While some see regulation as a burden, many professional see Universal Design principals as a great way to inspire creativity and innovation. Meeting the multiple challenges of simplicity of use and universal access can result in elegant and timeless design that is appreciated by all who encounter it in daily use.

1. Equitable
Provide equitable access for everyone in an integrated and dignified manner. Design should appeal to everyone and provide an equal level of safety for all users.

2. Flexible
The built environment or product accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities throughout the user’s lifespan.

3. Simple and Intuitive
The layout and design is easily understood by users with a wide range of experience or cognitive ability. Design elements .

4. Perceptible Information
Information should make use of multiple senses when possible. Visual, audible or tactile methods expand utility, safety and effectiveness of the environment or product.

5. Tolerance for Error
The goal here is to reduce the chance of unintentional misuse or injury by anticipating various user abilities and perceptual styles.

6. Low Physical Effort
The environment or product should accommodate users with limited strength, stamina or dexterity..

7. Size and Space for Approach and Use
Design should reflect the needs of diverse individuals to easily access and use space, equipment and controls. All potential users should be able to reach, see and operate all elements of the home or product safely.

While complaints may be filed directly by consumers or tenants, it is not uncommon for complaints to be filed by testing and enforcement advocates on behalf of themselves, their organizations, existing tenants or even potential/future tenants. Courts have held that if they meet certain conditions, fair housing organizations have standing to file a fair housing complaint.

‘Testing’ may involve two separate individuals posing as prospective tenants or clients, who make separate inquiries in person or by phone, email or other means. The two testers are distinguished by their perceived membership in one or more ‘protected classes’ (see glossary). In theory, they make substantially identical inquiries about housing availability, terms or policies. If the answers they receive differ in a manner perceived as discriminatory, a complaint may be filed. Other types of testing may involve a single inquiry about support animals or other policies, reasonable accommodations or modifications, etc.

Once a complaint is filed, the parties are offered an opportunity to voluntarily participate in conciliation discussions while the investigation is proceeding. Conciliation terms can include requiring the “respondent” (person or entity the complaint was filed against) to attend fair housing training, to change policies and/or procedures, or to pay compensation to the “complainant,” (person or entity filing the complaint).

Each conciliation agreement is unique to the specific complaint and represents the terms agreed to by the parties and approved by HUD. For example, a complaint may involve property that was not constructed in compliance with the design and construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act. If it is not economically feasible for the property to be modified, conciliation terms may involve the respondent paying into a fund. One such fund can be accessed by persons with disabilities, who need to make modifications to make a property accessible; another fund may support education and outreach efforts.

If conciliation fails, the investigation continues and HUD determines whether the Fair Housing Act has likely been violated as alleged in the complaint. If HUD determines there is no reasonable cause to believe the Act has been violated, the case will be closed, although the *complainant still has the right to file a complaint in Federal Court. If HUD finds there is reasonable cause to believe the Act has been violated the case may be charged and proceed through the legal system.

*Please note. In Idaho and elsewhere, private attorneys and organizations sometimes disagree with HUD’s interpretation of the merits of a complaint; they may pursue a complaint independently of HUD, in which case the defendant/provider must defend him or herself in federal court, regardless of HUD’s position. If you receive a complaint, seek the counsel of a civil rights defense attorney to review your options and determine the best strategy to respond to the allegation. A sample of civil rights defense resources is available under the ‘Links and Resources’ section.

While there are no guaranteed methods for avoiding complaints, the best course of action for housing providers is to educate all property, site management and maintenance professionals that may come into contact with clients, tenants, prospective/virtual tenants, testers, their agents or the general public. New hires should receive training at the earliest opportunity, and regular education should also be offered to all those who establish or implement policies and procedures. Should you receive a complaint and wind up in court, it is often useful to document a history of due diligence to comply with federal laws.

The best defense involves clear and consistent policies that spell out what is required, are understood by any and all possible representatives and that demand excellent customer service for anyone and everyone they might encounter. Adopt a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy for any acts of discrimination, and deal quickly and clearly with violators. If you have questions, seek information and training from the various sources available in Idaho and beyond. Remember, denial is not a strategy.

Protected Class – This refers to members of populations characterized by race, national origin, sex, color, religion, familial status and disability. Under the Fair Housing Act (see above), persons are protected from discrimination based solely on their membership (or perceived membership) in one or more of these seven protected “classes.”

Reasonable Accommodation – Persons with a qualifying disability (see above) may request a reasonable accommodation from a housing provider, employer or government entity in order to participate fully in programs or events, or to occupy housing. The accommodation may involve policy modification such as a designated parking space or nonstandard communication protocol. The requested accommodation should realistically and effectively accommodate the individual’s particular disability (according to a professional third party familiar with the specific disability), and (under certain conditions) may not represent an undue financial or administrative burden.

Reasonable Modification – Persons with a qualifying disability (see above) may also request a reasonable modification from a housing provider, employer or government entity in order to participate in programs or events, or to occupy housing. A physical modification, such as a wheelchair ramp, should realistically and effectively accommodate the individual’s particular disability (according to a professional third party familiar with the specific disability), and (under certain conditions) may not represent an undue financial or administrative burden. View the HUD / Department of Justice Joint Statement on Reasonable Modification reasonable_modifications_mar08.

Request for Reasonable Accommodation and/or Modification. – Keep in mind that when you receive a request for either a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable modification, there are clear rules: As a provider, you shall not ask for information on the nature or severity of a disability. You may require independent third-party verification from a qualified professional (i.e., medical professional, case worker, vocational/rehab specialist, therapist, pastor or priest) familiar with the applicant’s condition and who will testify in writing that the tenant or client has a disability as defined by HUD, and that the requested accommodation is necessary to address the disability. Remember, it is not your responsibility to assess disability status or need; leave this to the third-party professional. You may provide (but not require) a form to be used, or accept alternate written verification. The key is whether the request is reasonable; when in doubt, seek legal advice from a qualified civil rights legal expert or HUD/FHEO. See ‘Resources and Links‘ page.

Section 3 / Economic Empowerment – This is a provision of the HUD Act of 1968 that promotes local economic development, neighborhood economic improvement, and individual self-sufficiency. The intent of Section 3 is to harness the economic power of HUD investments in housing and community development and to expand economic opportunity for low-income families in the neighborhoods where they live. Section 3 is triggered by a need for new hires to work on any covered Section 3 project or activity when the recipient receives $200,000 or more, or when a contractor receives $100,000 or more.

Section 504 (of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) – According to HUD’s definition, Section 504 specifies that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Section 504 design and construction requirements apply to housing developments that are constructed with or receive federal funding, and are generally more rigorous than those required by the Fair Housing Accessibility design and construction standards.

Self-Assessment – This is an opportunity for housing providers or other covered entities to identify potential violations in policies, procedures or design and construction. They may conduct an internal assessment or contract with a local or regional Fair Housing entity to evaluate compliance in policies and procedures. In Idaho, the Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IHFC) has historically offered this service. Remember that there is no guarantee that this agreement will prevent a complaint from being filed. Many options exist to conduct a self-assessment. See ‘Resources and Links’ for sample resources and providers. Regardless of how the assessment is performed,providers or covered entities should move quickly to address any and all potential violations uncovered during this process.

Service and Support Animals – “According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990), an animal may be considered a ’service animal’ if it has been ‘individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability,’ such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working, as well as disabilities that may not be visible, such as deafness, epilepsy, or psychiatric conditions.” www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/animal.html Another great resource is the Psychiatric Service Dog Society.

Emotional support, therapy or companion animals are not legally defined (at the federal level) in the same way as service animals, and may not have been individually trained to perform specific tasks. They may, however, be exempt from pet policies and deposits if certified by a knowledgeable expert as enabling their owner to compensate for or cope with a qualifying mental, emotional or physical disability. That being said, the broad distribution of such animals creates challenges for some providers, specifically for shelters or group homes where others may be impacted by the presence of animals. (Source: Delta Society; see also “Common questions about service and support animals”).

See also: Animals strain homeless shelters: Centers struggle as more patrons bring their prescribed therapeutic companions.

Universal Design- A commonly misunderstood term, “Universal Design” refers to general design principles intended to “simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost.” Accessible residential, commercial and public space (i.e., “built environments”) fall under one aspect of universal design.

Visitability – This term differs from “accessibility” only in that it is primarily used to refer to accessible single-family construction as opposed to multifamily housing. Site grading, design and construction reflect universal design principles such as an accessible entrance into and route through the main floor, and at least one accessible bathroom and bedroom. Tenants or owners may or may not require the accessibility features at the time of first occupancy; they may simply wish to accommodate guests with mobility impairments or to anticipate their own future needs as they age in place.

Many homeowners find that these features enhance their home’s resale value, reduce tripping hazards and simplify routine activities. Related terms include “no-step construction,” “house for life” or “zero-threshold construction.” See www.concretechange.org or www.easylivinghome.org for more information.

Fair Housing can be best defined as the right of all people to be free from discrimination in the rental, sale or financing of housing. The act covers every individual, since we all belong to one or more protected class.

Accessible – This term applies to a program, service, built environment or event that can be used by persons of all abilities. Examples would include a courthouse or restroom that can accommodate wheelchair users, a public hearing that provides assistive listening devices for the hearing impaired, or a program offering outreach materials in alternate formats. In housing, the term is generally used in reference to multifamily or senior housing complexes, homeless shelters, etc.

Adaptable – Built environments that may or may not include finished accessible features such as ramps, grab bars, etc, but that can be easily adapted or modified to accommodate a variety of tenants. Examples include buildings with extra structural blocking in bathroom walls to allow future installation of grab bars in toilet and tub areas; wider hallways, entry ways and door openings; adjustable counter or cabinet elevations, removable cabinet doors under sinks to allow wheelchair access, etc.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) – Beyond a commitment to avoid discrimination, HUD-funded recipients are required to affirmatively further fair housing, which means actively promoting wider housing opportunities for all persons while maintaining a nondiscriminatory environment in all aspects of private and public housing.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – This act was signed into law July 26, 1990. The ADA primarily covers access to public spaces, programs and events. The Act covers employment, state and local government, public accommodations, telecommunications and transportation. ADA laws and design requirements also apply to certain public or common areas of multifamily housing complexes.

Disability – The Fair Housing Act defines disability as “any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.”

Disparate Impact – This term describes the idea that an action or policy that is applied equally to all persons (and that appears neutral) may have an unintended but ‘disparate’ or unequal impact on members of a protected class. In some cases, this can be interpreted as a violation of Fair Housing law. One commonly used example is a policy stating that any tenants involved in domestic disturbances or abuse will face eviction. Since 90-95% of all domestic violence victims are women, this policy may have a disparate impact based on gender, a protected class.

Fair Housing Act – Congress passed The Fair Housing Act on April 11, 1968. The original Act prohibited discrimination in all housing transactions on the basis of race, national origin, sex, color and religion. It was later amended to protect persons with disabilities and ‘familial status’ (i.e., households with/without children). Fair Housing Accessibility ‘design and construction standards’ apply to multifamily housing consisting of four or more units and ready for first occupancy after March 13, 1991.

LEP/LAP – Idaho’s growing population includes individuals with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Some LEP populations are refugees (pushed from their home country through war, famine or political oppression), and some are immigrants (pulled to the U.S. or Idaho by perceived opportunity or family connections). Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency (LEP Guidance), it is illegal to discriminate in access to programs or services that involve use of federal funds. Organizations that receive federal funds must create, implement and follow a Language Assistance Plan (LAP) that effectively accommodates the needs of all customers. Keep in mind that ‘customer service is welcome in any language.’ For more information, see http://lep.gov