This scenario is easy to imagine, but it raises several important questions related to termination and due process.
Was this situation a “most severe case”? HOPWA regulations allow for termination for program violations, but only in the
“most severe of cases.” Is failure to respond to recertification requests on par with, say, engaging in illegal activity in their unit
or damaging property? Maybe not, but failure to respond to recertification requests can lead to termination by a
public housing authority for a household receiving Housing Choice Voucher assistance. The landlord has had no problems with the family
and would like to renew the lease. Were supportive services offered to the family to avoid this outcome? This is also required
by HOPWA regulations before a termination can occur. The scenario doesn’t really tell us if supportive services have been consistently
offered to this family, especially in connection with this situation. The family has lived in the unit for a few years with no incident.
If they had not heard from a case manager in a long while apart from this recertification request, should it make a difference in proceeding
with a termination? Is the lack of a written agreement with the family that outlined the terms and conditions of their receipt of rental
assistance - including the requirement to periodically recertify income - a problem? The Finn family has a lease with the landlord,
but they don’t have any type of signed agreement with Project Hope that outlines the terms of their receiving HOPWA TBRA assistance.
Like the standard Housing Assistance Payment agreements that housing authorities use with HCVP participants, grantees
and sponsors should have a document that outlines a participant’s rights and responsibilities - including requirements around recertification -
and clearly states conditions that might lead to the termination of assistance. Is the lack of a written termination process a problem?
Any grantee or sponsor who provides HOPWA assistance should have a written termination process that meets the minimum standards
described in the HOPWA regulations. Given that the grounds for terminating the Finn family were unclear, that there was
no due process policy in place, that there were otherwise no problems with this household, and that a full due process had
not been given to the Finns, this agency will probably need to retract their termination and go back to the beginning with this family,
starting with the development of written policies and procedures and providing them to the family.