HUD

In 1994, GAO designated the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a high-risk area because of deficiencies that made it vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. These deficiencies were an ineffective organizational structure, insufficient staff skills, inadequate information and financial management systems, and weak internal controls. Since then, HUD has begun to (1) redesign its field structure, (2) increase its training efforts, (3) improve and integrate its management information systems, and (4) implement a new management approach that balances risks with results. In preparing its February 1997 high-risk series, GAO conducted a telephone survey of 155 directors in four of HUD's major program areas--single-family housing, multifamily housing, public housing, and community planning and development--at the agency's 40 largest field offices. This report discusses the directors' views on the corrective measures HUD has undertaken during the past two years.

GAO found that its survey showed: (1) most field directors considered HUD's field office reorganization, completed in September 1995, an overall success, but there were differences of opinion among the directors and program areas concerning HUD's success in meeting certain reorganization goals; (2) a majority of the directors said that: (a) they were satisfied with the skills of their staffs and that staff training had increased over the last 2 years; (b) training needed to be further increased in all areas; and (c) they did not have enough staff members to effectively administer their programs; (3) the satisfaction with information and financial management systems differed by program area; (4) almost three-quarters of the community planning and development and public housing directors were satisfied with their systems, whereas only one-third of the multifamily housing directors were satisfied; and (5) although a majority of the directors rated HUD's overall internal control system as good or excellent, a substantial number said that their systems were only fair or poor for certain activities, such as ensuring data reliability and compliance with laws and regulations, and HUD's programs have not received adequate monitoring.