News

Administration Proposing Significant Government Reorganization - Impact on Housing Programs

The administration recently released Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendation. This series of recommendations would reorganize how the federal government works and includes a number of revisions that would impact the affordable housing community. The U.S. Department of Agriculture s (USDA) Rural Housing Loan Guarantee Program and the rural rental assistance program would be transferred to the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD). HUD s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program would be consolidated with Economic Development Assistance programs from the Economic Development Administration and reorganized under a newly created Bureau of Economic Growth within the Department of Commerce. A permanent Council on Public Assistance would be created, composed of Health & Human Services (HHS), which would also be renamed the Department of Health & Public Welfare (HPW). The USDA nutrition assistance programs would be under the purview of this new department. This new "Council" would coordinate the efforts of HPW, HUD, USDA, and the Department of Education with regard to all public assistance programs, including the goal of implementing federal wide work requirements for participation in these programs. At this point, this is only a proposal, and Congressional action is required for any of the proposed changes. Owners of properties with assistance through the Rural Housing Service (RHS) should be aware however that it is possible that at some point in the future, oversight responsibility for rural housing projects will move from Rural Development to HUD.

NCSHA Letter to the IRS Regarding Average Income Minimum Set-Aside

On June 13, 2018, the National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) sent a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) outlining issues that Housing Finance Agencies (HFAs) will face with regard to the new Average Income Minimum Set-Aside and providing implementation recommendations for IRS consideration. Major elements of the NCSHA letter include the following:   While it is expected that most HFAs will include income averaging as part of their programs, NCSHA does not believe that there is a legal obligation to do so. In other words, states have the ability to prohibit use of the Average Income Minimum Set-Aside. I agree with this if such prohibition is part of the HFA s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). NCSHA believes that HFAs will have considerable latitude in the design of income averaging policies, such as: Restricting income averaging in developments with market-rate units; Establishing a process for designating units at various income levels and whether or not to permit "floating" units; Institute procedures that would allow owners to change unit designations over time, so long as the 60% average is maintained; Determine how many income designation levels any individual project may have - i.e., HFAs are not required to permit a project to use all seven of the permitted unit designations under the Average Income Set-Aside; Require owners of multiple building developments that elect income averaging to do so for all buildings in the development rather than making different elections for different buildings; Require income recertifications for 100% low-income developments if the agency deems it necessary; and Limit or prohibit income averaging for resyndication deals; Require unit parity in regard to bedroom size by income designation to prevent owners from designating larger units at higher income designations and smaller units at lower income designations.   I agree that HFAs may implement virtually all the policies outlined as long as the policies are part of the QAP and owners are aware of the policies when applying for credits.   NCSHA also provided a number of examples of when projects would be considered in or out of compliance. An important takeaway from the examples is that the NCSHA position is that once a unit is designated under a certain income limit, failure to rent that unit at the designated limit will constitute a reportable 8823 violation. The following example makes the point:   A ten-unit development has four units designated at 20% of AMI and six-units designated at 80% of AMI, for an average of 56%. One of the 20% units is rented to a household who, at the time of initial occupancy, has a gross annual household income of 25% of AMI. The income average of the remaining nine units is 60% (three units at 20% of AMI and six units at 80% of AMI). The project does not fail the income average minimum set-aside, but the unit is not in compliance with its designated restriction. This unit is out of compliance on the date of initial occupancy, and the agency will report it as an over-income unit by checking line 11a of Form 8823.   NCSHA does provide one example of non-compliance that demonstrates the importance of understanding the importance of meeting the required unit designation and not just staying below the 60% level for the units. In the example cited above, assume two of the 20% units have been rented to households with income above the designated (i.e. 20%) level. Even if the new households have incomes below the 60% level, because they do not meet the required income designation, they are redesignated as non-low-income units, leaving only eight low income units - two at 20% and six at 80%. These low-income units now average 65% and the project loses all credit (it has failed the minimum set-aside test).   NCSHA has requested that the IRS take steps to facilitate income averaging, including:   Establish a procedure for HUD to use in calculating area-specific income limits at the various designations allowable under income averaging. Until that happens, it is assumed that HFAs and owners will determine income limits using the 50% income limit for the applicable area as a base and applying a multiplier to determine the other income limit designations. Update Form 8823 to reference Average Income for Line 11f. Establish rules for determining next available unit designation in cases when more than one household in units of different designated income levels go over income at the same time. Until such guidance is provided, NCSHA is recommending as a best practice that HFAs require owners to make a reasonable effort to designate the next available unit (if that unit is a market unit) at the lower/lowest income designation of the units with over-income tenants.   This letter highlights concerns of NCSHA relative to the Average Income Minimum Set-aside and seeks guidance from the IRS. Until such guidance is provided, owners and managers should rely on direction from the applicable HFA when implementing the Average Income Set-Aside. HFAs have significant discretion relative to administration of the LIHTC program and until the IRS provides clear guidance in these areas, I recommend that HFA directions be followed.  

Emotional Support Animals - How "Necessary" Are They?

Every apartment manager is familiar with "Emotional Support Animals," or "ESAs." I would venture to say there are very few multi-family communities in existence today that don t have at least one resident with an ESA. And my experience has shown that when one household is approved for an ESA, more residents in the community tend to follow suit.   ESAs fall into the broad category of "assistance" animals, which is the housing equivalent of the Americans with Disability Act s (ADA) "service" animals. While the ADA defines what a service animal is, it is the Fair Housing Act (FHA), and associated guidance, that is the controlling law with regard to assistance animals.   FHA protections are much broader than ADA with regard to animals. The FHA (and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) provide the right to "emotional support animals" for disabled individuals in their homes, provided they can produce a letter from a trained professional that says an animal could help the person cope with mental or emotional issues, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).   Unlike service animals, ESAs do not have to be trained to perform specific tasks, and they do not have to be dogs, which with one exception, is the case for service animals.   The only public place that permits ESAs is an airplane, and the airlines are beginning to draw the line on certain types of animals - a trend that has not yet reached into housing. ESAs are not permitted in restaurants, schools, and movie theatres - at least not yet.   Service Animals   The ADA states that service dogs (and in some cases miniature horses) which have been "trained to do work or perform tasks" related to a specific disability, must be given broad access to public places where pets are typically not permitted. The ADA sharply limits inquiries relating to a service animal. All that can be asked of an owner seeking to bring a service animal into a public establishment is (1) whether the dog is needed because of a disability, and (2) what tasks it has been trained to perform. It is illegal for the owner or employees of a public establishment to request documentation for the service dog or to inquire about the owner s disability.   Assistance Animal vs. Service Animal   While legally very different, from a fair housing standpoint, service animals and ESAs are interchangeable. Fair housing law requires a much broader interpretation of the law relating to animals for the disabled than does the ADA. Under federal law, individuals with physical or mental disabilities can bring assistance animals into their apartments but only trained service animals may be taken into public places.   The Effectiveness of ESAs   I have spent the better part of two years researching studies on ESAs and have found that there are few valid studies on the effectiveness of ESAs and the results of those that have been done are mixed.   A study published by the American Psychological Association in 2016 stated "Little empirical data exists to support the conclusion that [emotional support animals] are effective in mitigating psychological disorders and related problems, and empirical research that does exist is inconsistent, sparse, and emerging." (Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2017, Vol. 48, No. 3, 216-223, "The Certification of Emotional Support Animals: Differences Between Clinical and Forensic Mental Health Practitioners").   A recent issue of Good Practice, a magazine published by the American Psychological Association contains an article written by Connie Galietti, Director of Legal & Professional Affairs for the group. In the article, Ms. Galietti urged psychologists to think of the ethical and practical matters that may result from writing ESA diagnosis letters. The article states "Remember, your letter is stating that the patient s diagnosis substantially impacts a life activity. Can you honestly and objectively make that determination? Does an [emotional support animal] truly minimize the impact of the patient s problem, or is this just a way of allowing a beloved pet to be able to live with your patient, or allow the patient to avoid airline pet transport fees? If you have reservations about any of these issues, you probably shouldn t write the letter." This advice is as applicable in the housing context as it is in the airline context.   To ethically prescribe an ESA, a psychologist has to be reasonably certain that the animal is necessary, evaluate the patient with the animal, and be familiar with the animal s behavior and training. The lack of clarity in the law places mental health professionals in an ethical bind: do they write a letter that lets their patient have the animal even without diagnosis guidelines or do they deny the letter and create conflict with a patient that they must continue treating? As noted in the Galietti article, therapists should give great consideration to all the related issues before writing such a letter.   Since more psychologists are not willing to "prescribe" emotional support animals, many residents are now obtaining certifications through an online cottage industry that has sprung up due to the popularity of ESAs. These ESA mills are now churning out emotional support animal "certifications" in record numbers.   The ESA Certification Industry   There is a growing chorus of criticism in the multi-family industry relating to the growth of new websites that sell inexpensive documentation that falsely identify pets as service dogs or ESAs - and this criticism is warranted.   Residents of apartment communities are willing to pay the fees for these "certifications" because having such a designation eliminates pet fees and requires the acceptance of animals at "no-pet" properties.   The National Service Animal Registry, a commercial business that sells certificates, vests, and badges for assistance animals, signed up 11,000 ESAs in 2013 - up from 2,400 in 2011.   The National Apartment Association (NAA) has stated that there are more than 20 websites for online providers that offer documentation for a fee. Agencies responsible for fair housing enforcement at the federal, state, and local level are all trying to deal with how best to respond to these online medical verifications.   Many of these sites will provide a written diagnosis within 24 hours, via email, after only a five to ten-minute phone conversation with a "mental health professional" plus a fee of as little as $80. Five to ten minutes - seriously? I talk to a lot of clients on the phone and it takes me longer than that just to begin to understand what their problem may be - much less begin to develop solutions. And I know the issues of tenant income eligibility are a lot less complex than a person s mental stability and well-being. Some sites also sell dog collars and leashes with the words "support dog" for $15 to $22 each. Nothing like the good old "up sell." A lot of these sites have been created due to the growing reluctance of professional therapists to provide verifying letters.   These ESA mills are a rip-off on two levels: First, the certifications are often bogus, with no real knowledge by the company providing the certification relative to the person s disability, and second, ESAs don t need a certification. Tenants just need a professional third party to verify that they have a disability and the disability could be ameliorated by living with the animal.   One site called United Support Animals states: "Fly with your pet in the cabin of an airplane at no cost. Keep your pet in any housing even if there is a no pet policy. Say goodbye to pet security deposits forever." This company does not even try to hide the fact that they are just assisting individuals in getting around pet restrictions and deposits.   HUD has historically been lax in terms of who can verify the need for ESAs - even going so far as to require acceptance of verification from social workers - many of whom have no clinical training. But, this may be changing. HUD s Possible New Direction   HUD is now making it a priority to crack down on bogus assistance animals. This effort is being led by the HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity, Anna Maria Farias. While I disagree with many of the current HUD efforts to diminish the nation s fair housing laws, this is one effort that should be applauded. There are indications that new guidance from HUD regarding ESAs may be issued soon.   HUD representatives have been meeting with housing industry representatives, including the NAA, but have not yet met with any fair housing and disability rights groups on the issue of assistance animals. This indicates that HUD is predisposed to make it more difficult for a person to obtain the documentation necessary to require a landlord to accept an ESA. The upcoming guidance may place limits on acceptable breeds of ESAs (barring pit bulls for example), create new verification requirements, and prohibit certain exotic or non-traditional animals (such as snakes).   State Activity is Increasing   21 States have moved to criminalize the misrepresentation of ESAs and 13 others are drafting such legislation.   Recent legislation was signed in South Dakota requiring that tenants seeking an ESA obtain verification from a "licensed health care provider." HUD has actually permitted such a policy for a number of years.   Florida passed a law in 2015 that makes it a crime for people to falsely claim that they need service dogs, but the law does not currently apply to ESAs in housing.   The Virginia Real Estate Commission and Fair Housing Board have issued a Guidance Document evaluating reasonable accommodation requests for assistance animals. The guidance provides that professional apartment management "should not be daunted by the prospect of potential litigation in accepting dubious verifications limited to vague statements on how an assistance animal would benefit the requester, but rather should insist on supplemental credible confirmation of an underlying disability. As with any other reasonable accommodation request, housing providers are absolutely within their rights to focus first on establishing the legitimacy of the requesting party s disability status as defined by fair housing law." The guidance further confirms that housing providers "may request that verifiers authenticate all or some of the following information to help evaluate their reliability and knowledge of the requester s disability." Information that housing providers should request includes: The general location of where the care was provided as well as the duration of the care (such as the number of in-person sessions within the preceding year); Whether the verifier is accountable to or subject to any regulatory body or professional entity for acts of misconduct; Whether the verifier is trained in any field or specialty related to persons with disabilities or the particular impairment cited; and/or Whether the verifier is recognized by consumers, peers, or the public as a credible provider of therapeutic care.   In summary, as an industry, we must recognize that the ability to have assistance animals in a communal environment is often necessary to enable to disabled person to engage in major life activities. In such cases, housing operators are generally going to have to permit such animals. However, we must also recognize that some people are abusing the law in a way that circumvents legitimate owner pet policies and charges. Current trends indicate that enforcement agencies are beginning to recognize this reality and a more reasonable approach to the approval of assistance animals in housing may be around the corner.    

IRS Releases Revised Form 8609 with Income Average Election

On May 31, 2018, the IRS released a revised Form 8609 adding a third minimum set-aside election - "Average Income". The release did not include revised or updated Instructions for completion of the form. Owners intending to select the Average Income minimum set-aside for properties for which 8609s have not already been submitted to the IRS should use the updated 8609.

The State of Fair Housing - 2018

The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) has published "Making Every Neighborhood a Place of Opportunity," a report on the condition of fair housing in the United States in 2018. As much as anything else, the report highlights the Department of Housing & Urban Development s (HUD) growing abrogation of its responsibility to enforce the federal Fair Housing Act. Highlights of their report include: There were 28,843 fair housing complaints in 2017; and 57% of complaints were based on disability, 19% on race, and 9% on familial status. The most telling trend outlined in the report is the growing evidence of HUD s failure to aggressively enforce the law. While the number of fair housing complaints increased by 2.35% from 2016 to 2017, more than 71% of the complaints were handled by private, nonprofit fair housing organizations. State and local government fair housing organizations processed 23.9% of complaints and only 4.55% were handled by HUD. The remaining 41 cases were brought by the Justice Department. This continues a two-year trend of HUD taking a much more passive approach to fair housing enforcement. This is not a surprising development inasmuch as the current HUD leadership has shown little resolve for fair housing actions. In fact, HUD s newly revised mission statement eliminated language relating to nondiscrimination, and HUD is pulling back on efforts to encourage integration of high opportunity neighborhoods. What this new data indicates is that while HUD is the federal agency charged with enforcing federal fair housing laws, it is now state, local, and nonprofit organizations that are most likely to bring a fair housing action. As is indicated by the overall increase in fair housing enforcement activity, housing owners and operators should not let their guard down with regard to fair housing compliance. HUD s growing lack of commitment to fair housing is being offset by state, local, and nonprofit efforts.

HUD Publishes 2018 HOME Rent and Income Limits

HUD has now published the 2018 income and rent limits for the HOME program. These limits are effective beginning June 1, 2018, and HOME grantees may not use the new rent and income limits until the effective date. Owners and managers of properties with HOME funds should contact the applicable Participating Jurisdiction agency for information relative to the new limits.

HUD Proposed Legislation on Assisted Rents and Other Issues

On April 25, 2018, HUD sent a legislative proposal to Congress titled, "Making Affordable Housing Work Act of 2018." The proposed legislation contains seven sections that, if passed into law by Congress and signed by the President, would significantly impact the rent paid by low-income residents in HUD assisted housing. Highlights of the proposed bill follow.   Rental Payments Amendments   OCCUPANCY REQUIREMENTS & FAMILY RENTS: Occupancy Requirements Income Limits - at the time of initial occupancy, families must be low-income. This is defined as no more than 80% of the area median gross income. Overhousing - No one person, living alone, may be provided an assisted housing unit of two or more bedrooms, unless that person is - An elderly person; A person with disabilities; A displaced person; or The remaining member of a tenant family. Absence of Children - the temporary absence of a child from the home due to placement in foster care shall not be considered in determining family composition and family size (this does not change current regulation). Rent Structures Rents for Families - a family shall pay as monthly rent the higher of 35% of the family s monthly income (no deductions would be permitted - i.e., dependent, child care, disability, elderly or medical); or 35% of the amount earned by an individual working 15 hours a week for four weeks at the federal minimum wage, rounded to the nearest $10. HUD may adjust the number of hours of work per week used to determine the family rent through regulation, but the number of hours may not be less than 15. (Based on the current $7.25 minimum wage, this comes out to a minimum of $154 per month in rent). Rents for Exempted Families - Elderly families, disabled families, and such other families defined by HUD through regulation will pay month rent that is the higher of - 30% of the family s monthly income (again, this is the gross income); or minimum rent, which shall be at least $50 and may be adjusted through regulation. Hardship Exemption - Hardship exemptions include the following: The family has lost eligibility for, or is awaiting an eligibility determination for, a Federal, State, or local assistance program, including a family that includes a member who is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act who would be entitled to public benefits but for title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The family would be evicted as a result of the imposition of the family rent structure. The income of the family has decreased because of changed circumstances, including the loss of employment. A death in the family. Other situations as may be determined by the Public Housing Agency (PHA), owner, or HUD. Waiting Period - if a family requests a hardship exemption and the PHA or owner reasonably determines the hardship to be of a temporary nature, an exemption shall not be granted for the 90-day period following the request for the exemption. A family may not be evicted for nonpayment of rent during the 90-day period. If the family thereafter demonstrates that the financial hardship is of a long-term basis, the PHA or owner shall retroactively exempt the family from the family rent for the 90-day period. Alternative Family Rent Structures - HUD established rents - HUD may establish alternative family rent structures that a PHA or owner may elect to adopt. These may include, but are not limited to, tiered rents, stepped rents, or timed escrow. PHA and Owner Established Rents - PHAs and owners may request HUD approval for an alternative rent, as long as the alternative Serves substantially the same number of families as the HUD prescribed family rent without additional Federal appropriated funds; Is appropriate for the housing market; Provides a reasonable hardship exemption for families; and Meets any other standards established by HUD. Alternative Income Recertifications - HUD may establish requirements for income recertifications different from those in the proposes bill. Minimum Family Share - Minimum Work Requirements - a PHA or owner may establish minimum work requirements for individuals or families, excluding persons at least 65 years of age, persons with disabilities, elderly and disabled families, and such other individuals or families as defined through HUD regulation. A PHA or owner that imposes work requirements will be exempt from imposing the community service and self-sufficiency requirements otherwise required by HUD. HUD will publish regulations establishing - Criteria regarding the population that may be subject to work requirements; The maximum number of hours per week that a PHA or owner may require; The definition of work, including forms of employment or employment related activities that would satisfy any work requirement of the PHA or owner; and Other HUD imposed criteria. Reviews of Family Income - Review of family income shall be made - In the case of all families, upon the initial provision of housing assistance for the family; and Every three years thereafter. (Note that this changes the current requirement that only fixed income reviews are required on an every three-year basis. Based on the language in the proposed bill, all recertifications would be done an a three-year basis). Interim Reexaminations - Interims will only be required if a family s income decreases by 20% or more. Interims for elderly families, a disabled family, or other families as defined by HUD through regulation would only be required if the family s income decreases by 10% or more. There would no longer be interims for increases in family income. Calculation of Income - Use of current year income - income for initial occupancy or income recertifications would use the income of the family as estimated by the PHA or owner for the upcoming year, which may be based on the prior year s income. Safe Harbor - PHAs or owners may determine family income based on timely income determinations through other means tested Federal public assistance programs (e.g., TANF determinations, Medicaid assistance, and SNAP). HUD will develop electronic procedures to enable PHAs and owners to have access to such determinations. Important Definitions in the proposed bill - Elderly Family - head, co-head or spouse must be elderly (62+) - For purposes of determining whether the 35% or 30% rent requirement must be met, requesting interim reexaminations, and setting work requirements, all adults living in the unit, other than a live-in aide, shall be a person with disabilities or who is at least 65 (not 62) years of age. Disabled Family - head, co-head or spouse must be disabled - For purposes of determining whether the 35% or 30% rent requirement must be met, requesting interim reexaminations, and setting work requirements, all adults living in the unit, other than a live-in aide shall be a person with disabilities or who is at least 65 (not 62) years of age. Elderly Person - a person who is at least 62 years of age. INCOME - Excluded Amounts - new guidance - Any return on net family assets, as long as the value of the net family assets is under $25,000, after an annual inflation adjustment to be published by HUD; and All expenses relating to VA aid and attendance. HOLD HARMLESS FOR ELDERLY & DISABLED FAMILIES - in terms of implementation of the new rent requirements, for disabled families and families consisting of persons 62 and older receiving assistance at the time this bill is enacted, any rent increases shall be phased in over two triennial recertifications. TENANT BASED ASSISTANCE (housing choice vouchers) - if the rent for a family receiving tenant based assistance (including any utility allowance) does not exceed the applicable payment standard, the monthly assistance payment for the family shall be equal to the amount by which the rent for the unit exceeds the minimum family share for the unit. This will essentially require that PHAs pay the full payment standard - even if the LIHTC maximum rent is less than the payment standard. if the rent for a family receiving tenant based assistance (including any utility allowance) exceeds the applicable payment standard, the monthly assistance payment for the family shall be equal to the amount by which the applicable payment standard exceeds the minimum family share. In other words, PHAs will not be able to pay more than the payment standard. SELF-CERTIFICATION OF ASSETS - the law signed by President Obama in 2015 permitted self-certification of assets under $50,000; this proposed bill would change that threshold to $25,000.   This proposed legislation is just that - PROPOSED! Owner and managers of HUD-assisted housing should make no changes to procedures currently being followed. This legislation will face an uphill battle in Congress - especially with regard to the rent changes, which will have a significant impact on low-income residents. At this time, the proposed bill has not been scheduled for hearings and rapid action is unlikely.   I will stay on top of any progress this bill (and any other important housing legislation) makes through Congress and will provide updates as those changes occur.

HUD-DOJ Initiative to Fight Sexual Harassment in Housing

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have begun a nationwide initiative intended to combat sexual harassment in housing. This effort includes an interagency task force between HUD and DOJ, an outreach toolkit, and a public awareness campaign. In October 2017, the DOJ started a pilot program to combat sexual harassment in housing in D.C. and the Western District of Virginia, which includes Abingdon, Charlottesville, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, and Roanoke. This action increases DOJ efforts to protect women from harassment by landlords, property managers, maintenance workers, security guards, and other employees and representatives of rental property owners. The goal of the pilot program was to develop improved ways to connect with both victims of sexual harassment in housing and organizations that assist such victims. In addition to D.C. and Western Virginia, the DOJ tested certain aspects of the initiative in New Jersey, Central California, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Michigan. The result of the pilot was in increase in harassment reporting from both D.C. and Western Virginia. In D.C., the Department has generated six leads since October 2017, with three leads coming from Virginia. If implemented nationally, DOJ believes this will lead to hundreds of new reports of sexual harassment in housing. Because of these results, three major components of the initiative are being rolled out. First - the HUD/DOJ Task Force to Combat Sexual Harassment in Housing will develop a shared strategy for combatting sexual harassment in housing across the country. This strategy focuses on five key areas: (1) continued data sharing and analysis; (2) joint development of training; (3) evaluation of public housing complaint mechanisms; (4) coordination of public outreach and press strategy; and (5) review of existing federal policies. Second - the outreach toolkit is designed to leverage HUD and DOJ s nationwide network of U.S. Attorney s Offices. The kit provides templates, guidance, and checklists based on pilot program feedback. The goal is to improve available enforcement resources and help victims of sexual harassment to connect with DOJ and HUD. Third - the public awareness campaign, which has three major components: (1) a partnership package with relevant stakeholders; (2) launch of a social media campaign; and (3) Public Service Announcements [PSAs] run by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. This campaign is specifically designed to raise awareness, and make it easier for victims all over the country to find resources and report harassment. This new focus on sexual harassment in housing at the federal level reinforces the importance of having specific, stand-alone policies relating to sexual harassment. Owners and operators of rental housing should enact such policies if they don t already have them, and those who do have sexual harassment policies should review them to ensure they are adequate. Key points to remember regarding sexual harassment in housing include: Establish a Zero-Tolerance Policy Against Sexual Harassment Have a clear, written policy that sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated and will result in prompt disciplinary action; Offer examples of prohibited conduct, such as: Explicitly or implicitly suggesting sex in return for living in the community, receipt of services, or otherwise related to the terms and conditions of the tenancy; Suggesting or implying that failure to accept a date or sex would adversely affect a resident s tenancy; Initiating unwanted physical contact, such as touching, grabbing or pinching; Making sexually suggestive or obscene comments, jokes or propositions; and Displaying sexually suggestive photos, cartoons, videos or objects. The policy should encourage anyone who feels they have been sexually harassed to file a complaint, and provide details on how to do so. Focus on Employee Hiring & Training Make sure all employees are trained with regard to the rules. Check references on new employees, including criminal record checks. Require all employees - from leasing agents to maintenance workers (full or part-time) to receive fair housing training, including the sexual harassment policies. Explain what sexual harassment is, including examples, and include a record of all training. Adopt rules specific to employees who may enter resident units. Don t Ignore Sexual Harassment Complaints Investigate all complaints as soon as possible. Consult with your attorney and take detailed notes of all interviews. Interview all parties - both the accuser and the accused (don t assume guilt). Never ignore such complaints. Take Prompt Action to Halt Harassment If you find that a sexual harassment complaint is justified, take action to end the harassment. If the harasser is an employee, take appropriate disciplinary action, such as reprimand, suspension or termination - whatever is warranted. Get legal advice if the complaint is about a vendor or other resident. Don t Retaliate Against Anyone Complaining About Sexual Harassment. Under FHA, it is unlawful to "coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with" anyone who exercises their rights under fair housing law.