Monitoring and Oversight of Federal Funds Awarded to Bridgeport, 
Connecticut (26-NOV-03, GAO-04-230R).				 
                                                                 
In 2001 and 2002, federal prosecutors indicted the Mayor of	 
Bridgeport, Connecticut, and a dozen conspirators on charges of  
racketeering, extortion, mail fraud, and tax evasion. In March	 
2003, the mayor was found guilty on 16 counts, and most of the	 
others indicted have pleaded guilty. While the indictment did not
refer to any misuse of federal funds, some of the corrupt	 
activities were associated with projects that had received some  
federal funding in the past. This corruption has raised concerns 
about the adequacy of monitoring and oversight of the more than  
$82 million in federal funds Bridgeport has received in recent	 
years. Congress asked us to examine federally funded programs	 
operated by the city of Bridgeport and determine whether and to  
what extent the respective federal agencies, including program	 
officials and Offices of Inspector General, have heightened	 
program monitoring and oversight in light of the corruption.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-230R					        
    ACCNO:   A08946						        
  TITLE:     Monitoring and Oversight of Federal Funds Awarded to     
Bridgeport, Connecticut 					 
     DATE:   11/26/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Federal funds					 
	     Fraud						 
	     Investigations by federal agencies 		 
	     Mail fraud 					 
	     Tax evasion					 
	     White collar crime 				 
	     Monitoring 					 
	     Corruption 					 
	     Bridgeport (CT)					 
	     Community Oriented Policing Services		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     Community Development Block Grant			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-230R

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

November 26, 2003

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
The Honorable Christopher Shays
Vice-Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives

Subject: Monitoring and Oversight of Federal Funds Awarded to Bridgeport,
Connecticut

In 2001 and 2002, federal prosecutors indicted the Mayor of Bridgeport,
Connecticut, and a dozen conspirators on charges of racketeering,
extortion, mail fraud, and tax evasion. In March 2003, the mayor was found
guilty on 16 counts, and most of the others indicted have pleaded guilty.
While the indictment did not refer to any misuse of federal funds, some of
the corrupt activities were associated with projects that had received
some federal funding in the past. This corruption has raised concerns
about the adequacy of monitoring and oversight of the more than $82
million in federal funds Bridgeport has received in recent years.

You asked us to examine federally funded programs operated by the city of
Bridgeport and determine whether and to what extent the respective federal
agencies, including program officials and Offices of Inspector General,
have heightened program monitoring and oversight in light of the
corruption. To respond to your request, we interviewed program and
Inspector General officials from six federal agencies that provided about
95 percent of federal funds to Bridgeport in fiscal year 2002 to identify
their general monitoring and oversight mechanisms as well as any
monitoring activities specific to Bridgeport.1 We also obtained and
reviewed annual Single Audit Act audit reports for Bridgeport for fiscal
years 1998 through 2002, as well as agency and Inspector General audit and
monitoring reports on federally funded programs in Bridgeport.2 In
addition, we reviewed the indictment and verdict and met with officials
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regarding the corruption
investigation. We performed our work between June and October 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

1 The six federal agencies are the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Departments of Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development,
Justice, and Transportation. 2 The Single Audit Act (31 U.S.C. 7501 et
seq) requires state and local governments that expend more than a
threshold amount in a fiscal year to have either a single audit or a
program-specific audit conducted and to forward the audit report to the
Federal Audit Clearinghouse for distribution to each federal agency
responsible for programs for which the audit report identifies a finding.

                      GAO-04-230R Bridgeport, Connecticut

Results in Brief

The six federal agencies that provided funds to Bridgeport generally have
not heightened monitoring and oversight activities in response to the
Bridgeport corruption, but rather have continued to oversee program
funding through routine, generally risk-based monitoring and oversight
activities. These activities include the review of Single Audit Act audit
reports and other reports required of fund recipients, comprehensive
program reviews, field visits to grantees, and assessments of state
oversight in cases where federal funds are provided to localities through
states. In recent years, these types of monitoring and oversight
activities in Bridgeport have not revealed misuse of federal funds.
Further, according to a senior FBI agent who participated in the
Bridgeport corruption investigation, the FBI did not identify any internal
control weaknesses on the part of federal agencies as the basis for the
corruption and concluded that the corruption was caused by corrupt
individuals in the local area.

Background

During 2002, the federal government provided Bridgeport with more than $82
million in funding. Six federal agencies provided about 95 percent of
federal funds to the city. The Departments of Agriculture (USDA),
Education, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice (DOJ), and
Transportation (DOT), as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
awarded these funds for over 20 different programs. For example, HUD
provided funds to Bridgeport for its Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and affordable housing programs; DOJ awarded funds for its
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program; and DOT provided
funds through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the development
of the Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center. See enclosure I for
information about each of the federal programs that provided funds to
Bridgeport.

Funding for these programs does not always go directly to the city, and
much of it flows through the states, which have responsibility for passing
it to the local level. For example, USDA reimburses the states for its
child nutrition programs, and the states, in turn, reimburse schools at
the local level. Also, not all programs identify the city as the recipient
of the grants. For example, the Bridgeport Housing Authority is an entity
separate from the city of Bridgeport, and HUD's Public Housing program
funds do not flow through the city but go directly to the Housing
Authority.

Federal agencies use a variety of mechanisms to support their monitoring
and oversight activities. The Single Audit Act is intended to, among other
things, promote sound financial management, including effective internal
controls, with respect to federal awards administered by state and local
governments and nonprofit organizations. Under OMB Circular A-133, Audits
of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, those entities
that spend $300,000 or more in federal awards during the fiscal year are
required to have a single or

                   Page 2 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

                                       3

program-specific audit conducted for that year. The circular also notes
that the entities are required to (1) maintain internal controls for
federal programs, (2) comply with laws, regulations, and the provisions of
contracts or grant agreements, (3) prepare appropriate financial
statements, (4) ensure that the required single audits are properly
performed and submitted when due, and (5) follow up and take corrective
actions on audit findings. In addition to reviewing Single Audit Act audit
reports, agencies may visit grantee sites, conduct risk-based grant
reviews of local program operations, review national program operations,
assess monitoring efforts at the state level, and/or conduct
investigations and reviews initiated through fraud hotlines and other
complaints or leads. High funding levels, inexperienced grantees, grantees
with a history of performance problems, and a variety of other factors,
including known instances of corruption, are elements of risk that might
lead to increased scrutiny through risk-based approaches.

Federal Agencies Have Not Heightened Monitoring and Oversight Activities
in Response to Corruption

In general, federal agencies have not heightened monitoring and oversight
activities in light of the Bridgeport corruption. Rather, agencies
continue to monitor program funding as they have in the past, as part of
routine, risk-based monitoring and oversight. This type of monitoring and
oversight in Bridgeport in recent years has not revealed misuse of federal
funds. Further, the corruption investigation did not identify weaknesses
in federal controls.

Agencies Have Continued to Conduct Routine, Risk-Based Monitoring and
Oversight

While federal agencies have not heightened monitoring and oversight
activities in light of the Bridgeport corruption, several risk-based grant
reviews of Bridgeport's program operations have been conducted in recent
years, particularly by HUD. However, according to HUD officials, without a
lead or information from a concerned citizen or whistle-blower, routine
risk-based reviews would not necessarily identify the kinds of fraud that
occurred as part of the Bridgeport corruption, even if it had involved
federal funds.

o  	In August 2000, HUD's Connecticut State Office reviewed Bridgeport's
CDBG and Emergency Shelter Grant programs. The city of Bridgeport was
found to be in compliance with the financial administrative and
record-keeping requirements applicable to HUD-funded grants. HUD raised
only one concern, observing that eight storm doors called for in
rehabilitation specifications had not been installed.

3 In the June 27, 2003, Federal Register, OMB issued final revisions to
Circular A-133 that raise the threshold for coverage from $300,000 to
$500,000 in annual federal spending. These revisions generally apply to
fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003.

                   Page 3 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

o  	In May 2002, HUD's Connecticut State Office reviewed Bridgeport's
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. The program
was found to be in compliance in all the regulatory and performance areas
that were monitored. For example, all individuals met HUD's definition of
homeless prior to acceptance into the program, case files were well
organized, and units appeared to be clean and adequately maintained.

o  	In May 2002, HUD's Connecticut State Office reviewed Bridgeport's CDBG
program. The review found that assisted entities had provided public
service benefits, that performance reports and financial documentation
appeared to be accurate and timely, and that selected activities were
found to be eligible. This review also found that Bridgeport had not
collected and submitted interest earned on two revolving loan accounts for
rehabilitation and other activities and that there was a lack of progress
with regard to the implementation of some CDBG rehabilitation activities.

In addition, the following reviews were initiated as a result of leads
external to HUD's Inspector General. HUD's Inspector General might not
have conducted this work without the leads. For example:

o  	In 2000, in response to a citizen's complaint, HUD's Inspector General
examined the Bridgeport Housing Authority and concluded that it was not
operated in an efficient, effective, and economical manner and did not
always comply with HUD regulations-including a failure to meet the time
schedule on a court-ordered directive to replace 1,063 low-income housing
units. According to HUD officials, most of the concerns identified in the
Inspector General's Bridgeport Housing Authority report have been or are
being addressed.

o  	In May 2003, partly based on information from HUD's Connecticut State
Office that Bridgeport's HOME Investment Partnership program was suffering
from poor management, HUD's Inspector General reported on Bridgeport's
HOME program, finding that the city could not provide adequate support for
$989,929 in HOME program funds.

In addition to HUD, other federal agencies have reviewed Bridgeport's
program operations:

o  	DOT hires engineering firms to perform project management oversight,
including oversight of the development of the Bridgeport Intermodal
Transportation Center. This oversight includes periodic site visits and
the review of monthly reports. DOT has been monitoring this project since
its inception in 1999.

o  	As part of the Bridgeport corruption investigation, DOT's Inspector
General, working with the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Defense Criminal
Investigative Service, and FTA, investigated $104,000 in DOT grant funds
used

                   Page 4 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

for the removal and disposal of contaminated soil, allegedly from the
construction site of a municipal hockey arena, parking garage, and the
Intermodal Transportation Center. The soil was actually from sites in
Norwalk, Connecticut, and New York City. The parties charged in this
investigation have pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $104,000 in
restitution.

o  	In commenting on our draft report, DOT noted that when the Greater
Bridgeport Transit District was chosen to be the grantee for Bridgeport's
Intermodal Transportation Center, FTA initiated a review of an
architecture and engineering procurement under this grant. FTA found that
the appropriate procurement procedures had not been followed, and the
review resulted in the cancellation of the procurement. In addition, after
collaboration between the Connecticut Department of Transportation and
FTA, the city of Bridgeport was chosen to be the new grantee. The Greater
Bridgeport Transit District was subsequently dissolved and the Greater
Bridgeport Transit Authority was established.

o  	DOJ's Inspector General reviewed Bridgeport's COPS program in 2000
based on routine risk-based audit plans and found that the city generally
performed at an acceptable level but had failed to submit some monitoring
reports and had submitted many other reports late.

o  	In light of the corruption, DOJ's Weed and Seed Program changed the
grant manager fiscal agent from the city of Bridgeport to the Office of
Law Enforcement (the police department).

The Bridgeport Investigation Did Not Identify Weaknesses in Federal
Controls

As part of its Bridgeport investigation, the FBI contacted officials from
HUD, DOT, and EPA but did not identify any internal control weaknesses on
the part of federal agencies, concluding that the Bridgeport corruption
was not a result of poor internal controls. Instead, the FBI reported that
the corruption was a result of some corrupt individuals in the local area.
According to the FBI, fraud was committed, but there was no indication
that the fraud was a result of a lack of proper internal controls at the
federal level.

In addition, the indictment resulting from the investigation did not refer
to any misuse of federal funds. Rather, it stated that the mayor and
others committed illegal acts, a few of which were associated with
projects that had received some federal funding in the past. For example,
the indictment charged the following:

o  	The mayor and his associates wrongfully collected a payment from a
private company in exchange for awarding the company a contract to operate
and manage Bridgeport's waste water treatment facilities. (This charge
resulted in a "guilty" verdict.) According to EPA officials, this facility
was constructed in the 1970s or 1980s with financial assistance from EPA.

                   Page 5 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

o  	The mayor agreed to select a specific private company to develop
vacant tracts of land in Bridgeport, including the site of the former
Father Panik Village public housing complex, in return for payments to be
made from the company when the land was developed. (This charge resulted
in a "guilty" verdict.) In 1990, the Bridgeport Housing Authority was
directed by the United States District Court of Connecticut to replace all
units demolished in the Father Panik Village public housing complex; HUD
provided $89 million for this replacement.4

o  	The mayor and his associates solicited and agreed to accept money and
other items for awarding contracts to private companies for the design and
construction of a minor league baseball stadium and hockey arena. (This
charge was dismissed.) Prior to construction, in 1998, EPA provided
$200,000 in Brownfields program funds to assess the extent of soil and
water contamination on this site. Also, DOT provided over $5 million to
help construct the site's parking garage, which is also used for
Bridgeport's Intermodal Transportation Center.5

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to USDA, Education, EPA, HUD, DOJ, and
DOT for their review and comment. These agencies generally agreed with our
findings. They provided some additional information on their monitoring
activities in Bridgeport as well as some technical comments that are
reflected in the letter as appropriate.

EPA noted that it has recently completed a 2-day desk review of
Bridgeport's Brownfields grant. This review was conducted after our draft
was sent to agencies for comment.

In addition, DOT noted that, in light of the corruption, FTA has scheduled
a financial management oversight review of Bridgeport to provide assurance
that new accounting procedures implemented by the city will provide the
necessary control over federal transportation funds.

4 When first built, Father Panik Village had a total of 1,239 units within
46 buildings on a 40-acre tract on the east side of Bridgeport. Two
buildings were later torn down, reducing the overall facility to 1,063
units. In the 1970s, the complex began to fall into disrepair, and in the
1980s became known as one of the nation's most poorly managed public
housing facilities. Residents complained about the conditions at the
complex and filed suit against HUD and the Bridgeport Housing Authority. A
settlement was negotiated in 1990, and Father Panik Village was to be
totally demolished and replaced by 818 units of new housing around the
city, plus an additional 245 project-based Section 8 units. (Section 8
allows very low-income families to choose and lease or purchase safe,
decent, and affordable privately owned housing.) 5 As noted previously,
the DOT Inspector General concluded that $104,000 of this amount was used
fraudulently, and the agency has taken steps to retrieve the funds.

                   Page 6 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of USDA,
Education, HUD, DOJ, and DOT, and to the Administrator of EPA. The report
is also available at no cost on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202)
512-6878 or at [email protected]. Major contributors to this report were Andy
Finkel and Eric Diamant.

David G. Wood Director, Financial Markets and Community Investment

Enclosure

                   Page 7 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

Enclosure I

  Use of Funds Provided by Six Federal Agencies in Bridgeport, Connecticut (by
                                  fiscal year)

      Total Federal Awards Expended in      1998   1999   2000   2001    2002 
    Bridgeport, Connecticut (dollars in                               
                 millions)                $69.22 $73.06 $92.20 $82.32 $82.35a 
                           Department of Agriculture
        Program            Purpose          1998   1999   2000   2001    2002 
                        Assist states,                                        
                     through cash grants                              
                     and food donations,                              
                     in making the school                             
                        lunch program                                 
    National School      available to                                 
     Lunch Program    schoolchildren and                              
                       to encourage the                               
                     domestic consumption                             
                        of nutritious                                 
                         agricultural                                 
                         commodities.       4.61   4.30   5.93   6.19    6.78
                        Assist states,                                        
                     through cash grants                              
School Breakfast  and food donations,                              
Program              in providing a                                
                     nutritious nonprofit                             
                      breakfast service                               
                     for schoolchildren.    1.04   1.04   1.32   1.26    1.50
                     Assist states in                                         
                     conducting nonprofit                             
                     food service                                     
                     programs for                                     
Summer Food       low-income children                              
Service Program   during summer months                             
for Children      and at other                                     
                     approved times, when                             
                     schools are out of                               
                     session or closed                                
                     for vacation.          0.49   0.48   0.52   0.50    0.44
                     Help states provide                                      
                     to low-income                                    
                     pregnant,                                        
                     breastfeeding, and                               
                     postpartum women,                                
                     infants, and                                     
                     children up to age                               
                     five, determined to                              
                     be at nutritional                                
                     risk, at no cost,                                
Special           supplemental                                     
Supplemental      nutritious foods,                                
Nutrition Program nutrition education,                             
for Women,        and referrals to                                 
Infants, and      health care                                      
Children (WIC)    providers.             0.81   0.76   0.74   0.74    0.75
Other Agriculture                                                          
programs                                 0.49   0.49   0.47   0.53    0.58
                       Improve diets of                                       
                          low-income                                  
     Food Stampsb       households by                                 
                       increasing their                               
                       food purchasing                                
                           ability.                 1.9    2.2    2.3     2.5
                            Department of Education
                     Help local education                                     
                     agencies and schools                             
                     improve the teaching                             
Title I Grants to and learning of                                  
    Local Education  children failing, or                             
       Agencies      most at-risk of                                  
                     failing, to meet                                 
                     challenging state                                
                     academic standards.    8.71   9.87  11.10   9.88   11.75
                     Enable rural and                                         
                     inner city public                                
                     elementary and                                   
                     secondary schools to                             
                     plan, implement, or                              
21st Century      expand projects that                             
Community         benefit the                                      
Learning Centers  educational, health,                             
                     social service,                                  
                     cultural, and                                    
                     recreational needs                               
                     of their                                         
                     communities.              0   0.63   1.70   3.28    4.23
Other Education                                                            
programs                                 3.64   4.16   4.58   6.19    7.98
                        Environmental Protection Agency
                     Empower states,                                          
                     communities, and                                 
                     other stakeholders                               
                     in economic                                      
                     redevelopment to                                 
                     prevent, assess,                                 
                     safely clean up, and                             
                     sustainably reuse                                
                     brownfields (sites                               
Brownfields       that have actual or                              
Pilots/Grants and perceived                                        
Demonstrations c  contamination and a                              
                     potential for                                    
                     redevelopment or                                 
                     reuse).                                          
                     (Bridgeport's                                    
                     Brownfield grants                                
                     generally are for                                
                     environmental                                    
                     assessment                                       
                     activities.)           0.20      0      0   0.20       0
       Other EPA                                                              
       programs                                0      0      0      0    0.03

Page 8 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

                                  Enclosure I

                  Department of Housing and Urban Development
                     Develop viable urban                                     
                     communities by providing                          
                     decent housing, a                                 
                     suitable living                                   
                     environment, and                                  
                     expanding economic                                
                     opportunities,                                    
                     principally for persons                           
                     of low and moderate                               
                     income. Each activity                             
                     funded must benefit low-                          
       Community     and moderate-income                               
Development Block families, aid in the                              
        Grants       prevention or elimination                         
                     of slums or blight, or                            
                     meet other community                              
                     development needs having                          
                     a particular urgency                              
                     because existing                                  
                     conditions pose a serious                         
                     and immediate threat to                           
                     the health or welfare of                          
                     the community where other                         
                     financial resources are                           
                     not available.             6.01  4.64  6.79  5.89   5.65
                       Expand the supply of                                   
                        affordable housing,                            
                        particularly rental                            
                       housing, for low- and                           
                     very lowincome Americans;                         
                     strengthen the abilities                          
                     of and local governments                          
                      to design and implement                          
                     strategies for achieving                          
                       adequate supplies of                            
    HOME Investment     decent, affordable                             
      Partnership        housing; provide                              
                      financial and technical                          
                           assistance to                               
                           participating                               
                     jurisdictions; extend and                         
                      strengthen partnerships                          
                        among all levels of                            
                        government and the                             
                       private sector in the                           
                     production and operation                          
                      of affordable housing.    2.07  0.99  0.88  1.50   1.33
                     Improve the quality of                                   
                     emergency shelters and                            
                     transitional housing for                          
                     the homeless, make                                
Emergency Shelter available additional                              
        Grants       shelters, meet the costs                          
                     of operating shelters,                            
                     provide essential social                          
                     services to homeless                              
                     individuals, and help                             
                     prevent homelessness.      0.11  0.13  0.22  0.12   0.10
                        Provide states and                                    
                     localities with resources                         
                     and incentives to devise                          
Housing            long-term comprehensive                          
Opportunities for  strategies for meeting                           
People with AIDS    the housing needs of                            
                       persons with AIDS, or                           
                       related diseases, and                           
                          their families.          0  0.12  0.37  0.50   0.45
       Other HUD                                                              
       programs                                 2.64  3.73  4.78  6.51   0.73
                     Provide and operate                                      
                     cost-effective, decent,                           
    Public Housing   safe and affordable                               
       programs      dwellings for lower                               
      (Bridgeport    income families through                           
        Housing      an authorized local                               
      Authority)     public housing agency.    33.14 33.54 29.31 32.53 32.13d
                             Department of Justice
                     Help units of local                                      
       Local Law     government reduce crime                           
Enforcement Block and improve public                                
         Grant       safety. Funds may be used                         
                     for one or more of seven                          
                     program purpose areas.     0.17  0.36  0.65  0.33   0.15
                     Help to increase police                                  
                     presence and improve                              
                     cooperative efforts                               
                     between law enforcement                           
                     agencies and members of                           
                     the community, expand                             
Community         community policing                                
Oriented Policing efforts through the use                           
Services (COPS)   of technology and other                           
                     innovative strategies,                            
                     increase security and                             
                     reduce violence in                                
                     schools, address crime                            
                     and disorder problems,                            
                     and otherwise enhance                             
                     public safety.             0.90  2.25  1.40  0.38   0.36
                     Prevent and reduce the                                   
                     impact of family and                              
                     community violence on                             
                     young children (primarily                         
                     from birth to six years                           
                     of age) by helping                                
                     communities to expand                             
      Safe Start     existing partnerships                             
                     between service providers                         
                     (such as law enforcement,                         
                     mental health, health,                            
                     early childhood                                   
                     education, and others) to                         
                     create a comprehensive                            
                     service delivery system.      0     0     0  0.24   0.30

                   Page 9 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

Enclosure I

                         Combat violent crime, drug                           
                         use, and gang activity in                       
                         high-crime neighborhoods.                       
                         "Weed out" violence and                         
                         drug activity in                                
                         high-crime neighborhoods                        
Executive Office for  and then "seed" the sites                       
Weed and Seed         with a range of crime and                       
                         drug prevention programs,                       
                         human service resources,                        
                         and neighborhood                                
                         restoration activities to                       
                         prevent crime from                              
                         recurring.                 0.14 0.15  0.03 0.07 0.04
       Other Justice                                                          
         programs                                   0.18 0.29  0.37 0.52 0.29
             Department of Transportation           
                                Assist state                                  
                         transportation agencies in                      
                         planning and developing an                      
                         integrated, interconnected                      
                           transportation system                         
                          important to interstate                        
                           commerce and travel by                        
                              constructing and                           
Federal Aid Highway       rehabilitating the                          
Program (through the   National Highway System,                       
Federal Highway        improve all public roads                       
Administration)       except those functionally                       
                            classified as local,                         
                         provide aid for the repair                      
                            of federal-aid roads                         
                            following disasters,                         
                            foster safe highway                          
                           design, and replace or                        
                         rehabilitate deficient or                       
                             obsolete bridges.      1.72 0.56  0.45 0.21 0.01
                         Improve the speed and ease                           
                         of transfer between                             
                         transportation modes in                         
                         downtown Bridgeport by                          
                         colocating facilities and                       
                         providing seamless                              
Bridgeport Intermodal connections where                               
Transportation Center possible, and support                           
(through the Federal  economic development and                        
          Transit        land use initiatives in                         
     Administration)e    the city.                     0 0.99 15.62    0 1.85
                         Assist sponsors, owners,                             
                         or operators of public-use                      
                         airports in the                                 
                         development of a                                
Airport Improvement   nationwide system of                            
Program (through the  airports adequate to meet                       
Federal Aviation      the needs of civil                              
Administration)       aeronautics.               0.55 0.05  0.05 0.10    0

Source: GAO analysis of data from Single Audit Act audit reports, Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance, and agency program and Inspector General
officials.

Note: These tables present federal awards expended in Bridgeport as
reported in Single Audit Act audit reports and reflect funding provided by
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Agriculture,
Education, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Transportation.
(The Departments of Commerce, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Treasury, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
Corporation for National Community Service, also provide funds to
Bridgeport. These agencies provided approximately $2.4 million to
Bridgeport in 2002, or about 5 percent of the total federal funds that
were provided to Bridgeport in that year.)

aThe total for 2002 includes an approximation for funds provided to the
Bridgeport Housing Authority using the average funds provided from 1998
through 2001.

bFood Stamp Program funding as reported by the Department of Agriculture.

cBrownfields Pilots/Grants and Demonstrations funding as reported by the
Environmental Protection Agency.

dThe figure for 2002 is an approximation for funds provided to the
Bridgeport Housing Authority using the average funds provided from 1998
through 2001.

eIntermodal Transportation Center funding as reported by the Department of
Transportation. In 2003, DOT provided an additional $8 million in grant
funds for the final design and construction of the Bridgeport Intermodal
Center's bus terminal.

(250147)

                  Page 10 GAO-04-23OR Bridgeport, Connecticut

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. However, 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.

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of

GAO's Mission 	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.

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-

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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 email this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
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,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

                  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Public Affairs 	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***