Commission fulfills both statutory functions and functions

not mandated by federal or state laws to enhance quality of life of North Carolinians. The

Commission, funded by federal grant funds as well as state-appropriated funding, works closely

with North Carolina residents to improve housing, education and employment through effective

community relations. In FY 2015, the federal FHAP provided a total of 28% of NCHRC’s

funding, relative to 72% from state-appropriated funds.

NCHRC administers the North Carolina Fair Housing Act and serves as an informational

clearinghouse, providing technical assistance and referrals on issues that impact the everyday lives

of North Carolinians. The Commission also works closely with local human relations commissions

to channel effective communication among races. As the majority of fair housing discrimination

complaints are associated with disability issues, the NCHRC provides a critical service to all North

Carolina citizens, and, particularly, to the veteran community.

From July 1, 2015 to March 1, 2016, NCHRC received nine fair housing complaints (19%) filed by

veterans out of a total of 47 complaints filed during this time period. There have been a total of 14

complaints filed by veterans since NCHRC has begun tracking this information.

5. Program Justification

5.a. Rationale for Recommended Funding Level

In FY 2015 NCHRC received $588,500 (72%) of its funding from state appropriated funds and

$233,400 (28%) from its Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) grant provided by the

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The state appropriated funding covered

staffing expenses for the NCHRC (division), travel expenses for the Commission (board) and office

expenses for the NCHRC.

Expenses covered by FHAP funding included the following:

1.71 FTEs -- Intake Specialist (0.71 FTE); Hispanic Investigator (1.0 FTE),

Shipment of fair housing documents (FedEx, US mail and certified mail),

Legal Services, e.g., subscriptions and court costs,

Registrations for conferences,

Office supplies for fair housing case investigations,

Use of motor pool and mileage expenses for delivery of training programs,

Training for fair housing investigators, intake specialist and legal counsel,

Development of education/outreach and training materials, and

Indirect costs associated with grant.

15

The combination of these funding streams has enabled staff to provide comprehensive and effective

customer service to North Carolina residents that included:

Training to landlords, property owners and consumers on requirements of the federal and

state Fair Housing Acts,

Technical assistance and referrals about community relations issues, including, but not

limited to, code enforcement, building permits, service animals, disability, fair housing

accessibility, occupancy limits, design requirements for college dormitories, etc.,

Assistance to the disabled, including provision of information about the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA),

Training to staff and local organizations on Service Animals and Emotional Support

Animals,

Assistance to veterans relative to physical and mental disabilities and housing construction,

and

Investigation and administration of allegations of housing discrimination.

During FY 2015, the Commission (board and staffed division) received an appropriated budget of

$588,500 and expended a total of $551,552, with a balance of $36,948 that was reverted. For the

past five years, the NC Human Relations Commission has reverted state-appropriated funds. (See

Table 1-2, page 2.)

Successive Reductions in Force (RIFs) have cut NCHRC staff from 18 FTEs in 2009 to 9 FTEs

today. The decrease in staffing during this time period, along with a corresponding increase in case

load for investigators, has, however, not adversely impacted performance. In fact, case processing

performance has improved, as indicated by a reduction in the average time required for case closure.

After a RIF of NCHRC’s Administrative Assistant position in 2013, the Executive Director has had

to assume administrative, managerial and supervisory responsibilities; other staff have accepted

additional responsibilities, as well. NCHRC recommends funding an administrative support

position for the division.

5.b. Consequences of Discontinuing or Reducing Program Funding

On October 26, 2015, HUD recommended that NCHRC’s Fair Housing Assistance Program

(FHAP) receive continuing certification as a substantially equivalent agency. As a result of this

recertification, NCHRC divisional staff will continue to investigate and enforce allegations of fair

housing discrimination at the state, rather than the federal, level. Had the NCHRC not been

recertified, HUD would have assumed responsibility for investigating allegations of housing

discrimination throughout the state, except where municipal FHAPs exist.

This recertification is advantageous to the State of North Carolina because, when NCHRC

investigates a potential fair housing violation in North Carolina, the division is able to resolve the

investigation locally. If NCHRC were not recertified, the complaint would be transferred to HUD’s

16

Atlanta Regional Office for intake and investigation. An advantage of a local investigation is that

NCHRC staff members are able to travel locally and conduct an onsite investigation, a particularly

helpful investigative tool for reaching a fair, effective and efficient determination. HUD’s Fair

Housing personnel who have oversight of North Carolina FHAPs are based in Atlanta, Georgia;

HUD Headquarters staff, located in Washington, DC have higher oversight of the FHAP. Because

of travel issues, it is unlikely that a face-to-face onsite visit would be a part of a more lengthy

investigation conducted regionally (Atlanta) or through HUD Headquarters.

HUD provided comparative fair housing case data for another state with a state FHAP (South

Carolina) and for states without a FHAP (Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi) that includes:

Average time for case processing (investigation and closure), and

Case closure statistics, including age of case at closure and percentage of cases closed within

HUD’s required performance metric of 100 days.

These data, showing NCHRC’s strong performance, are presented in Appendix D.

Additional age of closure comparative data are presented in Table 5-1. These data show that

NCHRC closes cases in a shorter time frame than cases transferred to the Atlanta Regional Office

for investigation.

Table 5-1. Comparative Analysis of Average Age at Case Closure

FHAP/State Average Age of Case at Closure

FY 2014 FY 2015

NCHRC 117 127

South Carolina Human

Affairs Commission

195 184

AL* 223 110

GA* 188 117

MS* 270 240

*Cases are investigated and closed by HUD’s Atlanta Regional Office.

The NC Fair Housing Act explicitly favors conciliation of complaints [N.C.G.S §§ 41A-7

(d) and (g)]; whereas, the federal Fair Housing Act does not. NCHRC, therefore, strongly promotes

conciliation, throughout an investigation, and even after finding that there has been a violation of

the Act. It is possible that, by eliminating the NC Fair Housing Act, there would be increased

confrontation and litigation, rather than settlements based upon mutual consent.

Another consideration for the supporting NCHRC’s FHAP is that investigation at the federal

level may involve a greater depth of legal staff that is knowledgeable about systemic violations;

therefore, the investigation/enforcement may be both more impersonal and less efficient than state

17

enforcement. In this case HUD enforcement actions would proceed through either the Federal

Courts or through HUD Administrative Hearings, not through the North Carolina Office of

Administrative Hearings or local Superior Courts.

6. Recommendations to Improve Efficiency and Effectiveness

6.a. Recommendations to Improve Services

6.a.1 Tracking Complaints Filed by Veterans

Data reveal that the majority (52%) of fair housing complaints are now based on

disability/accessibility issues. Given the strong military presence in North Carolina, with bases at

Fort Bragg, Seymour Johnson, Cherry Point, and Camp Lejeune, it is critical that the State of North

Carolina maintain its substantially equivalence as a HUD-certified Fair Housing Assistance

Program to serve veterans who may experience housing discrimination on the basis of their physical

and mental disabilities. As part of its effort to provide better support for disabled veterans, the staff

recently coordinated, and participated in, training sessions on the laws regarding service and

emotional support animals. Many veterans utilize these animals for treatment, therapy, or

amelioration of disability issues. The division invited representatives of other North Carolina Fair

Housing organizations to participate in the training.

From July 1, 2015 to March 1, 2016, NCHRC received nine fair housing complaints (19%) filed by

veterans out of a total of 47 complaints filed during this time period. There have been a total of 14

complaints filed by veterans since NCHRC has begun tracking this information. NCHRC

anticipates that there will be a growing number of cases filed by veterans in the future.

6.b. Recommendations for Reducing Costs or Duplication

6.b.1. Provision of Fair Housing Training by Webcast or Skype

NCHRC has contacted the Department of Administration’s Management Information Services

division with a request that staff in MIS train fair housing investigators in the use of Skype

technology to deliver fair housing training to property managers and, in the case of fair housing

compliance training for conciliated cases, compliance training. We anticipate that, within a month,

investigators will begin delivering a portion of these trainings virtually, with a cost savings to the

FHAP and a time savings for staff.

NCHRC has also talked with MIS about the option of completing the fair housing complaint form

online, with follow-up notarization and submission by mail.

6.b.2. Distribution of Training Materials Electronically

18

NCHRC has posted, and will continue to post, fair housing education/outreach and training

materials on its website so that groups, including property owners, landlords, real estate agents,

builders and consumers will be knowledgeable about the requirements of the Fair Housing Acts and

will have educational materials for distribution to their clients.

6.b.3. Participation in Commission (Board) Meetings by Teleconference

The NCHRC recommends offering a teleconferencing option for board members who are either

located out-of-state or have to travel a long distance to Commission meetings. Along with this

option, NCHRC recommends that a fiscal policy be implemented to ensure that reimbursement for

travel expenses for out-of-state Commissioners does not exceed the mileage reimbursement for in-

state travel by personal vehicle.

6.c Recommendations for Statutory, Budgetary or Administrative Changes Needed to Improve

Efficiency and Effectiveness of Services Delivered to the Public

As a result to the RIF of the Administrative Assistant position, the Executive Director has assumed

administrative, managerial and supervisory responsibilities. NCHRC recommends that an

administrative support position be funded for the division so that the Executive Director may focus

on managerial and technical oversight issues.

7. External Factors

7.a. Policy issues for consideration by the General Assembly

7.a.1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (80 Fed. Reg. 42272, to be codified in 24

C.F.R. Parts 5, 91, 92, issued July16, 2015) is a response to recommendations of the Government

Accountability Office and stakeholders for HUD to enhance its fair housing planning obligations by

providing greater clarity and support to jurisdictions receiving HUD funding, and facilitating local

decision-making on fair housing priorities and goals. The rule provides jurisdictions that receive

HUD funding with an approach that allows them to more effectively incorporate fair housing into

their planning processes, as well as to integrate fair housing goals into their existing community

development and housing planning processes. NC Human Relations Commission staff members

have already received some training from HUD regarding the requirements of the new rule and have

developed and delivered some training about the new rule to stakeholders. NCHRC is planning to

offer this training at the local level in FY 2016.

7.a.2. Affordable Housing as a Protected Class

Subpart (g) of the State Fair Housing Act, N.C.G.S. § 41A-4(g) states that it is an unfair housing

practice to discriminate against affordable housing in land-use decisions. The North Carolina Fair

Housing Act is the only substantially equivalent Fair Housing Act in the country that designates

affordable housing as a protected class. This designation is not a criterion for substantial

19

equivalence and the subsection of the state Fair Housing Act is not included in the Federal Fair

Housing Act.

7.b. Other relevant information

A transfer of the MLK Commission to the Office of the Governor, which is responsible for the

annual State Employees MLK Holiday Observance Program and the John R. Larkins Award, may

increase efficiency by integrating the education/outreach activities and grant program of the MLK

Commission with the education/outreach activities delivered by the Governor’s Office.

Contact Information

Emily Hunter, Director

[email protected]

919-807-4424

Richard Boulden, Legal Counsel

[email protected]

919-807-4423

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

20

Appendix A. Federal Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) Budget and Expenditures

Table A-1. Breakdown of Funding Received from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD)

Period of

Performance for

Cost

Reimbursement

State FY of

Reimbursement

Total Federal Cost

Reimbursement

Type of Expenditure Amount

July 1, 2014

through June 30,

2015

2016 $233,400.00

Case Processing -- $145,900 Personnel N/A -- funds

received

November

2015

Cause Cases - $16,000 Purchased Services N/A -- funds

received

November

2015

Commission Training --

$44,000

Supplies N/A -- funds

received

November

2015

Administrative Costs --

$27,500

Property, Equipment N/A -- funds

received

November

2015

Other expenses N/A -- funds

received

November

2015

July 1, 2013

through June 30,

2014 2015

$181,372.00

Case Processing -- $118,372

Personnel

$95,505.29

Cause Cases -- $3,000

Purchased Services

(including travel expenses

to deliver fair housing

training) $9,434.21


$40,000 Supplies $1,286.80


$20,000 Property, Equipment $0.00

Other expenses $12,430.68

21

Travel, lodging and meals

for trainings

$4,883.47

July 1, 2012

through June 30,

2013 2014 $152,348.00

Case Processing -- $105,348 Personnel

$86,354.80


Purchased Services



training) $9,528.99


$16,000 Supplies $2,645.13





for trainings

$2,058.46

July 1, 2011

through June 30,

2012 2013

$250,203.00



Personnel

$92,363.27


$24,500

Purchased Services



training) $11,849.78


$40,000 Supplies $1,172.09

Property, Equipment $2,563.00


Intragovernmental

Transportation

$12,386.95

Refund (prior year) -$123.96


for trainings

$8,533.30

July 1, 2010

through June 30,

2011

2012 $268,154


Personnel $94,038.40

22

Cause Cases -- $3,000 Purchased Services



training) $10,544.37


$16,000 Supplies $1,474.19




Intragovernmental

Transportation

$1,088.00


for trainings

$17,271.49

Refund (prior year) -$9.21

July 1, 2009

through June 30,

2010 2011

$222,788.00


Personnel

$97,828.00

Cause Cases -- $1,000 Purchased Services



training)

$10,480.46


$16,000 Supplies

$2,591.16


$20,000 Property, Equipment

$0.00

Transportation to Policy

Conference -- $8,500 Other expenses

$16,597.09


for trainings

$14,956.99

Refund (prior year) -$1,522.28

23

Appendix B. Appropriated Budget and Expenses for the Human Relations Commission

Expenditures, FY 2011 through 2015

Table B-1. Breakdown of Expenditures of the NC Human Relations Commission by Fiscal

Year

Human Relations Commission Expenditures, Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015

FY Appropriated Expended Returned to

Statewide Reserve

Account

Type of Expenditure Amount

2015 $588,500.00 $551,552.21 $36,947.79

Personnel, including

compensation to board

members $529,646.27

Purchased Services $17,270.38

Supplies $3,862.55

Property, Equipment $652.38

Other expenses $120.63

$551,552.21

2014 $607,148.00 $566,581.14 $40,566.86



members $546,648.13


Supplies $2,248.77



$566,588.14

2013 $760,649.00 $605,747.32 $154,901.68



members $571,092.01


Supplies $3,479.42



Aid and Public Assistance $3,000.00

$602,747.32

2012 $738,107.00 $596,787.95 $141,319.05

24



members $561,690.88


Supplies $2,860.21

Property, Equipment $3,242.00


Revenue -$42.97

$596,787.95

2011 $715,723.00 $657,666.97 $58,056.03



members $602,022.67


Supplies $2,089.63



Revenue -$11.92

$657,666.97

25

Appendix C. Summary of FY 2015 Fair Housing Cases Closures

Table C-1. Summary of Fair Housing Cases Investigated by the NC Human Relations

Commission in FY 2015

HUD Case No. NCHRC # Name Payment

Status

Resolution NCHRC

Close Date

04-11-0597-8 11HO1685 Block v. The Carriages

at Allyns

Closed Cause 3/19/2015

(Closure

date)

04-13-1068-8 13HO1838 Burwell v. Henderson

Heights, LP

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

7/11/2014

04-14-0511-8 14HO1872 Burrus v. Karen Lakes

Condo Association

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

8/4/2014

04-14-0635-8 14HO1879 Gooding, Jamaka &

Foye, Sheldon v. Elen

and Thuy Tran

(Havelock/Craven)

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

8/29/2014

04-15-0069-8 14HO1903 Clausell v. Kohn-Ell

Association

Management, LLC.

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

12/11/2014

04-15-0070-8 14HO1906 Yasser Salem v. Pamela

and Donald Lineberry

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

2/13/2015

04-15-0357-8 15HO1916 Keller, Jordan v.

Triangle RE Gastonia,

Inc

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

4/7/2015

04-14-0803-8 14HO1890 Rogers, Debbie v.

Sunset Ride

Homeownership

Association, et al.

Closed No Cause 4/13/2014

04-15-0179-8 14HO1896 Morgan, Robert J. v.

Brittany Woods HOA,

et al.


04-14-0804-8 14HO1885 Jones, Diane v. Rowan

Helping Ministries

Closed Withdrawn 7/25/2014

04-14-0618-8 14HO1877 Bohnhoff, Richard v.

Parris, Mark and Maria

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

7/25/2014

04-14-1096-8 14HO1902 Brown & Hasan v.

Rosenthal, Ivan &

Laurie, et al.

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

12/9/2014

04-15-0486-8 15HO1930 Downs, Morgan v.

Properties for Children

et al.

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

5/18/2015

04-15-0176-8 14HO1910 Redding, Thomas v.

Arrowhead Hsg.

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

1/12/2015

04-15-0067-8 14HO1901 Gaea, Genevieve v.

Asheville/Phoenix

Properties

Closed Withdrawal

with Resolution

11/4/2014

26


Status

Resolution NCHRC

Close Date

04-14-0989-8 14HO1899 Whiteside, Clinton v.

Hospitality House of

Asheville, Inc.

Closed Withdrawn

with Resolution

10/13/2014

04-15-0219-8 15HO1912 Betances, Ashley v.

S&J Dunn LLC, et al.

Closed Failure to

Cooperate

3/18/2015

04-15-0275-8 15HO1914 Hampton, James v.

Robeson Co.


04-15-0536-8 15HO1915 Lehman, Florence v.

Arrowhead Apts


04-14-0578-8 14HO1873 Mack, Ben v. Langdon,

Ammen


04-15-0650-8 15HO1940 Elias, Robert v. Hoyle,

James


04-14-0899-8 14HO1893 Lota, Raymond &

Danielle v. LP Realty,

Inc.


04-14-0905-8 14HO1894 Jones, Terrisha v.

Breakwater Partners,

LLC


04-14-0653-8 14HO1881 Blakeney, Charles v.

Statesville Housing

Authority, et al.


04-15-0071-8 14HO1905 Zoe Hadley v. Thomas

Callahan


04-15-0203-8 !5HO1913 Brantley, Amber and

Justin v. Century 21

Coastland Realty, Inc.


04-15-0487-8 15HO1931 Villarroel, Delitza v.

Martinez, Christopher

M., Owner


04-14-0690-8 14HO1884 Epley, Erin and Rose,

Tracey v. May, Roger

and Lucille

Closed Post-cause

conciliation

10/16/2015

04-14-0101-8 14HO1908 Kaiser, Kesley v.

Intracoastal Realty, et

al.

Closed Withdrawal

with Resolution

1/7/2015

04-14-0842-8 14HO1892 Gillihan, Todd v. Mae

Cook, et al.

Closed Withdrawn

without

Resolution;

Right to Sue

Letter

12/10/2014

04-14-0264-8 14HO1860 Legal Aid of NC v.

Bonanza Enter

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

12/23/2014

04-13-0748-8 13HO1826 LANC v. Neyland Apt.

Assoc. Four LLC

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

2/19/2015

04-14-0887-8 14HO1891 Cox, Nicole v.

Corporate Relocation,

Inc., et al


04-14-0128-8 14HO1859 Odum and Smith v.

Clark

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

7/8/2014

04-15-0223-8 15HO1911 Porter, Danielle v.

Moorefield, Jason

Closed Failure to

Cooperate

3/12/2015

04-14-0662-8 14HO1883 Jones, Sheila v. Timber

Ridge, LP, et al.


27


Status

Resolution NCHRC

Close Date

04-14-0758-8 14HO1887 Maiyo, Michael & Janet

v. Block & Associates


04-14-0798-8 14HO1888 Bragg, Chenelle v.

Redman Properties


04-14-0912-8 14HO1895 Church, Lilly &

Michael v. K.

Partnership, L.P., et al.


04-14-0720-8 14HO1886 Burton, Brenda v.

Cheryl H. Fields Living

Trust, et al.


04-14-1050-8 14HO1900 Hailey, Shalana V.

Housing Authority of

The City of Goldsboro,

et al.


04-15-0066-8 14HO1904 Dwight Houser v. David

M. Moul


04-15-0460-8 15HO1925 Karger, Jason and Julie

v. Mimosa Bay HOA,

Inc.

Closed No Cause

04-15-0425-8 15HO1920

Moore, John Henry v.

Plymouth HA Closed No Cause 6/23/2015

04-15-0517-8 15HO1921 Coleman, Jezron v.

North Stone Apartments


04-15-0423-8 14HO1907 Mobley, Kay v. Bettis,

Doris

Closed Conciliation

before

Determination

5/20/2015

04-14-0827-8 14HO1882 Lopez, Jorge v. Norton,

Bill and Barker Realty


04-15-0072-8 14HO1898 Martinez and Trejo v.

Johnson Mobile Home

Park, et al.


04-14-0626-8 14HO1878 Smith, Priscilla v.

Smithfield Housing

Authority


04-15-0178-8 14HO1897 Garcia and Resendiz v.

Faulkner Mobile Home

Park, et al.


04-15-0506-8 15HO1919 Nichols, Estela v.

Stoney Ridge

Apartments


04-15-0163-8 14H01909 Cooper, Jeffrey v.

Gunter, Jake and

Alberta


04-14-0079-8 13HO1848 Goldston v. Chatham

HA

Closed Post-cause

conciliation

12/22/2014

04-12-0605-8 12HO1764 Turner and Chapman v.

Alvarez

Closed Unable to

Locate

Complainant

2/9/2015

04-14-0600-8 14HO1874 Richardson v. Heritage

Circle Apartments

Closed Withdrawal

with Resolution

7/24/2014

04-15-0558-8 15HO1937 Meerkatz, Peg v.

Fairway Apartment

Partners, LLC et al.

Closed Withdrawal

with Resolution

6/22/2015

28


Status

Resolution NCHRC

Close Date

04-15-0410-8 15HO1918 Higgins, Cynthia v.

Waterbrook Apts., LLC

Closed Withdrawal

without

resolution

6/26/2015

04-10-0597-8 09HO1555 Boarman v. Raleigh

Hsg. Authority

Closed Cause with

Agency

Counsel

04-13-0558-8 13HO1820 LANC v. Tucker

Acquisition Corp.

Closed Cause – in

post-cause

conciliation

2/20/2015

(Cause

date)

04-14-0231-8 13HO1858 Williams, Brittany v.

Sheeba Shesa

Closed Cause with

Agency

Counsel

04-14-0001-8 13HO1846 Sparacino v. Lake

James

Closed Cause with

Agency

Counsel

Trial

scheduled

for

5/9/2016.

04-13-0518-8 13HO1818 LANC v. PR Oberlin

Court

Reactivated

by HUD

2/23/2015

04-13-0517-8 13HO1817 LANC v. McArthur

Partners Landing

Reactivated

by HUD

2/23/2015

04-09-1054-8 09HO1509 Ginger Hall v. Beacon

Rescue

Reactivated

by HUD 3/9/2015

29

Appendix D

Comparative Analysis of Performance Requirements

To compare staffing and case closure statistics for HUD’s Region IV states with and without Fair Housing

Assistance Program (FHAPs), the NCHRC submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for

housing data for South Carolina (a state with a FHAP) and Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia, (states

without a FHAP where all fair housing complaints are transferred to the HUD Regional Fair Housing and

Equal Opportunity Office in Atlanta).

Data provided by HUD are included in the following section.

The South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (SCHAC) is, like NCHRC, certified by HUD as a FHAP.

Because of its proximity to North Carolina, NCHRC requested fair housing data for the South Carolina

FHAP. It is important to note that the SCHAC is the only FHAP in South Carolina; whereas, in North

Carolina there are six FHAPs:

Charlotte/Mecklenburg Community Relations Committee,

Winston-Salem Human Relations Commission,

Greensboro Human Relations Commission,

Orange County Human Relations Commission,

Durham Human Relations Commission, and

The North Carolina Human Relations Commission.

Because the N.C. Fair Housing Act divests the NCHRC of jurisdiction wherever there is a HUD-certified

local agency, the North Carolina Human Relations Commission is only certified to investigate and enforce

fair housing cases that are outside the jurisdictions of the other five FHAPs, rather than the entire state, as is

the case for South Carolina.

The states of Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi do not have a HUD-certified FHAP. Therefore, fair housing

complaints in these states are sent to HUD’s Atlanta Field Office for investigation and enforcement.

Table D.6.b.-1 shows a comparison of population statistics for the jurisdiction of the NCHRC (population of

the State of NC minus populations of Charlotte/Mecklenburg [Mecklenburg County], City of Winston-

Salem, City of Greensboro, Orange County and City of Durham) and the South Carolina Human Affairs

Commission.

Table D-1. Population Statistics for North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and

Mississippi

Jurisdiction Population*

(US Census Quick Facts, 2014)

State of North Carolina 9,943,964

Mecklenburg County

(Charlotte/Mecklenburg FHAP)*

1,012,539

City of Winston-Salem 239,269

City of Greensboro 282,586

Orange County 140,420

City of Durham 251,893

NC Human Relations Commission

(calculated by difference)

8,017,257

State of South Carolina 4,832,482

30

SC Human Affairs Commission 4,832,482

State of Alabama 4,849,377

State of Georgia 10,097,343

State of Mississippi 2,994,079

*The Charlotte Mecklenburg CRC covers only unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg County outside

of Charlotte; therefore, the NCHRC has jurisdiction in Huntersville, Cornelius and other incorporated towns

in Mecklenburg County.

Comparative data for the North Carolina and South Carolina FHAPs are presented in the following tables.

Table D-2. Fair Housing Staff positions in North Carolina and South Carolina FHAPs

Name of Position Current Positions

North Carolina FHAP

Current Positions

South Carolina FHAP

Commissioner 0 1

Executive Director 1 1

Staff Attorney 1 2

Investigator 5 2

Outreach Coordinator 0 1

Intake Investigator 1 1

Mediator 0 1

Finance Director 0 1

Enforcement Manager 0 1

Total Positions 8 11

HUD’s performance standard requires that FHAP agencies close 50% of fair housing complaints, excluding

systemic and cause complaints, within 100 days of filing. Table D-3 presents closure statistics for North

Carolina Human Relations Commission and the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission.

Table D-3. Comparative Case Closure Data for North Carolina and South Carolina FHAPs

Case Data North Carolina FHAP South Carolina FHAP

Cases Closed Cases Closed

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2015

No Cause 30 (52%) 28 (49%) 18 (38%) 49 (59.85%)

Conciliation 11 (19%) (including 3 post-

cause conciliations)

18 (32%) (including 3 post-cause

conciliations)

20 (43%)

Withdrawal with

Resolution

5 (9%) 5 (9%) 0 (0%)

Administrative

Closures

8 (14%) 5 (9%) 7 (15%) 3 (7%)

Judicial Dismissal 1 (2%) 0 0

Reasonable Cause 3 (5%) 1 (2%)

2 (4%) 5 (6.1%)

Total 58 (100%) 57 (100%) 47 (100%) 82 (100%)

Average Age of Cases

at Closure (days)

117 127 195 184

Cases Closed Within

100 Days

32 (55%) 35 (61%) 16 (34%) 22 (27%)

31

Table D-4. Case Closure Data for States Without a FHAP Program; Cases are investigated by HUD’s

Atlanta Regional Office

Case Data AL GA MS

Cases Closed Cases Closed Cases Closed

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2015

No Cause 20 (46.5%) 12

(34.2%)

54 (70%) 49

(53%)

8 (44%) 11 (69%)

Conciliation

Withdrawal with

Resolution

Administrative

Closures

0 0 1 (1%) 5 (5%) 1 (6%) 0

Judicial Dismissal

Administrative

Hearing Ended

Reasonable

Cause/Administrative

Hearing

These data are not available at the present time.

Total 43 35 77 92 18 16

Average Age of

Cases at Closure

(days)

223 110 188 117 270 240

Cases Closed Within

100 Days

12 (27.9%) 18 (51%) 34 (44%) 35

(38%)

7 (39%) 7 (44%)

Table D-5. Comparison of Case Closure by Number of Fair Housing Investigative Staff for States

With and Without a FHAP

State/FHAP Cases/Complaints Closed Investigative Staff Other

Supportive

Staff

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2015

Alabama 43 35 17 13 Data is not

available.

Georgia 77 92 18 18 Data is not

available. Mississippi 18 16 11 11 Data is not

available. SC Human Affairs

Commission

47 82 5 5 6

NC Human

Relations

Commission

58 57 5 5 3

32

Appendix E

Response to Section 6.20(c)

1. A description of the fund, agency, division or program mission, goals and objectives, including

statutorily required functions and functions performed without specific statutory authority.

As discussed in the Executive Summary and narrative of the report, the Commission (staffed

division) is a small division of state government located in the Department of Administration. The

staff currently consists of a total of 9 authorized staff members, with 7.29 of these FTEs supported

by state-appropriated funding. The NC Human Relations Commission (board) is composed of 22

members appointed by the Governor (18), the Speaker of the House (2) and the President Pro-

Tempore of the Senate (2). The Commission (board) is supported by the Commission staff and the

Department of Administration.

2. The performance measures for the fund, agency, division or program and the problem or need

addressed.

Performance metrics address case closure issues, training, education/outreach, monitoring

compliance with settlement agreements, and enforcement. Information about performance metrics

is presented in pages 8 through 10 of the narrative of the report. A summary of fair housing cases

investigated and closed is presented in Appendix C.

3. The extent to which the fund, agency, division or program objectives and

program performance measures have been achieved.

FHAP performance is evaluated relative to case closure statistics, training, education/outreach and

monitoring compliance with settlement agreements. In FY 2015, NCHRC exceeded performance

metrics because:

NCHRC closed 57 fair housing cases in FY 2015, exceeding HUD’s population-based

requirement of closing 50 cases in the fiscal year;

NCHRC also closed 35 (58%) of its fair housing cases in less than 100 days, exceeding the

HUD requirements for closure in less than 100 days;

Of the 57 cases NCHRC closed in FY 2015, only 5 cases (9%) were closed administratively,

substantially below HUD’s allowed maximum of 20%;

NCHRC delivered 37 fair housing trainings in FY 2015, in compliance with HUD’s

requirement of affirmatively eliminating prohibited practices under its fair housing law.

33

4. A detailed accounting of all sources of funds for the fund, agency, division or program.

A summary of sources of funds and expenditures are presented in the Executive Summary; details

are provided in Appendices B and C, for federal FHAP funds and state-appropriated funds,

respectively.

5. Recommendations for statutory, budgetary or administrative changes needed to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of services delivered to the public, including recommendations

regarding whether to transfer the program to the Division of Motor Vehicles or elsewhere in the

Department of Transportation.

The mission, objectives and functions of the Human Relations Commission are not aligned

with the Department of Motor Vehicles. NCHRC recommends that that the division be

maintained in the Department of Administration (DOA) because the DOA is statutorily

charged with providing administrative support to the MLK Commission and the State of

North Carolina Human Relations Commission.

However, as HUD begins to implement its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule, it

may be advantageous to integrate fair housing activities with the state’s Small Cities

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program that is now administered by the

Department of Commerce.

Subpart (g) of the State Fair Housing Act, N.C.G.S. § 41A-4(g) states that it is an unfair

housing practice to discriminate in land-use decisions. As a result, the State Fair Housing

Act is more restrictive than the federal Fair Housing Act and is the only substantially

equivalent Act that designates affordable housing as a protected class. This protected class

is not a criterion for substantial equivalence and is not included in the federal Fair Housing

Act. While NCHRC is not recommending that legislative changes be made, it is clarifying

this difference in the state and federal Fair Housing Acts.

Given that the role of the NCHRC division has evolved to focus on fair housing and

community relations, the NCHRC requests that the name of the division be changed to the

Office of Fair Housing and Community Relations. With this change, the function of the

division is clarified and there is a clear distinction between the division and the board. This

would require technical amendments of the N.C. Fair Housing Act, N.C.G.S. 41A, and of

N.C.G.S. Ch.99 D.

34

6. The consequences of discontinuing funding, or of continuing funding, with a source other than a

transfer from the Highway Fund.

6.a Overview

IN FY 2015, NCHRC received 72% of its funding from state-appropriated funds and 28% from its

federal Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) grant.

On October 26, 2015, HUD recommended that NCHRC’s Fair Housing Assistance Program

(FHAP) receive continuing certification as a substantially equivalent agency. As a result of this

recertification, NCHRC divisional staff will continue to investigate and enforce allegations of fair

housing discrimination at the state, rather than the federal, level. Had the NCHRC not been

recertified, HUD would have assumed responsibility for investigating allegations of housing

discrimination throughout the state, except where municipal FHAPs exist.

This recertification is advantageous to the State of North Carolina because, when NCHRC

investigates a potential fair housing violation in North Carolina, the division is able to resolve the

investigation locally. If NCHRC were not recertified, the complaint would be transferred to HUD

in Atlanta for intake and investigation. An advantage of a local investigation is that NCHRC staff

are able to travel locally and conduct an onsite investigation, a particularly helpful investigative tool

for reaching a fair, effective and efficient determination. HUD’s Fair Housing personnel who have

oversight of North Carolina FHAPs are based in Atlanta, Georgia; HUD Headquarters staff, located

in Washington, DC have higher oversight of the FHAP. Because of travel issues, it is unlikely that

a face-to-face onsite visit would be a part of an investigation conducted regionally (Atlanta) or by

staff at HUD Headquarters.

6.b. Comparative Analysis

A comparative analysis of the performance of NCHRC versus the South Carolina Human Affairs

Commission and HUD’s investigative team in the Atlanta Regional Office showed that NCHRC’s

performance exceeded the performance of these organizations.

Please see data presented in Appendix D.

6.c. Investigative Issues Associated with Federal Legal Support and Systemic Violations

Another consideration for the investigation at the federal level is the greater depth of legal staff and

knowledge of systemic violations; therefore, the investigation/enforcement may be both more

impersonal and less efficient than a state investigation. In this case HUD enforcement actions

35

would proceed through either the Federal Courts or through HUD Administrative Hearings, not

through the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings or Superior Courts.

In FY 2016, HUD reactivated one design and construction case (that addressed fair housing

accessibility issues) for systemic investigation.

7. Recommendations for improving services or reducing costs or duplication.

As HUD begins to implement its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule, it may be

advantageous to integrate fair housing activities with the state’s Small Cities Community Block

Grant (CDBG) program that is now administered by the Department of Commerce.

A transfer of the MLK Commission to the Office of the Governor, which is responsible for the

annual State Employees MLK Holiday Observance Program and the John R. Larkins Award, may

increase efficiency by integrating the education/outreach activities and grant program of the MLK

Commission with the activities implemented by the Governor’s Office.

8. The identification of policy issues that should be brought to the attention of the General

Assembly.

Policy issues for consideration by the General Assembly

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (80 Fed. Reg. 42272, to be codified in 24

C.F.R. Parts 5, 91, 92, issued July16, 2015) is a response to recommendations of the Government

Accountability Office and stakeholders for HUD to enhance its fair housing planning obligations by

providing greater clarity and support to jurisdictions receiving HUD funding, and facilitating local

decision-making on fair housing priorities and goals. The rule provides jurisdictions that receive

HUD funding with an approach allowing them to more effectively incorporate fair housing into

their planning processes and integrate fair housing goals into their existing community development

and housing planning processes. NC Human Relations Commission staff members have already

received some training from HUD regarding the requirements of the new rule and have developed

and delivered some training about the new rule to stakeholders. NCHRC is planning to offer this

training at the local level in FY 2016.

Affordable Housing as a Protected Class

Subpart (g) of the State Fair Housing Act, N.C.G.S. § 41A-4(g) states that it is an unfair housing

practice to discriminate against affordable housing in land-use decisions. The North Carolina Fair

Housing Act is the only substantially equivalent Fair Housing Act in the country that designates

affordable housing as a protected class. This designation is not a criterion for substantial

equivalence and the subsection of the state Fair Housing Act is not included in the Federal Fair

Housing Act.

36

Date post:	20-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Final Report Continuation Review of the North …...March 31, 2016 Final Report Continuation Review...

Documents