Welcome to _{REAC GURU}

_{So - the question has been asked:}

"Considering the difference between their jobs and objectives, WHY would anyone consciously train the Property Rep to IGNORE the scoring value of REAC deficiencies?"

The immediate, obvious answer is, as it so often is:

                                                        "Because that's the way we've always done it."

In other words, you've never been aware that there was a better way to train people for the job of achieving high levels of compliance with the UPCS, or that high compliance actually just means achieving a high numerical score.  Perhaps you were aware that there SHOULD be a better way of training, but it has simply never existed. 

To the Property Owner and Manager, the Most Important Thing is the Final Inspection SCORE

It follows that the Property Rep's job requires having (and UTILIZING) a sophisticated understanding of the scoring system in order to establish priorities that are expressed within that scoring system.  On other words, the Property Rep should  base preparation for the inspection on the scoring impact of the various Inspectable Areas, Inspectable Items, Deficiencies, and Levels of Severity built into and defined by the inspection protocol.

 There are those who would argue that simply striving to achieve a high score - and that using a sophisticated understanding of the scoring system to do so - is somehow "cheating" or "gaming the system."  We think that the answer to this argument is, "If the system is designed to ultimately return a numerical score, and if the property's fate is dependent on that score, then the property's objective is to achieve a high score."

Preparing for the REAC Inspection without Understanding the Scoring System is Much Like Playing Poker, Without Knowing the Rules of the Game

To say that basing property management decisions on the scoring system is cheating is like saying that simply knowing the relative values of a pair of jacks vs. a full house is "cheating at cards."

To claim that working primarily toward a high score is somehow "missing the point" or that simply working to achieve a high score is somehow "dishonest" is to say that the entire basis of the evaluation is arbitrary.  If "failure" can be defined for regulatory purposes as having a score below a certain threshold, then "success" is having a score above that threshold.

So, why has HUD/REAC never published a clear guide to the Scoring System. so we can gain a sophisticated understanding of the system, and utilize it to achieve compliance according to the numbers?

Back - Next - Sign Me Up