Certified Mortgage Servicer (CMS)

Correct: By revising the performance evaluation framework to include weighted KPIs for Section 3 compliance, the Housing Authority ensures that individual staff goals are directly aligned with federal regulatory requirements and the agency’s social mission. This creates accountability for outcomes that were previously overlooked in favor of administrative speed.

Incorrect: Mandating training provides knowledge but does not address the underlying incentive structure that prioritizes speed over compliance. Centralizing monitoring may create silos and does not address the performance evaluation of the procurement staff who are responsible for the initial contract terms. Increasing thresholds is a violation of HUD regulations and represents a failure to manage performance rather than a solution.

Takeaway: Effective performance management in public housing requires aligning individual staff incentives with both operational efficiency and federal compliance mandates.

Correct: Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Public Housing Authorities are required to ensure that their programs, services, and communications are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Mandating a digital-only portal without providing effective alternatives or accommodations for residents who cannot use the technology due to disabilities or age-related limitations constitutes a failure to provide equal access and violates federal civil rights laws.

Incorrect: The suggestion that HUD Capital Fund Program guidelines prohibit digital platforms is incorrect, as HUD generally encourages technological modernization provided it remains accessible. The risk of failing a REAC physical inspection is misplaced, as REAC focuses on the physical condition of the property rather than the medium of administrative record-keeping. While the Privacy Act of 1974 governs the handling of personal information, it does not prohibit the use of secure cloud-based portals for data transmission, provided the PHA maintains appropriate security standards.

Takeaway: Technology integration in public housing must include provisions for accessibility and reasonable accommodations to remain compliant with federal civil rights laws like the ADA and Section 504.

Correct: According to 2 CFR 200.320 and HUD Handbook 7460.8, procurement by noncompetitive proposals (sole-sourcing) is only permitted under specific circumstances: the item is available from only a single source; a public exigency or emergency exists; HUD (or the pass-through entity) expressly authorizes the noncompetitive proposal in response to a written request; or after solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.

Incorrect: The use of a vendor based on historical performance or ‘best value’ does not justify bypassing competitive requirements for contracts above the simplified acquisition threshold. Internal PHA thresholds cannot override the federal simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000 to avoid competition. While state laws may vary, federal procurement standards (2 CFR 200) take precedence when federal funds are used, and professional services still require competitive selection processes, such as Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) for architectural and engineering services.

Takeaway: Non-competitive procurement is strictly limited to specific conditions like single-source availability or emergencies to ensure federal funds are used efficiently through full and open competition.

Correct: This approach is correct because it integrates the technical necessity of a Physical Needs Assessment (PNA) with the financial reality of mixed-finance development. Furthermore, it fulfills the statutory mandate of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, which requires that PHAs provide job training and employment opportunities to low-income residents when using federal funds for development.

Incorrect: The approach of converting units to market-rate rentals is incorrect as it violates the core mission of a PHA to provide affordable housing and ignores HUD’s preservation requirements. Prioritizing cosmetic upgrades over structural redevelopment is an inefficient use of Capital Fund Program (CFP) resources and fails to address long-term viability. Limiting projects to force-account labor to avoid federal procurement and Davis-Bacon requirements is a violation of federal law and prevents the scale of redevelopment necessary for distressed properties.

Takeaway: Successful housing redevelopment requires a holistic strategy that combines rigorous physical assessments, diverse funding streams, and strict adherence to federal mandates for resident economic empowerment.

Correct: Under Section 18 of the Housing Act of 1937, as amended by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), the federal one-for-one replacement requirement was repealed. However, PHAs are still strictly required to provide a relocation plan for all displaced residents, which includes relocation assistance, counseling, and the offer of comparable housing, which is often fulfilled through the provision of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers.

Incorrect: The requirement for one-for-one replacement was eliminated in 1998, making the claim that units must be rebuilt on-site or in exact numbers incorrect. While physical obsolescence is a justification for demolition, it does not waive the requirement for a relocation plan or resident consultation. HUD’s Special Applications Center (SAC) does not require a 100 percent replacement commitment from private developers as a prerequisite for demolition approval under Section 18.

Takeaway: While Section 18 demolition does not require one-for-one unit replacement, it mandates a comprehensive relocation plan and comparable housing offers for all affected residents.

Correct: According to HUD regulations (24 CFR Part 903), any ‘significant amendment’ to the PHA Plan or its supporting documents, such as the ACOP, requires a formal process. This process includes consulting with the Resident Advisory Board (RAB), providing a minimum 30-day public comment period, and conducting a public hearing. Because the PHA bypassed these steps, the policy is procedurally deficient and must be rescinded and re-processed correctly to be legally enforceable.

Incorrect: Issuing a 15-day notice without a public hearing fails to meet the federal minimum standards for public participation. Including a justification in a later Annual Plan does not cure the initial procedural violation that occurred at the time of implementation. HUD field offices generally do not have the authority to grant retroactive waivers for statutory public participation requirements, even if the change was prompted by state law.

Takeaway: Significant amendments to Public Housing Authority policies require a mandatory 30-day public comment period and a public hearing to ensure regulatory compliance and transparency.

Correct: Indemnification is the process by which an organization agrees to pay for the legal costs and damages incurred by its representatives. For a PHA, these provisions must align with state enabling statutes and public policy, which generally prohibit the use of public funds to protect individuals from the consequences of ‘ultra vires’ acts, gross negligence, or intentional criminal behavior. Defining these boundaries ensures the policy is legally enforceable and ethically sound.

Incorrect: Unconditional indemnification is often legally impermissible as it would cover illegal or intentionally harmful acts. The Federal Tort Claims Act generally applies to federal employees, whereas PHA staff are typically governed by state tort claims acts or local governmental immunity standards. Requiring residents to sign blanket waivers of liability is a violation of HUD regulations, specifically the ‘Prohibited Lease Provisions’ found in 24 CFR 966.4, which forbid clauses that seek to exculpate the landlord from liability for negligence.

Takeaway: Indemnification policies must be carefully calibrated to protect officials acting in good faith while excluding coverage for gross negligence or intentional misconduct to remain compliant with state law and HUD standards.

Correct: Centralizing the review process and standardizing the documentation of the interactive process ensures that the Public Housing Authority (PHA) applies Section 504 and Fair Housing Act standards uniformly. This control reduces the risk of arbitrary denials or disparate treatment by ensuring that every request is evaluated against the same legal criteria and that the mandatory ‘interactive process’ is fully documented for audit and legal defense purposes.

Incorrect: Delegating final authority to site managers increases the risk of inconsistent decisions and subjective interpretations of ‘reasonableness.’ Requiring medical verification for all requests, including those where the disability or the need is obvious, violates HUD and Department of Justice guidelines regarding reasonable accommodations. Prioritizing requests based on tenure rather than individual need and the reasonableness of the request is discriminatory and fails to meet the legal requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

Takeaway: A standardized, centralized interactive process is the most effective control for ensuring legal compliance and equitable treatment in reasonable accommodation and modification requests.

Correct: Under the Fair Housing Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, it is illegal to treat individuals with disabilities differently or to subject them to extra screening requirements that are not applied to all applicants. Requiring a physician’s statement to prove ‘independent living’ capability specifically for those with disability-related income is a form of discrimination. Housing providers may not inquire into the nature or severity of a disability, nor may they assume that a person with a disability cannot live independently.

Incorrect: Risk management and emergency preparedness do not grant housing providers the authority to bypass civil rights laws or implement discriminatory screening. While safety is a priority, it must be addressed through voluntary emergency registries or individualized assessments rather than blanket requirements for medical proof of independence. Offering a waiver as a reasonable accommodation does not cure the underlying discriminatory nature of the policy, as the policy itself is a violation of the prohibited bases of discrimination.

Takeaway: Housing providers are strictly prohibited from requiring medical documentation or ‘independent living’ certifications as a condition of tenancy for individuals with disabilities, regardless of safety or emergency justifications.

Correct: Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing (AFHM) requires housing providers to take proactive steps to reach those demographic groups who are ‘least likely to apply’ for the housing without special outreach. This involves identifying underrepresented groups based on a comparison of the project’s census tract and the broader housing market area, then targeting those groups through specific community organizations, houses of worship, and minority-focused media outlets.

Incorrect: Implementing a residency preference is often discouraged in this context because it can reinforce existing patterns of segregation and limit access for the very groups the affirmative marketing plan is intended to reach. Increasing general advertising frequency does not meet the ‘affirmative’ requirement, as it does not specifically target underrepresented populations. Utilizing a chronological waiting list is a tenant selection method, but it does not address the underlying failure to attract a diverse pool of applicants through outreach.

Takeaway: Affirmative marketing necessitates targeted outreach to demographic groups least likely to apply to ensure fair and equal access to housing opportunities.