AJJCS
Products News Help
Client Sign In

Biden Administration Introduces "Renters Bill of Rights"

person A.J. Johnson today 03/12/2023

In late January 2023, the Biden administration released a Blueprint for a Renters Bill of Rights.  This blueprint describes federal actions around five guiding renter protections: Safe, Quality, Accessible, and Affordable Housing; Clear and Fair Leases; Education; Enforcement and Enhancement of Renters Rights; the Right to Organize; and Eviction Prevention, Diversion, and Relief.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced it will identify the opportunities and challenges of adopting and enforcing tenant protections, including policies that limit egregious rent increases at properties with Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) backed mortgages going forward.

FHFA is also going to publish a GSE Look-Up Tool to determine if a property is backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac financing and requires a 30-day notice to vacate for non-payment of rent. HUD will also issue a notice of proposed rulemaking requiring that PHAs and owners of project-based rental assistance properties provide no less than a 30-day notice of lease termination due to nonpayment of rent.

The blueprint also recommends that local governments take the following actions: (1) immediately seal eviction filings and only unseal them in the case of a decision against the tenant; (2) provide the right to counsel in eviction proceedings; and (3) prohibit source of income discrimination.

Following is a description of the "five principles" outlined in the Blueprint.

First Principle: Access to Safe, Quality, Accessible, and Affordable Housing

Renters should have access to housing that is safe, decent, and affordable and should pay no more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. Owners of rental housing and state and local governments should ensure that homes for rent meet habitability standards and are free of health and safety hazards, such as lead or mold. In addition, owners should provide services and amenities as advertised or included in the lease (such as utility costs and functional appliances) and ensure that the residential housing unit is well maintained (including common areas). Renters should face minimal barriers when applying for housing and receiving housing assistance, which includes minimally burdensome application and documentation requirements and fair and equal tenant screening. Increases in rents should be reasonable, with the acknowledgment that rents may need to increase to cover operating costs. These increases should be transparent and fair to protect against gouging.

In 2019, almost 25% of renters spent half their income on rent. Nationally, rents rose 26% during the pandemic. Limited housing supply has created more competition for fewer available units, which gives owners even more leverage in deciding to whom to rent to, what lease terms to offer, and whether and how much to raise rents. At the same time, the housing stock in America is aging, and more rental housing is facing obsolescence or poor housing conditions.

Perhaps in recognition of the fact that private owners who do not operate under any programmatic regulations (i.e., conventional housing) are not responsible for making housing affordable. These owners operate rental housing for the profits that can be made from such housing. Offering incentives for affordability is the responsibility of the government, at the federal, state, and local levels. To accomplish this, the Biden Administration has proposed the largest expansion of the Housing Choice Voucher program in decades. In addition to this step, the Administration has proposed the following:

  • The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will explore ways to expand the use of its authority under the FTC Act to take action against acts and practices that unfairly prevent consumers from obtaining and retaining housing.
  • As announced in November, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), an independent agency, will increase affordability in the multifamily rental market by classifying multifamily loans with loan agreements that restrict rents at levels affordable to households with incomes between 80 and 120 percent of Area Median Income as "mission-driven." In 2023, FHFA required that at least 50 percent of all Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae purchases of multifamily loans be mission-driven. In 2022, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae purchased a combined $142 billion in multifamily loans supporting over one million units. If the same activity holds in 2023, this will mean an investment in approximately 700,000 affordable units.

Second Principle: Clear & Fair Leases

Renters should have a clear and fair lease that has defined rental terms, rights, and responsibilities. Leases should not include mandatory arbitration clauses, unauthorized terms, hidden or illegal fees, false representations, or other unfair or deceptive practices. A lease should provide a transparent policy regarding security deposits, with those deposits being appropriately sized and placed in an interest-bearing account for the duration of the lease. The lease should also provide reasonable advance notice of actions related to the unit, including notice of entry for inspection by the housing provider and significant changes to the unit. Finally, the lease terms should be written in simple and clear language accessible to the renter, and the leasing process should ensure tenants understand the terms of the lease through a plain-language briefing.

A lease establishes the foundation for the housing provider and tenant relationship, highlighting the rights, responsibilities, and recourse that exists for both parties. A lease covers the terms for what is likely the largest single expense a household makes each month and over the course of a year. The trend of more leases with problematic provisions can be partially attributed to the increased use of shared forms, which are easily accessible through the internet and may include terms that are not legally enforceable in the state or locality in which the property is located.

To ensure fair leases to the greatest extent possible, the Administration is announcing the following new actions:

  • USDA will institute a broad set of actions that will advance clear leases and ensure tenants can seek compliance with lease terms without facing retaliation across its portfolio of 400,000 units of multifamily rental housing.
  • Specifically, USDA is developing a clear and fair lease that is similar to the model lease used in HUD Section 8 properties.
  • USDA will also create a tenant grievance FAQ outlining clear steps for tenants appealing a management decision and will distribute it to owners and management agents,  and ask for distribution to tenants and tenant advocacy groups.
  • Further, USDA Rural Development is working to create a Tenant Rights and Responsibilities brochure modeled after the HUD Multifamily brochure for assisted housing residents, increasing consistency between the two agencies and clarifying Rural Development tenants’ rights and responsibilities.
  • USDA will explore updating its regulations to require borrowers with federal credit from the department’s Rural Housing Service to utilize the brochure.

Owners and managers in the RD Section 515 Program should be prepared for this upcoming change. A good starting point is a review of the current HUD Model Lease for Multifamily Housing and the HUD Rights & Responsibilities Brochure. This will give operators of Section 515 housing an idea of what may be coming down the road.

Third Principle: Education, Enforcement, and Enhancement of Rights

The Administration position is that Federal, state, and local governments should do all they can to ensure renters know their existing legal rights and to protect renters from unlawful discrimination and exclusion that can take many different forms.

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), disability, familial status, and national origin, including practices that have an unjustified disparate impact on a protected class. The Administration proposes to expand the FHA to prohibit discrimination based on source of income.

In order to implement this third principle, HUD is finalizing a rule to clarify that the Fair Housing Act continues to bar practices with unjustified discriminatory effects notwithstanding efforts to weaken its reach. In addition, HUD has published a proposed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule to strengthen and better align grantee planning efforts to advance fair housing goals.

The federal government has advanced other rights beyond those protected by the Fair Housing Act. For example, discrimination against a holder of a Housing Choice Voucher is banned in the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which is the largest affordable housing production program in the country. The Administration has announced the following new actions:

Tenant Background Checks:

  • The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has said it will identify guidance or rules that it can issue to ensure that the background screening industry adheres to the law and coordinate law enforcement efforts with the FTC to hold tenant background check companies accountable for having reasonable procedures to ensure accurate information in the credit reporting system.
  • HUD, FHFA, FTC, and USDA have said they will work with CFPB to release best practices on the use of tenant screening reports, including the importance of communicating clearly to tenants the use of tenant background checks in denying rental applications or increasing fees and providing tenants the opportunity to address inaccurate information contained within background screening reports. HUD, FHFA, and USDA have said they will strongly encourage property owners in their respective portfolios to align with these best practices and inform them of any additional relevant legal requirements in their respective portfolios. HUD will also release guidance addressing the use of tenant screening algorithms in ways that may violate the Fair Housing Act.

Source of Income Discrimination:

  • Discrimination based on a person’s source of income is not expressly prohibited under the Fair Housing Act. There are several ongoing agency actions that will be enhanced, consistent with agency authorities, to reduce such discrimination going forward. Consistent with existing LIHTC rules, the Treasury Department reiterates that LIHTC building owners should lease units in a manner consistent with HUD’s nondiscrimination rules and are prohibited from refusing to lease units to prospective tenants due to their status as holders of Housing Choice Vouchers or certificates of eligibility. The Treasury Department will meet with tenants, advocates, housing providers, and researchers to discuss ways to further the goals of tenant protections, including those around source of income, as well as broader issues of affordability and eviction prevention with respect to the LIHTC incentive.  HUD will explore opportunities to address source of income discrimination through guidance.

Fourth Principle: The Right to Organize

The Administration believes that renters should have the right to organize without obstruction or harassment from their housing provider or property manager and should not risk losing housing over organizing.

Tenants in different types of HUD and RD programs have recognized rights to organize. The Administration is not proposing that the government impose this requirement on non-assisted properties. They are taking the following steps:

  • The Department of Defense (DoD) commits to ensuring that military members living in DoD’s government-owned, government-controlled, or privatized housing have the right to organize and affirms their right to report housing issues to their chain of command and/or Military Housing Office without fear of retribution or retaliation.
  • HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing is developing a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to distribute appropriated funds to support tenant capacity-building activities, including tenant education and outreach.
  • HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing will build on existing training and technical assistance strategies to promote engagement with residents and implementation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) resident protections, including grievance procedures, by owners of RAD-converted properties. This will include fact sheets and similar public resources, targeted outreach to owners of recently converted properties, and measures to refresh awareness of program expectations following the completion of the conversion process.

It should be noted that these actions will not apply to LIHTC properties.

Fifth Principle: Eviction Prevention, Diversion, and Relief

Before the pandemic, roughly 900,000 evictions were completed against tenants every single year. In order to reduce the number of evictions, the Administration is taking the following actions:

  • HUD will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, to build upon the previously issued Interim Final Rule, which will propose to require that PHAs administering a public housing program and owners of project-based rental assistance properties provide no less than 30 days advanced notification of lease termination due to nonpayment of rent.
  • HUD will award $20 million for the Eviction Protection Grant Program in fiscal year 2023, which will fund non-profits and governmental entities to provide legal assistance to low-income tenants at risk of or subject to eviction.
  • FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae have indicated their commitment to publishing information about the Enterprise Look-Up Tools, which allow tenants to determine if their property is backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac financing and requires the 30-day notice to vacate for non-payment of rent. The Enterprises will continue to publish this information and assess how the individual tools might be enhanced to improve utility.

Bottom Line -  This "Renters Bill of Rights" will have a direct impact on federally assisted housing, with some minor effects across the non-federal universe of rental housing. The most immediate impact will be felt in the rural housing community due to the Rural Development Service development of a Model Lease and "Rights & Responsibilities" brochure. At the same time, the push to create "best practices" relative to applicant background screening should lead landlords to examine current practices - before they are forced to do so by state or local agencies.

With regard to the LIHTC program, The Treasury Department will meet with tenants, advocates, housing providers, and researchers to discuss ways to further the goals of tenant protections, including those around source of income, as well as broader issues of affordability and eviction prevention with respect to the LIHTC incentive. 

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.

Read full story

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.

Read full story

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.

Read full story

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.

Read full story

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.