Public Housing: Information on the Roles of HUD, Public Housing
Agencies, Capital Markets, and Service Organizations (15-FEB-06,
GAO-06-419T).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-419T
ACCNO: A47018
TITLE: Public Housing: Information on the Roles of HUD, Public
Housing Agencies, Capital Markets, and Service Organizations
DATE: 02/15/2006
SUBJECT: Housing programs
Locally administered programs
Low income housing
Program evaluation
Program management
Public assistance programs
Public housing
Rental housing
HUD HOPE VI Program
HUD Public Housing Program
******************************************************************
** 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-06-419T
* Related Products
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
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
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.
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.
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
Source: GAO.
aBudget 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.
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:
o 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.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.
o 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.2 Public housing directors reported having to
spend more administrative time in implementing reforms, partially
due to a lack of clear guidance from HUD.
o 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.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.
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
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:
o In 2002, we reported that the results of the PHAS and PIC
systems were inconsistent.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.
o 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.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.
o 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.6 HUD reported that it was developing a system
that would allow it to collect such information in the future.
o In 2005, we reported on HUD's efforts to assess PHAs'
compliance with its policies for determining rent subsidies.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.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.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.
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.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.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.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.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.14
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.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.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).17
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.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.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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
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.
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.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday,
GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on
its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe
to Updates."
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. Government Accountability 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
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
(202) 512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
Background
HUD Provides Funding, Guidance, and Oversight for Local PHAs
Funding and Guidance
Millions of dollars
Fiscal year
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006a Total
Operating Fund $3,495 $3,577 $3,579 $2,438 $3,564 $16,653
Capital Fund 2,843 2,712 2,696 2,579 2,439 13,269
Hope VI 574 570 149 143 99 1,535
Total $6,912 $6,859 $6,424 $5,160 $6,102 $31,457
1GAO, Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies' Experiences with
Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements, GAO-02-572 (Washington, D.C.: May 31,
2002).
2GAO, Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views on Many
Recent Housing Reforms, GAO-04-19 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2003).
3GAO, Public Housing: HUD's Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs to Be More
Consistent, GAO-03-555 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).
Oversight and Technical Assistance
4GAO, Public Housing: New Assessment System Holds Potential for Evaluating
Performance, GAO-02-282 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
5GAO, HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce
Planning Needed. GAO-02-839 (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002).
6 GAO-04-19 .
7GAO, HUD Rental Assistance: Progress and Challenges in Measuring and
Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies. GAO-05-224 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18,
2005).
8GAO, Public Housing: Information on Receiverships at Public Housing
Authorities. GAO-03-363 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2003).
PHAs Are Responsible for Managing Public Housing in Accordance with HUD
Regulations and Requirements
9 GAO-03-555 .
10Some 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.
Private Capital Has Been Involved in Some HOPE VI Projects
13GAO, Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not
Met Annual Reporting Requirement, GAO-03-91 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15,
2002).
14GAO, 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 .
Community Services Organizations May Provide Supportive Services to Public
Housing Residents
16GAO, 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 .
18GAO, Elderly Housing: Federal Housing Programs That Offer Assistance for
the Elderly, GAO-05-174 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2005).
19 GAO-06-163 .
Contacts and Acknowledgments
Related Products
(250281)
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.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Congressional Relations
Public Affairs
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
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-419T , a testimony to the Subcommittee on Federalism
and the Census, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
February 15, 2006
PUBLIC HOUSING
Information on the Roles of HUD, Public Housing Agencies, Capital Markets,
and Service Organizations
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.
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.
*** End of document. ***