Public Housing
Information on the Roles of HUD, Public Housing Agencies, Capital Markets, and Service Organizations Gao ID: GAO-06-419T February 15, 2006Under the Public Housing Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local public housing agencies (PHA) provide housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. Today, over 3,000 PHAs administer approximately 1.2 million public housing units throughout the nation. First authorized in 1937, the program has undergone changes over the decades. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 increased managerial flexibility but also established new requirements for housing agencies. Some observers have questioned the program's ability to provide quality, affordable housing to the nation's neediest families. This testimony, which is based upon a number of reports that GAO has issued related to public housing since 2002, discusses the roles of (1) HUD (2) public housing agencies, (3) capital markets, and (4) community services organizations in the public housing system.
Traditionally, HUD's role has been to provide PHAs with funding, guidance, and oversight. HUD provides both capital and operating funding. In addition, HUD has provided selected agencies with grants under the HOPE VI program to demolish and revitalize severely distressed public housing and provide community and supportive services. HUD provides guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations and explicitly convey required program policies and procedures. Based on past work, GAO has made recommendations to HUD to improve the clarity and timeliness of its guidance to PHAs and to improve its oversight of the program. PHAs are responsible for managing public housing in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements. They are also required to develop and submit plans detailing the agency's goals and strategies for reaching these goals. Further, PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are required to provide residents with supportive services. GAO's work has identified challenges that the agencies face in carrying out their responsibilities, including difficulty with HUD's data systems and lack of resources for hiring and training staff. GAO has not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can play a role in the public housing system, but its examination of the HOPE VI program and other work has identified examples of leveraging federal funds with funds from a variety of other public and private sources. HUD encourages public housing agencies to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding from other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units developed at project sites. The examples GAO has found include private funding for both capital projects and the provision of supportive services. PHAs may utilize community service organizations to assist public housing residents. Work GAO has done on federal housing programs that benefit the elderly, as well as recent work focused on public housing for the elderly and residents with disabilities, identified examples of supportive services being offered or provided to public housing residents. Such services may be provided through HUD grants as well as through partnerships between public housing agencies and community-based nonprofit organizations.
GAO-06-419T, Public Housing: Information on the Roles of HUD, Public Housing Agencies, Capital Markets, and Service Organizations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-419T
entitled 'Public Housing: Information on the Roles of HUD, Public
Housing Agencies, Capital Markets, and Service Organizations' which was
released on February 15, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Wednesday, February 15, 2006:
Public Housing:
Information on the Roles of HUD, Public Housing Agencies, Capital
Markets, and Service Organizations:
Statement of David G. Wood, Director, Financial Markets and Community
Investments:
GAO-06-419T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-419T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on
Federalism and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Under the Public Housing Program, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and local public housing agencies (PHA) provide
housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. Today, over
3,000 PHAs administer approximately 1.2 million public housing units
throughout the nation. First authorized in 1937, the program has
undergone changes over the decades. The Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 increased managerial flexibility but also
established new requirements for housing agencies. Some observers have
questioned the program‘s ability to provide quality, affordable housing
to the nation‘s neediest families.
This testimony, which is based upon a number of reports that GAO has
issued related to public housing since 2002, discusses the roles of (1)
HUD (2) public housing agencies, (3) capital markets, and (4) community
services organizations in the public housing system.
What GAO Found:
Traditionally, HUD‘s role has been to provide PHAs with funding,
guidance, and oversight. HUD provides both capital and operating
funding. In addition, HUD has provided selected agencies with grants
under the HOPE VI program to demolish and revitalize severely
distressed public housing and provide community and supportive
services. HUD provides guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations
and explicitly convey required program policies and procedures. Based
on past work, GAO has made recommendations to HUD to improve the
clarity and timeliness of its guidance to PHAs and to improve its
oversight of the program.
PHAs are responsible for managing public housing in accordance with HUD
regulations and requirements. They are also required to develop and
submit plans detailing the agency‘s goals and strategies for reaching
these goals. Further, PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are required to
provide residents with supportive services. GAO‘s work has identified
challenges that the agencies face in carrying out their
responsibilities, including difficulty with HUD‘s data systems and lack
of resources for hiring and training staff.
GAO has not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can play a
role in the public housing system, but its examination of the HOPE VI
program and other work has identified examples of leveraging federal
funds with funds from a variety of other public and private sources.
HUD encourages public housing agencies to use their HOPE VI grants to
leverage funding from other sources to increase the number of
affordable housing units developed at project sites. The examples GAO
has found include private funding for both capital projects and the
provision of supportive services.
PHAs may utilize community service organizations to assist public
housing residents. Work GAO has done on federal housing programs that
benefit the elderly, as well as recent work focused on public housing
for the elderly and residents with disabilities, identified examples of
supportive services being offered or provided to public housing
residents. Such services may be provided through HUD grants as well as
through partnerships between public housing agencies and community-
based nonprofit organizations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-419T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David G. Wood at (202)
512-8678 or woodd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today as the Committee
considers the nation's public housing. The Public Housing Program was
established in 1937 to provide decent and safe rental housing for low-
income families. Congress annually appropriates funds for the program,
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates
them to local public housing agencies (PHA). Today, over 3,000 PHAs
administer approximately 1.2 million public housing units throughout
the nation under HUD's oversight.
My statement is based on a number of reports that we have issued
related to public housing, primarily since 2002. The topics of these
reports have included (1) how HUD assesses PHAs' performance and the
steps it takes to remedy poor performance; (2) the agencies'
experiences with reforms instituted by the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act (QHWRA) of 1998; (3) various aspects of the HOPE VI
program for revitalizing severely distressed public housing; and (4)
most recently, the condition of public housing for the elderly and
disabled. As you requested, my statement discusses the roles of (1) HUD
(2) public housing agencies, (3) capital markets, and (4) community
services organizations in the public housing system. In preparing this
information, we excerpted and summarized information from reports
issued between 2002 and 2005. A list of these reports appears at the
end of this statement.
In brief:
* Traditionally, HUD's role has been to provide PHAs with funding,
guidance, and oversight. HUD provides both capital and operating
funding. In addition, HUD has provided selected agencies with grants
under the HOPE VI program to demolish and revitalize severely
distressed public housing and provide community and supportive
services. HUD provides guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations
and explicitly convey required program policies and procedures. Based
on our past work, we have made recommendations to HUD to improve the
clarity and timeliness of its guidance to PHAs, and to improve its
oversight of the program.
* PHAs are responsible for managing public housing in accordance with
HUD regulations and requirements. They are also required to develop and
submit plans detailing the agency's goals and strategies for reaching
these goals. Further, PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are required to
provide residents with supportive services. Our work has identified
challenges that the agencies face in carrying out their
responsibilities, including difficulty with HUD's data systems and lack
of resources for hiring and training staff.
* While we have not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can
play a role in the public housing system, our examination of the HOPE
VI program and other work has identified examples of leveraging federal
funds with funds from a variety of other public and private sources.
HUD encourages PHAs to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding
from other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units
developed at project sites. The examples we have found include private
funding for both capital projects and the provision of supportive
services.
* PHAs may utilize community service organizations to assist public
housing residents. Work we have done on federal housing programs that
benefit the elderly, as well as recent work focused on public housing
for the elderly and residents with disabilities, identified examples of
supportive services being offered or provided to public housing
residents. Such services may be provided through HUD grants as well as
through partnerships between PHAs and community-based nonprofit
organizations.
Background:
Under the U. S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Congress created the
federal public housing program to provide decent and safe rental
housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with
disabilities. HUD administers the program with PHAs, typically local
agencies created under state law that manage housing for low-income
residents at rents they can afford. Agencies that participate in the
program contract with HUD to provide housing to eligible low-income
households and, in return, receive financial assistance from HUD.
Public housing comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single-
family houses to high-rise apartments.
In 1992, Congress established the HOPE VI program, which is
administered by HUD. The program provides grants to PHAs to
rehabilitate or rebuild severely distressed public housing and improve
the lives of public housing residents through supportive services. In
2003, Congress expanded the statutory definition of "severely
distressed public housing" for the purpose of HOPE VI to include
indicators of social distress, such as a lack of supportive services
and economic opportunities. Between fiscal years 1993 and 2005,
Congress appropriated $6.8 billion for the HOPE VI program.
In addition to managing public housing, some PHAs administer other HUD
programs that provide housing assistance for low-income households.
Under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, about 2,500 participating
PHAs enter into contracts with HUD and receive funds to provide rent
subsidies to the owners of private housing on behalf of assisted low-
income households. In addition, PHAs assist in administering HUD's
project-based rental assistance programs, through which HUD pays
subsidies to private owners of multifamily housing that help make this
housing affordable for lower income households.
HUD Provides Funding, Guidance, and Oversight for Local PHAs:
Traditionally, HUD has provided funding to local PHAs to manage the
public housing system, as well as for the revitalization of severely
distressed public housing. HUD's role has also included providing PHAs
with guidance and overseeing their performance, including providing
technical assistance.
Funding and Guidance:
HUD provides funding to housing agencies through two formula grant
programs: 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 PHAs for the major repair
and modernization of the units. In addition, HUD has provided selected
agencies with grants under the HOPE VI program to help housing agencies
replace and revitalize severely distressed public housing with physical
and community and supportive service improvements. As shown in table 1,
this HUD funding has totaled about $31.5 billion over the past 5 fiscal
years.
Table 1: Appropriations for the Public Housing Program for Fiscal Years
2002-2006:
Millions of dollars.
Operating Fund;
Fiscal year: 2002: $3,495;
Fiscal year: 2003: $3,577;
Fiscal year: 2004: $3,579;
Fiscal year: 2005: $2,438;
Fiscal year: 2006[A]: $3,564;
Total: $16,653.
Capital Fund;
Fiscal year: 2002: $2,843;
Fiscal year: 2003: $2,712;
Fiscal year: 2004: $2,696;
Fiscal year: 2005: $2,579;
Fiscal year: 2006[A]: $2,439;
Total: $13,269.
Hope VI;
Fiscal year: 2002: $574;
Fiscal year: 2003: $570;
Fiscal year: 2004: $149;
Fiscal year: 2005: $143;
Fiscal year: 2006[A]: $99;
Total: $1,535.
Total;
Fiscal year: 2002: $6,912;
Fiscal year: 2003: $6,859;
Fiscal year: 2004: $6,424;
Fiscal year: 2005: $5,160;
Fiscal year: 2006[A]: $6,102;
Total: $31,457.
Source: GAO.
[A] Budget totals include the 1.0 percent across the board rescission
to nondefense discretionary resources provided in FY 2006 regular
appropriations acts per P.L. No: 109-148.
[End of table]
In exchange for capital and operating funding, PHAs enter into annual
contributions contracts. According to this written contract, HUD agrees
to make payments to the PHA and the PHA agrees to administer the
housing program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements.
HUD provides guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations, and
explicitly convey required program policies and procedures.
Some of our past work has shown a need for HUD to improve the clarity
and/or timeliness of its guidance to housing authorities. For example:
* For our 2002 review of HUD's and housing agencies' experiences in
preparing annual plans required by the Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), we surveyed HUD field offices and
interviewed eight PHAs to gain insight into their experiences.[Footnote
1] Respondents reported that HUD-provided guidance on the planning
process was less than adequate. One respondent reported that
headquarters guidance was delayed in getting to field locations, while
another reported that changing rules made it difficult to know what the
PHAs should do and what the field locations should look for in
reviewing plans. However, some PHAs balanced their comments with
positive remarks; for example, one large agency told us that HUD had
improved the template for fiscal year 2001. HUD provided a desk guide
to assist housing agencies and field locations in fiscal year 2001, in
an effort to improve the planning process.
* In surveying the directors of PHAs on their experiences with a number
of QHWRA housing reforms, we again found late and unclear guidance from
HUD.[Footnote 2] Public housing directors reported having to spend more
administrative time in implementing reforms, partially due to a lack of
clear guidance from HUD.
* In reviewing HUD's management of the HOPE VI program, we found that
the department's guidance on the role of field offices was unclear,
and, as a result, some field offices did not seem to understand their
role in HOPE VI oversight.[Footnote 3] For example, some officials
stated that they had not performed annual reviews of HOPE VI projects
because they did not think they had the authority to monitor grants.
Based upon these findings, we recommended that the Secretary of HUD
clarify the role of HUD field offices in HOPE VI oversight and ensure
that the offices conduct required annual reviews of HOPE VI grants. HUD
agreed with this recommendation and published new guidance in March
2004 that clarified the role of the HUD field offices and changed the
annual review requirements.
Oversight and Technical Assistance:
HUD is responsible for overseeing PHAs' overall performance and for
helping agencies improve their performance (see fig. 1). In 1997, as a
part of its 2020 Management Reform Plan, HUD instituted a new approach
for evaluating PHAs' performance. The approach includes "scoring" each
of several categories of performance, assigning each housing agency to
a risk category, designating agencies as "troubled" if their scores are
substandard and, in some cases, appointing receivers to actively manage
the agencies. Also as a part of its oversight, HUD identifies housing
agencies that need technical assistance. HUD's technical assistance
involves activities such as training housing agency staff on how to use
HUD systems or comply with reporting requirements.
Figure 1: HUD's Oversight Structure for the Public Housing Program:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
HUD uses the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) to evaluate public
housing agencies' performance, while its Public and Indian Housing
Information Center (PIC) risk assessment uses the PHAS score and
information about funding and compliance issues to classify housing
authorities as high, moderate, or low risk. PHAS is designed to
evaluate housing agencies' overall performance in managing rental
units, including the physical condition of units, soundness of
agencies' financial operations, the effectiveness of their management
operations, and the level of resident satisfaction with the services
and living conditions. HUD designed the PIC system to facilitate a Web-
based exchange of data between PHAs and local HUD offices. PIC contains
a detailed inventory of public housing units and information about
them, including the number of developments and units, age of the
development, and the extent to which apartment units are accessible for
persons with disabilities. The system also tracks tenant (household)
information, such as age, disability status, and income.
Our past work has identified opportunities for HUD to improve its
oversight of housing agencies and it provision of technical assistance.
For example:
* In 2002, we reported that the results of the PHAS and PIC systems
were inconsistent.[Footnote 4] Specifically, in comparing information
in the two systems, we found that 12 of the agencies that HUD--using
PHAS scores--had determined were "troubled" were classified in the PIC
system as "low" risk. Accordingly, we recommended that HUD classify all
troubled housing authorities as high risk to better ensure that they
receive sufficient monitoring. HUD agreed with our recommendation and
incorporated it into its risk-assessment system.
* In preparing a 2002 report on HUD's human capital management,
directors of several HUD field offices told us that they lacked the
staff to provide the level of oversight and technical assistance that
the housing authorities need.[Footnote 5] In light of this and other
findings, we recommended that the Secretary of HUD develop a
comprehensive strategic workforce plan. HUD subsequently hired a
contractor to develop a Strategic Workforce Plan, which it completed in
2004. The plan includes analysis of current and future demand for staff
and an analysis of the skills and competencies needed to accomplish
tasks.
* In our October 2003 report, we noted that small agencies are more
likely to require assistance with the day-to-day management of HUD
programs and that HUD does not maintain centralized, detailed
information on the types of assistance PHAs require or request from
them.[Footnote 6] HUD reported that it was developing a system that
would allow it to collect such information in the future.
* In 2005, we reported on HUD's efforts to assess PHAs' compliance with
its policies for determining rent subsidies.[Footnote 7] We found that
HUD had undertaken special reviews that, while useful, had suffered
from a lack of clear policies and procedures and that the training and
guidance HUD provided to PHAs on its policies for determining rent
subsidies were not consistently adequate or timely. We recommended that
the HUD Secretary (1) make regular monitoring of PHAs' compliance with
HUD's policies for determining rent subsidies a permanent part of HUD's
oversight activities and (2) collect complete and consistent
information from these monitoring efforts and use it to help focus
corrective actions where needed. HUD concurred with the recommendations
but has not yet fully implemented them.
HUD can take enforcement actions against PHAs that it identifies,
through PHAS, as being "troubled." For such agencies, HUD assigns a
recovery team and develops a plan to remedy the problems. Initially,
HUD may offer technical assistance and training, but it may also
sanction an authority; for example, by withholding funding. Ultimately,
HUD may place a PHA under an administrative receivership, in which a
receiver replaces the top management of the agency. Additionally, some
PHAs may have receivers appointed by judges (these are known as
judicial receivers). In February 2003, we reported that under
administrative or judicial receivers, nearly all of the 15 agencies
under receivership showed improvement during their years of
receivership, according to changes in HUD's assessed scores and/or
other evidence.[Footnote 8] The four PHAs under judicial receiverships
generally had continued to demonstrate strong performance. While PHAs
under administrative receiverships had also made improvements, some
continued to demonstrate a significant problem with housing units being
in very poor physical condition.
Finally, HUD's headquarters and field offices are responsible for
overseeing PHAs' use of HOPE VI grants. In 2003, we reported that HUD's
oversight of HOPE VI grants had been inconsistent due to staffing
limitations, confusion about the role of field offices, and a lack of
formal enforcement policies.[Footnote 9] Based upon these findings, we
recommended that HUD clarify the role of its field offices in HOPE VI
oversight; ensure that the offices conduct required annual reviews of
HOPE VI grants; and develop a formal, written enforcement policy to
hold PHAs accountable for the status of their grants. HUD agreed with
these recommendations and clarified the role of HUD field offices,
changed the annual review requirements, and developed an enforcement
policy, which it shared with grantees in December 2003.
PHAs Are Responsible for Managing Public Housing in Accordance with HUD
Regulations and Requirements:
Generally, PHAs are responsible for administering the public housing
program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements.
Specifically, PHAs must provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to
their residents, manage their financial resources, meet HUD's standards
for management operations, and address residents' satisfaction. Among
other things, PHAs are responsible for ensuring that tenants are
eligible for public housing and that tenant subsidies are calculated
properly. PHAs are also required to develop both short-and long-term
plans outlining their goals and strategies. PHAs that receive HOPE VI
grants are subject to additional requirements associated with those
grants; for example, the agencies must provide residents of HOPE VI
sites with certain types of supportive services.
During the 1990s, PHAs gained broader latitude from HUD and the
Congress to establish their own policies in areas such as selecting
tenants and setting rent levels. The Quality Housing and Work
Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), which extensively amended the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937, allowed PHAs to exercise still more discretion
over rents and admissions.[Footnote 10] For example, QHWRA increased
managerial flexibility by, among other things, making HUD-provided
capital and operating funds more fungible, allowing housing authorities
to sell some units to residents, and developing mixed-income housing
units in order to bring more working and upwardly mobile families into
public housing.
QHWRA also established new requirements for housing agencies,
including, for example, mandatory reporting requirements in the form of
a 5-year plan and annual reporting plans. Five-year plans include long-
range goals, while annual plans detail the agency's objectives and
strategies for achieving these goals, as well as the agency's policies
and procedures. For our May 2002 report, we examined PHAs' experiences
in preparing the first of their required plans.[Footnote 11] We visited
eight PHAs in the course of this work, and found that their views
differed on the usefulness of the planning process and the level of
resources required to prepare the plans, among other things. In June
2003, in response to concerns that some QHWRA reforms were placing an
undue burden on small PHAs, HUD issued regulations allowing small PHAs
to submit streamlined annual plans. We have not revisited this issue,
and therefore cannot say how HUD or the PHAs view the usefulness of the
plans today.
QHWRA also required PHAs to implement a number of additional reforms
that affect the Public Housing Program. For our October 2003 report, we
surveyed PHAs to find out their views on 18 key changes brought about
by QHWRA and to see if views differed among large, medium, and small
agencies.[Footnote 12] Some agencies in each size category viewed both
the 5-year plan and the annual plan requirements as helpful to them in
managing and operating their programs, although proportionately fewer
small agencies had this view. We also found that agencies of all sizes
reported spending more time on HUD-subsidized programs after QHWRA than
before the reforms were enacted, in part because of increased reporting
requirements, difficulties in submitting data to HUD, and lack of
resources for hiring and training.
PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants to revitalize public housing must
obtain HUD's approval for their revitalization plans and must report
project status information to HUD. The agencies are also required to
offer community and supportive services--such as child care,
transportation, job training, job placement and retention services, and
parenting classes--to all original residents of public housing affected
by HOPE VI projects, regardless of their intention to return to the
revitalized site. In our November 2002 report on HOPE VI financing, we
found that PHAs that had been awarded grants in fiscal years 1993 to
2001 had budgeted a total of about $714 million for community and
supportive services.[Footnote 13] Of this amount, about 59 percent were
HOPE VI funds while 41 percent was leveraged from other resources. In
our November 2003 report on HOPE VI impacts, we reported that limited
HUD data on 165 HOPE VI grantees awarded through fiscal year 2001, and
additional information, indicated that supportive services had achieved
or contributed to positive outcomes.[Footnote 14]
Private Capital Has Been Involved in Some HOPE VI Projects:
While we have not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can be
used with the public housing system, our reviews of the HOPE VI program
have shown that some PHAs use HOPE VI revitalization grants to leverage
additional funds from a variety of other public and private sources.
HUD encourages PHAs to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding
from other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units
developed at HOPE VI sites. Public funding can come from other federal,
state, or local sources. Private sources can include mortgage financing
and financial or in-kind contributions from nonprofit organizations. In
our November 2002 report on HOPE VI project financing, we found that
financial leveraging of projects had shown a general increase over
time, and that PHAs expected 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.[Footnote 15] Our report
also noted that HUD had not reported annual leveraging and cost
information about the HOPE VI program to the Congress, as it had been
required to do since 1998. Consequently, we recommended that HUD
provide annual reports on the program, including information on the
amounts and sources of funding used at HOPE VI sites, to Congress. In
response to this recommendation, in December 2002, HUD began issuing
annual reports that include funding information.
We also found in the November 2002 report that housing agencies with
HOPE VI revitalization grants expected to leverage $295 million in
additional funds for community and supportive services. In our most
recent report concerning public housing (December 2005), we found that
PHAs have used HOPE VI revitalization grants to leverage additional
funds from a variety of sources, including private loans.[Footnote 16]
In particular, we noted an example of a renovation and the colocation
of supportive services that were made possible through coordination of
efforts and use of mixed financing--the Allegheny County Housing
Authority's revitalization of the Homestead Apartments outside of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The housing agency built space on-site for
two nonprofit elder-care service providers in addition to remodeling
the buildings. Approximately 67 percent of the funding for the
Homestead renovation was based on 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. While this represents a way for private capital to
be used in conjunction with public housing projects, we noted in our
November 2002 report that such funding does entail a federal cost (in
the form of taxes foregone).[Footnote 17]
Community Services Organizations May Provide Supportive Services to
Public Housing Residents:
PHAs may utilize community service organizations to provide supportive
services to public housing residents. Our recent work has focused on
the services that PHAs can provide to elderly and non-elderly persons
with disabilities.
In a February 2005 report on housing programs that offer assistance for
the elderly, we identified programs that public housing agencies can
use to assist elderly public housing residents.[Footnote 18] For
example, through the Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS)
grant program, HUD awards grants to PHAs for the purpose of linking
residents with supportive services. Also, HUD's Service Coordinator
Program provides funding for PHA managers of public housing designated
for the elderly or persons with disabilities to hire coordinators to
assist residents in obtaining supportive services from community
agencies; and its Congregate Housing Services Program provides grants
for the delivery of meals and nonmedical supportive services to
residents of public and multifamily housing who are elderly or have
disabilities.
For our December 2005 report on public housing for the elderly and
persons with disabilities, we surveyed the directors of 46 PHAs that
manage public housing developments that we identified as both severely
distressed and primarily occupied by the elderly and persons with
disabilities.[Footnote 19] This work identified examples of
partnerships between PHAs and local organizations such as community-
based nonprofits and churches to provide supportive services for the
elderly and non-elderly persons with disabilities. In some cases, the
local agencies paid for the services, while in others the housing
agencies used federal grants. For example:
* A building manager for one development that we visited said the
development partnered with a nearby church, which provided a van to
take residents shopping once a week. Local churches also provided food
assistance to elderly residents and residents with disabilities who
were not able to leave their apartments.
* At another housing development, a community-based organization
provided lunches on a daily basis to residents and assorted grocery
items such as bread, fruit, and cereal on a weekly basis.
* The aforementioned Homestead Apartments--a high-rise, primarily
elderly occupied public housing development--was revitalized to provide
enhanced supportive services to elderly residents, in particular frail
elderly residents. To do so, the housing agency partnered with several
non-HUD entities to improve services for the elderly and colocate an
assisted living type of facility at the development. To help the most
frail elderly residents, the housing agency partnered with a nonprofit
organization, which offers complete nursing services, meals, and
physical therapy to Homestead residents who are enrolled in the
program. For most participants, these comprehensive services permitted
them to continue living at home.
* In a partnership in Seattle, Washington, the housing agency partnered
with a community-based organization to provide an on-site community
center for the elderly, where residents had access to meals, social
activities, and assistance with filling prescriptions. Residents at
this development also had access to an on-site health clinic.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, over the past few years we have identified
several ways for HUD to improve its administration of the public
housing program. Our work has also identified challenges faced by the
local public housing agencies that play such an essential program
delivery role, not only those associated with implementing the reforms
provided under QHWRA but also such day-to-day matters as correctly
determining tenants' incomes and rents. We look forward to working with
the Subcommittee as it considers the future of the public housing
program.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact David G. Wood
at (202) 512-8678. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Isidro Gomez, Lisa Moore, David Pittman, Paul
Schmidt, and Julie Trinder.
[End of section]
Related Products:
Public Housing: Distressed Conditions in Developments for the Elderly
and Persons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for Improvement. GAO-
06-163. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005.
Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Streamline Its Processes to
Ensure Timely Housing Assistance Payments. GAO-06-57. Washington, D.C.:
November 15, 2005.
HUD Rental Assistance: Progress and Challenges in Measuring and
Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies. GAO-05-224. Washington, D.C.:
February 18, 2005.
Elderly Housing: Federal Housing Programs That Offer Assistance for the
Elderly. GAO-05-174. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2005.
Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods
Surrounding Grant Sites. GAO-04-109. Washington, D.C.: November 21,
2003.
Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views on Many
Recent Housing Reforms. GAO-04-19. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2003.
Public Housing: HUD's Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs to Be More
Consistent. GAO-03-555. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003.
Public Housing: Information on Receiverships at Public Housing
Authorities. GAO-03-363. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing
and Urban Development. GAO-03-103. Washington, D.C.: January 1, 2003.
Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not Met
Annual Reporting Requirement. GAO-03-91. Washington, D.C.: November 15,
2002.
HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce
Planning Needed. GAO-02-839. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002.
Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies' Experiences with
Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements. GAO-02-572. Washington, D.C.: May
31, 2002.
Public Housing: New Assessment System Holds Potential for Evaluating
Performance. GAO-02-282. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies' Experiences
with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements, GAO-02-572 (Washington, D.C.:
May 31, 2002).
[2] GAO, Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views
on Many Recent Housing Reforms, GAO-04-19 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30,
2003).
[3] GAO, Public Housing: HUD's Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs to Be
More Consistent, GAO-03-555 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).
[4] GAO, Public Housing: New Assessment System Holds Potential for
Evaluating Performance, GAO-02-282 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
[5] GAO, HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive Strategic
Workforce Planning Needed. GAO-02-839 (Washington, D.C.: July 24,
2002).
[6] GAO-04-19.
[7] GAO, HUD Rental Assistance: Progress and Challenges in Measuring
and Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies. GAO-05-224 (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 18, 2005).
[8] GAO, Public Housing: Information on Receiverships at Public Housing
Authorities. GAO-03-363 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2003).
[9] GAO-03-555.
[10] Some of QHWRA's provisions went into effect when QHWRA was enacted
on October 21, 1998, while other provisions took effect later.
[11] GAO-02-572.
[12] GAO-04-19.
[13] GAO, Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has
Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement, GAO-03-91 (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
15, 2002).
[14] GAO, Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in
Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites, GAO-04-109, (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 21, 2003).
[15] GAO-03-91.
[16] GAO, Public Housing: Distressed Conditions in Developments for the
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for
Improvement, GAO-06-163 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005).
[17] GAO-03-91.
[18] GAO, Elderly Housing: Federal Housing Programs That Offer
Assistance for the Elderly, GAO-05-174 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14,
2005).
[19] GAO-06-163.
