Public Housing
HUD and Public Housing Agencies' Experiences with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements Gao ID: GAO-02-572 May 31, 2002The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 was designed to improve the quality of public housing and the lives of its residents. Since fiscal year 2000, housing agencies managing low-rent or tenant-based Section 8 units have been required to develop and submit five-year and annual plans. As of January 2002, 98 percent of public housing agency plans for fiscal year 2000 had been submitted and approved. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had mixed views about the fiscal year 2000 plan process and its value. The field locations that responded to GAO's survey reported that their review of fiscal year 2000 plans was hampered by several factors, including difficulty in transmitting data between public housing agencies and HUD. Most field locations responded that public housing agencies are implementing their plans but acknowledged that there may be some problems, particularly in fulfilling requirements related to resident participation in the process. The eight public housing agencies GAO visited had differing views on the usefulness of the planning process, the level of resources required to prepare the plans, the sufficiency of HUD's guidance on completing the plans, and the difficulty of meeting the resident participation requirement.
GAO-02-572, Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies' Experiences with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-572
entitled 'Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies' Experiences
with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements' which was released on May 31,
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
alternative text descriptions for reformatted tables and agency comment
letters, are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or
format in 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 contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
GAO: Report to Congressional Committees:
May 2002: Public Housing: HuD and Public Housing Agencies‘ Experiences
with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements:
GAO-02-572:
May 31, 2002:
Congressional Committees:
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, commonly
referred to as the Public Housing Reform Act (P.L. 105-276), was major
legislation designed to improve the quality of public housing and the
lives of public housing residents. The act included over 80 provisions
that revised key requirements related to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development‘s (HUD‘s) low-rent housing and tenant-based Section 8
housing assistance programs. [Footnote 1] The act also gave public
housing agencies more flexibility and discretion in using funds to
address the needs of low- income families and encouraged resident
involvement in housing management.
In an effort to ensure that public housing agencies remained
accountable to HUD while exercising these new flexibilities, Section
511 of the act created a new requirement. Beginning in fiscal year
2000, housing agencies managing low-rent or tenant-based Section 8
units have been required to develop and submit five-year and annual
plans. Agencies were required to obtain resident participation in
developing these plans. The five-year plan is to describe the public
housing agency‘s mission and long-range goals, while the annual plan is
to identify objectives and strategies for achieving these goals and to
detail the agency‘s policies and procedures. The annual plan also
serves as an application to HUD for some grant funding for agencies
with low-rent units. Since housing agencies that administer tenant-
based Section 8 units only do not receive this type of funding, they do
not use the plan as a grant application. Once a public housing agency
has submitted its plans to HUD, HUD must review the plans to ensure
that they contain the appropriate information, and either approve them
or disapprove them, and notify the public housing agency of
deficiencies in the plans that need to be addressed before the plans
can be approved.
Section 511 also required us to audit and review a sample of these
public housing agencies plans to provide an overview of how the process
has worked so far. As agreed with your offices, to fulfill this
requirement within the required deadline we determined: (1) the status
of public housing agencies‘ fiscal year 2000 plans, (2) HUD‘s
experiences with the fiscal year 2000 plan process and opinions
concerning the value of the plans, and (3) selected public housing
agencies‘ experiences with and opinions regarding the fiscal year 2000
plan process. We examined HUD‘s experiences to provide information on
the universe of plans filed, as well as HUD‘s perspective on the
process, while selected housing agencies‘ experiences were examined for
insight into agencies‘ perspectives on the planning process. In January
2002, in fulfillment of the act‘s requirement, we briefed your offices
on our key findings. We have enclosed the slides from that briefing in
appendix I. Also, as you requested at our briefing, we are providing
information on the status of the fiscal year 2001 plans and any
significant changes in the plan review process.
To determine the status of fiscal year 2000 plans, we analyzed
information from HUD‘s databases and interviewed HUD officials. In
examining HUD‘s experiences with the plan process, we surveyed HUD‘s 43
Public and Indian Housing field offices and 2 troubled agency recovery
centers (hereafter referred to as field locations). These field
locations were responsible for reviewing and approving submitted plans.
Ninety-six percent of these locations responded to our survey.
To gather detailed information on selected public housing agencies‘
experiences with the process, we visited eight agencies that we
selected based on factors including size and geographic location, as
shown in table 1.
Table 1. Eight Public Housing Agencies Visited:
Name and location of public housing agency: Moorhead Housing Authority
(Minn.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Small.
Name and location of public housing agency: Bernalillo Housing
Authority (N. Mex.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Small.
Name and location of public housing agency: Tullahoma Housing Authority
(Tenn.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Medium.
Name and location of public housing agency: Muskegon Housing Commission
(Mich.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Medium.
Name and location of public housing agency: Miami Beach Housing
Authority (Fla.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Large.
Name and location of public housing agency: Bridgeport Housing
Authority (Conn.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Large.
Name and location of public housing agency: Atlanta Housing Authority
(Ga.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Extra-large.
Name and location of public housing agency: Phoenix Housing Authority
(Ariz.); [Empty]; Size of public housing agency: Extra-large.
Note: We designated public housing agencies as small if they managed
249 or less units, medium if they managed 250-1,250 units, large if
they managed 1,251-6,599 units, and extra-large if they managed 6,600
or more units.
Source: HUD databases.
[End of table]
Results in Brief:
Most fiscal year 2000 public housing agency plans had been submitted
and approved as of January 24, 2002. Of the 4,144 required fiscal year
2000 plans, 98 percent had been submitted to and approved by HUD. The
remaining 2 percent had either not been submitted, had been disapproved
because of deficiencies, or were being reviewed by HUD. Of these 89
plans either not submitted or not approved, 76 were from public housing
agencies that provide only tenant-based Section 8 housing, and 13 were
associated with agencies that provide low-rent housing or a combination
of the two types. HUD is considering withholding a portion of funding
from public housing agencies that did not submit or have approved their
fiscal year 2000 plans.
HUD had mixed experiences and opinions regarding the fiscal year 2000
plan process and its value. Field locations that responded to our
survey reported that their review of fiscal year 2000 plans was
hampered by a number of factors, such as problems transmitting data
between public housing agencies and HUD. For the fiscal year 2001
process, HUD took actions to address some problems identified during
the fiscal year 2000 process. The field locations believed that the
planning process was valuable in helping them identify public housing
agencies‘ needs. However, our survey found that few field offices
believed that the plans were very important to tenant-based Section 8-
only public housing agencies relative to setting operational
priorities. Narrative responses in the survey indicated that this was
because tenant-based Section 8-only agencies do not own or maintain
physical assets and do not use their plans as an application for HUD
funding. A majority of field locations responded that public housing
agencies are implementing their plans but acknowledged that there may
be some problems, particularly in fulfilling requirements related to
resident participation in the plan process. It is too early to tell
whether HUD‘s actions will resolve problems experienced during the
review of the fiscal year 2000 plans, so we are not making
recommendations at this time.
The eight public housing agencies we visited had varying experiences
and opinions regarding the fiscal year 2000 plan process. Their views
differed on the usefulness of the planning process, the level of
resources required to prepare the plans, the sufficiency of HUD‘s
guidance on completing the plans, and the difficulty of meeting the
resident participation requirement. Larger public housing agencies
generally had more positive comments than smaller public housing
agencies. In commenting on a draft of this report, HUD generally agreed
with its contents.
Background:
Under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Congress
created the federal public housing program to assist communities in
providing decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for low-income families.
Today, more than 4,100 public housing agencies provide housing for low-
income households. Over 3,100 agencies operate low-rent or a
combination of low-rent and tenant-based Section 8 units, and about
1,000 provide housing through tenant-based Section 8 units only. Public
housing agencies are typically municipal, county, or state agencies
created under state law to develop and manage public housing units for
low-income families. Housing agencies that participate in the low-rent
program contract with HUD to provide housing in exchange for federal
grants and subsidies. HUD provides funding to agencies to operate and
repair low- rent units through the Operating Fund and the Capital Fund.
The Operating Fund provides annual subsidies to housing agencies to
make up the difference between the amount they collect in rent and the
cost of operating the units. The Capital Fund provides grants to public
housing agencies for the major repair and modernization of the units.
Under the tenant-based Section 8 program, eligible households select
their own units in the private housing market and receive subsidies to
cover part of the rent. Public housing agencies that participate in the
tenant-based Section 8 program enter into contracts with HUD and
receive HUD funds to provide rent subsidies to the owners of private
housing on behalf of the assisted households.
Fiscal year 2000 was the first year that public housing agencies were
required to submit a five-year plan and an annual plan. This
requirement only applies to public housing agencies that receive HUD
funds to provide housing under the low-rent or tenant-based Section 8
programs. The five- year plan describes the agency‘s mission and its
long-range goals and objectives for achieving its mission over the
subsequent 5 years. The annual plan details the agency‘s immediate
objectives and strategies for achieving these goals, as well as the
agency‘s policies and procedures. For agencies that manage low-rent
units, the annual plan also serves as the application for the capital
fund and public housing drug elimination grant programs. [Footnote 2]
HUD distributes these grants on a formula basis. [Footnote 3]
The Public Housing Reform Act sets forth requirements governing the
submission, review, and approval of agency plans. Plans must be
submitted to HUD 75 days before the start of the agency‘s fiscal year.
In addition, the plans are to be developed by the public housing agency
in consultation with a resident advisory board and be consistent with
other HUD-required community planning documents. Public housing
agencies are also required to hold a public hearing on the plans and to
address comments received during the hearing before submitting the
plans to HUD. HUD, in turn, must review submitted plans to determine
that they contain the information required by the act, agree with
information from other data sources available to HUD such as community
planning documents, and comply with other applicable laws. HUD must
issue a written notice either approving or disapproving the plans
within 75 days of its receipt of the plans. If HUD does not meet this
deadline, plans are considered approved.
Most Public Housing Agencies Have Approved Fiscal Year 2000 Plans, and
HUD Is Considering Sanctions against Those That Do Not:
For fiscal year 2000, 4,055 required plans had been submitted to and
approved by HUD, and 89 required plans had not been approved. [Footnote
4] The 89 unapproved plans were in varying stages: 53 plans had not
been submitted; 34 plans had been submitted, disapproved due to cited
deficiencies, and not yet resubmitted with the deficiencies corrected;
and 2 plans were in the process of being reviewed by HUD. Of the
housing agencies that should have had approved plans but did not, 76
provide housing through tenant- based Section 8 units only. The
remaining 13 manage low-rent units only or a combination of low-rent
and tenant-based Section 8 units.
HUD is considering sanctions against all public housing agencies that
do not have approved fiscal year 2000 agency plans. Since agencies that
manage low-rent units use the annual plan as the application for their
capital fund and public housing drug elimination formula grants, HUD
does not plan to release the fiscal year 2000 formula grants to
agencies without approved plans. Although these grant funds have been
committed to the agencies based on the formula allocation, the funds
have not been released to agencies without approved fiscal year 2000
plans and are not available for those agencies‘ use. According to a HUD
official, any agency that manages low-rent units and did not submit its
annual plan to HUD by September 30, 2001, may lose its capital fund and
public housing drug elimination program formula grants for fiscal year
2000. Fourteen public housing agencies may lose about $2.6 million in
fiscal year 2000 capital fund grants and one of these agencies may also
lose a $39,426 public housing drug elimination program grant. [Footnote
5]
HUD is considering a similar sanction for those public housing agencies
that administer only tenant-based Section 8 units and do not have
approved fiscal year 2000 plans. While tenant-based Section 8-only
agencies make up 24 percent of all housing agencies, they represent 85
percent of agencies without approved plans. For these agencies, HUD
could withhold a portion of the administrative fees these public
housing agencies receive for managing the tenant-based Section 8
program. In addition, HUD requires these public housing agencies to
have approved fiscal year 2000 plans to be eligible for additional
Section 8 vouchers in fiscal year 2002.
HUD Field Locations Had Mixed Views Regarding the Fiscal Year 2000
Review Process but Believe Plans Have Value and Are Generally Being
Implemented:
The majority of HUD field locations reported that they experienced some
problems with the fiscal year 2000 plan review process but were able to
complete almost all reviews. Some of these problems were addressed in
the fiscal year 2001 process. A majority of respondents reported that
the fiscal year 2000 plans were useful in helping HUD field locations
identify certain housing agency needs but believed the plans were more
important to housing agencies with low-rent units than to housing
agencies that administer only tenant-based Section-8 units. Most
respondents also believed that agencies are implementing their fiscal
year 2000 plans, but many also believed that agencies are having
difficulty implementing some portions of the plans.
HUD Field Locations Experienced Problems with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan
Review but Approved Almost All Plans:
Seventy-four percent of field locations that responded to our survey
reported problems or difficulties with the fiscal year 2000 plan review
and approval process. For example, over 50 percent of respondents said
that the electronic transmission of plans from housing agencies to HUD
and the conversion of plans into a readable format once received at HUD
had a negative or very negative effect on their ability to review and
approve plans. Respondents also reported that HUD-provided guidance on
the plan process was less than adequate. One respondent reported that
headquarters guidance at the beginning of the process was not very good
and was delayed in getting to the field locations, while another
reported that changing rules made it difficult to know what the housing
agencies should do and what the field locations should look for in
reviewing plans.
Changes that have been made for the 2001 plan process suggest that
lessons learned and experience gained during the first year resulted in
some improvements, but it is too early to determine whether these
changes have fully resolved the problems. For example, several
respondents reported that technical data transmission and conversion
problems were less frequent for fiscal year 2001. They also reported
that HUD headquarters had streamlined guidance and provided it in a
timelier manner. HUD headquarters officials also cited several
initiatives undertaken as a result of lessons learned during the first
year, including developing a database to better track agency plan
information, hiring a new contractor to manage the database, and
providing consolidated guidance in the form of a desk guide to assist
housing agencies and field locations.
Respondents reported that, for fiscal year 2000, almost half of the
plans reviewed had to be resubmitted by the housing agencies because of
deficiencies. The majority of field locations said that deficiencies
requiring correction and resubmission commonly occurred in the plans‘
sections documenting capital improvement needs, the housing needs of
the community, and the fulfillment of resident participation
requirements. Among the problems with capital improvement sections were
the omission or incompleteness of required documentation, such as plans
for the use of the agency‘s capital funds. Regarding the sections on
determining housing needs, some agencies submitted data sources on
housing availability that were unclear or conflicted with other local
planning documents. Regarding the sections describing resident
participation, one field location that has a large number of small
housing agencies in its jurisdiction reported that its agencies had
trouble finding residents willing to participate in the planning
process and that this was reflected in their plans.
HUD Field Locations Generally View Plans as Valuable but Less Important
to Section 8-only Agencies:
Between 60 and 72 percent of survey respondents indicated they found
the plans helpful in identifying public housing agency needs relative
to setting operational priorities, developing resident participation,
and planning strategically. Some also reported that the planning
process helped field locations provide technical assistance to housing
agencies on identified problem areas. For example, one respondent
reported that the plan review process enabled the field locations to
provide technical assistance to public housing agencies in the areas of
setting priorities and effective strategic planning.
Responses to our survey suggested that field locations think that the
plans are more important for agencies with low-rent units than for
agencies with only tenant-based Section 8 units. Specifically, about 70
percent of respondents thought the plans were important in setting
operational priorities for agencies that maintain low-rent units, while
only 40 percent thought they were important in setting operational
priorities for agencies with tenant-based Section 8 units only. One
respondent commented that operating a tenant-based Section 8 program
has substantially different planning needs than operating a low-rent
housing program. According to this respondent, because tenant-based
Section 8 units are located in privately-owned housing, there is no
’physical asset“ for the tenant-based Section 8 agency to maintain, and
other problems with being a landlord or owner are not present. The fact
that the plan serves as a grant application for agencies that operate
the low-rent program, but not for agencies that operate the tenant-
based Section 8 program only, may also contribute to the respondents‘
opinion that plans are less important to these agencies.
Field Locations Believe Agencies Can Implement Their Plans but Are
Having Some Problems:
About 72 percent of respondents believed that, for the most part,
housing agencies can implement the plans they developed, submitted, and
had approved. At the same time, about 54 percent of respondents said
housing agencies are having difficulty implementing the resident
participation requirement. A recurring theme from several respondents
was that housing agencies had difficulty getting residents interested
in forming or participating on resident advisory boards. Several
respondents emphasized that getting participation in small and tenant-
based Section 8 only housing agencies was especially difficult. In
addition, some respondents said that it is difficult to get residents
appointed to the housing agencies‘ board of directors in some areas, as
is required.
Public Housing Agencies We Visited Had Differing Experiences with the
Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Process:
Staff at the eight public housing agencies we visited described varying
experiences with the fiscal year 2000 plan process. For example, some
found the process useful, while others did not; some found HUD guidance
helpful, while others did not. Generally, larger agencies had more
positive responses than did smaller agencies. While the information
collected on our visits cannot be generalized to the universe of public
housing agencies, it provides insight into individual public housing
agencies‘ concerns.
The public housing agencies we visited held varying views on the
usefulness of the fiscal year 2000 process. Four had positive
experiences, two did not, and two had no comment. One of the larger
agencies told us that the first year of the plan process was useful
because it forced the agency to review and update its policies. This
agency also uses the plan as a training aid for newly hired staff and
believes the plan is useful as a vehicle for obtaining resident input.
The other larger agency said that the plan is useful in the agency‘s
strategic planning. In contrast, the two small agencies we visited
reported that they did not find the process useful: One said that it
took time away from the staff‘s essential day-to-day operational
duties. The other said it perceived no value in the plan process.
Although the amount and type of resources that agencies devoted to the
plan process for fiscal year 2000 varied, seven of the eight public
housing agencies we visited told us they used additional staff or
resources in developing their fiscal year 2000 plans. Three of the
eight used consultants to develop their plans. One extra-large agency
hired an additional staff person specifically to coordinate development
of its fiscal year 2000 plans. In contrast to the other seven public
housing agencies we visited, a medium-sized agency told us that it did
not spend significantly more staff time or additional resources
preparing the plans because most of the required updating of
operational policies had been completed earlier.
All eight housing agencies we visited expressed some frustration with
the quantity or quality of HUD guidance for the first year,
particularly regarding the agency plan template that HUD provided
electronically to serve as a guide to developing and formatting the
agency plans. Although each of the eight agencies had some negative
feelings about the template, some balanced their comments with positive
remarks. For example, one extra- large agency told us that the template
provided guidance for formatting the plan submission. A large agency we
visited told us that the template was sufficiently easy to use and
added that, in its opinion, HUD had improved the template for fiscal
year 2001. On the other hand, one of the small agencies told us that
the template does not give individual housing agencies the flexibility
to describe unusual situations relating to local needs. In addition,
one of the medium-sized agencies told us that the template was not user
friendly.
Agencies also had mixed experiences with the resident participation
requirement for the fiscal year 2000 plan. For example, one extra-large
public housing agency, with a widely dispersed housing inventory and
several different types of resident populations, had a positive
experience. Staff at this agency said that the resident participation
requirement brought together a cross-section of residents that would
otherwise not have met and provided these residents with an
appreciation of the competing needs of resident populations and the
commensurate difficulty the housing agency faced in meeting those
needs. The other extra-large agency told us that its experience with
this requirement was positive because the planning process generally
encouraged resident participation. In contrast, one of the small
agencies told us that resident apathy made it difficult to meet this
requirement.
Observations:
Our work raised questions about the relative value and burden of the
planning process for two groups of public housing agencies. Survey
responses highlighted questions about the value of the plans to those
agencies that administer only tenant-based Section 8 units, while
comments received during our visits to eight agencies suggested that
small agencies may find less value in the planning process and that the
process puts a greater burden on their resources. As we did not visit a
representative sample of small public housing agencies, further
examination of these agencies‘ experiences, including those that
provide housing only through the tenant-based Section 8 program, would
be needed to determine the value of annual plans to these agencies. As
agreed with your offices, we are planning to further investigate the
challenges facing small housing agencies, especially the impact and
benefits of regulatory and administrative requirements. As many of the
smaller agencies provide housing only through the tenant-based Section
8 program, this work might also provide some insights into the
usefulness and applicability of the plans for this type of public
housing agency.
Scope and Methodology:
The mandate in Section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 required that we review and audit a
representative sample of the nation‘s housing agencies that are
required to submit agency plans. This is a universe of over 4,000
housing agencies. When we met with you and your office to clarify our
reporting requirements under the mandate, we agreed that available
resources and reporting deadlines would not permit us to review and
audit a representative sample of these housing agencies and their
plans. We also agreed that a survey of HUD field locations to assess
HUD‘s management of the fiscal year 2000 agency plan process would
serve as a proxy to auditing the universe of housing agencies, as each
HUD field location has direct knowledge of all housing agencies within
its respective jurisdiction and was responsible for reviewing and
approving those agencies‘ plans. We agreed to supplement this survey by
collecting data on the status of all required plans and by visiting a
nonrepresentative sample of public housing agencies to gain insight
into particular agencies‘ experiences.
To determine the status of plans submitted to and approved by HUD for
fiscal year 2000, we interviewed HUD Public and Indian Housing policy
development, Grants Management Center, and program officials. We also
obtained data from several Public and Indian Housing databases on
public housing agencies and fiscal year 2000 approved plans. We
analyzed the data, discussed it with HUD staff, and resolved any
discrepancies in the data with HUD staff.
To assess HUD‘s management of the fiscal year 2000 agency plan review
process, we developed an automated survey instrument that we posted on
our Web site. We requested that all 43 HUD Public and Indian Housing
field offices and both troubled agency recovery centers complete the
survey. These HUD field locations are responsible for reviewing and
approving agency plans. We sent E-mail messages asking officials at
these field offices and recovery centers to fill out the questionnaire.
We received responses from 41 field offices and both troubled agency
recovery centers, which is a 96 percent response rate. Field locations
responding to our survey were responsible for reviewing 4,033 or about
97 percent of the plans required to be submitted in fiscal year 2000.
Our survey results reflect the information provided by the HUD
officials. We did not independently verify the field locations‘
responses to our questions.
During the design of the questionnaire, we pretested our questionnaire
with officials from two field offices and modified it on the basis of
the feedback and comments we received during the pretests. In addition,
we obtained comments on the questionnaire from HUD‘s Office of Public
and Indian Housing.
To assess selected public housing agencies‘ experiences with the fiscal
year 2000 agency plan process, we visited eight geographically
dispersed agencies with low-rent and tenant-based Section 8 units. We
selected the eight housing agencies based on criteria such as size and
performance designation, which determines the type of plans each agency
is required to submit. We interviewed the executive director or other
staff responsible for preparing the agency plans, residents, and
resident board members. We also reviewed documents supporting the
agencies‘ fiscal year 2000 plans. In addition, we contacted public
housing industry groups to obtain their constituents‘ perspectives on
the first year of the required planning process.
We conducted our review from January 2001 through March 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to HUD to obtain comments. On May 2,
2002, the deputy assistant secretary for policy, programs, and
legislative initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing, provided
oral comments. HUD generally agreed with the draft and provided
editorial and clarifying comments that were incorporated in the report,
as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and members of Congress; the secretary of HUD; and other
interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov .
If you have further questions, please call me at (202) 512-7631. The
key contact and other contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II.
Peter F. Guerrero Director, Physical Infrastructure:
Signed by Peter F. Guerrero.
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski Chairwoman, The Honorable Christopher
S. Bond Ranking Minority Member: Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent
Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate:
The Honorable James T. Walsh Chairman, The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan
Ranking Minority Member: Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jack Reed Chairman, The Honorable Wayne Allard Ranking
Minority Member: Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs United States Senate:
The Honorable Marge Roukema Chairwoman, The Honorable Barney Frank
Ranking Minority Member: Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Opportunity Committee on Financial Services House of Representatives:
(395003):
FOOTNOTES
[1] These programs provide funding to housing agencies with two types
of units. Low-rent units, commonly called public housing units, are
housing units in buildings managed by public housing agencies for low-
income families. Tenant-based Section 8 units are housing units in
privately owned rental housing. Through the Section 8 program, public
housing agencies make subsidy payments to owners on behalf of the
assisted family.
[2] The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) grant provides
funds for safety and security activities and was discontinued in fiscal
year 2002.
[3] A formula grant is one in which each public housing agency receives
funds based on a predetermined formula.
[4] Data for the 4,144 required plans for fiscal year 2000 are as of
January 24, 2002. On March 27, 2002, HUD provided the following
information on 4,204 fiscal year 2001 agency plans: 3,355 plans had
been approved, 623 plans had either been disapproved or not received by
HUD, 196 plans were in the process of being reviewed, and 30 plans were
either submitted as part of a consortia or were exempt from the fiscal
year 2001 agency plan requirement.
[5] The public housing agencies‘ receipt of operating funds was not
affected by the status of their plans.
[End of section]
Appendix I. Briefing Slides to Congressional Staff on HuD and Public
Housing Agencies‘ Experiences with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements:
[See PDF for image]
[End of Section]
Appendix II: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Carol Anderson-Guthrie (214) 777-5600:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Johnnie Barnes, Sherrill
Dunbar, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Miko Johnson, John McGrail, Luann
Moy, Don Watson, and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this
report.
[End of Section]
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
