Accreditation

Summary

S. 462
No comparable provision in S. 462.

H.R. 2
Title V calls for two things; a study to determine the best method for evaluating HAs and other housing providers and the creation of a 12-person, bipartisan "Housing Evaluation and Accreditation Board." The study, conducted by the Secretary, must be completed and the results presented to Congress within twelve months of the enactment of the bill. Regardless of the outcome of the Secretary's study, the President and Congress would, upon enactment of the statute, set up the appointed Accreditation Board. The Board is given twelve months to develop benchmarks and standards that would replace PHMAP and would "... improve the evaluation of the performance of housing providers..." Using these standards, the Board must establish procedures to accredit public housing agencies to receive funds for public housing operations and tenant-based assistance.

A more recent draft version of the House bill eliminates the requirement to set up an Accreditation Board. Rather, it requires a study be conducted to explore the options of retaining the current system, accreditation models, performance-based models, local review and monitoring models, and private models.

PHADA position

• PHADA supports the concept of accreditation but is concerned that the provisions in the House bill will create excessive oversight for well-run HAs. HAs could be subject to oversight from both HUD and the Accreditation Board.

• A major purpose of the study in H.R. 2 is to determine whether an independent entity, like an accreditation board is desirable. Another intent is to evaluate various accreditation models. Why, then, is the Accreditation Board automatically established?

• PHADA supports the establishment of a special, independent commission to study the issue of accreditation. Besides reviewing models from other industries, the commission must recommend a system that would not add an additional layer of oversight to well-managed HAs. Review functions and their parameters must be clearly defined so that HUD and the board are not exercising authority over HAs in the same areas.

• The commission and any oversight entity recommended by the commission should be independent of the federal government as are the boards for lawyers, CPAs, architects, colleges and hospitals.

• An important mandate for the commission would be to maximize the role of the Independent Auditor. PHADA believes that the independent public audit can be an invaluable tool in terms of ensuring the accountability of housing providers.

Suggested action
If accreditation is retained, modify the requirement by calling for the formation of an independent commission to conduct a thorough analysis of the issue before setting up another oversight entity. After conducting its review, the panel would report to Congress, making recommendations on how to best implement the system.