Public Housing
HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement
Gao ID: GAO-03-91 November 15, 2002
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requested that we review the HOPE VI program. Because of the scope of the request, we agreed with the office of the Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, to provide the information in a series of reports. This first report focuses on the financing of HOPE VI developments. We describe the extent to which grantees have (1) leveraged funds from other sources, particularly other federal sources; (2) leveraged funds specifically for community and supportive services; and (3) complied with HUD's funding limits for developing public housing units and budgeted additional funds not subject to these limits. Because the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 requires HUD to report HOPE VI cost information to Congress, we also discuss the extent to which HUD has complied with this requirement.
Housing authorities expect to leverage, for every dollar received in HOPE VI revitalization grants awarded through fiscal year 2001, an additional $1.85 in funds from other sources. HUD considers this amount to be slightly higher because it treats as "leveraged" both (1) HOPE VI grant funds competitively awarded for the demolition of public housing units and (2) other public housing capital funds that the housing authorities would receive even in the absence of the revitalization grants. Our analysis of the mixed-finance proposals HUD approved through fiscal year 2001 indicates that, when low-income housing tax credit funding is included, 79 percent of the budgeted funds are from federal sources. The remainder of budgeted funds are from nonfederal sources, including private sources and state and local governments. Housing authorities that have received revitalization grants expect to leverage $295 million in additional funds for community and supportive services and have budgeted a total of about $714 million in HOPE VI revitalization grant funds and leveraged funds for community and supportive services. Leveraging for community and supportive services increased dramatically after 1997, when HUD instituted incentives to encourage this practice--from 22 percent in FY 1997 to 59 percent in FY 2001. Housing authorities have complied with HUD's total development cost policy when developing public housing units at HOPE VI sites. However, housing authorities have often budgeted additional funds that are not subject to the funding limits in the policy. HUD's policy applies only to the use of public housing funds, and it excludes some costs from counting against the limits. Although HUD has been required to report leveraging and cost information to Congress annually since 1998, it has not done so. Section 535 of the act requires HUD to submit an annual report to Congress on the HOPE VI program. This annual report is to include the cost of public housing units revitalized under the program and the amount and type of financial assistance provided under and in conjunction with the program. HUD has not issued these required annual reports to Congress. However, in June 2002, HUD submitted a report to the House and Senate appropriation committees as directed by House Conference Report 107-272. This report includes some of the information required in the annual report, such as the extent of leveraging. However, neither HUD's most recent budget justification nor its most recent performance and accountability report contains detailed information on the amount of leveraged funds or the cost of public housing units revitalized under the HOPE VI program.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-03-91, Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-91
entitled 'Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has
Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement' which was released on December
03, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
November 2002:
PUBLIC HOUSING:
HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not Met Annual Reporting
Requirement:
HOPE VI Financing:
GAO-03-91:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Housing Authorities Are Leveraging Additional Funds:
Leveraged Funds Comprise an Increasing Percentage of Funds Budgeted for
Community and Supportive Services:
Housing Authorities Have Complied with HUD‘s Funding Limits and
Budgeted Additional Funds Not Subject to These Limits:
HUD Has Not Complied with the Annual Reporting Requirement:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Examples of HOPE VI Funding Sources:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Oaks at Durkeeville, Jacksonville, Florida:
Figure 2: Projected Amount Leveraged with HOPE VI Grant Funds (with
Trend Line):
Figure 3: HUD Data on Budgeted Funding Sources:
Figure 4: Funds Budgeted in Approved Mixed-Finance Proposals:
Figure 5: Funds Budgeted for Community and Supportive Services:
Figure 6: Percentage of Total Funds Budgeted for Community and
Supportive Services That Are Leveraged:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 15, 2002:
The Honorable Jack Reed
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Housing and Transportation
Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
For years, some of the nation‘s public housing sites have exemplified
urban decay and substandard living conditions. In an effort to address
these longstanding problems in a new way, the Congress, in October
1992, established the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program,
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The program, commonly known as HOPE VI, provides grants to public
housing authorities to replace severely distressed public housing units
with attractive, economically viable communities that often combine
public housing with other affordable or market-priced housing units
(see fig. 1). Through fiscal year 2001, the Congress appropriated
almost $5 billion for the HOPE VI program, and HUD used the majority of
this funding to award 165 revitalization grants to 98 public housing
authorities.
Figure 1: The Oaks at Durkeeville, Jacksonville, Florida:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: Printed with the permission of the Jacksonville Housing
Authority.
[End of Figure]
To increase the number of affordable housing units developed at HOPE VI
sites, HUD encouraged housing authorities to use their HOPE VI grants
to attract, or leverage, funding from other sources, including other
federal, state, local, and private-sector sources. In our July 1998
report on the program, we found that financial leveraging had increased
over time and that this trend was expected to continue.[Footnote 1]
Housing authorities that received revitalization grants in fiscal years
1993 through 2001 estimate that they will be able to obtain an
additional $9 billion in public and private funds for their HOPE VI
sites. Projects funded with a combination of public and private funds
are known as mixed-finance projects.
The HOPE VI program is also intended to improve the lives of public
housing residents through community and supportive services, such as
childcare, transportation, job training, job placement and retention
services, and parenting classes. Although HUD, as required by law,
limits the portion of HOPE VI grant funds that grantees may spend for
these services, it encourages housing authorities to leverage
additional funds that are not subject to HUD‘s limits.
As required by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998
(the Act), HUD adopted a revised total development cost policy in 1999.
This policy, as specified by the Act, limits the amount of public
housing funds, including HOPE VI funds, that housing authorities may
spend to construct a public housing unit.[Footnote 2] This per-unit
limit, which does not apply to leveraged funds, is equal to an amount
that HUD has determined is adequate to develop a unit of good and sound
quality. The Act also requires HUD to report annually to the Congress
on the costs of public housing units revitalized at HOPE VI sites.
You requested that we comprehensively review the HOPE VI program.
Because of the scope of the request, we agreed with your office to
provide the information in a series of reports. This first report
focuses on the financing of HOPE VI developments. Specifically, as
agreed with your office, we describe the extent to which grantees have
(1) leveraged funds from other sources, particularly other federal
sources; (2) leveraged funds specifically for community and supportive
services; and (3) complied with HUD‘s funding limits for developing
public housing units and budgeted additional funds not subject to these
limits. Because the Act requires HUD to report HOPE VI cost information
to the Congress, we also discuss the extent to which HUD has complied
with this requirement.
To address these objectives, we obtained and analyzed funding
information from HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system. This system contains
information on all the revitalization grants awarded through fiscal
year 2001, including projected budgets and funding sources. To assess
the reliability of this projected funding data, we reviewed information
about the system and performed electronic testing to detect obvious
errors in completeness and reasonableness. We also reviewed all the
mixed-finance proposals approved through fiscal year 2001. (Grantees
submit mixed-finance proposals, which include information on the
sources and uses of funds, when they are ready to proceed with a mixed-
finance phase of development.) In addition, we interviewed the HUD
headquarters officials responsible for administering the program. We
performed our work from November 2001 through September 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix I provides additional details on our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
According to our analysis of HUD data, housing authorities expect to
leverage, for every dollar received in HOPE VI revitalization grants
awarded through fiscal year 2001, an additional $1.85 in funds from
other sources. However, HUD considers the amount of leveraging to be
slightly higher because it treats as ’leveraged“ both (1) HOPE VI grant
funds competitively awarded for the demolition of public housing units
and (2) other public housing capital funds that the housing authorities
would receive even in the absence of the revitalization grants. HUD
data also indicate that 46 percent of all resources budgeted for HOPE
VI sites are from federal sources. However, HUD does not treat funds
that grantees receive through low-income housing tax credits as federal
funds. These credits--which provide tax incentives for private
investment in the development and rehabilitation of housing for low-
income households--represent forgone federal income and, therefore, are
a direct cost to the federal government. Our analysis of the mixed-
finance proposals HUD approved through fiscal year 2001 indicates that,
when low-income housing tax credit funding is included, 79 percent of
the budgeted funds are from federal sources. The remaining 21 percent
of budgeted funds are from nonfederal sources, including private
sources (12 percent) and state and local governments (9 percent).
Housing authorities that have received revitalization grants expect to
leverage $295 million in additional funds for community and supportive
services. The majority of these leveraged funds are anticipated by
authorities that received grants in recent fiscal years (1999 through
2001). Overall, housing authorities have budgeted a total of about $714
million in HOPE VI revitalization grant funds and leveraged funds for
community and supportive services. Leveraging for community and
supportive services increased dramatically after 1997, when HUD
instituted incentives to encourage this practice. Specifically, 22
percent of the total funds budgeted by fiscal year 1997 grantees for
community and supportive services consisted of leveraged funds, while
59 percent of the total funds budgeted by fiscal year 2001 grantees
consisted of leveraged funds.
Our review of HUD-approved mixed-finance proposals shows that housing
authorities have complied with HUD‘s total development cost policy when
developing public housing units at HOPE VI sites. However, housing
authorities have often budgeted additional funds that are not subject
to the funding limits in the policy. As specified in the Quality
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, HUD‘s policy applies only
to the use of public housing funds, and it excludes some costs from
counting against the limits, such as those incurred for removing or
replacing extensive underground utility systems or constructing
extensive street and other public improvements. For the mixed-finance
proposals we reviewed, the average amount of public housing funds
budgeted per public housing unit on costs subject to HUD‘s funding
limits was $98,097. The average amount of total funds budgeted per unit
was $171,541.
Although HUD has been required to report leveraging and cost
information to the Congress annually since 1998, it has not done so.
Section 535 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998
requires HUD to submit an annual report to the Congress on the HOPE VI
program. The Act provides that this annual report is to include, among
other things, the cost of public housing units revitalized under the
program and the amount and type of financial assistance provided under
and in conjunction with the program. HUD has not issued these required
annual reports to the Congress. However, in June 2002, HUD submitted a
report to the House and Senate appropriation committees as directed by
House Conference Report 107-272. This report includes some of the
information required in the annual report, such as the extent of
leveraging. According to HUD officials, they have also provided program
information to the Congress through budget documents, the agency‘s
annual performance and accountability reports, and testimonies by HUD
officials. However, neither HUD‘s most recent budget justification nor
its most recent performance and accountability report contains detailed
information on the amount of leveraged funds or the cost of public
housing units revitalized under the HOPE VI program. To enable the
Congress to better determine the program‘s cost to the federal
government and assess its cost effectiveness, we are recommending that
HUD provide the annual reports on the HOPE VI program to the Congress
as required by the Act. HUD agreed with our recommendation and plans to
submit an annual report for fiscal year 2002.
Background:
In 1989, the Congress established the National Commission on Severely
Distressed Public Housing (the Commission) to explore the factors
contributing to structural, economic, and social distress in public
housing; identify strategies for remediation; and propose a national
action plan to eradicate distressed conditions by the year 2000. In
1992, the Commission reported that approximately 86,000, or 6 percent,
of the nation‘s public housing units were severely distressed.
According to the Commission, these units qualified as severely
distressed because of their physical deterioration and uninhabitable
living conditions; high levels of poverty; inadequate and fragmented
services; institutional abandonment; and location in neighborhoods
often as blighted as the sites themselves. Although the Commission did
not identify specific locations as severely distressed, it recommended
that funds be made available to address distressed conditions, and that
these funds be added to the amounts traditionally appropriated for
modernizing public housing. The Commission also encouraged the
development of supportive services for residents in distressed housing
developments.
In response to the Commission‘s report, Congress established the Urban
Revitalization Demonstration Program, more commonly known as HOPE VI,
at HUD. By providing funds for a combination of capital improvements
and community and supportive services, the program seeks to (1) improve
the living environment for public housing residents of severely
distressed public housing through the demolition, rehabilitation,
reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete public housing; (2)
revitalize sites on which such public housing is located, and
contribute to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood; (3)
provide housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very
low-income families; and (4) build sustainable communities. To achieve
these objectives, the program provides demolition and revitalization
grants to public housing authorities (PHA). Demolition grants fund the
demolition of distressed public housing, the relocation of residents
affected by the demolition, and the implementation of supportive
services for permanently relocated residents. Revitalization grants
fund, among other things, the capital costs of major rehabilitation,
new construction, and other physical improvements; demolition of
severely distressed housing; and community and supportive service
programs for residents, including those relocated as a result of
revitalization efforts. Through fiscal year 2001, HUD had awarded 177
demolition grants totaling approximately $293 million and 165
revitalization grants totaling about $4.5 billion.
According to HUD, HOPE VI started as an embellished modernization
program but has evolved into a comprehensive and complex transformation
in how housing authorities provide affordable housing to low-income
families. A significant stage in that evolution was the issuance of the
Mixed-Finance Rule in 1996.[Footnote 3] Under this rule, for the first
time PHAs were allowed to use public housing funds designated for
capital improvements, including HOPE VI funds, to leverage other public
and private investment to develop public housing units. The rule also
permitted PHAs to provide public housing capital funds to a third party
so that the third party could develop public housing units. The third
party would then own the resulting public housing units and could
receive capital or operating assistance for the units from HUD through
the PHA. HUD emphasizes that this mixed-finance approach to public
housing development is the single most important development tool
currently available to PHAs. The approach encourages the formation of
new public and private partnerships to ensure the long-term
sustainability of the public housing development and surrounding
community. The mixed-finance approach can produce developments that
include both public housing and nonpublic housing units, such as low-
income housing tax credit units or market rate units.
Mixed-finance HOPE VI projects are often undertaken in development
phases. A housing authority may not begin a phase to be financed with a
combination of public and private funds until it has submitted, and HUD
has approved, a mixed-finance proposal for that phase. The mixed-
finance proposal presents the fundamental information that HUD needs to
evaluate a mixed-finance phase. For example, it contains basic
descriptive information such as the number and types of units planned,
the development schedule, the sources and uses of funding, and the
operating budget for the phase. Because of the time that is needed to
plan HOPE VI projects and develop specific proposals, most of the
proposals that HUD approved through fiscal year 2001 were funded with
revitalization grants awarded several years earlier.
PHAs with revitalization grants can use a variety of other public and
private funds to develop their HOPE VI sites. Public funding can come
from federal, state, and local sources. For example, PHAs can use
federal resources HUD has already awarded for capital improvements at
public housing developments. These capital funds can be used for a
variety of purposes, including the development, financing, and
modernization of public housing and the replacement of obsolete utility
systems and dwelling equipment. PHAs can also use funds raised through
federal low-income housing tax credits. Under this program, states are
authorized to allocate federal tax credits as an incentive to the
private sector to develop rental housing for low-income households.
After the state allocates tax credits to developers, the developers
typically offer the credits to private investors. The private investors
use the tax credits to offset taxes otherwise owed on their tax
returns. The money private investors pay for the credits is paid into
the projects as equity financing. In addition, PHAs may obtain some of
the funding needed for infrastructure and public improvements from
state and local governments. Private sources can include private
mortgage financing and financial or in-kind contributions from
nonprofit organizations. See appendix II for more information on the
types of funds that may be invested at HOPE VI sites.
Housing Authorities Are Leveraging Additional Funds:
According to our analysis of HUD data, housing authorities expect to
leverage, for every dollar received in HOPE VI revitalization grants
awarded through fiscal year 2001, an additional $1.85 in funds from
other sources. Our figure is slightly lower than the $2.07 that HUD
considers to be the projected amount leveraged per HOPE VI dollar
because, unlike HUD, we do not consider funds such as HOPE VI
demolition grants to be leveraged funds. Also, HUD data indicate that,
of the total funds that housing authorities with revitalization grants
have budgeted for their HOPE VI sites, 46 percent come from federal
sources. However, this percentage does not include funds that grantees
receive through low-income housing tax credits, which are a direct cost
to the federal government. Our analysis of all mixed-finance proposals
HUD approved through fiscal year 2001 indicates that 79 percent of the
budgeted funds came from federal sources, when low-income housing tax
credit funding was included.
Leveraging Has Increased over the Life of the HOPE VI Program:
Our analysis of data in HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system shows that
housing authorities that received HOPE VI revitalization grants in
fiscal years 1993 to 2001 expect to leverage an additional $1.85 for
every HOPE VI dollar received.[Footnote 4] However, HUD considers the
amount of leveraging to be an additional $2.07 for every HOPE VI dollar
received because it includes other HUD-provided public housing funds as
leveraged funds. In total, $964 million in public housing funds have
been budgeted for HOPE VI sites. The $964 million includes capital
funds and $150 million in HOPE VI demolition grant funds. Grantees
would have received the capital funds regardless of whether they
received a HOPE VI revitalization grant, and the demolition grants are
another category of HOPE VI funds. When the $964 million in public
housing funds are not included as leveraged funds, the overall
projected leveraging per HOPE VI dollar is reduced from $2.07 to $1.85.
Even when public housing funds are excluded from leveraged funds, our
analysis of HUD data shows that leveraging has increased over the life
of the HOPE VI program. According to HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system,
housing authorities that received a revitalization grant in fiscal year
1993 expected to raise an additional $0.58 (excluding public housing
funds) for every HOPE VI grant dollar awarded to them. By fiscal year
2001, housing authorities expected to augment every HOPE VI
revitalization grant dollar awarded to them with an additional $2.63
from other sources (excluding public housing funds). Though mixed-
finance development was not an official option for housing authorities
until 1996, housing authorities were permitted, prior to 1996, to use a
mix of public funds to redevelop distressed public housing sites.
According to HUD officials, the amounts leveraged by housing
authorities should increase over time, as potential investors become
more familiar with the HOPE VI program and housing authorities become
more sophisticated in seeking and securing other sources of funds.
Figure 2 shows that amounts leveraged by housing authorities have
generally increased over time.
Figure 2: Projected Amount Leveraged with HOPE VI Grant Funds (with
Trend Line):
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of data from HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system (as of
June 30, 2002).
[End of Figure]
Most Leveraged Funds Come from Federal Sources:
Our analysis of the mixed-finance proposals that HUD approved through
fiscal year 2001 shows that 79 percent of the funding comes from
federal sources. However, HUD‘s data shows that 46 percent of all
resources budgeted for HOPE VI sites come from the federal government.
HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system contains funding projections for all
revitalization grants awarded through fiscal year 2001. As shown in
figure 3, the reporting system divides budgeted resources into four
categories, as follows:
* HOPE VI funds--HOPE VI revitalization grant funds awarded to a
housing authority;
* other public housing funds--other HOPE VI funding, such as demolition
grants, and resources HUD allocates to housing authorities, such as
capital funds;
* other federal funds--all other federal sources of funding; and:
* nonfederal funds--funds from state and local governments, private
funds, and equity raised from low-income housing tax credits.
The sale of low-income housing tax credits to investors generates
private capital to acquire, construct, or rehabilitate housing targeted
to households earning less than 60 percent of median income; therefore,
HUD defines the funds generated as private funds. However, tax credits
represent forgone federal income and, therefore, are a direct cost to
the federal government. Our reports have consistently described low-
income housing tax credits as federal housing assistance.[Footnote 5]
Figure 3: HUD Data on Budgeted Funding Sources:
[See PDF for Image]
Note: Numbers do not add because of rounding.
[End of Figure]
Source: GAO analysis of data from HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system (as of
June 30, 2002).
Because housing authorities do not have to report individually each
source included in the nonfederal funding category, we could not use
the data in HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system to determine the specific
amounts raised through low-income housing tax credits. In order to
distinguish low-income housing tax credit funds from nonfederal funds,
we examined 85 mixed-finance proposals that HUD had approved through
the end of fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 6] These proposals list all of
the funding sources and amounts separately. As shown in figure 4, our
analysis shows that 79 percent of all the budgeted funds come from
federal sources--HOPE VI funds, other public housing funds, and other
federal funds, including equity raised from low-income housing tax
credits. Equity raised from low-income housing tax credits made up 27
percent of total budgeted sources.[Footnote 7] Nonfederal funds
comprised 21 percent of all budgeted resources--12 percent from private
sources and 9 percent from state and local sources.
Figure 4: Funds Budgeted in Approved Mixed-Finance Proposals:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of 85 mixed-finance proposals approved through
fiscal year 2001.
[End of Figure]
Leveraged Funds Comprise an Increasing Percentage of Funds Budgeted for
Community and Supportive Services:
Overall, housing authorities that received revitalization grants in
fiscal years 1993 to 2001 have budgeted a total of about $714 million
for community and supportive services--$418 million in HOPE VI funds
(59 percent) and $295 million (41 percent) in leveraged funds.[Footnote
8] The $418 million in HOPE VI funds accounts for 9 percent of total
revitalization grant funds awarded. HUD‘s annual notice of funding
availability--which sets forth the program‘s current requirements and
available funds--sets a limit on the amount of grant funds that housing
authorities can spend on supportive services. All of the notices since
1999 have included incentives that encourage housing authorities to
leverage additional funds for supportive services. There is no cap on
the amount of leveraged funds that housing authorities can spend on
supportive services. Housing authorities are encouraged to obtain in-
kind, financial, and other types of resources necessary to carry out
and sustain supportive service activities from organizations such as
local Boards of Education, public libraries, private foundations,
nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and economic
development agencies. As shown in figure 5, the amount of funds set
aside by each year‘s grantees for supportive services has varied over
the life of the program.
Figure 5: Funds Budgeted for Community and Supportive Services:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of data from HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system (as of
June 30, 2002).
[End of Figure]
Although the majority of funds budgeted overall for supportive services
are HOPE VI funds, the amount of non-HOPE VI funds budgeted for
supportive services has increased dramatically since the program‘s
inception. As shown in figure 6, the percentage of total supportive
services funding made up of leveraged funds jumped significantly after
1997. Specifically, while 22 percent of the total funds budgeted for
supportive services by fiscal year 1997 grantees consisted of leveraged
funds, 59 percent of the total funds budgeted by fiscal year 2001
grantees consisted of leveraged funds. This increase may be
attributable, in part, to the fact that, starting in fiscal year 1998,
HUD began to consider the leveraging of additional resources (for
physical improvements and supportive services) as one of its criteria
for evaluating grant applications. Since 1999, HUD has specifically
considered the extent to which PHAs have leveraged funds for supportive
services.
Figure 6: Percentage of Total Funds Budgeted for Community and
Supportive Services That Are Leveraged:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of data from HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system (as of
June 30, 2002).
[End of Figure]
Housing Authorities Have Complied with HUD‘s Funding Limits and
Budgeted Additional Funds Not Subject to These Limits:
Housing authorities have complied with HUD‘s limits on the amounts of
public housing funds that may be used to develop public housing units
at HOPE VI sites. They have also budgeted funds from other sources that
are not subject to these limits. As required by the Quality Housing and
Work Responsibility Act of 1998, HUD adopted a revised total
development cost policy in 1999.[Footnote 9] This policy, as specified
in the Act, limits the amount of public housing funds, including HOPE
VI funds, that housing authorities can spend to construct public
housing units. These funding limits are the amounts that HUD has
determined are adequate to develop units of good and sound quality. As
mandated in the Act, some demolition, site remediation, and
extraordinary site costs--costs that HUD has determined are not purely
development-related costs--are excluded. Specifically, demolition and
site remediation costs are prorated with respect to the number of new
public housing units being developed on the site. For example, if a PHA
is planning to demolish 300 public housing units and to put 100 new
public housing units back on the site, it has to consider only one-
third of the demolition and remediation costs when comparing public
housing development costs with the funding limit. Extraordinary site
costs--such as removal or replacement of extensive underground utility
systems, construction of extensive street and other public
improvements, and dealing with flood plains--are also excluded. An
independent engineer must verify extraordinary site costs. Our analysis
of 77 (out of 87) approved mixed-finance proposals shows that housing
authorities have complied with HUD‘s cost policy.[Footnote 10]
The actual costs of developing units at HOPE VI sites are often higher
than the public housing funds budgeted for developing public housing
units.[Footnote 11] In the 64 mixed-finance proposals for which there
was sufficient detailed information to perform our analysis, $525
million in public housing funds, including HOPE VI funds, were subject
to HUD‘s established funding limits.[Footnote 12] However, total funds
of $1.3 billion were approved in the mixed-finance proposals.
Therefore, the average amount of public housing funds (including HOPE
VI funds, capital funds, and other public housing development funds)
budgeted per public housing unit subject to HUD‘s funding limits was
$98,097, while the average amount of total funds budgeted per unit was
$171,541.[Footnote 13]
HUD Has Not Complied with the Annual Reporting Requirement:
HUD has been required to report leveraging and cost information
annually to the Congress since 1998; however, it has not done so.
Section 535 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998
requires HUD to submit an annual report to the Congress on the HOPE VI
program. As provided by the Act, this annual report is to include,
among other things, the cost of public housing units revitalized under
the program and the amount and type of financial assistance provided
under and in conjunction with the program.
Agency officials in charge of the HOPE VI program acknowledge that HUD
has not issued the annual reports to the Congress required under the
Act. They noted that they have provided program information through
other means. In June 2002, HUD submitted a report to the House and
Senate appropriation committees as directed by House Conference Report
107-272. This report discusses best practices and lessons learned in
the HOPE VI program between 1992 and 2002. It also includes some of the
information required in the annual report, such as the extent of
leveraging.
HOPE VI officials also noted that they have provided information to the
Congress through other means that the agency has deemed appropriate,
such as budget documents, the agency‘s performance and accountability
reports, and testimonies by HUD officials. However, neither HUD‘s most
recent budget justification nor its most recent performance and
accountability report contains detailed information on leveraging or
the cost of public housing units developed under the HOPE VI program.
Although HUD‘s fiscal year 2003 budget justification provides
information on the amount of outside funds leveraged by HOPE VI funds,
it does not describe the sources of these funds or provide cost
information. Further, HUD‘s fiscal year 2001 performance and
accountability report focuses on four key outputs of the HOPE VI
program: families relocated, units demolished, new and rehabilitated
units completed, and units occupied. The report does not provide
information on HOPE VI leveraging or the cost of units developed under
the program. Agency officials responsible for administering HOPE VI
agreed that preparing the annual report as required under the Act would
help provide the Congress and other interested stakeholders with useful
information with which to assess the cost effectiveness and results of
the program.
Conclusions:
The Congress faces difficult choices when deciding how to provide
affordable housing. One of the objectives of the HOPE VI program is to
leverage program funds, and such leveraging has increased over the life
of the HOPE VI program--albeit primarily from other federal sources.
However, HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system does not identify funds that
housing authorities obtain specifically from low-income housing tax
credits, which are a direct cost to the federal government, as federal
funds. Furthermore, applying HUD‘s total development cost policy does
not provide a comprehensive picture of the actual costs of developing
units at HOPE VI sites. This policy, which HUD established in
accordance with the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of
1998, was not intended to determine the actual cost of development at
HOPE VI sites. Instead, it is designed to determine cost limits for the
development of public housing with public housing funds. The type of
data that HUD is required to report annually to the Congress would
provide information needed to evaluate the program‘s cost to the
federal government and its cost effectiveness.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
provide annual reports on the HOPE VI program to the Congress as
required by law and include in these annual reports, among other
things, information on:
* the amounts and sources of funding used at HOPE VI sites, including
equity raised from low-income housing tax credits, and:
* the total cost of developing public housing units at HOPE VI sites,
including the costs of items subject to HUD‘s development cost limits
and those that are not.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its review and comment.
In a letter from the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing
(see app. III), HUD stated that it found the report to be fair and
accurate in its assessment of HOPE VI financing. HUD also agreed with
our recommendation to submit annual reports and noted that it plans to
submit an annual report for fiscal year 2002 by December 31, 2002.
According to the agency, the fiscal year 2002 report will include the
amounts and sources of funding used at HOPE VI sites, including equity
raised by low-income housing tax credits categorized as private
sources, and the total cost of developing public housing units at HOPE
VI sites. HUD also provided clarifications on several technical points,
which have been included in the report as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days
after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of
this report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and
Ranking Minority Member; Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity, House Committee on Financial Services; and the Chairman
and Vice Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services. We will also
send copies to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies
available to others upon request. This letter will also be available at
no charge on GAO‘s home page at http://www.gao.gov.
Please call me at (202) 512-8678 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Key contributors to this report are listed
in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
David G. Wood
Director, Financial Markets and
Community Investment:
Signed by David G. Wood:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to describe the extent to which housing authorities
with HOPE VI revitalization grants have (1) leveraged funds from other
sources, particularly other federal sources; (2) leveraged funds
specifically for community and supportive services; and (3) complied
with HUD‘s funding limits for developing public housing units and
budgeted additional funds not subject to these limits. We also
determined the extent to which HUD has reported cost information to the
Congress.
To determine the extent to which grantees have leveraged federal and
nonfederal funds, we analyzed data from HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system
and reviewed all mixed-finance proposals approved through September 30,
2001. Specifically, we obtained data as of the quarter that ended June
30, 2002, for all 165 revitalization grants awarded through fiscal year
2001. We used this data to determine the projected amount of funds
leveraged per HOPE VI dollar. In addition, we analyzed HUD‘s data to
determine the percentage of total funding that grantees expect to
derive from HOPE VI revitalization grants, other public housing funds,
other federal funds, and nonfederal funds. To assess the reliability of
HUD‘s data, we reviewed information about the system and performed
electronic testing to detect obvious errors in completeness and
reasonableness. To determine the federal and nonfederal funds actually
obtained by grantees, we requested excerpts from all of the mixed-
finance proposals approved through the end of fiscal year 2001. For
example, we requested the budget that shows the sources and uses of
funds and the total development cost limit analysis. Although HUD
reported that it had approved 87 mixed-finance proposals through
September 30, 2001, it was able to provide the documentation we needed
to analyze funding sources only for 85 proposals. The two remaining
proposals lacked sufficient budget information for us to perform our
analysis. The 85 mixed-finance proposals we reviewed were for phases to
be constructed under 48 different revitalization grants and represented
13 percent of all funds budgeted through June 30, 2002, and 16 percent
of all revitalization grant funds budgeted over the life of the
program. To gain an understanding of the mixed-finance development
approach, we interviewed headquarters officials in HUD‘s Office of
Public Housing Investments and reviewed HUD‘s Mixed-Finance Guidebook.
To determine the extent to which grantees have budgeted leveraged funds
specifically for community and supportive services, we analyzed
financial data from HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system reported as of June
30, 2002. Specifically, we used this data to identify the amounts of
HOPE VI revitalization funds and leveraged funds budgeted for
supportive services overall and by grant year. We also used this data
to determine the proportion of HOPE VI funds budgeted for supportive
services relative to the total amount of HOPE VI revitalization grant
funds awarded. Moreover, we used this data to identify trends in the
use of leveraged funds for supportive services. To determine why the
use of leveraging increased after 1997, we interviewed headquarters
officials in HUD‘s Office of Public Housing Investments and reviewed
HUD‘s guidance to grantees and the notices of funding availability for
fiscal years 1993 through 2001.
To determine the extent to which grantees have complied with HUD‘s
funding limits for developing public housing units and have budgeted
additional funds not subject to these limits, we reviewed HUD‘s total
development cost policy and established what costs are subject to the
policy and what costs are excluded. We then analyzed all 87 mixed-
finance proposals approved through fiscal year 2001 to determine if
they complied with HUD‘s cost policy. We were not able to determine
compliance for 10 of the 87 proposals because the documentation
provided did not contain the level of detail required. In order to
compare the per-unit cost of a public housing unit according to HUD‘s
cost policy with the actual cost of developing the unit, we again
analyzed the mixed-finance proposals. For 64 of the 87 mixed-finance
proposals, we determined the per-unit cost of a public housing unit
according to HUD‘s cost policy, which includes only public housing
funds and excludes certain costs. For the same 64 proposals, we then
determined the actual per-unit cost by dividing the total funds
budgeted by the total number of units. We were not able to perform
these analyses for 23 of the 87 proposals because the Office of Public
Housing Investments could not provide the detailed total development
cost limit analysis needed. For example, in some cases, the office was
able to provide only the information necessary to calculate the per-
unit cost of a public housing unit for an entire HOPE VI project, as
opposed to the particular phase for which we had the approved budget.
To determine the extent to which HUD has reported cost information to
the Congress, we reviewed the HOPE VI reporting requirements in the
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. We then
interviewed headquarters officials in HUD‘s Office of Public Housing
Investments to determine the type of program information the Department
has reported to the Congress, and in what format. Finally, we reviewed
HUD‘s fiscal year 2003 budget justification and its fiscal year 2001
performance and accountability report.
We performed our work from November 2001 through September 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Examples of HOPE VI Funding Sources:
Public housing authorities (PHA) with HOPE VI revitalization grants use
funds from a variety of federal and nonfederal sources to develop their
HOPE VI sites. Federal sources include additional public housing funds,
other HUD funds, and low-income housing tax credits. Nonfederal sources
include state and local funds, private donations, and tax-exempt bonds.
Listed below are brief descriptions of some of these funding sources.
Federal sources:
Capital Fund Program (CFP):
Under CFP, HUD provides annual formula grants to PHAs for capital and
management activities, including the development, financing, and
modernization of public housing. The funds may not be used for luxury
improvements, direct social services, costs funded by other HUD
programs, or ineligible activities, as determined by HUD on a case-by-
case basis.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program:
The CDBG funding that HUD provides is split between states and local
jurisdictions called ’entitlement communities.“ Funds are awarded on a
formula basis to entitled metropolitan cities and urban counties.
States distribute the funds to localities that do not qualify as
entitlement communities. CDBG funds can be used to implement a wide
variety of community and economic development activities directed
toward neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and improved
community facilities and services.
Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP):
Under CGP, HUD provided funds, on a formula basis, to help large PHAs
(those with at least 250 units) correct physical, management, and
operating deficiencies and keep units in the housing stock as safe and
desirable homes for low-income families. The Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 shifted CGP into the Capital Fund.
Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP):
Under CIAP, HUD provided competitive grants to help smaller PHAs (those
with fewer than 250 units) to correct physical, management, and
operating deficiencies and keep units in the housing stock as safe and
desirable homes for low-income families. The Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 shifted assistance to smaller PHAs from the
competitive CIAP to a formula grant under the Capital Fund in 1999.
Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits:
Historic rehabilitation tax credits are available to rehabilitate
certified historic structures that will need substantial
rehabilitation. Eligible applicants receive a tax credit equal to 20
percent of the amount of qualified rehabilitation expenditures.
Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME):
Through HOME, HUD provides annual formula grants to states and
localities to fund a wide range of activities designed to build, buy,
or rehabilitate affordable housing or provide direct rental assistance
to low-income people. Specifically, states and localities use HOME
funds for grants, direct loans, loan guarantees or other forms of
credit enhancement, rental assistance, and security deposits.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC):
Under the LIHTC program, states are authorized to issue federal tax
credits for the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of
affordable rental housing. The credits are generally sold to outside
investors to raise development funds for a project. These outside
investors use the tax credit to offset taxes otherwise owed on their
tax returns. To qualify for credits, a project must have a specific
proportion of its units set aside for lower-income households, and the
rents on these units must be limited to 30 percent of qualifying
income. The amount of credit that can be provided to a project is
determined by size of the allocation, eligible costs, number of tax
credit units, type of credit, and investor pricing. Credits are
provided for 10 years. State housing credit agencies usually award tax
credits through competitive rounds. Each state receives an annual
allocation of $1.75 per capita. States must reserve a minimum of 10
percent of the credits for nonprofit developers.
Major Reconstruction of Obsolete Projects (MROP):
Under MROP, which last funded new development in 1994, HUD provided
funds to PHAs to perform major reconstruction of obsolete public
housing or to maintain or expand the supply of housing for low-income
families. Projects formerly funded as MROP are now funded through the
Capital Fund.
Operating Fund:
Through the Operating Fund, HUD provides PHAs with a subsidy, on a
formula basis, to fund the operating and maintenance expenses of the
developments they own or operate. It enables PHAs to keep rents
affordable for lower-income families and to cover a variety of
expenses, including maintenance, utilities, and tenant and protective
services.
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP):
Eligible PHAs received PHDEP grants from HUD to reduce or eliminate
drug-related crime in and around public housing. Grantees were
encouraged to develop a plan that included initiatives that could be
sustained over a period of several years for addressing the problem of
drug-related crime in and around public housing. The program was
eliminated in the fiscal year 2002 HUD budget.
Renewal Community/Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Initiative
(RC/EZ/EC):
In urban areas that HUD has designated as Renewal Communities,
Empowerment Zones, and Enterprise Communities, grants and tax
incentives are provided. They stimulate the creation of new jobs
empowering low-income persons and families receiving public assistance
to become economically self-sufficient, and they promote the
revitalization of economically distressed areas.
Nonfederal sources:
Affordable Housing Program:
The program subsidizes long-term financing for very low-, low-, and
moderate-income families. The Federal Home Loan Banks provide from
their annual net earnings low-cost funding and other credit to
stockholder members on a districtwide competitive basis. Members--which
include commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, and
insurance companies--use this credit to meet the housing finance and
credit needs of their communities.
Housing Trust Funds:
Housing trust funds are distinct funds established by cities, counties,
and states that permanently dedicate a source of public revenue to
support the production and preservation of affordable housing. There
are at least 257 housing trust funds in the United States. Housing
trust funds support a variety of housing activities for low-and very
low-income households, including new construction, preservation of
existing housing, emergency repairs, homeless shelters, housing-
related services, and capacity building for nonprofit organizations.
Private Sources:
Nonprofit and faith-based organizations, developers, private banks and
lending institutions, universities, large corporations, independently
owned businesses, and residents of the HOPE VI projects provide
resources for various purposes. For example, developers may have equity
at risk, and future residents provide down payments on homeownership
units. Universities donate land and assist in developing educational
programs. National corporations provide training and employment for
public housing residents.
State and Local Sources:
State and local governments provide a range of resources, including
capital improvement funds for infrastructure and community facilities
and direct financial contributions or provision of in-kind services.
Some municipalities provide tax-foreclosed properties for
redevelopment, matching funds for community and supportive services,
and assistance with zoning and other local requirements.
Tax-Exempt Bond Financing:
Eligible issuers, such as housing finance agencies and local
governments, sell bonds to investors with interest not subject to
federal income tax and use proceeds to finance below-market rate-
mortgage loans. The lower interest rate on the bond is passed on to
borrowers as a reduced mortgage interest rate. The uses of the proceeds
raised through tax-exempt bond financing include acquisition,
rehabilitation, and construction.
Tax Increment Financing:
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) allows a municipality to provide
financial incentives to stimulate private investment in a designated
area (a TIF district) where blight has made it difficult to attract new
development. The TIF program can be used to support new development or
the rehabilitation of existing buildings in industrial, commercial,
residential, or mixed-use development proposals. Funding for TIF
eligible activities is derived from the increase in incremental tax
revenues generated by new construction or rehabilitation projects
within the boundaries of the TIF district. States determine what
activities are eligible with TIF funds, and these activities may
include land acquisition, site preparation, building rehabilitation,
public improvements, and interest subsidy.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D.C.
20410-5000:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING:
OCT 18 2002:
TO: David Wood, Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment,
U.S. General Accounting Office:
FROM: Michael Liu, Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing:
SUBJECT: Comments on GAO Draft Report, ’Public Housing: HOPE VI
Leveraging Has Increased but HUD Has Not Met Reporting Requirements“
(Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, United States Senate):
HUD respectfully submits the following information for consideration in
the section of the GAO report designated for Agency Comments.
HUD would like to thank the U.S. General Accounting Office for its
thorough and perceptive review of the HOPE VI Program and the
opportunity to respond to this first report addressing the financing
component of the program. In general, we find the report to be fair and
accurate in its assessment of HOPE VI financing and would like to offer
additional comments and information.
We are pleased about GAO‘s conclusion that HOPE VI leveraging has
increased, as this validates the significance HUD has placed
historically on leveraging as a fundamental program component. HUD
regards the significant increases in leverage as a remarkable
achievement, rising from an average leverage of $0.58 in 1993 to $2.63
in 2001. Taking GAO‘s report into consideration, HUD fully intends to
continue emphasizing the importance of leveraging in the success of the
HOPE VI program and working to further increase the amount of funds
leveraged. Specifically, HUD will continue to encourage the use of
equity from low-income housing tax credits as a source of financing. In
addition, HUD plans to emphasize leveraging of resources that are free
from any government support.
In regard to the issue of HOPE VI annual reports, we provide the
following clarifying information. As GAO identified in the report, an
annual report on the HOPE VI program is required under Section 24 of
the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended. The annual report requirement
became law on October 21, 1998. Thus, annual reports should have been
filed for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 (fiscal year 2002 just
ended).
The Conference Report on the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2002, enacted November 26, 2001, directed HUD to
file by June 15, 2002 a report on the lessons learned in HOPE VI,
including best practices, the extent of leveraging and neighborhood
economic development, and the extent to which HOPE VI can be a model
for treatment of the distressed project-based section 8 stock. This
report to Congress was filed on June 14, 2002.
As required by Section 24 of the Act, the annual report is to set forth
the number, type and cost of public housing units revitalized; the
status of projects identified as severely distressed public housing;
the amount and type of financial assistance provided under and in
conjunction with the HOPE VI Program; and the recommendations from HUD
for statutory and regulatory improvements. This information was
provided to Congress in the report submitted on June 14 or previously
through other communications with Congress. Notwithstanding these
points, HUD will compile and submit the fiscal year 2002 annual report
by December 31, 2002.
Based on HUD‘s careful and thorough review of the report, the
submission of HOPE VI annual reports appears as the primary
recommendation. HUD agrees with the recommendation to submit annual
reports, in accordance with the format required by Section 24 of the
Act, and will submit an annual report for FY 2002 by December 31, 2002.
Currently, HUD‘s HOPE VI reporting system does not provide the level of
detail requested by GAO. However, we believe the system data will
provide the information Congress has requested under the law. The:
FY 2002 annual report will include the amounts and sources of funding
used at HOPE VI sites, including equity raised by low-income housing
tax credits categorized as private sources, and the total cost of
developing public housing units at HOPE VI sites.
We look forward to reviewing the ongoing results of your study on the
various components of the HOPE VI program. Again, we thank you for your
diligent and thoughtful review of the program.
Attachment: Attachment 1 - Additional Comments on the GAO Report:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
David Wood, (202) 512-8678
Paul Schmidt, (312) 220-7681:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Anne Dilger, John McGrail, Sara
Moessbauer, Lisa Moore, Ginger Tierney, Paige Smith, Mijo Vodopic,
Carrie Watkins, and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this
report.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
:
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
:
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061
:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
FOOTNOTES
[1] U. S. General Accounting Office, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in
Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing, GAO/RCED-98-187 (Washington,
D.C.: July 20, 1998).
[2] Public housing authorities also receive annual grants to fund
capital improvements at public housing developments.
[3] See 24 CFR 941, Subpart F.
[4] Although some of the projected leveraged funding is for grants
awarded in the early years of the program, the amounts are still
estimates because only 15 grants have been totally completed.
[5] For example, in January 2002 we compared the cost of the low-income
housing tax credit program to that of other federal housing programs
and reported that the tax credit program cost the federal government
$3.5 billion in forgone tax revenue in fiscal year 1999. See Federal
Housing Assistance: Comparing the Characteristics and Costs of Housing
Programs, GAO-02-76 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).
[6] Of the 87 mixed-finance proposals HUD approved through fiscal year
2001, 85 proposals contained the documentation we needed to perform our
analysis.
[7] The amount of tax credit equity listed in each approved budget does
not represent the full cost to the federal government, because the
amount of equity raised is less than the amount of tax credits provided
for a project.
[8] Numbers do not add because of rounding.
[9] The current policy is contained in PIH Notice 01-22.
[10] The documentation on housing authorities‘ compliance with HUD‘s
cost policy was not available for 10 of the 87 mixed-finance proposals
approved through fiscal year 2001.
[11] Though HUD‘s total development cost policy applies only to public
housing funds, other investors in HOPE VI sites provide cost control.
For example, state agencies that award tax credits review proposed
projects, monitor the reasonableness of project costs, and take
responsibility for ensuring that projects stay in compliance with rent
and unit restrictions and that approved projects receive only the tax
credits necessary to make the project work. The Internal Revenue
Service is responsible for monitoring compliance with federal
guidelines and state performance.
[12] The detailed total development cost-limit information we needed to
perform our analysis was not available for 23 of the 87 mixed-finance
proposals approved through fiscal year 2001.
[13] The two per-unit figures are in 2002 dollars.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: