Housing Subscribe to RSS - Housing

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

The Special Initiatives Program (“SIP”) of HPD’s Division of Homeless Housing Development utilized vacant City-owned buildings to develop permanent housing for the formerly homeless. The purpose of the SIP Occupied Sales Program (“SIP Program”) was to dispose of these buildings to qualified sponsors. The SIP Program rules in Chapter 29 were enacted to effectuate and regulate the SIP Program. All buildings in the SIP Program were sold to qualified sponsors more than twenty years ago. With the completion of the SIP Program, the SIP Program rules no longer serve any purpose, and therefore they may be repealed. For this reason, HPD repeals Chapter 29. This rule was identified as part of a comprehensive rules review initiative undertaken by the NYC Mayor’s Office of Operations, working with the City’s rulemaking agencies, the Law Department, and the Office of Management and Budget. The initiative identified rules that will be repealed or modified to reduce regulatory burdens, increase equity, support small businesses, and simplify and update content to help support public understanding and compliance.

Effective Date: 
Thu, 06/15/2017

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Monday, May 8, 2017
Proposed Rules Content: 

HPD’s proposed rule amendment would repeal Chapter 29 of Title 28 of the Rules of the City of New York, which govern the concluded SIP Occupied Sales Program.

Subject: 

.No Hearing.

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf): 

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose

These rule revisions amend the Minimum Standards adopted by the Board of Correction (“the Board”) relating to correctional facilities, set forth in Chapters 1 and 2 of Title 40 of the Rules of the City of New York. Their purpose is to address the dramatic increase in serious inmate violence in New York City jails. Although such violence has many causes, the Department of Correction (“the Department”) has specifically identified as significant contributing factors gang-related activity and the ready availability of small, concealable blades. Further, the Department has determined that a relatively small number of inmates are disproportionately involved in these violent incidents. The rule amendments described here seek to address these serious concerns and provide the Department with the means to reasonably control the activities of its most violent inmates. Concurrently, they seek to ensure that the rights of inmates are not unduly burdened and aim to promote both rehabilitation and humane conditions in New York City jails. To those ends, the rule amendments provide for the creation of “enhanced supervision housing” (ESH) units, specify the Minimum Standards that are applicable and inapplicable in such units, and provide for procedural safeguards to protect the rights of inmates assigned to ESH. They also place certain limitations on the use of punitive segregation in Department facilities.

The purpose of ESH is to house inmates posing the most direct security threats, a category that the rule limits to inmates who have: (1) been identified as leaders of gangs and have participated in dangerous gang-related activity; (2) organized or participated in gang-related assaults; (3) committed slashings or stabbings or who have committed repeated assaults, have seriously injured another, or have rioted or actively participated in inmate disturbances while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated; (4) been found in possession of scalpels or weapons that pose a level of danger similar to or greater than that of a scalpels while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated; (5) engaged in serious or persistent violence; or (6) while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated, engaged in repeated activity or behavior presenting great danger, and such activity or behavior has a direct, identifiable and adverse impact on the safety and security of the facility. Where the Department is permitted to consider an inmate’s activity occurring or actions committed at a time when the inmate was incarcerated, the rule revisions require that such activity or actions have occurred within the preceding five years; but where the Department is permitted to consider an inmate’s activity occurring or actions committed at a time when the inmate was not incarcerated, such activity or actions must have occurred within the preceding two years.

Due to the unique characteristics of the inmate population assigned to ESH, which consists of some of the Department’s most dangerous inmates, the rule revisions provide for an increased level of supervision and control in order to ensure the safety and security of inmates and staff. This may include various restrictions on time spent out of cells and in group settings, such as the law library, and allows for increased monitoring of non-privileged correspondence. However, the rule limits the restrictions placed on an inmate in ESH to those tailored to the specific security or safety threat posed by that individual inmate.

While the Board recognizes the great importance of these safety and security objectives, it further recognizes that ESH must pursue the parallel objective of promoting rehabilitation, good behavior, and the psychological and physical well-being of inmates. To that end, the rule amendments require that correction officers assigned to ESH complete forty hours of special training tailored to ESH’s unique conditions and inmate population. They further require the Department to provide ESH inmates with programming aimed at facilitating rehabilitation, addressing root causes of violence, and minimizing idleness.

At the same time, these amendments revise standards applicable to punitive segregation in order to improve the effectiveness and safety of such housing. The Board believes that punitive segregation, which addresses particular infractions committed by an inmate, should be limited in certain circumstances where it does not accomplish, or very imperfectly accomplishes, its deterrent purpose. Punitive segregation fails to send a clear deterrent message when it is imposed on an inmate not for an infraction committed by that inmate in his or her present incarceration, but for an infraction committed in a previous incarceration, when the inmate was sentenced to punitive segregation but did not serve, or did not fully serve, that sentence. Punitive segregation for “time owed” from a previous incarceration is often perceived as fundamentally unfair and therefore does not achieve its intended purpose. For these reasons, the rule amendments prohibit the use of punitive segregation for inmates with “time owed” in punitive segregation from previous sentences. In addition, no inmate may be sentenced to punitive segregation for more than thirty days for any single infraction, and no inmate may be held in punitive segregation longer than thirty consecutive days.   

For both punitive segregation and the new enhanced supervision housing unit, the board recognizes that such housing presents a serious and unacceptable threat to the physical and mental health of certain categories of inmates, namely inmates of certain ages and those who suffer from serious physical or serious mental disabilities or conditions. For these reasons, the rule amendments prohibit inmates under the age of 18 and, as of January 1, 2016, and provided that sufficient resources are made available to the Department for necessary staffing and implementation of necessary alternative programming, inmates aged 18 to 21 from being sentenced to punitive segregation or assigned to enhanced supervision housing. Additionally, inmates with serious mental or serious physical disabilities or conditions may not be placed in enhanced supervision housing or punitive segregation. Notably, section 8-102 of Title 8 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York defines disability broadly. The Board has declined to set forth a list of disabilities and conditions, mental or physical, the diagnosis of which would trigger an inmate’s automatic exclusion from punitive segregation and enhanced supervision housing. Rather, the Board vests in the health and mental health service the power to determine, on an individual basis, whether an inmate’s disability or condition requires exclusion.

Set forth below is a section-by-section description of the rule amendments.

Section 1-02 (“Classification of Prisoners”)

This revision amends subdivisions (b) and (d) and adds a new subdivision (c) in order to modify the categories of inmates who must be housed separately and apart from one another, creating separate categories for male and female inmates ages 18 through 21. The revision further provides that housing for inmates ages 18 through 21 must provide age-appropriate programming, and requires the Department to report on its efforts to develop such programming. The revision is intended to reduce violence by segregating developmentally distinct age groups, provide age-appropriate rehabilitative opportunities, and conform the Board’s Minimum Standards with the requirements of New York State law and the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).

Section 1-05 (“Involuntary lock-in”)

This revision amends paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) to provide that inmates confined to ESH may be locked in during the day for up to nine hours in any 24-hour period, in contrast with the two-hour limit applicable to other inmates. The revision would allow for the creation of schedules providing that no more than half of the inmates assigned to a given housing area would be permitted to enter the day room at any given time. The purpose of this revision is to enhance control of the inmate population assigned to ESH without unduly burdening the opportunity to engage in recreation or allowing for disproportionately extended periods of lock-in.
Section 1-08 (“Access to Courts and Legal Services”)

This revision amends paragraph (6) of subdivision (f) to allow for limits on library hours for inmates housed in ESH, provided that an alternative method of access to legal materials is instituted to permit effective legal research. The revision is intended to aid the Department’s efforts to control and prevent gang communications that may occur in the library setting and to minimize opportunities for negative inmate encounters.

Section 1-09 (“Visiting”)

This revision amends subdivision (f) in order to allow greater control over visits with inmates assigned to ESH by providing for the limitation of contact visits, while additionally ensuring that such restrictions are only imposed when needed to address a specific safety or security concern.

Section 1-11 (“Correspondence”)

This revision amends subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (c), as well as clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (2), to allow for increased monitoring of non-privileged correspondence sent to inmates assigned to ESH.

Section 1-16 (“Enhanced Supervision Housing”)

This revision adds a new section authorizing and specifying the limits on the assignment of inmates to ESH and further sets forth the procedural rights of inmates recommended for ESH assignment. ESH assignments are limited to those inmates who have: (1) been identified as leaders of gangs and who have actively participated in the organization of dangerous gang-related activity; (2) organized or participated in gang-related assaults; (3) committed slashings or stabbings or who have committed repeated assaults, have seriously injured another while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated, or have rioted or actively participated in inmate disturbances; (4) been found in possession of scalpels or weapons that pose a level of danger similar to or greater than that of scalpels while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated; (5) inmates who have engaged in serious or persistent violence; or (6) while in Department custody or otherwise incarcerated, engaged in repeated activity or behavior presenting great danger, and such activity or behavior has a direct, identifiable and adverse impact on the safety and security of the facility. Where the Department is permitted to consider an inmate’s activity occurring or actions committed at a time when the inmate was incarcerated, such activity or actions must have occurred within the preceding five years; but where the Department is permitted to consider an inmate’s activity occurring or actions committed at a time when the inmate was not incarcerated, such activity or actions must have occurred within the preceding two years. However, placement in ESH is not permitted for inmates under the age of 18, inmates with serious mental or serious physical disabilities or conditions, and, as of January 1, 2016, and provided that sufficient resources are made available to the Department for necessary staffing and implementation of necessary alternative programming, inmates aged 18 to 21 . Restrictions placed on an inmate assigned to ESH must be limited to those required to address the specific safety and security threat posed by that inmate. In addition, officers assigned to ESH must be provided with special training, and a certain number of such assignments must be permanent. The new section also requires that determinations of ESH placement include meaningful notice, including a statement of the grounds relied on to assign each inmate to ESH and the restrictions that will apply to the inmate in ESH, and informing the inmate of the right to submit a written response. The Department is further required, within three days of each ESH placement, to hold a placement review hearing, conducted by a hearing officer who did not participate in the placement decision, to determine whether the placement is warranted. If it is decided, at any time other than initial placement in ESH, to limit an ESH inmate’s access to contact visits, a separate pre-deprivation hearing must be held. Each ESH placement must be reviewed every 45 days to determine whether it is still warranted. In addition, the Department is required, every 60 days, to provide the Board with specified information relating to the implementation of ESH.

Section 1-17 (“Limitations on the Use of Punitive Segregation”)

This revision adds a new section which, among other things, excludes from punitive segregation  inmates under the age of 18, inmates with serious mental or serious physical disabilities or conditions, and, as of January 1, 2016, and provided that sufficient resources are made available to the Department for necessary staffing and implementation of necessary alternative programming,  inmates aged 18 to 21. An inmate excluded from punitive segregation for any of these reasons at the time of an infraction may not be placed in punitive segregation at a later date for the same infraction, even if the inmate’s age or health status have since changed. An inmate placed in punitive segregation must be afforded a hearing, upon notice, at which the Department has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the inmate is guilty of the infraction which is the basis for placement in punitive segregation. This revision also establishes time limits on the placement of an inmate in punitive segregation and on cumulative placements of the same inmate in punitive segregation. Further, the revision prevents an inmate who is admitted to a Department facility from serving time in punitive segregation for “time owed” in punitive segregation from a separate and previous incarceration. In addition, the Department is required, every 60 days, to provide the Board with specified information relating to punitive segregation.

Section 2-08 (“Coordination”)

This revision amends paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) to make clear that, as in the case of ESH, medical staff may determine that an inmate shall not be placed in punitive segregation at any time before or during such placement.

The Board is authorized to adopt these rule revisions by sections 626(e) and 1043(a) of the New York City Charter.

Effective Date: 
Sat, 02/21/2015

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments (View Public Comments Received:4)

Agency:
Comment By: 
Friday, December 19, 2014
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose 

These proposed rule revisions would amend the Minimum Standards adopted by the Board of Correction (“the Board”) relating to correctional facilities, set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 40 of the Rules of the City of New York. The purpose of the proposed revisions is to address the dramatic increase in serious inmate violence in New York City jails. Although such violence has many root causes, the Department of Correction (“the Department”) has specifically identified as significant contributing factors gang-related activity and the ready availability of small, concealable blades. Further, the Department has determined that a relatively small number of inmates are disproportionately involved in these violent incidents. The proposed rule amendments described here seek to address these serious concerns and provide the Department with the tools it needs to reasonably control the activities of its most violent inmates. Concurrently, they seek to ensure that the rights of inmates are not unduly burdened and aim to promote humane conditions in New York City jails. To those ends, the proposed rule amendments provide for the creation of “enhanced supervision housing” (ESH) units, specify the Minimum Standards that would be applicable and inapplicable in such units, and provide for procedural safeguards to protect the rights of inmates assigned to ESH. They also place certain limitations on the use of punitive segregation in Department facilities.

The purpose of ESH would be to house inmates posing the most direct security threats, a category that the proposed rule amendments limit to: (1) inmates identified as leaders of, organizers of, or participants in gangs or substantially similar groups; (2) inmates who have committed slashings or stabbings or found in possession of scalpels or scalpel-like weapons; (3) inmates who have committed repeated assaults or have seriously injured another while in custody ; (4) inmates who have engaged in serious or persistent violence or have instigated or participated in a riot while in custody; and (5) inmates who otherwise presents a significant threat to the safety and security of the facility if housed in general population housing. ESH would not be permitted for adolescents -- that is, with respect to the Department’s facilities, those who are 16 and 17 years old – who constitute a particularly vulnerable part of the prison population. Assignment to ESH would activate procedures requiring notice in each case and, upon the inmate’s request, a hearing.

Due to the unique characteristics of the inmate population assigned to ESH, which would consist of some of the Department’s most dangerous inmates, the proposed rule revisions would further provide for an increased level of supervision and control in order to ensure the safety and security of inmates and staff. This would include various restrictions on time spent out of cells and in group settings, such as the law library and religious services, and would allow for increased monitoring of non-privileged correspondence. In order to prevent inmates assigned to ESH from obtaining concealed weapons, the proposed rules would place certain restrictions on the receipt of packages and on contact visits, which would be limited to an approved list of visitors. However, the proposed rules seek to balance such restrictions with the rights of inmates and are tailored to the purpose of protecting inmates and staff, rather than punishment for particular infractions.

At the same time, the Board believes that punitive segregation, which does address particular infractions committed by an inmate, should be limited in certain circumstances where it does not accomplish, or very imperfectly accomplishes, its deterrent purpose. In particular, punitive segregation presents a serious and unacceptable threat to the physical and mental health of inmates who are adolescents. Furthermore, punitive segregation fails to send a clear deterrent message when it is imposed on an inmate not for an infraction committed by an inmate in his or her present incarceration, but for an infraction committed by the same inmate in a previous incarceration, when the inmate was sentenced to punitive segregation but did not serve, or did not fully serve, that sentence. Punitive segregation for “time owed” from a previous incarceration is often perceived as fundamentally unfair, and therefore does not achieve its intended purpose.  For these reasons, the proposed amendments would not allow the use of punitive segregation for inmates who are adolescents after January 1, 2015 or for inmates with “time owed” in punitive segregation from a previous sentence who are admitted to a Department facility after the creation of EHS. Inmates admitted before then to a department facility may have such “time owed” reduced or eliminated if the Department determines that this is warranted  in view of the offense for which they were sentenced to punitive segregation during a previous sentence.

Set forth below is a section-by-section description of the proposed rule amendments.

Section 1-05 (“Involuntary lock-in”)

This proposed revision would amend paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) to provide that inmates confined to EHS may be locked in during the day for up to nine hours in any 24-hour period, in contrast with the two-hour limit applicable to other inmates. The proposed revision would allow for the creation of schedules such that no more than half of the inmates assigned to a given housing area would be permitted to enter the day room at any given time. The purpose of this revision is to enhance control of the inmate population assigned to ESH without unduly burdening the opportunity to engage in recreation or allowing for disproportionately extended periods of lock-in.

Section 1-06 (“Recreation”)

This proposed revision would amend subdivision (g) to allow for increased restriction on the recreation of inmates assigned to ESH. These changes would be the same as restrictions already in place for inmates housed in punitive segregation. 

Section 1-07 (“Religion”)

This proposed revision would amend subdivision (h) to allow for inmates assigned to ESH to participate in religious services offered “with appropriate security either with each other or with other prisoners.” The proposed amendment is intended to aid the Department’s efforts to control and prevent gang communication in group settings and to minimize opportunities for negative inmate encounters. 

Section 1-08 (“Access to Courts and Legal Services”)

This proposed revision would amend paragraph (6) of subdivision (f) to allow for limits on library hours for inmates housed in EHS, provided that an alternative method of access to legal materials is instituted to permit effective legal research. The proposed revision is intended to aid the Department’s efforts to control and prevent gang communications that may occur in the library setting and to minimize opportunities for negative inmate encounters. 

Section 1-09 (“Visiting”)

This proposed revision would amend paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) and subdivision (f) in order to allow for greater control of visits with inmates assigned to ESH. The Department would be permitted to limit visits to those on an approved list of visitors in order to prevent the transfer of gang communications or contraband. Further, the proposed revision to subdivision (f) would allow for greater limitations on contact visits in particular. 

Section 1-11 (“Correspondence”)

This proposed revision would amend subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (c), as well as clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (2) to allow for increased monitoring of non-privileged correspondence sent to inmates assigned to ESH. 

Section 1-12 (“ESH Packages”)

This proposed revision would amend subdivision (a) to implement restrictions on the contents of incoming ESH packages in order to prevent the introduction into the facility of contraband from outside sources. 

Section 1-13 (“Publications”)

This proposed revision would amend subdivision (a) to allow limitations to be placed on the sources from which inmates assigned to ESH may order publications. The proposed change is also aimed at decreasing the opportunity for contraband to be introduced into the facilities. 

Section 1-16 (“Enhanced Supervision Housing”)

This proposed revision would add a new section outlining the limits on the assignment of inmates to ESH and requiring that the inmates be afforded an opportunity to respond when the Department makes such assignments. EHS assignments would be limited to: (1) inmates identified as leaders of, organizers of, or participants in gangs or substantially similar groups; (2) inmates who have committed slashings or stabbings or found in possession of scalpels or scalpel-like weapons; and (3) inmates who have committed repeated assaults or have seriously injured another while in custody; (4) inmates who have engaged in serious or persistent violence or have instigated or participated in a riot while in custody; and (5) inmates who otherwise presents a significant threat to the safety and security of the facility if housed in general population housing. ESH would not be permitted for adolescents. The proposed new section would additionally require that determinations of ESH placement include meaningful notice (consisting of the grounds relied on to assign each inmate to ESH) and informing the inmate of rights to submit a written response or request an in-person hearing to review the determination. Further, the proposed new section would provide that an in-person hearing be held if requested and that it consist of a review of the facts on which the Department relied in making the ESH assignment and a determination of whether such facts support that assignment. 

Section 1-17 (“Limitations on the Use of Punitive Segregation”)

This proposed revision would add a new section which would prevent adolescents, defined as inmates who are 16 or 17 years old, from serving time in punitive segregation after January 1, 2015. Further, it would prevent an inmate who is admitted to a Department facility after the creation of EHS from serving time in punitive segregation for “time owed” in punitive segregation from a separate and previous incarceration. The Department would submit to the Board certain reports and timelines relating to changes in punitive segregation.

Subject: 

Public hearing on proposed rule which considers the establishment of a new form of inmate housing, known as enhanced supervision housing, for certain inmates in the custody of the Department of Correction.

Location: 
125 Worth St Third Floor
New York, NY 10007
Contact: 

Amanda Masters
AMasters@boc.nyc.gov
212-788-7860

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf): 

Adopted Rules: Closed to Comments

Adopted Rules Content: 

 

 

Statement of Basis and Purpose

 

The Department of Homeless Services (DHS) provides temporary emergency shelter to homeless New York City residents and does so in accordance with State and local law and implementing regulations with the goal of moving shelter residents back into permanent housing in the community as soon as possible.

 

Title 31, Chapter 2 of the Rules of the City of New York instructs shelter staff at all homeless shelters for single adults to refrain from referring clients to permanent housing in buildings that meet one or more of the criteria set forth in the rule and to penalize programs that make such referrals.

 

To increase the stringency of the effort to prevent referrals of homeless individuals to unsafe or substandard buildings and to ensure that DHS clients are fully informed when making decisions about permanent housing, DHS adopts the following amendments to Title 31, Chapter 2 of the Rules of the City of New York. Specifically, DHS amends the rule as follows:

 

§2-01(a) provides criteria for evaluating whether a housing referral is inappropriate. If the housing option meets any of the criteria set forth in this subdivision, shelter providers may not make the referral.

 

  • §2-01(a)(3) is amended to include buildings with Hazard Class “I” violations in the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) Complaint, Violations and Registration Information database as buildings inappropriate for referral. This hazard class signifies violations that lead to vacate orders from HPD.

 

  • §2-01(a)(4) is amended to include buildings inappropriate for referral that have one or more complaints on the Department of Building’s (DOB) website within four years preceding the time the client’s exit from shelter is being planned. The rule currently prohibits referrals to buildings with complaints on DOB’s website within two years preceding the time the client’s exit from shelter is planned. This provision is also amended to include buildings that have complaint disposition codes that are blank on the DOB website and those with complaint dispositions indicating the DOB investigator could not obtain access to investigate the reported violations.

 

§2-01 is further amended to include a new subdivision (d), which requires that shelter providers evaluate housing options presented by a landlord or agent against the criteria set forth in subdivision (a) before the housing option is presented to shelter clients. If the housing options meet any of the criteria in (a), the shelter provider is to forbid the landlord or agent from presenting it. This amendment prevents presentations of substandard and unsafe housing to DHS clients.

 

§2-01 is further amended to include a new subdivision (e), which provides a procedure for clients to report housing they believe meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (a). Shelter providers are to assist clients in reporting the housing violations via 311. Shelter providers are to make the referral if HPD or DOB inspect the housing and do not find any violations, though the client may still refuse. This amendment provides means for the client to prevent shelter providers from making inappropriate referrals.

 

§2-01 is further amended to include a new subdivision (f), which requires shelter providers to provide clients with a listing the criteria set forth in subdivision (a), as well as written instructions for reporting violations through 311. This amendment provides further assurance that clients are fully informed when evaluating potential housing options.

 

 

Effective Date: 
Thu, 05/02/2013

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Monday, July 22, 2013
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

 

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

 

 

The Department of Homeless Services (“DHS” or the “Department”) provides temporary emergency shelter to homeless New York City residents in accordance with State and local law, implementing regulations, and court orders, with the goal of moving shelter residents back into permanent housing in the community as soon as possible.

 

DHS proposes to amend Title 31 of the Rules of the City of New York by adding Chapter 3, which pertains to single adults who return to shelter in the adult services system after an extended absence. Currently, if a single adult shelter client returns to the system within 365 days, the client must return to his or her official shelter (i.e., the shelter where he or she had been previously assigned), where he or she will receive a bed. If a client returns more than 365 days later, the client is sent to a single adult intake center to reapply for shelter, at which point he or she undergoes a new resource assessment and is assigned to a new official shelter.

 

Through years of experience and practice, DHS has found that many single adult shelter clients exit the system and return after an extended absence (a period of at least thirty consecutive days), but within 365 days. Although it may be beneficial under certain circumstances for some of these clients to return directly to their official shelters, DHS seeks to provide other clients who return after an extended absence with a new resource assessment to identify alternative housing options they may have identified, utilized, or secured during their absence, and to connect them to resources or benefits that may alleviate their need for shelter and help them avoid re-entry into the system. Such alternative housing options can provide clients with long term housing stability, and assist in seeking benefits, employment, or other social services in the community. Importantly, even if no alternatives are immediately available, or if a client chooses not to utilize those alternatives at that time, the resource assessment will provide helpful information to the client and shelter staff at the client’s official shelter placement for on-going case management work.

 

Considering the value of this assessment, the proposed Chapter 3 provides for referral of a single adult shelter client returning to shelter after an extended absence to a diversion office (located at a DHS single adult intake center) to participate in a Single Adult Resource Assessment (“Assessment”) conducted by diversion staff. This Assessment will determine where a client resided during his or her extended absence from the adult services system, identify alternative housing options, and connect the client to resources or benefits to avoid re-entry into shelter. If none of these options are available or if the client does not wish to utilize any available options, the client will be referred back to his or her official shelter in the adult services system.

 

The Department notes that it does not believe that requiring a client returning after an extended absence to participate in a resource assessment must be promulgated as a rule pursuant to the City Administrative Procedure Act (“CAPA”), and believes that it may implement such a procedure outside of CAPA.

 

However, in the exercise of caution and in light of the Court’s decision in Callahan v. Carey and Council of the City of New York v. Department of Homeless Services of the City of New York, 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 758 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2012), the Department proposes to promulgate this procedure as a rule.

 

 

Subject: 

Opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the Department of Homeless Services rules related to homeless shelters for single adults.

Location: 
89-111 Porter Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11237
Contact: 

Gloria Langlais
New York City Department of Homeless Services
33 Beaver Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 361-7993
Fax: (212) 361-8010

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Monday, March 18, 2013
Proposed Rules Content: 

 

 

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

 

The Department of Homeless Services (DHS) provides temporary emergency shelter to homeless New York City residents and does so in accordance with State and local law and implementing regulations with the goal of moving shelter residents back into permanent housing in the community as soon as possible.

 

Title 31, Chapter 2 of the Rules of the City of New York instructs shelter staff at all homeless shelters for single adults to refrain from referring clients to permanent housing in buildings that meet one or more of the criteria set forth in the rule and to penalize programs that make such referrals.

 

To increase the stringency of the effort to prevent referrals of homeless individuals to unsafe or substandard buildings and to ensure that DHS clients are fully informed when making decisions about permanent housing, DHS proposes to amend Title 31, Chapter 2 of the Rules of the City of New York. Specifically, DHS proposes to amend the rule as follows:

 

§2-01(a) provides criteria for evaluating whether a housing referral is inappropriate. If the housing option meets any of the criteria set forth in this subdivision, shelter providers may not make the referral.

 

·             §2-01(a)(3) is amended to include buildings with Hazard Class “I” violations in the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) Complaint, Violations and Registration Information database as buildings inappropriate for referral. This hazard class signifies violations that lead to vacate orders from HPD.

 

·             §2-01(a)(4) is amended to include buildings inappropriate for referral that have one or more complaints on the Department of Building’s (DOB) website within four years preceding the time the client’s exit from shelter is being planned. The rule currently prohibits referrals to buildings with complaints on DOB’s website within two years preceding the time the client’s exit from shelter is planned. This provision is also amended to include buildings that have complaint disposition codes that are blank on the DOB website and those with complaint dispositions indicating the DOB investigator could not obtain access to investigate the reported violations.

·              

§2-01 is further amended to include a new subdivision (d), which requires that shelter providers evaluate housing options presented by a landlord or agent against the criteria set forth in subdivision

(a) before the housing option is presented to shelter clients. If the housing options meet any of the criteria in (a), the shelter provider is to forbid the landlord or agent from presenting it. This amendment prevents presentations of substandard and unsafe housing to DHS clients.

 

§2-01 is further amended to include a new subdivision (e), which provides a procedure for clients to report housing they believe meets the criteria set forth in subdivision (a). Shelter providers are to assist clients in reporting the housing violations via 311. Shelter providers are to make the referral if HPD or DOB inspect the housing and do not find any violations, though the client may still refuse. This amendment provides means for the client to prevent shelter providers from making inappropriate referrals.

 

§2-01 is further amended to include a new subdivision (f), which requires shelter providers to provide clients with a listing the criteria set forth in subdivision (a), as well as written instructions for reporting violations through 311. This amendment provides further assurance that clients are fully informed when evaluating potential housing options.

 

 

Subject: 

Opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to the Department of Homeless Services

Location: 
89-111 Porter Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11237
Contact: 

Gloria Langlais
Department of Homeless Services
33 Beaver Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone:(212) 361-7993
Fax: (212) 361-8010

Download Copy of Proposed Rule (.pdf): 

Proposed Rules: Closed to Comments

Agency:
Comment By: 
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Proposed Rules Content: 



 Click here (.pdf) for the complete text of the proposed rule.