The program is called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). AFFH was created a decade ago during the Obama Administration when, in 2015, then-HUD Secretary Julián Castro implemented AFFH as a regulation. The underlying concept of AFFH was based on the Fair Housing Act, which was Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 but has gone largely unenforced for decades.

AFFH is a regulation that requires states, counties and municipalities to demonstrate how they use federal funds to address patterns of racial segregation and unequal access to housing, and how they’re helping racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty transform into areas of opportunity. If implemented properly, AFFH has the potential to challenge housing discrimination that limits housing choice due to protected characteristics, such as race, national origin, disability and other attributes. 

AFFH also has the potential to expand access to critical community resources. For example, it could help ensure that all communities have access to decent, safe and affordable housing during a growing affordable housing crisis. AFFH could help communities obtain additional resources, such as affordable housing near public transportation, higher performing public schools and legal representation for low-income tenants facing eviction. 

Since it first implemented AFFH in 2015, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has issued multiple iterations of the regulation, usually with the intent of strengthening the rule. However, after the Biden Administration failed to finalize the 2023 AFFH Interim Final Rule (IFR), the current administration replaced the previous rule with a new AFFH IFR published this year.

Unfortunately, the current AFFH IFR fails to adhere to the spirit of the 2021 AFFH IFR in several important ways. The 2025 IFR strips AFFH of several critical provisions, such as requiring municipalities to provide detailed plans for how they will affirmatively further fair housing. Instead, municipalities only have to certify in writing that they will affirmatively further fair housing without providing supporting evidence that such initiatives are actually taking place. 

Essentially, the 2025 rule relies on local leaders and their developer partners to operate in good faith. We should not expect that to happen on its own, given the history of vociferous opposition to fair housing efforts. The 2025 AFFH IFR also does not mention whether HUD will give municipalities technical assistance, data collection, mapping or assessment tools to diagnose their fair housing issues. This support is vital to help them take the necessary steps to affirmatively further fair housing in their communities. 

Most concerning, the 2025 rule omits the community engagement process entirely. One of the core elements of AFFH is its community engagement requirement. As part of their AFFH plans, municipalities are required to conduct robust community engagement efforts, including at community meetings and through surveys. That mandated outreach allows community members to call attention to the barriers they have encountered in having true housing choice and ensures local advocates can highlight current gaps in neighborhood reinvestment.

These community engagement efforts are important because they allow residents to advocate for local reinvestment in their communities via a transparent process. Well-executed AFFH plans incorporate concerns that residents identify during the community engagement process and develop initiatives to address those concerns.

Boston provides an example. The city ultimately amended its zoning code to prevent further exclusion of vulnerable residents, after local activists turned out around 500 residents to speak up at the meetings about historic exclusionary practices. The Boston Tenant Coalition (BTC), an NCRC member, provided critical resources to help remove obstacles to some residents’ participation in community meetings, such as providing meals and childcare to community members during in-person listening sessions.

Additionally, clear and accessible language helped residents understand and accurately complete fair housing surveys that the BTC and the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) distributed to community meeting attendees and public housing residents. As a result, approximately 2,500 Boston residents replied to both surveys, with their answers helping to inform the City’s 2022 Assessment of Fair Housing study.

Boston residents’ activism helped the city pass the fair housing amendment to its zoning code in 2020. Residents’ concerns around gentrification, displacement, ensuring equitable accommodations for people with disabilities and affordable housing informed the amendment.  The amendment requires developers to take meaningful actions to address displacement, provide equitable access to housing and consider their project’s impact on residents of areas that endured historical discrimination. These efforts underscore the importance of community engagement throughout the AFFH process to help residents advocate for resources or policies they need to help them thrive in and remain in their communities.

Boston’s experience demonstrates how the AFFH community engagement process, if employed correctly, would give everyday Americans the mechanism to advocate for fair housing choice and obtain much-needed housing resources for their communities. The current AFFH rule deprives Americans of a significant mechanism to achieve equal access to housing and more sustainable community and economic development programs. HUD should reinstate the 2021 AFFH IFR and re-empower local communities to name and confront the fair housing challenges occurring in their own communities, and know they had a say in the path their leaders ultimately take.

Nichole Nelson is a Senior Policy Advisor with NCRC’s Policy & Government Affairs team.

Photo credit: Qusai Akoud via Upsplash.

Secretary Scott Turner
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20410

Re: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, [Docket No. FR-6519-I-01], 90 FR 11020

May 2, 2025

Dear Secretary Turner:

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) appreciates the opportunity to submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about its 2025 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Interim Final Rule (IFR).  We ask that you rescind the 2025 AFFH IFR and reinstate the 2021 AFFH IFR. The 2025 AFFH IFR greatly weakens municipalities’ ability to affirmatively further fair housing appropriately and effectively.

NCRC is a network of more than 700 community-based organizations dedicated to creating a nation that not only promises but delivers opportunities for all Americans to build wealth and attain a high quality of life. We work with community leaders and policymakers to advance solutions and build the will to solve America’s persistent racial and socio-economic wealth, income, and opportunity divides, and to make a Just Economy a national priority and a local reality.

The 2025 AFFH IFR improperly defines AFFH as well as fair housing; and portrays addressing protected classes’ specific housing needs that discrimination likely caused as providing “preferences based on racial or ethnic characteristics,” instead of redress.[1]

Moreover, it merely requires grantees to certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing and does not mention whether HUD will provide municipalities with technical assistance, data, or tools, to help them affirmatively further fair housing.[2] In addition, the 2025 AFFH IFR makes no reference to a robust community engagement process that allows average Americans to share their needs with their respective municipalities and, as a result, informs municipalities’ advocacy for much needed resources at the community level.

The 2025 AFFH IFR defines Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing as “any action rationally related to promoting any attribute or attributes of fair housing,” and fair housing as housing that is “safe, decent, free of unlawful discrimination, and accessible as required under civil rights laws.”[3] This shallow definition of AFFH does not explain municipalities’ duties to AFFH under the Fair Housing Act.  By contrast, the 2021 AFFH IFR defines AFFH as “taking meaningful actions” to “address significant disparities in housing needs” and “access to opportunity.”[4] It encourages the replacement of “segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns,” thereby, “transforming racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity,” and “fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.”[5]

Under the auspices of the Fair Housing Act, AFFH operates as a planning process that requires states, municipalities, and other jurisdictions to take meaningful steps to address how housing discrimination is an impediment to housing choice; to assess how racial residential segregation prevents Americans from having equal access to resources; and to aid reinvestment in divested communities.[6] AFFH helps jurisdictions develop housing plans based on local need through conducting research and engaging the public. AFFH equips communities with the tools to analyze their own barriers and craft strategies that meet all residents’ needs. In short, AFFH helps communities create locally driven solutions. AFFH ensures that data and inclusive input informs these solutions, and that these solutions are accountable to fair housing goals.

Therefore, the 2025 AFFH IFR contradicts the definition and purpose of AFFH.

A lack of rigorous oversight and guidance for enforcing the Fair Housing Act will likely result in many Americans being deprived of access to affordable housing, education, eviction protection, and connecting affordable housing to transit. Enforcing the Fair Housing Act will ensure indispensable reinvestment in American communities, and therefore the American Economy. We urge HUD to strongly consider this position and choose to strengthen, not weaken AFFH, and the subsequent enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.

We urge HUD to create a comprehensive fair housing policy that:

• Combats Discrimination that Deprives the American Economy of Trillions of Dollars
• Restores a Meaningful Community Engagement Process to Ensure Americans’ Ability to Advocate for Reinvestment in Their Communities
• Pursue an Interim Final Rule IFR and Final Rule That Do Not Weaken the Economy
• Affirms HUD’s and the Fair Housing Act’s Mission

Comments and Recommendations

I. The AFFH IFR Rule Will Exacerbate Economic Uncertainty

A core component of HUD’s mission is to “strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers.”[7] This IFR’s failure to help Americans procure precious resources will fail to fortify the economy at best and could exacerbate predatory economic conditions that plague many Americans’ lives, at worst. A lack of affordable housing with its roots dating back to the Great Recession has been exacerbated by private equity’s voracious appetite for single-family homes, lack of affordable housing construction, and landlords using algorithmic software to inflate rents above market value all likely contributes to the dire homelessness crisis this nation experiences.

A. HUD’s Inaction Could Exacerbate the Affordable Housing Shortage

Failing to enforce AFFH fully can only worsen the affordable housing crisis, which has its roots in the aftermath of the Great Recession, which lasted from 2007 to 2009.[8] As millions of homeowners had their homes foreclosed and were forced to become renters, their abrupt entrance into the rental housing market caused the demand for rental properties to soar.[9] Increased demand coupled with developers’ struggle to meet demand and their ultimate focus on luxury rental housing caused rental prices to skyrocket.[10] Around this same time, homeownership also grew increasingly unattainable for many Americans due to a drop in the construction of single-family homes.[11]

The Modern-Day Affordable Housing Shortage

Since the Great Recession, the affordable rental housing crisis has continued to worsen. According to a March 2025 report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), there is a shortage of 7.1 million affordable and available rental homes for the nation’s 10.9 million extremely low-income renter households.[12] That statistic translates to a scarce supply of affordable housing; more specifically, there are only “35 affordable and available homes for every 100 extremely low-income renter households.”[13]

Furthermore, cuts to HUD funding combined with our observation that neglecting to enforce fully AFFH can only exacerbate this dearth of affordable housing. The NLIHC underscored this dichotomy in its March 2025 testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Housing ad Insurance. In its testimony, the NLIHC testimony underscored how the shortage of affordable rental homes for low-income renters is due to “market failures” and chronic underfunding; they noted that federal subsidies must help more low-income renters afford housing.[14] Unfortunately, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 provides less funding to critical programs that would mitigate this crisis.[15] The Act allocates approximately $32 billion to renew contracts under tenant-based rental assistance (also known as Section 8).[16] This is $4 billion less than the current Administration’s request of $36 billion.[17] This budget cut could cause 230,000 households to lose their assistance.[18] These actions combined with HUD’s reluctance to help hardworking Americans use AFFH to address their housing issues will cause Americans to lose access to affordable housing.

B. HUD’s Inaction Will Aid Private Equity in Outbidding First-Time Homebuyers

In the aftermath of the Great Recession, private investors’ purchase of single-family homes may have made it difficult for more first-time homebuyers to become homeowners.[19] In the early 2010s, private investors purchased foreclosed homes and converted the homes into rental housing to meet increased demand for said housing.[20] According to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), they often purchased homes in cash, which helped them outbid small investors and individual buyers.[21] Estimates vary on how much of the single-family rental housing market they owned and by what date. However, according to GAO’s analysis of publicly available information, by the end of 2022, five of the country’s largest investors owned roughly 300,000 houses or almost 2% of the nation’s available single-family rental home inventory.[22] Several states including New York, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington have introduced legislation to limit private equity’s ability to make it more difficult for Americans to buy or rent homes and do so at an affordable rate.[23] If HUD does not help Americans use AFFH to address private equity’s role in causing Americans’ access to affordable housing to dwindle, private equity will continue to outbid average Americans’ — especially first-time homebuyers’ — efforts to own homes, and therefore part of the American Dream.

C. Real Page’s Role in Making Rents Soar Above Market Value Creates Real Problems for Renters

Besides institutional investors expelling aspiring homeowners from the single-family housing market into the rental market after the Great Recession and causing rents to increase, another factor may contribute to rental housing becoming more unaffordable — an algorithmic software company called RealPage. As NCRC has previously written, RealPage is an algorithmic software company that landlords can use to raise rents higher than their normal rate without this software.[24] In an August 2024 lawsuit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) accused RealPage of engaging in a 21^st century price fixing scheme to raise rents nationwide.[25] According to the lawsuit, RealPage encourages landlords to share tenants’ private information such as rent, lease terms, and move-in dates to train its algorithm to produce daily rent recommendations for each landlord’s available units.[26] In turn, RealPage provides several opportunities for landlords to share this private information in several spheres including monthly meetings where they can share “competitively sensitive topics,” such as “pricing amenities.”[27]

Even when landlords have vacant apartments, the software encourages landlords to rent these apartments at higher, not lower prices. If landlords try to refuse these higher rent recommendations, they must justify why they declined those recommendations.[28] If the pricing advisor disagrees with the landlord’s justification, they can escalate the matter to the property manager’s supervisor, who they often pressure to accept RealPage’s price recommendations.[29] Landlords’ use of RealPage has had harrowing consequences for the country’s approximately 45 million renters since the company controls 80% of the commercial revenue management software market and, according to an article from The Washburn Law Journal, its clients control almost 90% of the market for multifamily rental housing units.[30] According to that same The Washburn Law Journal article, RealPage has caused rents to soar 3-7% higher than “competitive levels.”[31] The August 2024 DOJ lawsuit identified several markets where landlords’ use of RealPage harmed competition (i.e., the natural functioning of healthy markets) and subsequently renters.[32] Some of these markets include but are not limited to: Washington, DC; Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; and Nashville, Tennessee.[33] If HUD does not help Americans promote rental affordability using AFFH as a pipeline, fewer Americans could have access to safe and decent housing.

D. America’s Homeless Crisis

If left untreated, the affordable housing crisis will ultimately worsen America’s troubling homelessness crisis. The 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, estimates that on a single night in 2024, the number of unhoused Americans was the highest ever recorded — 771,480 people.[34] In other words, about 23 out of 10,000 people in the United States do not have a place they can call home.[35] Many Americans are one major life event away from homelessness like losing their job, getting sick, getting evicted, or having their house foreclosed.

Moreover, several protected classes under the Fair Housing Act comprise the country’s homeless population. Of the 771,480 individuals who experienced homelessness on a given night in 2024, 259,473 are people in families with children.[36] Black people are overrepresented amongst the homeless population at approximately 32%.[37]

The 2024 AHAR identified several factors that contributed to the highest-ever recorded homeless rate in a single night of 771,480 people.[38] They include rising inflation, stagnating wages for middle-class and working-class households, the persistent effects of systemic racism, and of course, the nation’s chronic affordable housing crisis; all these factors have exhausted the nation’s homeless shelters.[39]

If HUD does nothing to moderate the homeless crisis its own report identified, then this epidemic will worsen, and many more Americans will suffer.

II. AFFH Can Reduce the Damage that Discrimination Causes the Economy

HUD’s 2025 AFFH IFR erroneously frames defending the rights of Americans who are members of protected classes as harming Americans who are not members of protected classes; this is a false dichotomy because protecting the millions of Americans who are members of protected classes from discrimination will not harm anyone; instead, it will help all Americans prosper economically. HUD’s 2025 AFFH IFR states that under the Fair Housing Act, HUD should prevent discrimination, “based on all protected classes,” and should not, “provide preferences based on racial or ethnic characteristics.”[40] The phrase, “preferences,” implies that protected classes could receive some sort of housing or economic advantage that non-protected classes would not receive. Moreover, framing redress as giving preferences to racial and ethnic groups depicts them as an autocratic minority of Americans.

In actuality, significant portions of the American population comprise the protected classes. According to the 2023 Census Bureau QuickFacts, approximately 335 million people live in the United States.[41] Of the total population, a little more than ½ are women (approx. 169 million), about 41.6% are people of color (approx. 139 million), about 70 million adults are disabled, and of a total of approximately 131 million households, 84 million are families.[42] Several of the protected classes intersect, but their overlap does not diminish their numerical significance since discrimination against members of these groups comes at a significant cost to the American Economy.

A. Discrimination Costs the Economy Trillions of Dollars and Millions of Jobs

It is imperative that HUD recommend that communities use AFFH to lessen the harm that discrimination causes the protected classes in lost income and consumer spending, and subsequently the American Economy. Reports published in 2020, 2021, and 2025 highlight the pernicious effects of such discrimination:

• According to a 2020 report from Citigroup, over a 20-year period between 2000 and 2020, unequal access to housing credit may have deprived 770,000 Black people of homeownership and the nation of $218 billion in subsequent “sales and expenditures.”[43]
• A 2021 report from McKinsey & Company notes that if Latinos were not underpaid and wage parity was achieved, Latino spending power would increase by $660 billion each year.[44]
• The same 2021 McKinsey & Company report states that the wage disparity between White and Latino workers causes Latinos to be underpaid $288 billion annually.[45]
• Between 2000 and 2020, the wage gap between Black and White Americans deprived the nation of $2.7 trillion in income that could have been invested or spent on consumer goods.[46]
• A March 2025 publication from The National Partnership for Women and Families contends that in 2023, women earned only 75 cents for every dollar that men earned, or up to $14,170 throughout the year.[47]
• On average, the gender wage gap causes American women as a collective to lose $1.7 trillion annually.[48]
• If the gender wage gap was eliminated, American women workers would be able to afford several commodities, such as almost 15 additional months of childcare; almost a year and a half of food; 7 more months of mortgage and utility payments; and more than 10 months of rent.[49]
• If sales at Latino-owned companies were equivalent to sales at White-owned companies, Latino businesses would generate an additional $2.3 trillion in revenue each year.[50]
• Discriminatory lending against African American entrepreneurs may have cost the country $13 trillion in business revenue and 6.1 million jobs annually.[51]
• The 2020 Citigroup report also notes that if the country took meaningful actions to address anti-Black racism, $5 trillion could have been added to the GDP between 2020 and 2025.[52]
• Women’s loss of $1.7 trillion annually has dealt a huge blow to the GDP considering that by the end of 2020, the GDP was approximately $21 trillion.[53]

Due to the damage that discrimination does to the economy, HUD must use AFFH to curb discrimination since it harms all Americans’ economic interests.

III. Restore a Meaningful Community Engagement Process to Ensure Americans’ Ability to Advocate for Reinvestment in Their Communities

The current IFR makes no reference to and therefore, does not require grantees to promote fair housing by providing meaningful community engagement to allow Americans to advocate for reinvestment in their communities. As written, the IFR only requires grantees to certify that they will AFFH, makes no reference to community engagement, and therefore does not require it.[54] This omission has the effect of depriving average Americans of the opportunity to advocate for resources to flow into their communities. This aspect of the AFFH IFR also fails to fulfill a critical aspect of HUD’s mission. According to HUD’s website, part of its mission is to “strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers” and use “housing as a platform for improving quality of life.”[55]

One of the most effective ways that HUD can “strengthen the housing market to bolster the economy” and advance all Americans’ economic interests is to require grantees to promote fair housing by investing in their communities.[56] Previous iterations of AFFH approached  this goal through a meaningful community engagement process that empowered average Americans and community-based organizations to identify problems in their communities and propose solutions to these issues using AFFH’s planning process. PolicyLink highlights how, across the country, millions of Americans have used AFFH as a tool to advocate for critical amenities such as: high-performing schools, affordable housing near easily accessible public transportation, as well as advocate to prevent low-income tenants from being evicted without counsel.[57]

A. Right to Counsel to Help Mitigate Evictions of Low-Income People

Robust community engagement helped the City of Philadelphia identify evictions as one of residents’ primary housing concerns in its 2016 Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Two city agencies spearheaded the city’s community engagement, which used various means to engage city residents about their housing needs over a 2 ½ month-period.[58] They included: creating informational websites about AFFH; distributing a survey to which 5,000 residents responded; conducting outreach to dozens of community groups for assistance in distributing hard copies of the survey to residents; hosting community focus groups for Spanish-speaking residents and residents with disabilities; meeting with Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) leadership to discuss AFH priorities; and employing social and traditional media to raise awareness of the public engagement process.[59] As a result of Philadelphia’s multi-pronged approach to community engagement, residents suggested providing legal representation to homeowners and tenants in foreclosure and eviction proceedings.[60]

The City of Philadelphia responded by creating a program to mitigate the number of low-income residents being evicted without counsel. In late 2019, the Philadelphia City Council passed legislation known as Right to Counsel, which provided free legal representation for low-income renters facing eviction in two zip codes.[61] To be eligible for the program, residents must earn incomes at or less than 200% below the federal poverty level.[62] The program went into effect in February 2022 and as of January 2025, it has expanded to cover eight zip codes.[63] As of the end of the 3rd program year in 2024, RTC provided legal representation or legal advice to a total of over 2,400 cases in RTC zip codes.[64]

B. AFFH as a Mechanism to Advocate for High-Performing Schools

Like Philadelphia, the City of New Orleans employed similarly robust community engagement to determine that schools were an area of improvement in their 2016 AFH. Over a 4-month period, the City of New Orleans Office of Community Development in conjunction with the Housing Authority of New Orleans, the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, PolicyLink, Enterprise Community Partners, and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law partnered with stakeholder organizations to host meetings that were open to the public and community-based organizations and asked residents to complete surveys to help inform its AFH process.[65] They also supplemented meetings with outreach to residents through print media, social media, broadcasts, and trusted community organizations.[66] Residents expressed several issues with the city’s schools including: a lack of housing near schools, a lack of high-performing schools, problems with school resources, and a need for schools to be better integrated in their communities.[67] As a result, New Orleans’ 2016 AFH listed schools high on its list of contributing factors for disparities in access to opportunity; African Americans and people with disabilities had limited access to quality public schools, most public schools lacked sufficient Limited English Proficiency services, and several lacked adequate special education services.[68]

C. AFFH Can Help Connect Affordable Housing and Transit

Beginning in 2018, The City of Chicago undertook a multi-year regional effort to AFFH across Cook County, Illinois, and part of that process involved responding substantively to residents’ identification of a lack of affordable housing near transit as an impediment to housing choice.[69] As part of this multi-year process, in 2021, The City’s community engagement included but was not limited to: nearly 60 engagement events, surveys of 446 residents, in-depth interviews with 21 individuals who faced housing discrimination or instability.[70] Over several years, some Cook County residents identified a spatial mismatch between affordable housing and transit.[71] In other words, there was a lack of affordable housing near transit as an impediment to housing choice.[72] Officials responded to this spatial mismatch by enacting a July 2022 ordinance that included new zoning updates to help prioritize affordable housing development near transit.[73]

Removing required community engagement with local communities from the AFFH regulation is tantamount to depriving average, hardworking Americans of a critical apparatus to interact directly with a federal program to receive resources for their community at a time when Americans have substantive concerns about the federal government. A February 2025 Reuters/IPSOS poll reveals that 58% of Americans worry that changes in the federal government could cause a delay in services they receive.[74] Therefore, AFFH provides critical services to Americans, and failing to enforce the rule denies their neighborhoods precious resources.

D. The Interim Final Rule Weakens HUD’s and the Fair Housing Act’s Mission

The IFR’s insistence that the Fair Housing Act prevents housing discrimination “based on all protected classes,” while discouraging “preferences based on racial or ethnic characteristics,” in administering AFFH is contradictory and weakens HUD’s and the Fair Housing Act’s mission.[75] A critical part of HUD’s mission is to “build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination.”[76] Similarly, HUD’s website identifies the Fair Housing Act’s objective as preventing discrimination, “in the sale or rental of housing, including against individuals seeking a mortgage or housing assistance, or in other housing-related activities.”[77] Therefore, HUD cannot cherry-pick which rights the Fair Housing Act protects. As previously mentioned in this letter, redress is not a preference; however, HUD’s recommendation that the protected classes are not mentioned explicitly raises serious questions about how HUD will prevent discrimination against these groups without mentioning them, especially veterans with disabilities.

E. Without Proper Enforcement, AFFH Does Not Help the Fair Housing Act Protect Disabled Veterans from Housing Discrimination

As of 2024, there are an estimated 5.9 million veterans who live with disabilities they incurred during military service; people who have fought to preserve the nation’s safety and rights should not be vulnerable to housing discrimination due to improper enforcement of AFFH and the Fair Housing Act.[78] Some of the barriers to housing that disabled veterans encounter include apartment complexes denying their right to use service animals and some communities’ use of zoning to block the construction of multifamily housing.[79] In 2011, a condominium association and its management company refused to grant a disabled veteran’s request for reasonable accommodation.[80] Both parties denied a Gulf War veteran’s request to keep a small dog in the condo he rented to help him manage the effects of anxiety and depression.[81] Moreover, the condominium association and management company refused to waive their pet fees and insurance requirements.[82] They also fined him multiple times until his lease was not renewed.[83] These issues were resolved in 2012 when the DOJ announced a consent decree and the U.S. District Court in Utah ordered the condominium association and the management company to, among other conditions, pay the plaintiff $20,000 and adopt a new reasonable accommodation policy that does not charge service animal owners pet fees or require them to purchase liability insurance.[84]

In 2012, Oakland Township, Michigan’s Board of Trustees approved a change to the community’s zoning code to allow the construction of a 248-unit multifamily unit building that would have provided key services to elderly and disabled residents; however, in 2013, a newly elected board of trustees overturned their change to the zoning code.[85] Using zoning to prevent the construction of multifamily housing was damaging for disabled veterans, as well as seniors, because it deprived them of the affordable services they needed through the construction of this type of housing in a community that was only zoned for single-family homes.[86] Without proper enforcement of AFFH and the Fair Housing Act, veterans with disabilities will be denied the housing that they deserve.

Conclusion

The 2025 AFFH IFR is deeply inconsistent with the mission of HUD and the Fair Housing Act. The country’s financial stability through combatting discrimination and ensuring that all Americans have equal access to housing depends on implementing AFFH, and subsequently the Fair Housing Act, appropriately. We urge HUD to withdraw the 2025 AFFH IFR and reinstate the 2021 AFFH IFR.[87]

Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations on this important issue. Please contact Nichole Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor, at nnelson@ncrc.org with any questions.

Sincerely,
Jesse Van Tol
President & CEO, National Community Reinvestment Coalition

Alabama NAACP State Conference Economic Programs

Ariva, Inc.

Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development, Inc. ANHD

Bridgeport Neighborhood Trust d/b/a Building Neighborhoods Together

CASA of Oregon

Central American Resource Center (CARECEN)

Centro Cultural del Condado de Washington

Clover NOLA

Community Opportunity Alliance

Consumer Federation of America

Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, Inc.

Fair Share Housing Center

Grounded Solutions Network

Homes on the Hill CDC

Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Greater Cincinnati

Integrated Community Solutions, Inc.

Kansas Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc.

Lawrence Community Works

Legal Action Center

Massachusetts Action for Justice

Massachusetts Association of Community Development Corporations

Metropolitan Interfaith Council on Affordable Housing (MICAH)

Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Center

Minnesota Homeownership Center

Neighborhood Development Collaborative (NDC)

Neighborhood Housing Services of Greater Berks, INC

New Jersey Citizen Action

New Jersey Community Capital

New Jersey Institute for Social Justice

North Carolina Housing Coalition

NWCS, Inc.

Our Spring Lake Store, LLC

Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Corporation

Philadelphia Association of CDCs

Pittsburgh Community Reinvestment Group

River City Housing

Shriver Center on Poverty Law

Southern Dallas Progress Community Development Corporation

Southwest Georgia United

Southwest Neighborhood Housing Services

The First 72+

The National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (National CAPACD)

United South Broadway Corporation

Utah Housing Coalition

Voice of the Experienced

Voters Organized to Educate

Washington Homeownership Resource Center

[1] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions,” Federal Register, 90, no. 40, (March 3, 2025): 11021-11022 and 11023, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-03-03/pdf/2025-03360.pdf.

[2] Ibid., 11023.

[3] Ibid.

[4] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Restoring Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications,” Federal Register, 86, no. 110, (June 10, 2021): 30782, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-06-10/pdf/2021-12114.pdf.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Mission,” (Accessed March 17, 2025), https://www.hud.gov/about/mission.

[8] Ashfaq Khan, Christian E. Weller, and Lily Roberts, “The Rental Housing Crisis Is a Supply Problem That Needs Supply Solutions,” Center for American Progress, August 22, 2022, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-rental-housing-crisis-is-a-supply-problem-that-needs-supply-solutions/.

[9] Khan, Weller, and Roberts, “The Rental Housing Crisis Is a Supply Problem That Needs Supply Solutions,” and Dan Garcia-Diaz, “What Can the Great Recession Teach Us About Rent Affordability in the Age of Coronavirus?” U.S. Government Accountability Office, July 7, 2020, https://www.gao.gov/blog/what-can-great-recession-teach-us-about-rent-affordability-age-coronavirus.

[10] U.S. Government Accountability Office, “What Can the Great Recession Teach Us About Rent Affordability in the Age of Coronavirus?” July 7, 2020.

[11] Janneke Ratcliffe,  “How We Can Solve the Nation’s Affordable Housing Crisis,” CNN, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/16/perspectives/affordable-housing-crisis/index.html#:~:text=In%20many%20respects%2C%20this%20crisis%20was%20born,financial%20crisis%2C%20began%20to%20enter%20the%20market and Karan Kaul, Laurie Goodman, and Michael Neal,  “The Role of Single-Family Housing Production and Preservation in Addressing the Affordable Housing Supply Shortage,” The Urban Institute, December 2021, 1-2, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/105265/the-role-of-single-family-housing-production-and-preservation-in-addressing-the-affordable-housing-supply-shortage.pdf.

[12] National Low Income Housing Coalition, “The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes,” March 2025, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23, 27 https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/gap/2025/gap-report_2025_english.pdf.

[13] Ibid., 4.

[14] Renee Willis, National Low Income Housing Coalition Interim President and CEO, “Statement for the Record National Low Income Housing Coalition Renee Willis, Interim President and CEO Presented to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, ‘Building Our Future: Increasing Housing Supply in America,’ March 4, 2025,” March 4, 2025, 5, https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Statement_HFSC-Housing-Sub_Hearing-Supply_Final.pdf.

[15] 119^th Congress, “H.R.1968 – Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025,” https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1968/text.

[16] Ibid. and National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Congress Passes and President Trump Signs into Law Year-Long Stopgap Funding Bill Underfunding Vital HUD Programs,” March 17, 2025, https://nlihc.org/resource/congress-passes-and-president-trump-signs-law-year-long-stopgap-funding-bill-underfunding.

[17] Karl Evers-Hillstrom, Brandon Lee, Dan Lee, and Greg Tourial,  “BGOV Bill Analysis: Full-Year FY 2025 Stopgap Funding (1),” Bloomberg Government, March 11, 2025, https://www.bgov.com/next/news/SSYWC2T0G1KW and National Low Income Housing Coalition, “FY25 Budget Chart for Selected

Federal Housing Programs,” March 17, 2024, https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Final_HUD_Budget-Chart_FY25_Final.pdf.

[18] Evers-Hillstrom, Brandon Lee, Dan Lee, and Tourial,  “BGOV Bill Analysis: Full-Year FY 2025 Stopgap Funding,” Bloomberg Government.

[19] Amanda Abrams, “Lessons from the Last Housing Crisis: How to Get Control of Properties,” Shelterforce, September 17, 2020, https://shelterforce.org/2020/09/17/lessons-from-the-last-housing-crisis/ and United States Government Accountability Office, “Rental Housing: Information on Institutional Investment in Single-Family Homes,” May 2024, 9, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106643.pdf.

[20] Ibid.

[21] United States Government Accountability Office, “Rental Housing: Information on Institutional Investment in Single-Family Homes,” May 2024, 11.

[22] Ibid., 13.

[23] Benjamin Oreskes, “Hochul Seeks to Limit Private-Equity Ownership of Homes in New York,” The New York Times, January 9, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/nyregion/private-equity-homes-hochul.html.

[24] Nichole Nelson and Bakari Levy, “How Algorithms and Monopolies Hurt Tenants – and How Tech Can Help,” National Community Reinvestment Coalition, December 19, 2024, https://ncrc.org/how-algorithms-and-monopolies-hurt-tenants-and-how-tech-can-help/.

[25] United States of America, State of North Carolina, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, and State of Washington v. RealPage, Inc., August 2024, 81-83, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1364976/dl?inline.

[26] Nelson and Levy, “How Algorithms and Monopolies Hurt Tenants – and How Tech Can Help,” National Community Reinvestment Coalition, December 19, 2024, and United States of America, State of North Carolina, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, and State of Washington v. RealPage, Inc., 2, 7-8, 42, 54, and 82.

[27] United States of America, State of North Carolina, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, and State of Washington v. RealPage, Inc., 35 and Nelson and Levy, “How Algorithms and Monopolies Hurt Tenants – and How Tech Can Help.”

[28] United States of America, State of North Carolina, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, and State of Washington v. RealPage, Inc., August 2024, 24 and Nelson and Levy, “How Algorithms and Monopolies Hurt Tenants – and How Tech Can Help.”

[29] United States of America, State of North Carolina, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, and State of Washington v. RealPage, Inc., August 2024, 24 and 26.

[30] Ibid., 5 and Kevin T. White and Tammy W. Cowart, “Behind the Cloaking Device: Is There an Anti-Competitive Agreement Lurking Under the Use of Common Pricing Algorithms by Multifamily Landlords?” The Washburn Law Journal, 63, no. 3, (September 2024): 316, https://contentdm.washburnlaw.edu/digital/collection/wlj/id/7691/rec/1.

[31] Nelson and Levy, “How Algorithms and Monopolies Hurt Tenants – and How Tech Can Help,” and White and Cowart, “Behind the Cloaking Device,” 312.

[32] Nelson and Levy, “How Algorithms and Monopolies Hurt Tenants – and How Tech Can Help,” and United States of America, State of North Carolina, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, and State of Washington v. RealPage, Inc., August 2024, 72.

[33] United States of America, State of North Carolina, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Minnesota, State of Oregon, State of Tennessee, and State of Washington v. RealPage, Inc., August 2024, 98, 100, and 101.

[34] The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Planning and Community Development, “The 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress: Part 1: Point-in Time Estimates of Homelessness,” December 2024, page v, 2, 6, 12, and 82, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2024-AHAR-Part-1.pdf.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., 26, 30, 36, and 90.

[37] Ibid., v and 6.

[38] Ibid., v, 2, 6, 12, and 82.

[39] Ibid., v.

[40] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions,” Federal Register, 90, no. 40, (March 3, 2025): 11021-11022.

[41] United States Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Table: All Topics: Population estimates, July 1, 2023, (V2023),”  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045223.

[42] United States Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Table: All Topics: Population Estimates, July 1, 2023, (V2023): Age and Sex,” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255223#SEX255223; United States Census Bureau, “QuickFacts: Table: All Topics: Population Estimates, July 1, 2023, (V2023): Race and Hispanic Origin,” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045223; CDC Newsroom, “CDC Data Shows Over 70 Million U.S. Adults Reported Having a Disability,” July 16, 2024, accessed April 6, 2025,  https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2024/s0716-Adult-disability.html#:~:text=The%20latest%20data%2C%20from%20the%202022%20Behavioral,States%20reported%20having%20a%20disability%20in%202022.&text=Older%20adults%20reported%20a%20higher%20disability%20prevalence,and%20older)%20compared%20to%20other%20age%20groups; and United States Census Bureau: American Community Survey, “S1101: Households and Families,” 2023: ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, United States, https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2023.S1101?q=S1101:+Households+and+Families.

[43] Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions, “Closing the Racial Inequality Gaps: The Economic Cost of Black Inequality in the U.S,” September 2020, 4, 7, and 38, https://ir.citi.com/%2FPRxPvgNWu319AU1ajGf%2BsKbjJjBJSaTOSdw2DF4xynPwFB8a2jV1FaA3Idy7vY59bOtN2lxVQM%3D

[44] Lucy Pérez, Bernardo Sichel, Michael Chui, Ana Paula Calvo, “The Economic State of Latinos in America: The American Dream Deferred,” Mckinsey & Company, December 2021, vi, vii, 1, 41, and 53, https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/sustainable%20inclusive%20growth/the%20economic%20state%20of%20latinos%20in%20america%20the%20american%20dream%20deferred/the-economic-state-of-latinos-in-america-v2.pdf?shouldIndex=false.

[45] Ibid., vi, vii, 1, 22, 23, 29, and 53, https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/sustainable%20inclusive%20growth/the%20economic%20state%20of%20latinos%20in%20america%20the%20american%20dream%20deferred/the-economic-state-of-latinos-in-america-v2.pdf?shouldIndex=false.

[46] Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions, “Closing the Racial Inequality Gaps: The Economic Cost of Black Inequality in the U.S,” September 2020, 4, 7, and 38.

[47] National Partnership for Women and Families, “America’s Women and the Wage Gap: Fact Sheet,” March 2025, 1, https://nationalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/americas-women-and-the-wage-gap.pdf.

[48] Ibid., 2.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Lucy Pérez, Bernardo Sichel, Michael Chui, Ana Paula Calvo, “The Economic State of Latinos in America: The American Dream Deferred,” Mckinsey & Company, December 2021, vi, 1, 3, 4, 31, 32, 35, and 66.

[51] Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions, “Closing the Racial Inequality Gaps: The Economic Cost of Black Inequality in the U.S,” September 2020, 4, 7, 18, and 64.

[52] Citi GPS: Global Perspectives & Solutions, “Closing the Racial Inequality Gaps: The Economic Cost of Black Inequality in the U.S,” September 2020, 3, 4, 7, and 36.

[53] National Partnership for Women and Families, “America’s Women and the Wage Gap: Fact Sheet,” March 2025, 2 and Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Year 2020 (Second Estimate),” February 25, 2021, https://www.bea.gov/news/2021/gross-domestic-product-fourth-quarter-and-year-2020-second-estimate.

[54] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions,” 11020 and 11021.

[55] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Mission,” (Accessed March 17, 2025).

[56] Ibid.

[57] PolicyLink, “Re: Docket No. FR-6250-P-01, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,” April 24, 2023, 17, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X6Vs3eu-r9x1LlepcmrJEsRG5tfFkbxQ/view; PolicyLink, “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is a Pathway to Inclusive Housing Futures,” https://www.policylink.org/our-work/housing/affh; PolicyLink, “Obama Administration Advances Access to Opportunity through New Fair Housing Rule,” https://www.policylink.org/blog/obama-administration-fair-housing-rule; City of New Orleans: Office of Community Development, “2016 Assessment of Fair Housing,” 12-13 and 120-121, https://nola.gov/archived/community-development/documents/2016-updated-afh-plan-090516/afh-plan-090516-final/; City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Housing Authority, “City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Housing Authority: Assessment of Fair Housing,” December 23, 2016, 17, https://www.phila.gov/media/20190502115754/afh-2016-for-web.pdf; and Chicago Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot, “Chicago Blueprint for Fair Housing: Progress Report,” May 2023, 9, https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/sites/chicagos-blueprint-for-fair-housing/pdfs/May-2023-Progress-Report.pdf.

[58]  City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Housing Authority, “City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Housing Authority: Assessment of Fair Housing,” 6.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid., 17.

[61] City of Philadelphia: Mayor Cherelle Parker, “City Launches Right to Counsel for Eligible Philadelphia Tenants,” January 31, 2022, https://www.phila.gov/2022-01-31-city-launches-right-to-counsel-for-eligible-philadelphia-tenants/.

[62] Ibid. and City of Philadelphia: Mayor Cherelle L. Parker, “Right to Counsel (RTC) Expansion to Zip Codes 19124, 19141, and 19154,” January 21, 2025, https://www.phila.gov/2025-01-21-right-to-counsel-rtc-expansion-to-zip-codes-19124-19141-and-19154/.

[63] City of Philadelphia: Mayor Cherelle Parker, “City Launches Right to Counsel for Eligible Philadelphia Tenants,” January 31, 2022, and City of Philadelphia: Mayor Cherelle L. Parker, “Right to Counsel (RTC) Expansion to Zip Codes 19124, 19141, and 19154,” January 21, 2025.

[64] City of Philadelphia, “Right to Counsel Annual Report: FY 2022,” 3, https://www.phila.gov/media/20230125144105/RightToCounsel_AnnualReport_FY22.pdf; City of Philadelphia, “Right to Counsel Annual Report: FY 2023,” 3, https://www.phila.gov/media/20240816090859/Right-to-Counsel-annual-report-FY23.pdf; and Department of Planning and Development Housing and Community Development City of Philadelphia, “Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2024,” 2, https://www.phila.gov/media/20250204132955/Right-to-Counsel-Annual-Report-Fiscal-Year-2024.pdf;

[65] City of New Orleans: Office of Community Development, ”2016 Assessment of Fair Housing,” 6-7.

[66] Ibid., 8-9.

[67] Ibid., 10, 12, 13, and 120-121.

[68] Ibid. 120-121.

[69] Chicago Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot, “Chicago Blueprint for Fair Housing: Progress Report,” 9.

[70] “Chicago Blueprint for Fair Housing Completed as part of the Cook County Regional Assessment of Fair Housing,” October 2021, 17, https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/sites/chicagos-blueprint-for-fair-housing/pdfs/ChicagoBlueprintforFairHousing-Full%20Report.pdf#:~:text=The%20Cook%20County%20Regional%20Assessment%20of%20Fair,residential%20segregation%20and%20related%20fair%20housing%20issues.&text=The%20AFH%20provides%20a%20comprehensive%20framework%20for,equity%20and%20justice%20for%20historically%20marginalized%20groups.

[71] The Department of Planning and Development of the Bureau of Economic Development, “Cook County, Illinois Annual Action Plan: Program Year 2021 (October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2022), 27-28, https://www.cookcountyil.gov/sites/g/files/ywwepo161/files/2021_draft_annual_action_plan.pdf and Chicago Mayor Lori E. Lightfoot, “Chicago Blueprint for Fair Housing: Progress Report,” May 2023, 9.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Ibid.; City of Chicago, “Connected Communities Ordinance,” https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/equitable-transit-oriented-development/home/connected-communities-ordinance.html; and City of Chicago, “Inclusionary Application Zoning Process,” https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/sites/etod/Pdfs/CCO-Inclusionary-Application-Zoning-Process.pdf.

[74] “Reuters/Ipsos Large Sample Poll February 2025,” Ipsos, February 25, 2025, https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-large-sample-poll-february-2025.

According to the poll, “Fifty-eight percent of Americans say they worry changes in the federal government could cause delays in services people in their community rely on, such as Social Security payments and student aid.”

[75] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions,” Federal Register, 90, no. 40, March 3, 2025, 11021-11022.

[76] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Mission.”

[77] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Fair Housing Rights and Obligations,” https://www.hud.gov/stat/fheo/rights-obligations, accessed April 7, 2025.

[78] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, “Veterans Benefits Administration Annual Benefits Report: Fiscal Year 2024,” 2024, 69 and 73, https://www.benefits.va.gov/REPORTS/abr/docs/2024-abr.pdf.

[79] Archives, U.S. Department of Justice, “Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Case Involving Disabled Veteran in Utah,” February 27, 2012,  https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-settles-disability-discrimination-case-involving-disabled-veteran-utah and Brian Dickerson, “Disabled Vets Not Welcome in Posh Suburb,” Detroit Free Press, December 7, 2014, https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/brian-dickerson/2014/12/07/disabled-veterans-discrimination-suit/19980009/.

[80] Archives, U.S. Department of Justice, “Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Case Involving Disabled Veteran in Utah,” February 27, 2012.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Ibid.

[83] Ibid.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Dickerson, “Disabled Vets Not Welcome in Posh Suburb,” Detroit Free Press.

[86] Ibid.

[87] National Fair Housing Alliance to HUD Secretary Scott Turner, “Re: Docket No. FR–6519–I–01; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Revisions,” May 2, 2025, 13.

In addition to their hard work and commitment to economic justice for all, each of these women have personal goals and have accomplished achievements that mean the world to us.

Women can do it all and, at NCRC, we bear witness to that truth every day. Their resilience, ambition and unwavering drive are a testament to the power of women in the workplace and beyond. Today and always, we celebrate them.

Being a woman in America right now feels exhausting, but I’m proud of being able to work for an organization that is dedicated to a just economy. I’m proud of all the women in the world who are holding their ground and carving out a path for themselves and I look forward to a brighter future where justice and equality prevail.

— Elisabeth Butler

What makes me proud and happy as a woman is the confidence to lead and the courage to do it my way. In a world that often tries to put women in a box, I’ve built a career—and a life—by breaking barriers, trusting my instincts and leading with both strength and humor. I believe leadership isn’t just about making decisions: it’s about making connections, lifting others up and never being afraid to laugh along the way. Success is serious, but who says we can’t have fun getting there?

— Carolina Rodrigues

As the popular saying goes, ‘Behind every great woman is another great woman.’ I celebrate all the women who have invested in me, helping me become a powerful, gentle, brilliant and joyful woman. I can’t help but feel incredibly proud of all the strong and kind women in this world.

—Haley Schneider

‘A strong woman knows she has strength enough for the journey, but a woman of strength knows it is in the journey where she becomes strong.’ My greatest mentor and teacher in life is a woman—my mom. As a single mom she worked tirelessly to provide for me and my five siblings, often putting her own needs aside to ensure we had every opportunity to succeed. In May 2024, my mom was diagnosed with cancer. I watch her struggle to continue to navigate her diagnosis with strength and resilience—yet, becoming stronger every day. Now, as I reflect on my understanding of female joy and happiness, it is deeply rooted in the power that comes from a woman’s ability to overcome pain, hardships and injustice. It is in the way we find beauty despite the world wrongfully dictating what our beauty should be. During these difficult times for immigrants and women in America, I hope we find joy and happiness in the understanding that us, as women of strength, are made for this journey. We run this.

— Rose Ramirez

I work in economic justice because everyone deserves the dignity of a living wage and helping their family thrive. I’m grateful to be in a position to fight for a future where people who share my experiences can achieve both.

— Sabrina Terry

I am proud and happy that I can create space for others to be their full, authentic selves and let their strengths shine. As a transgender woman, this feels especially important in a time when women, queer people, immigrants, BIPOC people and so many others are under attack.

— Chloe Sabharwal

During these turbulent times in American history, I’m proud I work for an organization that believes everyone, regardless of their identifiers, has the right to financial services, a safe and affordable home, a thriving and healthy community and a country that not only promises but delivers to all Americans opportunities to build wealth and live well.

— Alyssa Wiltse

I am thankful to be a mother and to work in this space where my efforts—along with those of others—help bridge the racial wealth gap.

— Daniella Djiogan

I’m proud to have a powerful lineage of Black women here in the physical and in the spiritual realm whose work and legacies that continue to provide ample wisdom and guidance as I navigate my own journey.

— Timantha Goff

I take pride in providing guidance to the participants of our Marketing and Development internship program at NCRC. I’m also proud to be a woman achieving my goals despite life’s challenges. Additionally, I am proud to be the first in my family to earn a degree, travel the world and allow myself to achieve even more. Most importantly, I am proud to be myself—embracing my journey, my growth and everything that makes me who I am.

— Alejandra Pringle

I’m thrilled to be part of NCRC, where we support our members and work directly with people affected by housing and lending discrimination. As a woman in this field, it’s so fulfilling to channel my skills and background into advocating for economic justice. It is very rewarding to know that my work contributes to NCRC’s broader mission of creating pathways to wealth-building for all communities, regardless of race, gender or economic background.

— Victoria Haush

As a woman, I’m proud of the work that I can do to make the world better in a small way — through fair housing and other economic justice-related issues — and I hope I can inspire future generations of women to do the same.

— Nichole Nelson

You move in. But months later, your landlord sends you the next year’s lease. Your rent will increase from $1,800 to $2,250 – a 25% hike in a single year.

Such staggering rent increases are all too common – and potentially illegitimate, according to a US Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit filed in August 2024. The DOJ accused a company called RealPage of engaging in 21st-century price-fixing schemes to hike rents nationwide. Not only does RealPage allegedly engage in price fixing, but the lawsuit also claims that RealPage prevents landlords from lowering the rent on individual units, even when they are vacant for months at a time.

Currently, RealPage controls 80% of the commercial revenue management market. The company uses algorithmic software to help landlords set prices – but the DOJ believes RealPage is effectively facilitating price-fixing schemes that exacerbate the affordable housing crisis.

A closer look at RealPage’s inner workings not only helps understand what your landlord uses to make decisions. It may also provide an opportunity to create algorithms that can help tenants instead of hurting them. Where are current laws and government action to regulate this technology falling short? Can algorithmic services make rental housing more affordable instead of less? 

What is RealPage?

RealPage is a revenue management software company that landlords use to manipulate the price of rent, spiking prices far higher than they would normally be without the use of their software. If you are, based on 2023 estimates, one of the approximately 45 million renters in the country, pay attention. What you’re about to read will disturb you.

RealPage’s software products like AIRM, OneSite, and YieldStar encourage competing landlords to share nonpublic, sensitive information to feed its algorithms. Among other data, it uses your private information such as rent, lease terms and move-in and move-out dates to train its algorithm to produce daily rent recommendations for each landlord’s available units. 

RealPage is likely the reason you’re being rent-gouged. Its software helps its landlord clients push rents 3-7% higher than “competitive levels.” The August 2024 lawsuit identified submarkets where landlords sharing sensitive information to inform pricing “have harmed […] competition and thus renters.” Landlords use RealPage products like AIRM, OneSite, and YieldStar in diverse areas across the United States. Some of these include: Washington, DC; Phoenix, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; and Nashville, Tennessee to name a few.

RealPage’s actions are devastating because of the immense influence over the rental market it wields. RealPage’s clients control 19.7 million out of 22 million “investment-grade” housing units in the US – almost 90% of the market for multifamily rental housing units – according to a Washburn Law Journal analysis. Their hegemonic control of rent-setting in dozens of local multifamily rental markets eliminates virtually all competition, allowing RealPage to effectively become the de facto market in cities around the country. The use of similar price-setting algorithms poses significant challenges to the natural functioning of healthy markets by encouraging bad actors to drive the prices of essential services, such as housing, to the highest rates possible, often to the detriment of the average person.

According to the DOJ lawsuit, the products tamper with supply and demand and other facets of the rental market. Instead of lowering prices when apartments are vacant, the revenue protection model prohibits the algorithm from suggesting lower rents. Instead, AIRM and YieldStar artificially inject scarcity into the market by recommending that landlords make fewer leases available for higher prices.

RealPage also engages in highly coercive tactics that make it nearly impossible for landlords to decline these recommendations, the DOJ complaint asserts. By default, AIRM and YieldStar have an auto-accept function for rent recommendations. If a landlord tries to decline a recommendation, they are required to justify why they declined it. If the pricing advisor disagrees with the landlord’s justification, they can escalate the matter to the property manager’s supervisor, who they often pressure to accept RealPage’s price recommendations. Even if a landlord wants to charge a lower price, RealPage makes the process extraordinarily difficult, often forcing landlords to submit a justification for charging the lower price. 

How Current Antitrust Law Fails to Prosecute RealPage

Despite RealPage’s egregious alleged actions, the high bar for the burden of proof and its design may allow it to evade current antitrust laws. Current antitrust theory has a high standard of proof as the Sherman Act establishes. Demonstrating that companies used an algorithm to set prices does not meet the burden of proof. An agreement needs to have existed between companies before someone requests evidence of it. This creates a predicament where evidence of intentional price-fixing is a requisite (e-mails, internal documents, or even the algorithm) to prove that the crime happened, but the evidence cannot be accessed until someone receives the legal authority to request it. Even with such information in hand, RealPage might not face legal repercussions – some scholars suggest – if courts find that its business model cloaks the firm from prosecution due to the algorithm’s use of data that landlords share to set prices. 

Although the standard of proof is high, it does not mean it is impossible to prosecute RealPage. RealPage potentially meets this standard with the multiple in-person and virtual spaces it provides landlords to engage in interdependent pricing, as a group of multifamily housing tenants argued in a 2023 filing against the company. According to this same lawsuit, landlords have multiple opportunities to conspire: online forums, standing committees where landlords advise pricing strategies, and an annual 3-day “RealWorld” conference. If proven true, these particular allegations may constitute “collusive communications.” Though RealPage’s actions are more difficult to detect than a traditional cartel, there is some hope; however, the law needs to catch up to the complicated technology that exists. 

Why the Government Hasn’t Acted to Curb RealPage’s Price Fixing

Unfortunately, the federal government does not have the tools to solve RealPage’s price-fixing because it does not set a national affordability standard for non-subsidized housing, only subsidized housing. Currently, HUD sets income limits for its federal rent subsidy programs such as Housing Choice Vouchers, Project Based Rental Assistance, Section 202, Section 811, and public housing. The standard the federal government sets that most closely resembles a national affordability standard is its designation that housing is affordable if Americans spend 30% of their income or less on housing and utilities. 

The federal government does not have updated rent data because it relies on surveys that are collected over days and years. 

How Algorithms Work and How They Should Work

Although RealPage’s algorithm is trained to raise rents using a combination of different landlords’ pricing information and tenants’ lease information, it is just as easy to train an algorithm to maintain rents at affordable rates for many renters. In plain terms, algorithms are the sum of data and instructions on how to process data. Data that is entered into the algorithm will generate an “end result.” In other words, input in is input out. If you train an algorithm using biased data, it will produce a biased algorithm that builds bias into its results.

Now, examine how an algorithm could potentially lower rents. If someone designs an algorithm to push rents lower for a significant amount of time, then renters will benefit as the market adjusts to lower price trends. If this technology exists, why hasn’t it been used to lower rents? Why hasn’t the federal government created a system that can set affordability in real time and monitor price fixing?

Towards a Better Alternative

To use this technology to lower rents, a series of public and open-source pricing models should be developed for different rental markets. This necessitates multiple approaches at the design level, including pricing models that apply the same price to every product within a given category (linear pricing models), and pricing models that take in more data regarding the characteristics of a product to set the price (nonlinear pricing models). These models’ datasets could be similar to the design of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act dataset. Pricing transparency rules could be based on different state-level Truth In Lending Laws, such as New York’s, which could directly benefit renters by encouraging price competition between landlords. Given the differences between rental markets, no one algorithm could fit all local markets. Nonlinear pricing models are most likely to be successful in affordable housing markets where there is little variation between the characteristics of individual housing units.

Given these systems’ complex design, federal agencies, housing advocates and university researchers should work together to develop pilots and frameworks to inform data standards used to feed housing pricing models. Localities should receive public investment to advance their infrastructure and develop the expertise required to deliver solutions that can understand the decision-making of renters in their area.

Landlords should also track changes in consumer demand for their properties over time (demand elasticity). When shared with pricing model designers, this data would require landlords to receive renters’ input as prices change.

Although we have discussed how algorithmic pricing poses significant challenges to affordable rental housing, such technologies may soon be adopted in various other parts of the economy. Different companies can use this same technology to increase the price of various products, such as groceries or even concert tickets. Engaging local and federal agencies that focus on consumer protection issues can play an important role in highlighting this problem for both policymakers and the general public. Additionally, antitrust laws must be updated to account for the usage of such algorithms to close existing regulatory loopholes.

Nichole Nelson, Ph.D., is a Senior Policy Advisor at NCRC.
Bakari Levy is a Government Affairs Associate at NCRC.
Photo by turkeychik via Flickr.

May 29, 2024 , 10:00 am EDT – 11:30 am EDT

Join NCRC’s Senior Policy Advisor Nichole Nelson at the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights webinar: The Impact Of Appraisal Discrimination On New Jersey’s Communities of Color. Nelson and other New Jersey fair housing and industry experts will discuss systemic racial inequities in appraisal practices. Racial disparities in residential property appraisals, along with other discriminatory housing practices, contribute to segregated neighborhoods, inequality in homeownership rates, the racial wealth gap and impact our state in many more ways.

Panelists include: Joseph Palumbo, Chief Operating Officer, Worth Valuation Services, Inc.; NJ State Real Estate Appraiser Board Member; Aarin Michele Williams, Chief Advisor to the Director, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights and Nichole Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor, National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

May 17, 2024

Loren Schulman
Associate Director
Office of Performance and Personnel Management
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th St., NW
Washington, DC 20503

Samuel Berger
Associate Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
725 17th St., NW
Washington, DC 20503 

Re: Methods and Leading Practices for Advancing Public Participation and Community Engagement with the Federal Government

Dear Associate Director Schulman and Associate Administrator Berger:

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) appreciates the opportunity to submit written comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about methods to improve the American public’s community engagement with federal agencies in the regulatory process in order for the federal government to best meet their needs.^[1] NCRC and its grassroots member organizations create opportunities for people to build wealth and participate more fully in the nation’s economy. We work with community leaders, policymakers and financial institutions to champion fairness and end discrimination in lending, housing and business. NCRC was formed in 1990 by national, regional and local organizations to increase the flow of private capital into traditionally underserved communities. NCRC has grown into an association of more than 700 community-based organizations that promote access to fair and affordable housing, basic banking services, entrepreneurship, job creation and vibrant communities for America’s working families.

Background

NCRC commends the White House for its 2022 publication of the “Fifth U.S. Government National Action Plan,” which contains steps to make the federal government more open and accessible when democracy has been threatened domestically and around the world.^[2] A cornerstone of this plan is to improve federal agencies’ engagement with the public, especially members of underrepresented groups, so they can understand how agencies create and implement programs.^[3] The White House plans to achieve this mission through several goals including but not limited to: improving access to government data, research, and information; increasing public engagement through civic engagement to request the public’s feedback on rulemaking; and facilitating access to government services and benefits.^[4]

Disaggregating demographic data by characteristics such as race and ethnicity is essential to the federal government addressing disparities within federal programs and policies.^[5] To achieve this objective, OMB announced last year that it would revise Federal Standards for collecting and reporting race and ethnicity by revising Statistical Policy Directive (SPD) No. 15 for the first time since 1997.^[6] In a comment letter, NCRC expressed support for OMB considering the data disaggregation of all racial categories.^[7] We also applaud OMB for recently revealing that future Censuses, American Community Surveys, and federal forms would solicit disaggregated data.^[8]

Civic engagement at various stages of the federal rulemaking process is critical to demonstrating to members of the public that they have another avenue to affect change in addition to voting. We are pleased that President Biden called on OMB to “modernize the regulatory review process” by broadening public engagement.^[9] OMB has taken this guidance a step further by recommending that federal agencies engage the public when developing their annual regulatory agendas.^[10]  Furthermore, federal agencies are trying different methods to engage the public such as regional town halls, Requests for Input (RFI), and partnerships with community-based organizations “to share regulatory priorities” to obtain community input.^[11]

Making it easier for the public to access benefits allows them to directly see the way that the federal government impacts their daily lives. As part of Executive Order 13985, Federal agencies are required to develop and execute equity action plans.^[12] These plans include a summary of obstacles that underserved communities endure when trying to access federal benefits, services, and contracting opportunities.^[13]

Barriers to accessing government services and benefits in a timely manner often undermine public trust in government.^[14] The White House correctly observes in its plan that these barriers ultimately contribute to individuals’ loss of belief in democratic institutions.^[15] For this reason, it is significant that many agencies are: 1) finding new ways to engage the public beyond “passive collection of  public input” to more “proactive” examples of community engagement and 2) will report on their progress quarterly so the government and average Americans can learn how well it does or does not provide benefits and services.^[16]

Recommendations

While federal agencies including OMB have taken several steps to make the government more accessible to the American public, we have some recommendations for how OMB can improve communication between federal agencies and the American people.

I. Hold Listening Sessions on Weekends Instead of Weekdays

Over the past year or so, some agencies held listening sessions on dates and at times that were inaccessible to average, hard-working Americans. For example, HUD’s listening sessions about its proposed rule on revisions to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG) took place on the following dates and at the following times ^[17]:

• February 20th from 11:00 A.M.-12:00 P.M. EST
• February 28th from 1:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. EST
• March 4th from 2:00 P.M.-3:00 P.M. EST
• March 7th from 1:30 P.M.-2:30 P.M. EST

All of these dates are weekdays and all of these times are in the middle of the day, which are days and times when most Americans are at work. If federal agencies want to engage with the public in a meaningful way, they will hold more listening sessions on weekends, when many Americans have time off from work. In a July 2023 memo, OMB acknowledged that Americans’ work schedules are a barrier to providing public feedback, especially if they are members of underserved communities.^[18]

By contrast, OMB provided the public with a weekend option to offer feedback on SPD 15. OMB held 3 virtual town halls on Tuesday, March 14, 2023; Friday, March 17, 2023; and Saturday, March 18, 2023.^[19] It is possible that hosting a virtual town hall on a Saturday may have contributed to OMB receiving over 20,000 public comments as of April 27, 2023.^[20] Therefore, we recommend that more federal agencies emulate OMB’s example and hold more listening sessions on Saturdays to allow more Americans to participate.

II. Congress Should Allocate More Funding to All Federal Agencies Including OMB to Spur Community Engagement

OMB also identified a lack of funding, staff, training, and lack of community contacts and cultural competence as an obstacle to “additional public participation.”^[21] Federal agencies’ dearth of resources is significant because agencies should have enough staff “to meet engagement needs” including staff to “build trusted relationships with communities affected by a regulation.”^[22] Congress should allocate more funding to all federal agencies. Increased funding would allow these agencies to hire more staff, train them to engage with the public in a culturally competent manner and provide more opportunities to engage with the American public, especially underserved communities.

III. Congress Should Allocate Funding to Help Community-Based Organizations Partner with Federal Agencies to Boost Community Engagement

Just as federal agencies need additional funding to better engage communities, community-based organizations need additional funding to facilitate relationship building between federal agencies and communities. Community-based organizations are often understaffed and underfunded. If they are expected to help federal agencies improve their engagement with the public, Congress should allocate funding to help these organizations hire additional staff and provide additional resources and training. This funding can help ensure that these organizations have the resources they need to help federal agencies improve their engagement with the American public.

IV. Ensure Materials are Accessible to All Americans Regardless of Language and Digital Literacy

Language Access

Ensuring that regulatory materials are produced in various languages is imperative to increasing public participation in the regulatory process. If regulatory materials are not available to Americans in the languages they speak, then they cannot participate in federal rulemaking.^[23] As mentioned in OMB’s July 2023 memo, Executive Order 13166 requires federal agencies to identify whether there is a need to make services they provide available to people with limited English proficiency (LEP) and develop systems to provide services to people with LEP.^[24] OMB asks agencies to consider whether implementation of this Executive Order can include the translation of regulatory outreach materials to languages that “are relevant to affected communities.”^[25] The President should amend Executive Order 13166 to require federal agencies to make all materials, including regulatory materials, available to persons with LEP.

Plain Language

Another barrier to community engagement is the jargon that agencies use in the RFIs and other regulatory materials. Inaccessible, overly technical language makes it difficult for many individuals to engage with the federal government. In its memo, OMB recommends that federal agencies should write regulation materials in plain language that the Plain Writing Act requires and ensure that these documents contain summaries.^[26] NCRC agrees with OMB’s recommendation about writing regulations in plan language and its assessment that the public may be more likely to engage with public regulations if given the option of shorter-form content.^[27] Infographics, videos, and fact sheets may allow Americans with different learning styles to understand the information in the way that best meets their needs.^[28] If federal agencies also highlight the specific questions and issues on which they seek input, it may allow a broader portion of the American public to engage with federal agencies.^[29] NCRC agrees with OMB’s guidance that calls for federal agencies to allow Americans to submit public comments in multiple forms of media such as video submissions, audio submissions, and via telephone that aligns with the way that many Americans use various forms of technology to communicate.^[30]

Digital Access

Federal agencies may inadvertently exclude large segments of the American public from participating in the regulatory process due to the format of regulatory materials. This barrier might have a particularly detrimental effect on Americans who lack access to or do not know how to use the Internet. Americans who lack access to the Internet or who are not proficient users of the Internet might not be able to access the Federal Register. Three places where the Federal Register is available to read online are the Federal Register’s website, regulations.gov, and govinfo.gov.^[31] Approximately 24 million Americans — or 7% of the nation’s population — do not have access to high-speed internet.^[32] Moreover, approximately 23% of Americans in rural areas and 28% of Americans on Tribal lands also lack access to high-speed internet.^[33]

Physical copies of the Federal Register are currently available for purchase from the Government Publishing Office’s online store or to read at Local Federal Deposit Libraries.^[34] Very few of the Local Federal Deposit Libraries across the country are public libraries — approximately 171.^[35] Others are located at state libraries, federal agency libraries, university libraries, court libraries, and other institutions that individuals may not access frequently in daily life.^[36] NCRC recommends that federal agencies place more physical copies of the Federal Register in public libraries.

V. AI and the Comment Process

Misuse of AI presents hazards for the public comment process. It could be weaponized to submit comments in large numbers supporting a particular position. While form comments have long existed, a comment with similar language is usually bucketed with others and they are collectively counted as a single comment.^[37]

Even prior to the popularization of AI, fake public comments were a threat to the regulatory process. While CEO of OneWest Former Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting allegedly solicited hundreds of false public comments to support the 2014 OneWest/CIT merger.^[38]

If misused, AI has even more potential to wreak havoc on the comment process than fraudulent emails. AI offers the ability to create thousands of unique comments that all support a specific position, yet escape being bucketed together. This presents a threat to the comment process in general, and reduces the impact of individual Americans who want to submit a comment.

VI. Make Summaries of Key Regulations Available in Public and Civic Venues

In its July 2023 memo, OMB observed that even if citizens are “aware of the regulatory process” they might not be aware of specific regulations if agencies only publish them in The Federal Register or biannually in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory Actions.^[39] OMB should encourage federal agencies to make summaries of regulations readily available to the public.

NCRC agrees with OMB’s recommendation to make information about regulations available in public libraries.^[40] More specifically, agencies should make available annually summaries of 5-10 of the most impactful regulations on underserved communities. The summaries should contain 1-2 bullet points about the regulation, 1 bullet point about how the regulation will impact the community where the regulation is posted, and a final bullet point about how residents can share feedback on the regulation. Making summaries of regulations more available in public libraries has the potential to increase public participation in government.

VII. Partner with Civil Rights, Labor, and Other Community-Based Organizations to Raise Awareness of Regulations and the Regulatory Process

In its July 2023 memo, OMB encouraged federal agencies to partner with community-based organizations to overcome underserved communities’ barriers to participation.^[41] NCRC agrees that federal agencies should partner with civil rights, labor, and other community-based organizations to host in-person and virtual informational sessions at various stages of the rulemaking process since these organizations may have more frequent contact with and are more familiar to underserved communities than federal agencies. NCRC also agrees with OMB that federal agencies should clearly present the issue the regulation hopes to resolve, the information the agency wants to collect in the rulemaking, its application to local communities, and how the public can participate in the process.^[42] Perhaps local chapters of various civil rights, labor, civic, and other community-based organizations can host multiple meetings with Federal agencies and community members on weekends to maximize participation.^[43]

VIII. Publicize Rulemaking Through Television and Online Campaigns

Federal agencies should advertise rulemaking to adapt to the way that many Americans consume news — through social media. According to a 2023 study from Pew Research Center, 33% of American adults sometimes consumed news through social media while 17% of American adults often consumed news through social media in 2022.^[44] Federal agencies should consider partnerships with YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook to simultaneously livestream webinars featuring Federal agency officials discussing the rulemaking process at various stages. Federal agencies should also request that these social media platforms heavily advertise these webinars to engage as many people as possible.

Moreover, federal agencies are no stranger to working with the Ad Council to amplify important messages to the American public. Notably, federal agencies collaborated with the non-profit during the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic.^[45] In March 2020, the Ad Council collaborated with the White House, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to produce coronavirus Public Service Announcements (PSAs).^[46] These ads provided pivotal information to the American public about how to protect themselves from COVID-19, especially if they were members of a high-risk group.^[47] Federal agencies should also consider a partnership with the Ad Council to launch online and television ad campaigns to illustrate how participating in the rulemaking process can supplement voting to make Americans’ voices heard.

Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations on this important issue. Please contact Nichole Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor, at nnelson@ncrc.org with any questions.

Sincerely,
Jesse Van Tol
National Community Reinvestment Coalition

^[1] Federal Register, “Methods and Leading Practices for Advancing Public Participation and Community Engagement With the Federal Government,”  March 20, 2024, 19885-19887, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/20/2024-05882/methods-and-leading-practices-for-advancing-public-participation-and-community-engagement-with-the.

^[2] The White House, “Fifth U.S. Open Government National Action Plan,” December 2022, 1, https://open.usa.gov/assets/files/NAP5-fifth-open-government-national-action-plan.pdf.

^[3] Ibid., 2.

^[4] Ibid., 3, and 7-10.

^[5] Ibid., 3-4.

^[6] Ibid., 5 and Federal Register, “Initial Proposals For Updating OMB’s Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards,” Office of Management and Budget, January 27, 2023, 55375-5377, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-01-27/pdf/2023-01635.pdf.

^[7] Megan Haberle, Senior Director of Policy and Bruce Mitchell, Principal Researcher, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Letter to Shalanda Young, Director, Office of Management and Budget, Re: “Initial Proposals For Updating OMB’s Race and Ethnicity Statistical Standards,” 88 Fed. Reg. 5375 (January 27, 2023), OMB-2023-0001-0001. April 27, 2023, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/OMB-2023-0001-18426.

^[8] Federal Register, “Revisions to OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” March 29, 2024, 22192, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-03-29/pdf/2024-06469.pdf.

^[9] The White House, “Fifth U.S. Open Government National Action Plan,” December 2022, 8.

^[10] Ibid.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid., 9.

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Ibid., 8 and 10.

^[17] HUD Exchange, “Last Chance to Register: CDBG/ICDBG Proposed Rule Listening Session – March 7, 2024,” March 7, 2024,  https://www.hudexchange.info/news/cdbg-icdbg-proposed-rule-listening-sessions/.

^[18] Richard L. Revesz, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Re: “Broadening Public Participation and Community Engagement in the Regulatory Process,” July 19, 2023, 6, 7, and 17, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Broadening-Public-Participation-and-Community-Engagement-in-the-Regulatory-Process.pdf.

^[19] OMB Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards, “Public Engagement,”  https://spd15revision.gov/content/spd15revision/en/get-involved.html.

^[20] Ibid. and Federal Register, “Revisions to OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 15: Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity,” 22184.

^[21] Revesz, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Re: “Broadening Public Participation and Community Engagement in the Regulatory Process,” 8.

^[22] Ibid., 18.

^[23] Ibid., 7.

^[24] Ibid. 16-17 and U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, “Executive Order 13166,” https://www.justice.gov/crt/executive-order-13166.

^[25] Revesz, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Re: “Broadening Public Participation and Community Engagement in the Regulatory Process,” 16-17.

^[26] Ibid., 16 and 18.

^[27] Ibid., 1 and 15-16.

^[28] Ibid., 16.

^[29] Ibid., 15-16.

^[30] Ibid., 16.

^[31] National Archives, Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States Government,  https://www.federalregister.gov/; Regulations.Gov: Your Voice in Federal Decision Making, https://www.regulations.gov/; and GovInfo, “Federal Register,” https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/fr.

^[32] Anna M. Gomez, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, “Re: Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 22-270, 2024 Section 706 Report (March 14, 2024),” FCC 24-27, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-27A6.pdf; FCC: 24 Million Americans Still Lack High Speed Internet,” CNN, March 15, 2024, https://www.abccolumbia.com/2024/03/15/fcc-24-million-americans-still-lack-high-speed-internet/; and Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Increases Broadband Benchmark,” March 14, 2024, 1, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401205A1.pdf.

^[33] Federal Communications Commission, “FCC Increases Broadband Benchmark,” March 14, 2024, 1.

^[34] GovInfo, “Federal Register,”; GPO: U.S. Government Bookstore, https://bookstore.gpo.gov/catalog/federal-register-print and GPO, “Welcome to the Federal Depository Library Directory (FDLD),” https://ask.gpo.gov/s/FDLD.

^[35] GPO, “Contact Us,” https://ask.gpo.gov/s/fdldsearch?type=advanced&advanced=%7B%22Library_Type__c%22%3A%22Public%20Library%20(PU)%22%7D.

^[36] GPO, “Contact Us,” https://ask.gpo.gov/s/fdldsearch?type=searchAll.

^[37] Paulina Gonzalez-Brito, Executive Director, California Reinvestment Coalition, “Fake It Till They Make It: How Bad Actors Use Astroturfing to Manipulate Regulators, Disenfranchise Consumers and Subvert the Rulemaking Process: Oral Testimony of Paulina Gonzalez-Brito, Executive Director, California Reinvestment Coalition,” California Reinvestment Fund, February 6, 2020, 2,  https://calreinvest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2.7.2020-PGB-HFSC-Final-Oral-Testimony.pdf.

^[38] Ibid., 2.

^[39] Revesz, Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Re: “Broadening Public Participation and Community Engagement in the Regulatory Process,” 7 and 10.

^[40] Ibid., 18.

^[41] Ibid., 9-10 and 18.

^[42] Ibid., 17.

^[43] Ibid., 18-19.

^[44] Jacob Liedke and Luxuan Wang, “Social Media and News Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center, November 15, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-media-and-news-fact-sheet/.

^[45] Jeanine Poggi, “Ad Council, Top Media Companies, White House Partner on Coronavirus PSAs,” Ad Age, March 16, 2020, https://adage.com/article/advertising/ad-council-top-media-companies-white-house-partner-coronavirus-psas/2244766 and Ad Council, “Our History,” https://www.adcouncil.org/our-story/our-history. Scroll down to the year, “2020.”

^[46] Ibid.

^[47] Poggi, “Ad Council, Top Media Companies.”

April 22, 2024 , 12:00 pm EDT – 1:30 pm EDT

Join the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights and other New Jersey fair housing and industry experts for a discussion on systemic racial inequities in appraisal practices. Racial disparities in residential property appraisals, along with other discriminatory housing practices, contribute to segregated neighborhoods, inequality in homeownership rates, the racial wealth gap, and impact our state in many more ways.

Panelists include: Nichole Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor, National Community Reinvestment Coalition; Joseph Palumbo, Chief Operating Officer, Worth Valuation Services, Inc. and NJ State Real Estate Appraiser Board Member; Aarin Michele Williams, Chief Advisor to the Director, New Jersey Division on Civil Rights.

March 11, 2024

Jessie Handforth Kome
Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance
Room 7282
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410

Heidi Frechette
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Native American Programs
Room 4108
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410

RE: Submission for Community Development Block Grant Program, Consolidated Plans, and Indian Community Development Block Grant Program Changes

Dear Director Kome and Deputy Assistant Secretary Frechette:

The National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) appreciates the opportunity to submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about the proposed changes to the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) and the Indian Community Development Block Grant Program (ICDBG). NCRC and its grassroots member organizations create opportunities for people to build wealth and participate more fully in the nation’s economy. We work with community leaders, policymakers and financial institutions to champion fairness and end discrimination in lending, housing and business. NCRC was formed in 1990 by national, regional and local organizations to increase the flow of private capital into traditionally underserved communities. NCRC has grown into an association of more than 700 community-based organizations that promote access to fair and affordable housing, basic banking services, entrepreneurship, job creation and vibrant communities for America’s working families.

NCRC wants to commend HUD for revising the CDBG program for the first time in almost 30 years.^[1] Overall, we think that the proposed rule will make it easier for grantees to use CDBGs. We also have some policy recommendations that can be incorporated into the proposed rule to make it easier for grantees to use CDBGs:

Question for Comment #2: “Relative to current requirements, would the proposed revision encourage recipients to carry out activities in underserved and blighted communities and therefore allow recipients to assist economic development in areas most in need of jobs and economic revitalization?”  “If the proposed revision does not encourage recipients to carry out activities in underserved and blighted communities, please explain why and share possible alternative standards that might more effectively balance HUD’s goal of enabling recipients broader flexibility with using funds for remediation while still ensuring funds are allocated in a manner that broadly benefits the general public.”

While we are pleased that HUD will no longer use criteria to restrict activities that eliminate slums and blight based on “conditions detrimental to public health and safety,” and will instead rely on objective data that demonstrates that an area is distressed, such as abandoned buildings in 25% of a given area, we would like to underscore how the rule can be further improved.^[2] We want to ensure that Black communities and other communities of color are not inadvertently deemed blighted and have their homes and businesses destroyed. This concern is rooted in a history of urban renewal which disproportionately targeted and destroyed African-American communities.

Historically, as African Americans migrated from Southern cities to Northern and Midwestern cities, many downtown business leaders perceived their arrival and neighborhoods’ proximity to central business districts as a threat to commercial property values.^[3] Consequently, business leaders — with the backing of federal funds from the Housing Act of 1949 — embarked on redeveloping areas deemed blighted.^[4] Unfortunately, the areas that were disproportionately deemed blighted were neighborhoods where African Americans lived.^[5] According to one estimate, 609,000 people were displaced by 1963 — ? of whom were African American.^[6] Between 1949 and 1962, local authorities spent $3 billion in federal funding (adjusted for inflation, this figure is closer to $17 billion based on the value of  U.S. currency in the year 2000).^[7] Many displaced African Americans retreated to public housing in other city neighborhoods.^[8] A lot of this replacement public housing was located in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, thereby concentrating poverty in many African-American communities.^[9]

Given this history, HUD must incorporate into the consultation requirements of its Consolidated Plan listening sessions with community-based organizations that represent the interests of people that urban renewal has historically harmed. Doing so can help mitigate loss of property and wealth through homeownership for Black people and other people of color. Hopefully, these listening sessions can avoid contributing to the already massive racial wealth and homeownership gaps.

Questions for Comment #4: “How frequently should the standard be updated for inflation, and should HUD update the standard automatically with a self-executing inflation calculation?

The standard should be updated for inflation once a year using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a metric since the CPI is a “measure of the average change over time” in prices that consumers pay for goods and services.^[10]

Questions for Comment #9: “Is six years from the initial drawdown of CDBG funds an adequate time period to demonstrate that activities have met a national objective?”

Yes. See the answer to questions for comment #10 below.

Questions for Comment #10: “Is the proposed six-year period of performance an appropriate period of time to expend funds for activities under a given grant?

Yes. This amount of time will allow grantees enough time to use the grant as well as sufficient time to undertake bigger projects. As HUD notes in its own proposed rule, the current timeliness regulations combined with the annual 1.5 standard, grant-based accounting, and “stagnant CDBG grant amounts appears to have created an unintended — and undesired — consequence.”^[11] According to HUD’s own observations, current standards cause grantees to use CDBG grants for “annual ‘soft’ expenditures” such as code enforcement, planning, public services, and salaries for activity delivery, and less for “major brick-and-mortar activities.”^[12] “Brick-and-mortar” activities usually deliver more benefits to a community but require longer time frames to spend the funds.^[13]

HUD acknowledges that a large Midwestern city identified its need to comply with the 1.5 requirement as the reason for improving sidewalks in low-income neighborhoods even though it believed the “better fit for its community development priorities” would have been “a significant multi-unit, multi-structure, housing rehabilitation project.”^[14] The CDBG program in section 101(c) of the Housing and Community Development Act, “emphasize[s] development of viable urban communities by providing suitable living environments.”^[15] HUD admits, “[i]f the timeliness enforcement standard is causing grantees to shift funding decisions away from activities generating long-lasting improvements, the standard undercuts the purposes of the Act.”^[16]

Therefore, HUD should allow grantees six years to use CDBGs to aid economic and community development to pursue larger, more meaningful projects.

We also have a policy recommendation that the proposed rule did not mention:

HUD Should Partner with Federal Regulators to Encourage Banks to Fund CDBG Projects

 The CRA final rule released in October 2023 encourages banks to work with local governments and nonprofits on affordable housing and community development projects.^[17] HUD should work with the federal regulators to encourage banks to help fund CDBG projects and collaborate with local governments and nonprofits on these projects.

Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations on this important issue. Please contact Nichole Nelson, Senior Policy Advisor, at nnelson@ncrc.org with any questions.

Sincerely,
Jesse van Tol
National Community Reinvestment Coalition

^[1] Department of Housing and Urban Development, [Docket No. FR–6148–P–01] RIN 2506–AC52,  “Submission for Community Development Block Grant Program, Consolidated Plans, and Indian Community Development Block Grant Program Changes,” Federal Register, 89, no. 7, January 10, 2024, 1765, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/10/2024-00039/submission-for-community-development-block-grant-program-consolidated-plans-and-indian-community.

^[2] Ibid., 1749 and 1778.

^[3] Derek S. Hyra, “Conceptualizing the New Urban Renewal: Comparing the Past to the Present,” Urban Affairs Review, 48, no. 4, (2012): 502, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078087411434905.

^[4] Ibid., 502-503.

^[5] Ibid., 503.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Ibid., 504.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index,” https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

^[11] Department of Housing and Urban Development, [Docket No. FR–6148–P–01] RIN 2506–AC52,  “Submission for Community Development Block Grant Program, Consolidated Plans, and Indian Community Development Block Grant Program Changes,” Federal Register, 89, no. 7, January 10, 2024, 1755.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Ibid. and “Housing and Community Development Act of 1974:  Title I; sections 210 and 213; title VI; and sections 802, 809, 817, and 819,” Sec. 101(c), 2, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10382/pdf/COMPS-10382.pdf.  “The primary objective of this title and of the community development program of each grantee under this title is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.”

^[16] Department of Housing and Urban Development, [Docket No. FR–6148–P–01] RIN 2506–AC52,  “Submission for Community Development Block Grant Program, Consolidated Plans, and Indian Community Development Block Grant Program Changes,” Federal Register, 89, no. 7, January 10, 2024, 1755.

^[17] Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, “Community Reinvestment Act Final Rule,” 6677-6678, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-01/pdf/2023-25797.pdf.