Assistance Animal Requests Under the Fair Housing Act - HUD Issues Important New Guidance

person A.J. Johnson today 02/08/2020

On January 28, 2020, HUD issued FHEO Notice 2020-01. The subject of the Notice is: Assessing a Person’s Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation (RA) under the Fair Housing Act (FHA)

Purpose of the Notice

The Notice explains certain obligations of housing providers under the FHA with respect to animals that individuals with disabilities may request as reasonable accommodations.

The guidance gives housing providers a set of best practices for complying with the FHA when assessing requests for RA to keep animals in housing, including the information that a housing provider may need to know from a health care professional about in individual’s need for an assistance animal. This Notice replaced prior guidance (FHEO - 2013-01).

Assessing a Person’s Request to Have an Animal as a RA under the FHA

Assistance animals are not pets. They are animals that do work, perform tasks, assist, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for individuals with disabilities (i.e., "support" animals). A housing provider may exclude or charge a fee or deposit for a pet but not for service animals or other assistance animals. (This section of the Notice clearly prohibits any type of fee or deposit for an assistance animal).

FH complaints concerning denial of RA requests comprise almost 60% of all FH complaints and assistance animal complaints are increasing (this is actually the most common complaint.

HUD is providing this guidance to help housing providers distinguish between a legitimate assistance animal and a person who simply wants to avoid pet rules or fees.

Important - housing providers should not reassess requests for RA requests that were granted prior to the issuance of this guidance.

Part I: Service Animals

Service animals are defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which does not recognize "support" animals. Service animals must be allowed in housing.

Generally, only dogs are considered service animals (although miniature horses are also recognized in certain circumstances). Any other type of animal is not a service animal.

If it is "readily apparent" that a dog is a service animal, no verification is permitted. It is "readily apparent" if the dog is observed:

  1. Guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision;
  2. Pulling a wheelchair; or
  3. Providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility impairment.

In the case of service animals, housing providers may ask the following two questions:

  1. Is the animal required because of a disability; and
  2. What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

Do not ask for documentation of the animal’s training.

These questions may be asked in the form of a sworn affidavit. If the answer to either question is "no" or "none," it is not a service animal but may be a support animal (guidance on this is provided in Part II of the Notice).

Part II - Analysis of Reasonable Accommodation (RA) Requests Under the Fair Housing Act for Assistance Animals Other Than Service Animals

A resident may request a RA either before or after acquiring the assistance animal. (This addresses the complaint of many manager when they discover pets that are then claimed as assistance animals). However, this may lead to an inference of bad faith on the part of the person seeking the accommodation.

Question that may be asked regarding a "non-service" animal

  1. Has the individual requested a RA - this is have they asked to get or keep an animal in connection with a physical or mental impairment or disability?
    1. The request may be oral or written. It may be made by others on behalf of the individual, including a person legally residing in the unit with the requesting individual or a legal guardian or authorized representative.
    1. If the answer to this question is "no," no RA is required. If the answer is "yes," owners must assess whether to grant the accommodation.

Part III - Criteria for Assessing Whether to Grant the Requested Accommodation

The following questions may be used to assess whether to grant the requested accommodation:

  • Does the person have an observable disability or does the housing provider already have information giving them reason to believe that the person has a disability? If "yes," information regarding what the animal does may be requested (covered later). If the answer is "no," has the person requesting the accommodation provided information that reasonably supports that the person has a disability?

Observable & Non-Observable Disabilities

Observable impairments include blindness or low vision, deafness or being hard of hearing, mobility limitations, and some intellectual impairments (e.g., autism), neurological impairments (e.g., stroke, Parkinson’s disease, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or brain injury), and mental illness. Observable impairments are generally obvious and would not be reasonably attributed to non-medical causes by a lay-person. In other words, the impairment would be obvious to an ordinary person. However, many impairments requiring an emotional support animal are not observable. In these cases, verification of both need and disability may be required.

When verification of a disability is needed, housing providers should (but are not required to) provide the requester the Guidance on Documenting the Need for an Assistance Animal.

Information about a disability may include:

  • A determination of disability from a federal, state, or local government agency;
  • Receipt of disability benefits or services (SSI if under age 65, SSDI, VA disability, services from a vocational rehab agency, etc.);
  • Eligibility for housing assistance received because of a disability; or
  • Information confirming disability from a health care professional.

Documentation from the Internet

Some websites sell certificates, registrations, and licensing documents for assistance animals to anyone who answers certain questions or participates in a short interview and pays a fee. Housing providers are entitled to reliable documentation for needs or disabilities that are not obvious. HUD’s position is that Internet documentation - by itself - is not sufficient to reliably establish that an individual has a need for an assistance animal.

However, many legitimate, licensed health care providers provide services over the Internet. In such cases, verification is considered reliable if it (1) confirms a person’s disability; (2) confirms the need for the animal; and (3) indicates that the provider has personal knowledge of the individual.

Information Confirming Disability-Related Need for an Assistance Animal

  1. Information from a licensed health care professional - e.g., physician, optometrist, psychiatrist, psychologist, physician’s assistant, nurse practitioner, or nurse - the information may be general to the condition but must be specific to the disabled individual and the support provided by the animal.

Type of Animal

If the requested animal is one that is commonly kept in households, the reasonable accommodation should be provided if it is confirmed that the animal is needed due to a disability. However, if the animal is one that is not commonly kept in households, the reasonable accommodation need not be provided, except in very rare circumstances (described below).

Animals Commonly Kept in Households

If the animal is a dog, cat, small bird, rabbit, hamster, gerbil, other rodent, fish, turtle, or other small domesticated animal that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes, then the reasonable accommodation should be granted because the requester has provided information confirming that there is a disability-related need for the animal. Reptiles (other than turtles), barnyard animals, monkeys, kangaroos, and other non-domesticated animals are not considered common household animals.

Unique Animals

If the individual is requesting to keep a unique type of animal that is not commonly kept in households as described above (e.g.,. a boa constrictor), then the requester has the substantial burden of demonstrating a disability-related therapeutic need for the specific animal or the specific type of animal. If the housing provider enforces a "no pets" policy or a policy prohibiting the type of animal the individual seeks to have, the housing provider may take reasonable steps to enforce the policy if the requester obtains the animal before submitting reliable documentation from a health care provider that reasonably supports the requester’s disability-related need for the animal. This places a substantial burden on tenants who retain such animals before requesting permission to have the animal. The housing provider should make a determination promptly, generally within ten days of receiving documentation.

A reasonable accommodation may be necessary when the need for a unique animal involves unique circumstance.

E.g.,

  • the animal is individually trained to do work or perform tasks that cannot be performed by a dog.
  • Information from a health care professional confirms that:
    • Allergies prevent the person from using a dog; or
    • Without the animal, the symptoms or effects of the person’s disability will be significantly increased.
  • The individual seeks to keep the animal outdoors at a house with a fenced yard where the animal can be appropriately maintained.

Example of a unique type of support animal:

  • An individually trained capuchin monkey performs tasks for a person with paralysis caused by a spinal cord injury. The monkey has been trained to retrieve a bottle of water from the refrigerator, unscrew the cap, insert a straw, and place the bottle in a holder so the individual can get a drink of water. The monkey is also trained to turn lights on and off and retrieve requested items from inside cabinets. The monkey can use its hands to perform manual tasks that a service dog cannot perform.

General Considerations

  • The FHA does not require a dwelling to be made available to an individual whose tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or whose tenancy would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others. A housing provider may, therefore, refuse to allow an assistance animal if the specific animal poses a direct threat that cannot be eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level through actions the individual takes to maintain or control the animal (e.g., keeping the animal in a secure enclosure).
  • Pet rules do not apply to service animals and support animals. For this reason, housing providers may not limit the size or breed of a dog used as a service or support animal just because of the size or breed but can, as noted, limit based on specific issues with the animal’s conduct because it poses a direct threat or a fundamental alteration.
  • A housing provider may not charge a deposit, fee, or surcharge for an assistance animal. However, a landlord may charge a tenant for damage an assistance animal causes if it is the provider’s usual practice to charge for damage caused by tenants.
  • A person with a disability is responsible for feeding, maintaining, providing veterinary care, and controlling his or her assistance animal. They may do this on their own or with the assistance of family, friends, volunteers, or service providers. Since it would fundamentally alter how a project operates, asking a housing provider to care for the animal would not be a reasonable accommodation.
  • Before denying a RA request due to lack of information confirming an individual’s disability or disability-related need for an animal, the housing provider is encouraged to engage in a good-faith dialogue with the requestor called the "interactive process."

Guidance on Documenting an Individual’s Need for Assistance Animals in Housing

As part of the Notice, HUD included specific guidance on how to document the need for assistance animals. Housing providers should familiarize themselves with this guidance and are also encouraged to provide it to applicants or residents who request an accommodation relating to an assistance animal.

This section of the Notice provides "best practices" for documenting an individual’s need for assistance animals in housing. It is intended to help individuals with disabilities explain to their health care professionals the type of information that housing providers may need to help them make sometimes difficult legal decisions under fair housing laws. Housing providers may not require a health care professional to use a specific form, to provide notarized statements, to make statements under penalty of perjury, or to provide an individual’s diagnosis or other detailed information about a person’s physical or mental impairments. This document only provides assistance on the type of information that may be needed under the FHA.

When providing this information, health care professionals should use personal knowledge of their patient/client - i.e., the knowledge used to diagnose, advise, counsel, treat, or provide health care or other disability-related services to their patient/client.

As a best practice, documentation contemplated in certain circumstances is recommended to include the following generally information:

  • The patient’s name;
  • Whether the health care professional has a professional relationship with that patient/client involving the provision of health care or disability-related services; and
  • The type of animal(s) for which the reasonable accommodation is sought (i.e., dog, cat, bird, rabbit, hamster, gerbil, other rodent, fish, turtle, other specified type of domesticated animal, or other specified unique animal.

Disability-related information: a disability for purposes of fair housing laws exists when a person has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. It is recommended that individuals seeking reasonable accommodations for support animals ask health care professionals to provide information related to the following:

  • Whether the patient has a physical or mental impairment;
  • Whether the patient’s impairment(s) substantially limits at least one major life activity or major bodily function; and
  • Whether the patient needs the animal(s) [because it does work, provides assistance, or performs at least one task that benefits the patient because of his or her disability, or because it provides therapeutic emotional support to alleviate a symptom or effect of the disability of the patient/client, and not merely as a pet].

If the animal is not a domesticated animal that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes, it may be helpful for patients to ask health care professionals to provide the following additional information:

  • The date of the last consultation with the patient;
  • Any unique circumstances justifying the patient’s need for the particular animal (if already owned or identified by the individual) or particular type of animal(s); and
  • Whether the health care professional has reliable information about this specific animal or whether they specifically recommended this type of animal.

It is also recommended that the health care professional sign and date any documentation provided and provide contact information and any professional licensing information.

This is important new guidance relating to a very difficult and controversial area of fair housing law. Housing providers should review this Notice and provide it to their legal counsel. In the end, this guidance does not in any way remove the responsibility of housing providers to provide reasonable accommodations - including permission to have support animals - for applicants and residents who require such an accommodation. The notice does, however, provide the most specific guidance to date regarding the level of verification that housing providers may be entitled to before granting these accommodations.

Latest Articles

RD to Implement HOTMA Income and Certification Rules on July 1, 2025

Although HUD has postponed implementation of HOTMA for its Multifamily Housing Programs until January 1, 2026, the USDA Rural Housing Service (RHS) Office of Multifamily Housing has announced that the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) will take effect on July 1, 2025, bringing significant changes to income calculation rules for multifamily housing programs. Key Implementation Details To accommodate the federally mandated HOTMA requirements, Rural Development published comprehensive updates to Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 on June 13, 2025. All multifamily housing tenant certifications effective on or after July 1, 2025, must comply with the new HOTMA requirements. Recognizing the challenges of the transition period, Rural Development has announced a six-month grace period. Between July 1, 2025, and January 1, 2026, the agency will not penalize multifamily housing owners for HOTMA-related tenant file errors discovered during supervisory reviews. Legislative Background HOTMA was signed into law on July 29, 2016, directing the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to modernize income calculation rules established initially under the Housing Act of 1937. After years of development, HUD published the Final Rule on February 14, 2023, updating critical regulations found in 24 CFR Part 5, Subpart A, Sections 5.609 and 5.611. The HOTMA changes specifically affecting the RHS Multifamily Housing portfolio are contained in 24 CFR 5.609(a) and (b) and 24 CFR 5.611, which standardize income calculation methods across federal housing programs. Notable Policy Changes Unborn Child Consideration One of the most significant changes involves how unborn children are counted for household eligibility purposes. Under the new rules, pregnant women will be considered as part of two-person households for income qualification purposes, aligning Rural Development policies with other affordable housing programs, including HUD and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs. However, the household will not receive the $480 dependent deduction until after the child is born, maintaining consistency in benefit distribution timing. Updated Certification Forms Rural Development has released an updated Form RD 3560-8 Tenant Certification, which was initially published on December 6, 2024, and revised on April 18, 2025. The form is available on the eForms Website for immediate use. The previous version of the form has been renumbered as RD 3560-8A and should be used for all tenant certifications effective before July 1, 2025. Implementation Timeline The HOTMA implementation has experienced some delays. Originally scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025, the Rural Housing Service announced on October 3, 2024, that implementation would be postponed to July 1, 2025, to allow additional time for property owners and managers to prepare. Rural Development initially implemented HOTMA through an unnumbered letter dated August 19, 2024, which outlined the overview and projected timeline for implementation. Industry Impact The HOTMA changes represent the most significant update to federal housing income calculation rules in decades, affecting thousands of multifamily housing properties across rural America. Property owners and managers have been working to update their systems and train staff on the new requirements. The six-month penalty-free transition period demonstrates Rural Development s commitment to supporting property owners through this complex regulatory change while ensuring long-term compliance with federal requirements. Moving Forward Multifamily housing stakeholders are encouraged to review the updated Chapter 6 of Handbook 2-3560 and ensure their staff is adequately trained on the new HOTMA requirements. Property owners should also verify they have access to the updated Form RD 3560-8 and understand the timing requirements for its use. For ongoing updates and additional resources, stakeholders can subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates through the GovDelivery subscriber page. The implementation of HOTMA represents a significant step toward modernizing and standardizing income calculation methods across federal housing programs, ultimately improving consistency and fairness in affordable housing administration.

HUD’s Proposed Rule to Eliminate Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans: A Critical Analysis

Introduction The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has proposed eliminating the requirement for Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans (AFHMPs), a cornerstone of fair housing enforcement for decades. This proposed rule, published on June 3, 2025, represents a significant departure from established fair housing practices and raises serious concerns about the federal government s commitment to ensuring equal housing opportunities for all Americans. HUD s justification for this elimination rests on six primary arguments, each of which fails to withstand careful scrutiny and analysis. Background on Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans AFHMPs have long served as essential tools in combating housing discrimination by requiring property owners and managers to actively market housing opportunities to groups that are least likely to apply. These plans ensure that information about available housing reaches all segments of the community, not just those who traditionally have had better access to housing information networks. Analysis of HUD s Justifications 1. Claims of Inconsistency with Fair Housing Act Authority HUD argues that its authority under the Fair Housing Act and Executive Order 11063 is limited to the "prevention of discrimination, claiming that AFHM regulations go beyond this scope by requiring outreach to minority communities through targeted publications and outlets. The agency characterizes this as impermissible "racial sorting. This argument fundamentally misunderstands both the nature of discrimination and the historical context of fair housing enforcement. Information disparities have long been one of the most prevalent and effective forms of housing discrimination. When certain groups systematically lack access to information about housing opportunities, the discriminatory effect is equivalent to being explicitly excluded. The failure to provide equal access to housing information is, in itself, a discriminatory act, not merely a neutral information gap. AFHMPs address this reality by ensuring that housing information reaches all communities, particularly those that have been historically excluded from traditional marketing channels. 2. Constitutional Challenges Under Equal Protection HUD contends that AFHM regulations violate the Equal Protection Clause by requiring applicants to favor some racial groups over others. This characterization is both inaccurate and misleading. AFHMPs do not create preferences or favor any particular group. Instead, they ensure equitable access to information by targeting outreach to communities that are "least likely to apply for specific housing opportunities. This principle applies regardless of the racial or ethnic composition of those communities. For instance, housing developments located in predominantly minority neighborhoods are required to conduct affirmative marketing in white communities since white residents would be least likely to apply for housing in those areas. The regulation is race-neutral in its application it focuses on reaching underrepresented groups regardless of their racial identity. This approach promotes inclusion rather than exclusion and advances the constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. 3. Delegation of Legislative Power Concerns HUD s third argument that the Fair Housing Act s authorization of AFHM regulations constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power represents perhaps the weakest aspect of their legal reasoning. Congress explicitly mandated that affirmative efforts be made to eliminate housing discrimination. As the administrative agency responsible for implementing congressional intent in this area, HUD possesses both the authority and the responsibility to determine the most effective means of carrying out this mandate. The development of specific regulatory mechanisms to achieve Congress s stated goals falls squarely within HUD s legitimate administrative authority and represents appropriate implementation of legislative intent rather than overreach. 4. The "Color Blind Policy Justification HUD frames its opposition to AFHMPs as part of a "color-blind policy approach, arguing that it is "immoral to treat racial groups differently and that the agency should not engage in "racial sorting. This argument mischaracterizes the function and operation of AFHMPs. These plans do not sort individuals by race or treat different racial groups unequally. Rather, they ensure that all groups have equal access to housing information by specifically reaching out to those who are least likely to receive such information through conventional marketing channels. Critically, AFHMPs require marketing to the general community in addition to targeted outreach. This comprehensive approach ensures broad access to housing information while addressing historical information disparities that have contributed to ongoing patterns of segregation. 5. Burden Reduction for Property Owners HUD argues that "innocent private actors should not bear the economic burden of preparing marketing plans unless they have actively engaged in discrimination. This position suggests that property owners should be exempt from fair housing obligations unless they can prove intentional discriminatory conduct. This reasoning effectively provides cover for property owners who prefer that certain groups remain unaware of housing opportunities. The "burden of creating inclusive marketing strategies is minimal compared to the societal cost of perpetuating information disparities that maintain segregated housing patterns. The characterization of comprehensive marketing as an undue burden ignores the fundamental principle that equal housing opportunity requires proactive effort, not merely passive non-discrimination. This represents a retreat to a "wink and nod approach to fair housing enforcement that falls far short of the Fair Housing Act s aspirational goals. 6. Prevention vs. Equal Outcomes HUD s final argument contends that AFHM regulations improperly focus on equalizing statistical outcomes rather than preventing discrimination. This argument creates a false dichotomy between prevention and opportunity creation. AFHMPs exist not to guarantee equal outcomes but to ensure equal opportunity by providing equal access to housing information. When information about housing opportunities is not equally available to all segments of the community, the opportunity for fair housing choice is compromised from the outset. True prevention of discrimination requires addressing the structural barriers that limit housing choices, including information disparities. The Broader Implications HUD s proposed elimination of AFHMP requirements represents a concerning retreat from decades of progress in fair housing enforcement. The proposal effectively returns to an era when discrimination, while technically prohibited, was facilitated through information control and selective marketing practices. The reality of housing markets is that access to information varies significantly across communities. Property owners and managers possess considerable discretion in how they market available units. Without regulatory requirements for inclusive outreach, there are few incentives to ensure that information reaches all potential applicants. Anyone with experience in affordable housing development and management understands that information flow can be deliberately targeted and shaped. This targeting can either expand housing opportunities for underserved communities or systematically exclude them. Marketing strategies can be designed to minimize applications from certain groups while maintaining technical compliance with non-discrimination requirements. Conclusion The six justifications offered by HUD for eliminating AFHMP requirements fail to provide compelling reasons for abandoning this critical fair housing tool. The arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of how housing discrimination operates in practice and ignore the crucial role that information access plays in maintaining or dismantling segregated housing patterns. Rather than advancing fair housing goals, the proposed rule exacerbates existing disparities by removing a key mechanism for ensuring that all communities have equal access to housing information. The elimination of AFHMPs would represent a significant step backward in the ongoing effort to achieve the Fair Housing Act s vision of integrated communities and equal housing opportunities for all Americans. The current proposal suggests an agency leadership more committed to reducing the regulatory burden on property owners than to expanding housing opportunities for underserved communities. This represents a troubling departure from HUD s mission and responsibilities under federal fair housing law. Moving forward, policymakers, housing advocates, and community leaders must carefully consider whether this proposed rule serves the public interest or merely provides cover for practices that perpetuate housing segregation through more subtle but equally effective means.

HUD Inspector General Reports Major Financial Recoveries and Oversight Improvements

Federal watchdog agency identifies nearly $500 million in recoveries while addressing critical housing challenges across America. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development s Office of Inspector General (HUD OIG) has published its semiannual report to Congress, highlighting significant financial recoveries and systemic improvements across federal housing programs during the six-month period that ended on March 31, 2025. Record Financial Impact and Enforcement Actions The HUD OIG s oversight activities generated significant financial returns for taxpayers, with audit and investigative efforts yielding nearly half a billion dollars in recoveries and recommendations. Audit activities alone led to collections of $387.4 million, while identifying an additional $42.3 million in funds that could be better utilized and questioning $8.1 million in costs. Investigative efforts produced equally impressive outcomes, with over $61 million in recoveries and receivables. The enforcement actions were thorough, leading to 36 arrests, 58 indictments, and 92 administrative sanctions, including 60 debarments from federal programs. Among the most notable prosecutions, a landlord received a 17-year prison sentence for fraudulently obtaining federal rental assistance while violating the Fair Housing Act. Similarly, a businessman was sentenced to 17 years for orchestrating a reverse mortgage fraud scheme that specifically targeted elderly homeowners. Addressing Systemic Housing Quality Concerns The report highlights ongoing challenges in maintaining adequate housing conditions within HUD-assisted properties. Inspections revealed that 65% of the observed housing units had deficiencies, with 63 life-threatening issues identified. These findings underscore the continued struggle to ensure that federally subsidized housing meets basic safety and health standards. Under the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, initial inspections of converted properties experienced significant delays, with 50% lacking timely management and occupancy reviews. The OIG has recommended improvements to the timing and completion processes of inspections to address these critical gaps. One investigation led to a civil lawsuit against a management company for lead paint safety violations impacting over 2,500 apartments, highlighting the serious health risks faced by residents in certain assisted housing properties. Fraud Risk Management Needs Enhancement The report highlights fraud risk management as a vital area needing attention, especially within large public housing authorities. An audit of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) showed a lack of a comprehensive fraud risk strategy, despite some existing anti-fraud measures. The authority s approach was described as mainly reactive instead of proactive. This finding has led the OIG to recommend evaluating fraud risk management practices at other large public housing authorities across the country, indicating that NYCHA s challenges may reflect broader systemic issues. Progress in Resolving Past Recommendations Collaboration between HUD and the OIG has produced positive outcomes in addressing previously identified issues. During the reporting period, HUD resolved 135 open recommendations, bringing the total number of outstanding recommendations down to 693. This trend shows a consistent decrease in unresolved audit findings. However, although not part of the report, it should be noted that the recent and planned cuts to HUD staff may slow the pace of corrective activity. Since October 2022, the OIG has identified 283 non-monetary benefits resulting from its recommendations, including 77 guidance enhancements, 64 process improvements, 112 increases in program effectiveness, and 30 enhanced accuracies. These improvements highlight the broader impact of oversight activities beyond direct financial recoveries. Challenges in FHA Program Oversight The Federal Housing Administration continues to face challenges in managing counterparty risks with mortgage lenders and servicers. The OIG found that Carrington Mortgage and MidFirst Bank misapplied FHA foreclosure requirements in over 18% and 14% of cases, respectively. Additionally, other lenders, including CMG Mortgage and loanDepot.com, demonstrated deficiencies in their quality control programs for FHA-insured loans. These findings underscore the necessity for improved oversight of the private entities on which HUD depends to effectively deliver housing assistance programs. Disaster Recovery and Grants Management HUD s administration of disaster recovery grants continues to encounter monitoring challenges. Although grantees under the National Disaster Resilience Program faced delays in completing activities, they remain on track to achieve their overall goals. The OIG has recommended enhanced action plans and improved documentation of collaboration with partners. In broader grants management, the OIG identified compliance issues with federal transparency requirements, noting that prime award recipients did not consistently report subawards as mandated by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Technology and Cybersecurity Improvements HUD s information security program has achieved maturity level 3, but it has not yet reached full effectiveness. Penetration testing uncovered significant weaknesses in data protection and website security, prompting recommendations for comprehensive enhancements to safeguard sensitive information and systems. Whistleblower Protections and Transparency The OIG continues to underscore the significance of whistleblower protections in ensuring program integrity. During the reporting period, 10,214 hotline intakes were processed, with 6,631 referred to HUD program offices for action. The Public and Indian Housing office received the highest number of referrals at 5,250, highlighting ongoing concerns in this program area. Notably, the report found no attempts by HUD to interfere with OIG independence, and no instances of whistleblower retaliation were reported, indicating a healthy oversight environment. Looking Forward The semiannual report illustrates both the ongoing challenges that federal housing programs face and the effectiveness of independent oversight in addressing these issues. With nearly $500 million in financial impact and numerous process improvements, the HUD OIG s work continues to yield substantial returns on taxpayer investment while ensuring that federal housing assistance reaches those who need it most safely and effectively. The findings emphasize the crucial role of strong oversight in preserving the integrity of programs that offer housing assistance to millions of Americans while pointing out areas where ongoing attention and enhancement are vital for program success.

HOTMA Compliance Deadline Extended to January 1, 2026 for HUD Multifamily Housing Programs

On May 30, 2025, the Office of Multifamily Housing Programs issued a new Housing Notice extending the mandatory compliance date for the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA). The previous deadline of July 1, 2025, has now been extended to January 1, 2026, for all owners participating in HUD multifamily project-based rental assistance programs. What This Means for Owners and Agents Full HOTMA compliance is required for all tenant certifications dated on or after January 1, 2026. This includes adherence to both the mandatory provisions and any discretionary policies implemented by owners. Owners and agents may voluntarily adopt HOTMA compliance earlier by utilizing the rent override function in the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). Interim Compliance Guidance Until a property fully implements HOTMA, HUD advises the following: Continue to follow your current Tenant Selection Plan (TSP) as approved by HUD or your Contract Administrator. Maintain adherence to existing Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) policies and procedures. Ensure any early implementation steps are consistent with TRACS capabilities and accurately documented in tenant files. Key Takeaways New HOTMA compliance deadline: January 1, 2026 Optional early adoption is available through TRACS Existing policies remain in effect until full HOTMA compliance is achieved LIHTC Impact Owners and operators of LIHTC projects should contact the relevant Housing Finance Agency (HFA) for information on the effective date in their respective states. If you have any questions regarding the HOTMA implementation timeline, updating your policies, or the use of TRACS features, please contact our office. We are here to help ensure a smooth transition to full HOTMA compliance.

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.