[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40028-40031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16156]
[[Page 40027]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Housing and Urban Development
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Housing Assessment System Management Operations Scoring Process
for PHAs With Fiscal Years Ending On or After March 31, 2000; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 125 / Wednesday, June 28, 2000 /
Notices
[[Page 40028]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-4509-N-15]
Public Housing Assessment System Management Operations Scoring
Process for PHAs With Fiscal Years Ending On or After March 31, 2000
AGENCY: Office of the Director, Real Estate Assessment Center, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice provides additional information to public housing
agencies (PHAs) and members of the public, regarding HUD's process for
issuing Management Operations scores to PHAs with fiscal years ending
on or after March 31, 2000, under the Public Housing Assessment System
(PHAS). This notice is an update of the Management Operations Indicator
scoring notice that was published on June 23, 1999, and takes into
consideration public comment received on the June 23, 1999, notice.
This notice provides the basis for scoring PHAs on their management
operations as provided in the PHAS Amendments final rule published on
January 11, 2000, with certain corrections published on June 6, 2000.
This notice is applicable to PHAs with fiscal years ending on or after
March 31, 2000. (The Management Operations Scoring notice applicable to
PHAs with fiscal years ending before March 31, 2000, is published
elsewhere in this Federal Register.) The changes made to the Management
Operations Scoring process for PHAs ending on or after March 31, 2000,
are discussed in the Supplementary Information section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Wanda
Funk, Real Estate Assessment Center, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024;
telephone Technical Assistance Center at 1-888-245-4860 (this is a toll
free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access
that number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at
(800) 877-8339. Additional information is available from the REAC
Internet Site, http://www.hud.gov/reac.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Purpose of This Notice
The purpose of this notice is to provide additional information
about the scoring process for PHAS Indicator #3, Management Operations.
The purpose of the Management Operations assessment is to measure
certain key management operations and responsibilities of a PHA for the
purpose of assessing the PHA's management operations capabilities.
The majority of the information provided in this notice was
originally published on May 13, 1999 (64 FR 26232), and republished on
June 23, 1999 (64 FR 33708). HUD solicited public comment on both the
May 13, 1999, and June 23, 1999, notices. This Management Operations
Scoring Process notice, published in this edition of the Federal
Register, has been revised to reflect the public comments received on
the previous notices and to provide the basis for scoring PHAs on their
management operations as provided in the PHAS Amendments Final Rule
published on January 11, 2000 (65 FR 1712). This Management Operations
Scoring notice is applicable only to PHAs with fiscal years ending on
or after March 31, 2000. (The Management Operations Scoring notice
applicable to PHAs with fiscal years ending September 30, 1999, or
December 31, 1999, is published elsewhere in this edition of the
Federal Register.)
2. Changes From the Public Housing Management Assessment Program
(PHMAP) to PHAS
The PHAS assessment of a PHA's management operations utilizes five
of the eight PHMAP indicators:
Vacant unit turnaround time;
Capital Fund;
Work orders;
Annual inspection of units and systems; and
Security.
Former sub-indicator #6, security and economic self-sufficiency,
are now two separate sub-indicators: Sub-indicator #5 is security; and
sub-indicator #6 is economic self-sufficiency. This change reflects
compliance with and the intent of the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 (Pub.L. 105-276, approved October 21, 1998
(referred to as the ``Public Housing Reform Act'') which added economic
self-sufficiency of public housing residents as an additional factor
under section 6(j) of the U. S. Housing Act of 1937. The statute
recognizes the importance of this area as a separate assessment factor,
and the Department has amended the Management Operations Indicator to
reflect the statutory guidance.
The adjustment for physical condition and/or neighborhood
environment will be made under PHAS Indicator #1, Physical Condition.
The same definitions and exemptions that apply to the PHMAP also apply
to the PHAS, except as noted in 24 CFR 902, subpart D. The PHMAP
indicator for financial management is assessed under PHAS Indicator #2,
Financial Condition; and PHMAP indicator #7 for resident services is
assessed under PHAS Indicator #4, Resident Service and Satisfaction.
The vacancy rate component and the rents uncollected sub-indicator
are removed from the Management Operations Indicator as a result of the
Department's consideration of public comments from the June 22, 1999,
PHAS Amendments Proposed Rule (54 FR 33348). These factors are assessed
under the Financial Condition Indicator through the ``occupancy loss''
and ``tenant receivable outstanding'' components, and the inclusion of
these factors under both the Financial Condition Indicator and
Management Operations Indicator was duplicative. These changes ensure
that the PHAS is an effective and efficient assessment system by
eliminating any duplicative efforts of information collection under the
PHAS.
There are certain differences between the PHMAP score and the PHAS
score calculated for a PHA's management operations. Under the PHAS, PHA
requested modifications and exclusions no longer apply. Under the PHAS,
a PHA will not be assessed under a sub-indicator and/or component if
the PHA does not receive funding for that program, i.e., Capital Fund.
PHAs will certify to sub-indicator #2, Capital Fund, and all PHAs will
certify to and be scored on sub-indicator #5, security, and sub-
indicator #6, economic self-sufficiency, under PHAS Management
Operations Indicator #3.
3. Submission of Management Operations Certification
Under the PHAS, a PHA is required to electronically submit
certification on its performance under each of the Management
Operations sub-indicators. If circumstances preclude a PHA from
reporting electronically, HUD will consider granting short-term
approval to allow a PHA to submit its Management Operations
certification manually. A PHA that seeks approval to submit its
certification manually must ensure that the REAC receives a request for
manual submission in writing 60 calendar days prior to the submission
due date of its Management Operations certification. The written
request must include the reasons why the PHA cannot submit its
certification electronically. The REAC will respond to such a request
and will manually forward its determination in writing to the PHA.
[[Page 40029]]
4. Elements of Scoring
The Management Operations Indicator score provides an assessment of
each PHA's management effectiveness. The computation of the score under
this PHAS Indicator utilizes data that was submitted for PHMAP and
requires three main calculations, which are:
Scores are first calculated for all of the components that
have been submitted by the PHA;
Based upon the component scores, a score is then calculated
for each sub-indicator; and
From the six sub-indicator scores, an indicator score is
then calculated.
The three calculations are performed on the basis of the following:
The point values of the six sub-indicators and/or
components, which are listed in Table 1; and
The multiplier value equivalent to the grades assigned
under PHMAP listed in Table 2.
Table 1.--Management Operations Sub-Indicator and Component Points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-
Sub-indicator indicator Component Component
points points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacant Unit Turnaround Time................... 4.0 ...........
Capital Fund.................................. 7.0 Unexpended Funds...................... 1.0
Timeliness of Fund Obligation......... 2.0
Contract Administration............... 2.0
Quality of Physical Work.............. 1.0
Budget Controls....................... 2.0
Work Orders................................... 4.0 Emergency Work Orders................. 2.0
Non-Emergency Work Orders............. 2.0
Inspections of Units and Systems.............. 4.0 Inspection of Units................... 2.0
........... Inspections of Systems................ 2.0
Security...................................... 4.0 Tracking/Reporting Crime-Related 1.0
Problems.
........... Screening of Applicants............... 1.0
........... Lease Enforcement..................... 1.0
........... Grant Program Goals................... 1.0
Economic Self-Sufficiency..................... 7.0 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PHMAP grades for each component are assigned values to indicate
the percentage of the component points that will be awarded in the
calculations. The assigned values for the PHMAP grades are listed in
Table 2. Note that some components are only graded on A, C, and F.
Table 2.--Possible Grades
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grades Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................................................ 1.00
B............................................................ 0.85
C............................................................ 0.70
D............................................................ 0.50
E............................................................ 0.30
F............................................................ 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculations under the PHAS Management Operations Indicator are
performed as follows:
Component Score. The component score equals the component's total
possible points multiplied by the value of the grade for the PHA. For
example, a PHA with an equivalent grade of E for the component,
``inspection of units,'' would receive 30% of the total possible
component points of 2, for a score of 0.6 for the component. When non-
assessed components exist, the value of the non-assessed component must
be redistributed proportionately across components that have been
assessed.
Sub-indicator Score. The sub-indicator score is the obtained by
adding the redistributed component scores. When non-assessed Sub-
indicators exist, the value of the non-assessed sub-indicator must be
redistributed proportionately across the sub-indicators that have been
assessed. Note that if the value of a sub-indicator is changed because
of redistribution of non-assessed points, the values of the components
of that sub-indicator must be redistributed again. This component
redistribution does not change the value of the sub-indicator, it
simply ensures that the sum of the components equals the new sub-
indicator value.
Indicator Score. The Indicator score is determined by adding the
sum of the sub-indicators.
5. Examples of Score Computations
An Example of Computing a Sub-Indicator Score With a Non-Assessed
Component. Table 3 provides an example for the calculation of a Capital
Fund sub-indicator score and its component scores when the Quality of
Physical Work component has not been assessed. When non-assessed
components exist, the value of the non-assessed component must be
redistributed proportionately across components that have been
assessed. In our example, the Capital Funds component, Quality of
Physical Work, is not assessed. To redistribute the Quality of Physical
Work points, each assessed component must be multiplied by the total
possible points for the sub-indicator (7), and divided by the total
possible points of the assessed components (5). The redistributed value
of the total possible points for the Contract Administration component
is calculated to be 1.4. In our example, the PHA has received a grade
of C for Contract Administration; the PHA then receives only 70% of the
redistributed points value for Contract Administration. As shown in
Table 3, 70% of 1.4 equals 0.98 points. The Capital Fund sub-indicator
score is then computed by summing the redistributed components. In the
example from Table 3, the final score for the Capital Fund sub-
indicator is 6.2 (6.16 rounded to the nearest tenth).
[[Page 40030]]
Table 3.--Example Assessment of the Capital Fund Sub-Indicator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
possible Assessed Redistribution Redistributed Grade Score Comp.
Component component component calculation component Grade value calculation score
points points points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Unexpended Funds............................. 1.0 1.0 (1.0 x 7.0 )/5.0 1.4 A 1.0 1.4 x 1.0 1.4
#2 Timeliness of Fund........................... 2.0 2.0 (2.0 x 7.0 )/5.0 2.8 A 1.0 2.8 x 1.0 2.8
#3 Contract Administration...................... 1.0 1.0 (1.0 x 7.0 )/5.0 1.4 C 0.7 1.4 x 0.7 0.98
#4 Quality of Physical Work..................... 2.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
#5 Budget Controls.............................. 1.0 1.0 (1.0 x 7.0 )/5.0 1.4 C 0.7 1.4 x 0.7 0.98
---------------------- --------------- ------
Total (Sub-indicator Score)............... 7.0 5.0 .................... 7.0 ......... ......... .............. 6.16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Example of Computing the Management Operations Indicator Score
for a PHA Without an Economic Self-Sufficiency Program. Table 4
provides an example for the calculation of the Management Operations
Indicator score when the Economic Self-Sufficiency sub-indicator has
not been assessed (the PHA does not have a HUD-funded Economic Self-
Sufficiency Program). When a non-assessed sub-indicator exists, the
value of the non-assessed sub-indicator must be redistributed
proportionately across the sub-indicators that have been assessed. To
redistribute the Economic Self-Sufficiency points, each assessed sub-
indicator must be multiplied by the total possible points for the MASS
indicator (30), and divided by the total possible points of the
assessed sub indicators (23). This calculation and the redistributed
value of the total possible points for each sub-indicator is shown in
Table 4. The final Management Operations Indicator score is derived by
summing the redistributed sub-indicators.
These scores are included in the PHAS Report. Note that in the PHAS
Report, scores are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Table 4.--Example of Assessment of the Management Operations Indicator Score for a PHA Without an Economic Self-Sufficiency Program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total possible
Total possible assessed sub- Actual sub- Redistribution Redistributed
Sub-indicator sub-indicator indicator indicator calculation sub-indicator
points points score points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacant Unit Turn-Around Time...................................... 4 4 4 (4 x 30)/(23) 5.2
Capital Fund...................................................... 7 7 6.16 (6.16 x 30)/(23) 8.03
Work Orders....................................................... 4 4 4.0 (4 x 30)/(23) 5.2
Annual Inspection................................................. 4 4 2.8 (2.8 x 30)/(23) 3.65
Security.......................................................... 4 4 4.0 (4 x 30)/(23) 5.2
Economic Self-Sufficiency......................................... 7 NA NA NA NA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Management Operations Indicator Points................ 30 23 NA NA 27.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Example of Rescaling Components So that the Component Sum Equals
a Redistributed Sub-indicator. In the previous example, the sub-
indicator points were redistributed because the Economic Self-
sufficiency sub-indicator was not assessed. After the sub-indicator
points were redistributed the components comprising the sub-indicator
no longer added up to the redistributed value of the sub-indicator. A
calculation must be performed to rescale the components of a sub-
indicator so that those components add up to the redistributed sub-
indicator. Table 5 contains an example of rescaling the Capital Fund
components so that they add up to the redistributed Capital Fund sub-
indicator. Each component is rescaled by multiplying by a factor of 30
divided by 23. As can be seen from Table 5, the rescaled component
values add up to 8.03 which is the redistributed sub-indicator points
for Capital Funds as shown above in Table 4.
Table 5.--Example Redistribution of Components Within the Capital Fund Sub-Indicator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component
values after Component
Component first Component rescaling values after
redistribution calculation rescaling
in table 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Unexpended Funds....................................... 1.4 1.4 x (30/23) 1.82
#2 Timeliness of Fund Obligation.......................... 2.8 2.8 x (30/23) 3.65
#3 Contract Administration................................ 0.98 0.98 x (30/23) 1.28
#4 Quality of Physical Work............................... NA NA NA
#5 Budget Controls........................................ 0.98 0.98 x (30/23) 1.28
-----------------------------------------------------
Total Sub-Indicator Score........................... 6.16 8.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40031]]
Dated: June 20, 2000.
Donald J. LaVoy,
Director, Real Estate Assessment Center.
[FR Doc. 00-16156 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-01-P