BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: SB 660
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: runner
VERSION: 4/25/11
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no
Hearing date: May 10, 2011
SUBJECT:
Public housing authorities: school attendance requirements
DESCRIPTION:
This bill allows public housing authorities to make compliance
with truancy laws a continuing condition of eligibility for
tenant rental assistance vouchers.
ANALYSIS:
Under Section 8 of the Federal Housing Act of 1937, public
housing authorities make available to lower-income households
rental assistance vouchers known as Housing Choice Vouchers,
formerly called Section 8 vouchers. A household may use a
voucher to rent any home or apartment within the jurisdiction.
The household pays 30% of its income towards rent, and the
housing authority pays the remainder up to a regionally
established "fair market rent." The tenant household may choose
to rent a home or apartment that is more expensive than the fair
market rent but then must pay all of the overage.
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development has
adopted regulations to implement the Housing Choice Voucher
program. These regulations identify the reasons for which a
housing authority may deny or terminate assistance. The
regulations include a list of mandatory reasons for termination,
which includes illegal drug use, violent criminal activity, and
alcohol abuse that threatens the health, safety, or right to
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents; eviction
for serious violation of the lease; failure to sign and submit
consent forms for obtaining necessary information; and failure
to submit required evidence of citizenship or eligible
immigration status. In addition, the regulations include a list
of permissive reasons for termination that includes fraud,
bribery, or a criminal act in connection with a federal housing
program; unpaid rent or damage reimbursements; abusive or
SB 660 (RUNNER) Page 2
violent behavior towards housing authority personnel; and
enumerated program violations.
Under the California Compulsory Education Law, each child
between the ages of 6 and 18 years old who is not exempt must
attend school, and the parent or guardian of the child must send
the child to school, for the full day as designated by the
governing board of the school district in which the child lives.
While the law provides for numerous intermediate interventions,
ultimately a parent who fails to send a child to school is
guilty of an infraction and subject to a fine of $100 for a
first conviction and up to $500 for a third or subsequent
conviction. In addition, the Penal Code provides that a parent
of a pupil in kindergarten or grades 1 to 8 whose child is a
"chronic truant" and who has failed to reasonably supervise and
encourage the pupil's school attendance is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine
of up to $2,000.
This bill allows a public housing authority to terminate Housing
Choice Voucher assistance to a parent or guardian who has been
convicted for chronic truancy of his or her child if the truancy
persists following the conviction.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, education is
the most cost effective way to improve a child's life. The
goal of this bill is to improve school attendance in order to
raise the academic performance of children who live in
subsidized housing. The bill is not being sought to punish
parents but instead to motivate them to ensure that their kids
are attending school. Given that Housing Choice Vouchers are
subsidized by taxpayers, the author asserts that it is not
asking too much to require students to attend school in
accordance with the law.
2.Likely precluded by federal regulations . Both housing
authority representatives and legal services attorneys agree
that housing authorities may not adopt grounds for
terminations other than those listed in the federal
regulations. While staff cannot find a case directly on point
to this bill, in Hill v. Richardson (1990), a federal appeals
court expressly agreed with the provision of the settlement
agreement stating that "the reasons specified in Ýthe federal
regulations for the predecessor Section 8 certificate program]
shall be the only bases upon which the Indiana Department of
SB 660 (RUNNER) Page 3
Human Services may deny or terminate Section 8 assistance
because of action or inaction by the Section 8 applicant or
participant." If a housing authority were to add chronic
truancy as a reason for termination from the Housing Choice
Voucher Program, it is likely that a court would not uphold
the termination. Given this likelihood, a state law allowing
housing authorities to terminate assistance based on school
attendance would likely have little impact other than to
expose authorities to litigation. The committee may wish to
consider the wisdom of enacting a state law in apparent
violation of federal regulations.
3.Severe consequence . While encouraging school attendance is a
laudable goal, terminating housing assistance for an entire
family may be an excessive consequence for truancy. Families
who receive vouchers generally have very low incomes and very
few, if any, alternatives in the private housing market. As a
result, terminating assistance will mean, at a minimum,
uprooting children for the failures of the parent. At its
most severe, children will become homeless for the failure of
the parent.
Currently, a parent that fails to send a child to school is
guilty of an infraction and subject to a fine of $100 for a
first conviction and up to $500 for a third or subsequent
conviction. In addition, a parent of a pupil in kindergarten
or grades 1 to 8 whose child is a "chronic truant" and who has
failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil's
school attendance is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up
to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000. The
committee may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to
punish an entire family for truancy rather than the
responsible individual.
4.Arguments in opposition . Opponents believe that housing
authorities are restricted from adding lease provisions to
standards lease agreements and that housing authorities, that
a nexus is lacking between school attendance and housing
assistance, and that housing authorities, even if they wanted
to, would be unable to take on the task of enforcing school
attendance due to limited and shrinking budgets. As a result,
opponents believe that it is improper to use the Housing
Choice Voucher program to address school attendance issues.
5.Technical amendments .
SB 660 (RUNNER) Page 4
On page 2, line 17 strike "certificate" and insert
"voucher".
On page 2, line 19 strike "make regular school
attendance", strike lines 20-22, strike "(b) A" in line 23,
and insert "terminate voucher assistance to a"
On page 2, lines 25-26 strike ", may be denied benefits"
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday, May 4,
2011)
SUPPORT: None received.
OPPOSED: Aging Services of California
California Association of Housing Authorities
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Western Center on Law and Poverty