PHADA has examined the differences in how HUD evaluates multifamily housing in comparison to its treatment of public housing. Equally telling is the comparison between the Housing Quality Standards (HQS) used in the tenant-based Section 8 program and the Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) used for public housing.

When HUD introduced the Uniform Physical Condition Standards in 1998, it wrote that the new inspection was the same as Housing Quality Standards, "...this rule does not alter the standard with which owners must comply, but merely describes the standard in clear terms...". It added, "HUD maintains that the physical condition standards are not significantly different than the standards to which all HUD housing has previously been subject."

This statement is far from accurate, because an analysis of the "Dictionary of Deficiencies" shows that for dozens of observable deficiencies, defects which cause points to be deducted by REAC would pass Housing Quality Standards. In addition, there are new inspectable items in UPCS, especially in the Site area. HUD has indeed altered the standard, and UPCS is significantly different than HQS.

In spite of creating this new standard, HUD still uses HQS in the Section 8 tenant-based program. As a result, public housing is clearly being held to a higher standard than the tenant-based Section 8 program.

Housing Quality Standards represent the decent, safe and sanitary level which is the statutory standard of federally assisted housing. HUD writes in CFR 24 982.1 that "the rental voucher program ... provide(s) rent subsidies so eligible families can afford rent for decent, safe and sanitary housing. Families select and rent units that meet program housing quality standards." Public housing, thus, is being held to a standard above decent, safe and sanitary.

With public housing units now expected to be of a higher quality than Section 8, it is odd that all of HUD's incremental units are being requested for the voucher program, which has the lower standard of quality.

HQS was the standard for public housing through December 31, 1999. By introducing UPCS, HUD has radically altered the level at which public housing units are to be maintained. It made this change with little discussion, without any additional funding or without further consideration of the ramifications of having two different standards of quality.

What is even more surprising is that soon after HUD's announcement that a new and much more stringent standard exists it sent inspectors out to issue advisory scores for PHAs based on this new standard. In fact in some cases, these inspectors were sent out even before the Dictionary of Deficiencies was published. It certainly seems like a case of changing the rules in the middle of the game.

It has not been fair to inspect PHAs on this new, far more stringent standard, when they have had very little time to learn it, very little direction or training from HUD on it, no additional funding to achieve it, and in fact were not even required to use it until January 1, 2000.

PHADA has identified thirty-five deficiencies in the Dwelling Units area alone, which show how much more demanding the new UPCS standard is than HQS. All thirty-five can be found on PHADA's web site. The following chart includes fourteen of these thirty-five.

The chart shows how dramatically different the two inspection standards are. In fact, there are 355.44 points which could be deducted in UPCS in the Dwelling Unit area for deficiencies that would pass HQS.

Thus, housing authorities could fail REAC's inspection and be placed in troubled status for items which would pass HQS. These are items which are acceptable in the Section 8 tenant-based program and which were the standard in public housing until two months ago. It seems questionable for HUD to label PHAs as troubled for items which were approvable two months ago and which are still approved in the tenant-based Section 8 program.

Differences Between HQS and UPCS
In general, there are two types of deficiencies which pass HQS, but fail UPCS, and do not affect the decent, safe, and sanitary condition of the unit. Problems of the first type are very minor, insignificant or inexpensive ones which do not affect the livability of the apartment. These problems include a faucet drip, a slow drain, missing stoppers, a cracked toilet seat, occasional roaches or mice, damaged door seals and missing caulk, missing convection covers and broken cabinet shelves and doors.

Problems of the second type are cosmetic in nature, perhaps creating a visual blemish, but not affecting the function of any element. These include discoloration in the sink, small holes in ceilings, walls and doors, water stains and peeling paint, floor covering damage, surface rust, damaged trim, and cracked or inoperable windows.

PHADA has asked HUD why PHAs are being penalized for these very minor and cosmetic issues, when they do not affect the livability of the unit and are acceptable in the tenant-based Section 8 program. PHADA continues to believe points should not be deducted for these types of deficiencies, and it has urged HUD to review the Dictionary of Deficiencies and make these changes.

In addition to these deficiencies in the Dwelling Units area, the Site area is completely different. For HQS the only standard is that conditions "must not seriously and continuously endanger the health and safety of the residents". Examples include buildings which might fall down, flooding, large land settlement or collapse, open sewage, unprotected heights, fire hazards, abnormal air pollution and continuous or excessive vibration of vehicular traffic.

UPCS has an entirely different set of inspectable items, including fences and retaining walls, grounds, mailboxes, market appeal, storm drainage, parking lots, driveways, play areas and equipment, refuse disposal and walkways. Thus, the Site area adds many new elements about which PHAs have never been inspected before. When HUD writes, "The items to be inspected under the HQS and UPCS are substantially equivalent", it is not being completely forthright. There are also differences in the Building Exterior and Building Systems areas, although not as dramatic.

With UPCS, HUD has clearly imposed a new standard on public housing. This standard clearly exceeds HQS, which defines decent, safe and sanitary. There are now two standards people in assisted housing are subject to, with the public housing standard being far more stringent.

HUD's Attitude Towards Housing Authorities
HUD's manner of creating this new standard leaves much to be desired, and does not exactly meet the standard of "fair play." When it first created the new standard it said it was not different from the old one and that it was not adding inspectable items, neither of which was accurate.

Secondly, HUD was not even willing to publish the new standard or its scoring system until the three industry groups filed a lawsuit. Thirdly, it sent out inspectors to score housing authorities on the basis of this new standard before it even published what the new standard was.

Throughout 1999 it continued to inspect on the basis of UPCS, even though PHAs were instructed to continue using HQS for their annual inspections. All the physical advisory scores to date are based on a standard which PHAs were not even supposed to use.

For FYE March 31, 2000 PHAs, the PHAS physical inspection scores will no longer be advisory. There is still no published description of what UPCS is, so PHAs are being scored on a system which has not even been finalized. Yet these scores will be used to determine whether or not a PHA is troubled.

When a new standard is created, as has been done, housing authorities need time to be able to adapt to it. Although UPCS was announced in 1998, its definitions were not published until May, 1999, and they are still not final.

When a final standard is created, housing authorities should be given training on how to adapt to them, funding to make the needed corrections, and time to do so. There should be at least a year long advisory period following the final publication of the Uniform Physical Condition Standards.

Creating a new standard for one type of assisted housing, but not another, implementing it with insufficient training or discussion, sending out inspectors and scoring PHAs on the basis of the new standard immediately, and then telling PHAs they have failed and are at risk of being troubled because they have not met the new standard is an arbitrary manner of proceeding. It is not the way to treat a "partner."

PHADA Advocate (vol. 15, number 4, 3/13/00)

PHADA FRONT >  ADVOCATE