A communication transmitted from Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager, relative to Awaiting Report Item Number 18-84, regarding a report from the Cambridge Human Rights Commission on housing-related questions

To: Louis A. DePasquale, City Manager Fr: Nancy B. Schlacter, Executive Director Cambridge Human Rights Commission (CHRC) Re: Response to Awaiting Report No. 18-84, Council Order O-10 of 7/30/18 Re: That the City Manager is requested to direct the Executive Director of the Human Rights Commission to provide answers to additional outstanding housing-related questions DATE: September 17, 2018 In response to the above Council Order, please be advised of the following: I. Number and types of housing discrimination complaints filed during FY15 – FY18: The Council has asked how many and what types of housing discrimination complaints were reported to the CHRC during the period of FY 2015 – FY 2018. The Council has also asked how many of these complaints were investigated by the CHRC, and what were the outcomes, along with how many and to whom cases were referred out. By way of background, persons contacting the CHRC regarding purported allegations of housing discrimination are interviewed to confirm that the CHRC has jurisdiction over the matter (i.e. the alleged discriminatory acts occurred in Cambridge, and the complaint was filed within 180 days of the most recently alleged discriminatory act), and that the complaint states a claim of discrimination, rather than a Landlord/Tenant matter where discrimination is not alleged. Landlord/Tenant matters where discrimination is not alleged are referred to Cambridge Consumers Council (a City department) and/or legal services non-profits, including Greater Boston Legal Services (GBLS), Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services (CASLS), Community Legal Services and Counseling Center (CLSACC) and Harvard Legal Aid. The CHRC does not track these cases, or their outcomes, as they do not include allegations of discrimination. The CHRC does not refer discrimination cases out to other agencies, unless the CHRC lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Both the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and United State Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may accept discrimination cases with longer jurisdictional time frames: MCAD: 300 days; HUD: 365 days. The CHRC investigates all housing discrimination complaints over which it has jurisdiction. The CHRC does not track complaints that it does not have jurisdiction over. The following is a listing of the discrimination complaints that the CHRC received and had jurisdiction over in FY 2015 – FY 2018, including the type of case and the outcome of the case: In Fiscal Year 2015, eleven (11) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. Seven (7) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based upon their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, race/color, religion, sexual orientation and source of income. Three (3) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was retaliated against. Lastly, one (1) case alleged both that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class and retaliated against. The outcomes of those cases included findings of probable cause, findings of lack of probable cause, the parties electing to remove the case to the Attorney General’s Office, the parties entering into a Pre-Determination Settlement Agreement, resolving the case through Conciliation, lack of cooperation from the Claimant that resulted in administrative closure of the case, and withdrawal of the Complaint by the Complainant, or some combination thereof.

In Fiscal Year 2016, eight (8) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. All eight (8) cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of age, disability, family status, marital status, national origin, race/color, religion, sex, sexual orientation and source of income. The outcomes of those cases included a finding of probable cause, findings of lack of probable cause, the parties electing to remove the case to the Attorney General’s Office, the parties entering a private Settlement Agreement, the parties entering into a Pre-Determination Settlement Agreement, and resolving the case through Conciliation, or some combination thereof. In Fiscal Year 2017, eleven (11) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. Nine (9) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of disability, national origin, race/color, sex and source of income. Additionally, two (2) of those cases alleged both that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected classes and retaliated against. The outcomes of those cases included findings of lack of probable cause, the parties entering a private Settlement Agreement, resolving the case through Conciliation, and withdrawal of the Complaint by the Complainant, or some combination thereof. In Fiscal Year 2018, ten (10) housing discrimination complaints were filed with the CHRC. Eight (8) of those cases alleged that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected class(es), and the types of discrimination alleged were discrimination on the basis of disability, race/color, sex, sexual orientation and source of income. Additionally, two (2) of those cases alleged both that the Complainant was discriminated against based on their protected classes, and retaliated against. The outcomes of those cases included a finding of probable cause, findings of lack of probable cause, a finding of lack of jurisdiction, a complaint dual-filed with the MCAD so the CHRC deferred to MCAD, and the parties considering removing the case to the Attorney General’s Office, or some combination thereof. II. Successful Conciliation: The Council has asked what is the CHRC’s definition of a “successful conciliation.” From the CHRC’s perspective, a “successful conciliation” addresses the concerns of the Complainant, which could include one or more of the following requirements: a payment of damages to the Complainant; allowing the complainant to continue or commence renting at the property in question; an apology from the Respondent; a reasonable accommodation for a disability; reasonable modifications to a property to enable a person with a disability to fully enjoy use of the property; a change in a policy that gave rise to the complaint; and/or similar provisions. The CHRC seeks “public interest” provisions in every conciliation, which could include one or more of the following requirements: a change in discriminatory policies or practices; anti-discrimination law training for staff of the Respondent; ongoing monitoring of the Respondent to confirm that discriminatory practices have stopped; and/or similar provisions. The CHRC considers a conciliation that includes both direct relief for the Complainant and public interest provisions to address discriminatory behaviors to be a successful conciliation. The CHRC monitors the terms of conciliated settlements to ensure that agreed upon terms have been satisfied. Not all complaints result in a conciliated outcome. Conciliation is a voluntary process for both parties, so a party who is not satisfied with efforts at conciliation can opt not to agree to a conciliated settlement and proceed to a final determination, which might or might not result in a Probable Cause finding.

Where Lack of Probable Cause (LOPC) is found following the completion of the investigation, the case is closed. Where Probable Cause (PC) is found on some or all allegations, the CHRC will endeavor to conciliate one last time, with the assistance of a CHRC Commissioner. Upon a finding of Probable Cause, either party can elect to remove the case to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) for final resolution. In practice, most Respondents elect to remove the case to the AGO in order to have another opportunity to argue their position, and most Complainants elect to remove the case to the AGO based upon the belief that they will have access to greater remedies available through the AGO. Where neither party elects to remove the case to the AGO, the CHRC will schedule a Public Hearing on the allegations for which Probable Cause was found. In practice, few housing cases go to Public Hearing. III. CHRC’s Process is Not Voluntary: The Council has asked whether the voluntary nature of the CHRC process means that Respondents are less likely to comply with an agreement or order resulting from the process, and whether the City has authority to enforce any agreement or order. The CHRC is a local civil rights enforcement agency, which acts pursuant to the Cambridge Human Rights and Fair Housing Ordinances (HRO and FHO). Cambridge’s FHO has been deemed by HUD to be “substantially equivalent” to the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). CHRC staff are trained by HUD-endorsed Fair Housing experts on how to conduct a neutral, substantive investigation and write a Final Investigative Determination. The CHRC acts as a neutral investigative agency and does not represent either party to a Complaint. Although the conciliation process is voluntary for all parties, the investigative process is not voluntary. Upon service of the Complaint, parties are informed in writing of their responsibilities and timelines under the FHO and CHRC Rules of Procedure. If a Respondent fails to cooperate with the process, the Respondent could be found in default, and the matter would be referred to a Public Hearing. In practice, no Respondents have failed to participate in the process during my 5 + years as Executive Director of the CHRC. IV. Eviction Resources in Cambridge: The Council has asked why CHRC’s current practice is to not track eviction data or data regarding housing related lawsuits. The CHRC does not have jurisdiction over housing matters that do not allege discrimination or where an allegation of discrimination has not been filed with the CHRC. People are evicted for a broad range of reasons, and if those reasons do not include allegations of discrimination the CHRC does not track those matters. There are some cases that include claims of discrimination and eviction matters, the latter of which fall under the scope of Landlord/Tenant Law. Eviction proceedings (Summary Process Proceedings) are heard in Housing or District Courts. Legal Services Attorneys can represent tenants in such matters; the CHRC cannot (as the CHRC’s Attorneys are neutral investigators, not advocates for the Complaining party). In such an instance, the CHRC would refer the non- discrimination issues to a legal services agency and retain the discrimination allegations for investigation by the CHRC. The DHSP’s Multi-Service Center (MSC) offers the “Support for Tenants At Risk” (STAR) Program, which assists low-income tenants in eviction proceedings. As MSC’s website notes: “STAR is a program for low- income Cambridge tenants facing eviction who have been issued a Summary Process Summons and Complaint. In addition to the case management, stabilization, and rental assistance services currently provided at the Multi-Service Center, STAR’s targeted legal and clinical services will ensure that individuals/families at the highest risk for eviction will have access to comprehensive resources, with the goal being retention of stable housing and the prevention of homelessness. This program works in

concert with MSC staff, HomeStart, Eliot Community Human Services, Cambridge and Somerville Legal Services and Shelter Legal Services.”1 As noted in Section V of the CHRC’s June 25, 2018 response to the Council Housing Committee (a copy of which is attached here for reference), Landlord/Tenant housing matters (including conditions issues, lack of heat or hot water, failure to pay rent, rent withholding, or similar matters that do not involve discrimination allegations) are referred to appropriate agencies and/or non-profit legal services providers. The CHRC does not track these matters because they are not within its jurisdiction as a law enforcement agency charged with investigating unlawful discrimination. 1 https://www.cambridgema.gov/DHSP/programsforfamilies/multiservicecenterforthehomeless/mscprograms