    Rural Housing: Options for Optimizing the Federal Role in Rural Housing
    Development (Letter Report, 09/15/2000, GAO/RCED-00-241).

    Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on rural
    housing programs, focusing on: (1) the physical condition of today's
    rural housing and rural households' access to affordable housing credit;
    (2) the rural housing programs offered by the Department of
    Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Housing Service (RHS) and the ways in which
    RHS' programs have adapted to changes in the level of federal housing
    assistance; (3) any overlap between RHS' programs and the programs of
    the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal,
    state, and private organizations; and (4) options for maximizing the
    efficiency and effectiveness of the federal role in rural housing.

    GAO noted that: (1) nationwide, the physical condition of rural housing
    has greatly improved since the inception of rural housing programs in
    the 1930s, but it still lags somewhat behind that of urban housing; (2)
    particularly in some remote rural areas, the quality of housing is
    poorer for some groups, especially minorities; (3) affordable housing is
    also difficult to find in some rural areas, and rural homeowners
    sometimes pay slightly higher mortgage interest rates than their urban
    counterparts; (4) RHS is the largest component of a comparatively new
    USDA mission area, Rural Development, created when the Department was
    reorganized in 1994; (5) RHS targets a wide array of housing services to
    rural residents, often offers more favorable terms and conditions than
    other federal housing programs, and delivers service through an
    extensive field network; (6) RHS' single family and multifamily programs
    are available to households that live in rural areas and have incomes
    ranging from very low to moderate; (7) RHS' multifamily programs
    provide: (a) direct and guaranteed loans to commercial developers or
    nonprofit organizations to produce new rental housing; (b) grants and
    loans to public or nonprofit agencies or individual farmers to build
    affordable rental housing for farm workers; (c) housing preservation
    grants to local governments, nonprofit organizations, and Native
    American tribes; (d) and rental assistance subsidies; (8) as government
    has scaled back its involvement in rural housing assistance, it has
    greatly reduced its funding for RHS' direct loan programs, expanded RHS'
    guaranteed loan programs, and increased reliance on state, local, and
    private partners to leverage funds for rural communities; (9) rural
    households have greater access to RHS than to other federal or state
    agencies; (10) overlap in the products offered and in the households
    served by RHS and the other organizations offering housing assistance
    varies by rural housing program and program mission; (11) given the
    diminished distinctions between rural and urban areas today,
    improvements in rural housing quality and access to credit, and RHS'
    increasing reliance on guaranteed lending and public and private
    partnerships, the federal role in rural housing is at a crossroads; and
    (12) options for optimizing the federal role include fundamentally
    changing the programs' targeting, subsidy levels, and delivery systems,
    as well as merging RHS' programs with HUD's or other agencies'
    comparable programs.

    --------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

     REPORTNUM:  RCED-00-241
         TITLE:  Rural Housing: Options for Optimizing the Federal Role in
    	     Rural Housing Development
          DATE:  09/15/2000
       SUBJECT:  Rural housing programs
    	     Rural economic development
    	     Government guaranteed loans
    	     Housing construction
    	     Housing repairs
    	     Low income housing
    	     Federal aid for housing
    	     Redundancy
    	     Direct loans
    IDENTIFIER:  HUD Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program
    	     BIA Housing Improvement Program
    	     BIA Native American Loan Guarantee Program
    	     RHS Multifamily Housing Loan Program
    	     HUD Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
    	     RHS Single Family Direct Loan Program
    	     RHS Single Family Loan Guarantee Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Testimony.                                               **
    **                                                              **
    ** 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/RCED-00-241

    Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services, House of Representatives

    September 2000 RURAL HOUSING Options for Optimizing the Federal Role in
    Rural Housing Development

    GAO/ RCED- 00- 241

    Letter 3 Appendixes Appendix I: Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness

    of Current Rural Housing Programs 44 Appendix II: Estimated 1999 Census by
    Metro and Nonmetro

    Categories 55 Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Agriculture 56
    Appendix IV: Comments From the Department of Housing

    and Urban Development 72 Tables Table 1: Data on RHS' Housing Programs 15

    Table 2: Key Features of the Principal Single- Family Programs Offered in
    Rural Areas 21 Table 3: Key Features of the Principal Multifamily Programs

    Offered in Rural Areas 26 Table 4: Key Features of Specialized Programs
    Offered in

    Rural Areas 31 Figures Figure 1: Distressed Home With Outhouse in Northwest

    Mississippi 12 Figure 2: New Home Financed With RHS Single- Family Loan

    and Additional Funding Sources 13 Figure 3: Counties Where RHS Guaranteed
    More Loans Than

    FHA Insured in 1999 25 Figure 4: Locations of Units Subsidized by HUD and
    RHS in

    Nonmetro Areas 28 Figure 5: Counties Where RHS Subsidizes More Units

    Than HUD 29 Figure 6: RHS Elderly Repair Grant Home 51 Figure 7: RHS Repair
    Loan Home 52

    Abbreviations

    CDBG Community Development Block Grant CRA Community Reinvestment Act FHA
    Federal Housing Administration FHLBank Federal Home Loan Bank HFA housing
    finance agency HOME Home Investment Partnerships Program HUD Department of
    Housing and Urban Development MSA metropolitan statistical area OMB Office
    of Management and Budget RHS Rural Housing Service VA Department of Veterans
    Affairs USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture

    Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division

    Lett er

    B- 284435 September 15, 2000 The Honorable Rick Lazio Chairman, Subcommittee
    on Housing and Community Opportunity Committee on Banking and Financial
    Services House of Representatives

    Dear Mr. Chairman: In the 1930s, the distinctions between rural and urban
    life were far sharper than they are today. At that time, there were few
    suburbs- little in the way of urban sprawl extending the city into the
    country- and most rural residents were farmers. Without electricity,
    telephone service, or good roads connecting rural residents to population
    centers, most rural residents were comparatively isolated and their access
    to credit was generally poor. Today, conditions are very different. More
    people live in suburbs than in central cities, and the proportion of the
    nation's population that lives on farms has dropped dramatically, from 25
    percent in 1930 to less than 2 percent today. Advances in transportation,
    computer technology, and telecommunications have- or have the potential to-
    put rural residents in touch with the rest of the nation, and credit has
    become more readily available in rural areas. With these demographic and
    economic changes, the federal role in rural housing has also evolved. Most
    notably, the federal government has scaled back its involvement in rural
    housing assistance programs, often reducing its financial commitment to
    direct lending and shifting responsibilities to state and local governments
    and the private sector.

    As the distinctions between rural and urban life have blurred and federal
    budgets have tightened, some policymakers have questioned the need for the
    separate rural housing programs that were first created in the mid1930s to
    stimulate the rural economy and assist needy rural families. Accordingly,
    you asked us to describe (1) the physical condition of today's rural housing
    and rural households' access to affordable housing credit; (2) the rural
    housing programs offered by the U. S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
    Rural Housing Service (RHS) and the ways in which RHS' programs have adapted
    to changes in the level of federal housing assistance; (3) any overlap
    between RHS' programs and the programs of the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development (HUD) and other

    federal, state, and private organizations; and (4) options for maximizing
    the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal role in rural housing.

    Our work is based on reviews of agency and published data; analyses of
    market data provided by RHS, HUD, and the National Council of State Housing
    Agencies; and discussions with RHS, HUD, and industry experts. We also
    conducted case studies in six states where we observed the condition of
    rural housing and RHS operations and met with local agency, housing,
    banking, and community development officials. We judgmentally selected these
    states to obtain a cross section of rural housing conditions, delivery
    structures, and states with different concentrations of rural counties. We
    relied on published studies, primarily by USDA's Economic Research Service,
    to evaluate the condition of rural housing, the cost and availability of
    rural credit, and changes in rural housing markets. Our analysis of the
    overlap between RHS' and other agencies' programs is based on a comparison
    of program features, including eligibility requirements, subsidy levels,
    product terms and conditions, and the location and income levels of the
    households served.

    Results in Brief Nationwide, the physical condition of rural housing has
    greatly improved since the inception of rural housing programs in the 1930s,
    but it still lags

    somewhat behind that of urban housing. Particularly in some remote rural
    areas, the quality of housing is poorer for some groups, especially
    minorities. Affordable housing is also difficult to find in some rural
    areas, and rural homeowners sometimes pay slightly higher mortgage interest
    rates than their urban counterparts.

    RHS is the largest component of a comparatively new USDA mission area, Rural
    Development, created when the Department was reorganized in 1994. RHS
    targets a wide array of housing services to rural residents, often offers
    more favorable terms and conditions than other federal housing programs, and
    delivers services through an extensive field network. RHS' singlefamily and
    multifamily programs are available to households that live in rural areas
    and have incomes ranging from very low to moderate. Specifically, RHS'
    single- family programs provide highly subsidized direct loans to households
    with very low and low incomes, guaranteed loans to households with low and
    moderate incomes, and grants and direct loans for housing repairs to
    households with very low incomes. 1 RHS' multifamily programs provide direct
    and guaranteed loans to commercial developers or nonprofit organizations to
    produce new rental housing; grants and loans to public or nonprofit agencies
    or individual farmers to build affordable rental housing for farm workers;
    housing preservation grants to local governments, nonprofit organizations,
    and Native American tribes; and rental assistance subsidies. As the federal
    government has scaled back its involvement in rural housing assistance, it
    has greatly reduced its funding for RHS' direct loan programs, expanded RHS'
    guaranteed loan programs, and increased its reliance on state, local, and
    private partners to leverage funds for rural communities. RHS has also
    streamlined and centralized its operations in many states, reducing its
    field office staffing. Nevertheless, rural households still have greater
    access to RHS than to other federal or state agencies because RHS continues
    to operate offices in and assign staff to cover rural areas.

    Overlap in the products offered and in the households served by RHS and the
    other organizations offering housing assistance varies by rural housing
    program and program mission. Some RHS products are similar to products
    offered by others. For example, although RHS' guaranteed loan program offers
    borrowers better terms than HUD's Federal Housing Administration's (FHA)
    insurance program, both programs allow borrowers to obtain mortgages with
    little or no cash and protect lenders against losses when loans go into
    default. In addition, RHS' rural housing programs often serve many of the
    same markets as programs offered by others. In particular, HUD and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

    1 Very- low- income households have incomes at or below 50 percent of their
    area's median income; low- income households have incomes above 50 percent
    and at or below 80 percent of their area's median income; and moderate-
    income households have incomes above 80 percent and at or below 115 percent
    of their area's median income.

    provide housing assistance nationwide, including assistance to eligible
    households in rural areas. For example, RHS' single- family loan guarantee
    program serves a moderate- income market segment, as does FHA's much larger
    single- family mortgage insurance program. But RHS guarantees more loans
    than FHA insures in the more remote rural areas, in part because lenders in
    some rural areas do not always offer FHA loans and because RHS loans are
    less expensive to the consumer. Some RHS products and terms have no
    counterparts elsewhere. For example, RHS offers the only farm worker housing
    construction program. In addition, RHS' single- family direct loan program
    offers a greater interest subsidy than other programs and is available only
    to households that are unable to qualify for credit elsewhere. Although most
    state housing finance agencies also offer single- family direct loan
    programs, these programs typically complement rather than duplicate RHS'
    program because they provide smaller subsidies and their products are
    therefore available to households with higher incomes. The state agencies
    further complement RHS' efforts by participating in RHS' single- family loan
    guarantee program. In the multifamily area, despite overlap in the
    eligibility requirements for households benefiting from RHS' and HUD's
    multifamily guaranteed loan and/ or rental assistance programs, RHS
    typically delivers program services through district or local offices,
    whereas HUD relies on regional offices. On the one hand, RHS' program
    management structure can make it easier for rural households to gain access
    to housing credit; on the other hand, the differences in RHS' and HUD's
    program management structure have led to inconsistencies in program rules,
    sometimes causing frustration and extra paperwork for property owners and
    managers. In addition, the two agencies have established separate,
    uncoordinated systems for monitoring the physical and financial condition of
    their properties.

    Given the diminished distinctions between rural and urban areas today,
    improvements in rural housing quality and access to credit, and RHS'
    increasing reliance on guaranteed lending and public/ private partnerships,
    the federal role in rural housing is at a crossroads. Options for optimizing
    the federal role include fundamentally changing the programs' targeting,
    subsidy levels, and delivery systems, as well as merging RHS' programs with
    HUD's or other agencies' comparable programs. Without some prodding, the
    agencies are not likely to examine the benefits and costs of merging as an
    option. Nonetheless, as a first step toward achieving greater efficiency,
    the Congress may wish to require RHS and HUD to explore the potential
    benefits of merging similar programs. Depending on the results, the Congress
    may then choose to merge similar programs, such as the single- family
    insured lending programs and the multifamily portfolio

    management programs, taking advantage of the best practices of each and
    ensuring that targeted populations are not adversely affected. In addition,
    RHS and others have identified a number of actions that could be taken to
    increase the efficiency of existing rural housing programs, whether or not
    they are merged (see app. I).

    Background Federal housing assistance in rural areas dates back to the
    1930s. At that time, most rural residents worked on farms, and rural areas
    were generally

    poorer than urban areas. Accordingly, the Congress authorized separate
    housing assistance for rural areas and made USDA responsible for
    administering it. Specifically, the Bankhead- Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937
    authorized USDA to provide long- term, low- interest loans to farm tenants
    and sharecroppers so that they could purchase and repair farms, including
    homes on farms. The Housing Act of 1949 authorized new rural lending
    programs, which were administered by RHS' predecessor, the Farmers Home
    Administration, within USDA. Persons were eligible for this assistance if
    they lived in dwellings on land capable of producing at least $400 worth of
    agricultural commodities annually. Legislation authorizing the Farmers Home
    Administration to make loans to rural residents other than farmers was
    enacted in 1961.

    Nationwide housing assistance programs also originated during the 1930s. FHA
    began providing mortgage insurance in 1934, and the first public housing
    program was authorized in 1937. The Veterans Administration (now the
    Department of Veterans Affairs) started offering housing assistance to all
    eligible veterans in 1944. Later, other federal housing programs were placed
    under HUD, created in 1965. Currently, federal tax policies, especially the
    Low- Income Housing Tax Credit program, help make housing affordable
    nationwide. In addition, various programs, some of which are administered by
    federal departments other than HUD or USDA and by state housing finance
    agencies (HFA), offer low- interest financing for affordable rural housing.
    Community development corporations, regional commissions, and other
    nonprofit organizations also promote affordable homeownership and rental
    assistance at local levels. Finally, the federal government helps make
    homeownership affordable by requiring certain lenders to meet special
    housing finance needs. 2

    Historically, the term “rural” has described an area that is
    sparsely settled with wide open spaces, a population engaged in resource-
    based occupations, and a lifestyle and culture distinct from those of urban
    places. But the definition has evolved over time, responding to population
    increases and changes in land use. Today, vast areas are still clearly
    rural, but suburban sprawl in other areas has created a mosaic of regions
    that are alternately rural and urban in character. For example, rural
    pockets persist between new suburbs that have grown up near urban centers.
    And within rural areas are urban pockets- small towns that have grown into
    cities as urban “expatriates” have moved beyond established
    suburbs. Conversely, some areas have lost population and are more rural
    today than they were 20 or 30 years ago. 3

    2 Specifically, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages depository
    institutions and other lenders to meet the housing credit needs of the
    communities they serve, and the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety
    and Soundness Act of 1992 places upon Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac numerical
    goals for the loans they purchase that are made to low- and moderate- income
    persons and are made in underserved areas. In addition, the Federal Home
    Loan Bank (FHLBank) system operates the Community Support Program that,
    among other things, requires FHLBank members to meet standards of community
    investment or service in order to maintain continued access to long- term
    FHLBank system advances. For example, a member is required to provide
    federal oversight agencies with the public disclosure portion of its most
    recent CRA evaluation and a description of how the member assists first-
    time homebuyers.

    3 Joseph N. Belden and Robert J. Wiener, Housing in Rural America( SAGE
    Publications, 1999).

    To keep up with such demographic changes, USDA identifies areas on maps in
    local and state offices that are eligible for its rural housing programs.
    The following criteria determine eligibility:

    A rural area is open country that is not part of or associated with an urban
    area. A rural area may include any town, village, city, or place, including
    a place that is not part of or associated with an urban area but is
    immediately adjacent to a densely settled area, has a population of no more
    than 10, 000, and is rural in character. Such a place may be in either a
    metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or a nonmetropolitan area. In addition,
    a nonmetropolitan area with a population of 10,001 to 20,000 may be
    considered a rural area if USDA or HUD determines that it has a serious lack
    of mortgage credit. 4

    For this report, where the data allowed us to do so, we broke down rural or
    nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas into three subcategories- urbanized
    nonmetro, rural nonmetro, and completely rural nonmetro areas. We defined
    (1) urbanized nonmetro areas as counties that are not in MSAs and have at
    least one town with a population of 20,000 or more; (2) rural nonmetro areas
    as counties that are not in MSAs and have one or more towns with a
    population of 2, 500 to 19,999; and (3) completely rural nonmetro areas as
    counties that are not in MSAs and do not have a town with a population of
    over 2,499. This breakdown corresponds with the requirement for most of RHS'
    programs that eligible households be located in rural communities with fewer
    than 20, 000 residents and shows the extent to which RHS' and other
    agencies' programs serve the most rural areas.

    Today's Rural Housing Since the inception of rural housing programs in the
    1930s, the quality of

    Quality and Rural rural housing has improved. For example, in the 1930s,
    very few rural

    homes had electricity or indoor plumbing, but by the 1970s, virtually all
    Households' Access to

    rural homes had both. Today, despite improvements, the quality of rural
    Affordable Housing

    housing still lags somewhat behind that of urban housing. According to
    Credit

    HUD's American Housing Survey, 22 percent of the nation's population lived
    in rural areas in 1991. Yet 29 percent of the nation's occupied housing
    units with severe or moderate physical problems related to plumbing,
    heating, electricity, kitchen facilities, or maintenance were in rural
    areas. In some rural locations, housing quality continues to lag because
    there is little incentive to invest in housing. Overall, housing credit is
    almost as readily

    4 Specifically, MSAs consist of counties with central cities of at least
    50,000 residents and surrounding contiguous counties that are metropolitan
    in character and economically tied to the core counties.

    available in rural as in urban areas, but rural borrowers often pay slightly
    higher rates.

    Housing Quality Lags in While distinctions between rural and urban areas are
    no longer as

    Some Rural Areas pronounced as in the past, a higher proportion of rural
    units are

    substandard, and minorities and persons living in remote areas are affected
    the most. According to HUD's 1997 American Housing Survey, rural households
    lived in moderately or severely inadequate housing more often than urban
    households. The 1990 Census found that 6 percent of rural African- American
    homes and 12 percent of rural Native American homes lacked complete
    plumbing. In comparison, 2.4 percent or less of all the remaining homes-
    regardless of location- lacked complete plumbing. In addition, the Housing
    Assistance Council reported that 9 percent of owneroccupied rural units in
    1991 were substandard, compared with 6 percent in central cities. For
    renters, the incidence of substandard units was similar in rural areas and
    central cities- about 13 percent. This difference in housing quality for
    owners and renters is particularly noteworthy, given that a significantly
    higher proportion of rural residents own their homes. HUD's 1999 American
    Housing Survey found that 75 percent of rural households owned their own
    homes, compared with 67 percent of households nationwide and 50 percent of
    households in central cities. Rural ownership rates are higher even among
    very- low- income households, reflecting the basic tenet that owning a home
    on a parcel of land has become part of the culture of rural America. But a
    higher incidence of housing quality problems in rural areas nullifies many
    of the advantages of homeownership, including the ability to use homes as
    investments or as collateral for credit. A 1999 HUD report concludes that
    the most severe rural housing problems are found farthest from the nation's
    major cities, especially in such places as the Mississippi Delta,
    Appalachia, the Colonias on the Mexican border, and Indian trust land.
    Furthermore, for some rural residents, such as migrant farm workers, a
    shortage of affordable rural housing persists.

    Although the overall quality of housing in rural areas has improved, some
    rural counties continue to lose population and suffer from stagnant property
    values. In such economically depressed locations, there is little incentive
    to invest in housing. Some state Rural Development officials we spoke with
    noted that low population levels and low household incomes affect both the
    availability and attractiveness of affordable housing as an investment for
    builders. Because housing development costs are not significantly lower in
    rural areas, it is difficult to build even highly

    subsidized housing in rural areas that is affordable to low- and very-
    lowincome families.

    We found such difficulties in the following areas: The Mississippi Delta,
    which contains some of the poorest counties in

    the nation, is having problems attracting new housing investment. Casino
    gambling and catfish- processing operations have brought some new jobs to
    the area, but the jobs are not always near the older rural Delta towns. As a
    result, there is a need for affordable housing closer to the new jobs.
    Meanwhile, a number of older distressed towns, with little economic
    development and no significant housing construction in the past 40 years,
    continue to decline.

    In northern Missouri, employment has declined with farm production.
    Moreover, according to Missouri RHS and local community development
    officials, vacancies in multifamily housing have increased with the poor
    agricultural economy. Some new jobs have recently appeared in the farm-
    processing sector. However, these jobs are not located in the areas with the
    multifamily housing vacancies, creating an imbalance in the supply and
    demand for houses.

    The Colonias consist of hundreds of quasi- rural communities located along
    the Mexican border in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. These
    communities are characterized by severely substandard living conditions,
    lacking water and sewage systems and decent housing. The Colonias of the Rio
    Grande Valley in Texas serve as the principal “home base” for
    many migrant farm laborers. Housing is often constructed of “found
    materials,” such as cardboard, wood palettes, and corrugated metal
    sheets. The Colonias often fall outside the jurisdiction of cities; counties
    may not have the legal power to incur debt for financing infrastructure
    improvements; and the Colonias' lowincome, minority residents have little
    political power to compete for scarce resources.

    In contrast, there is a greater willingness to invest in neighborhoods
    closer to growing urban areas. For example, we visited a home that was 1 of
    10 recently built with funds from RHS, the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank),
    the state of Mississippi, and the local government. According to the
    Mississippi state director, the willingness of the other partners to
    contribute to maintaining an historically significant African- American
    neighborhood in an economically growing area was the key to the

    development's moving forward. Figure 1 shows the house and privy where the
    homeowner lived for 46 years until his new home, shown in figure 2, was
    finished in February 2000.

    Figure 1: Distressed Home With Outhouse in Northwest Mississippi

    Outhouse is located in the rear of the yard.

    Figure 2: New Home Financed With RHS Single- Family Loan and Additional
    Funding Sources

    USDA Has Determined That In its 1997 analysis of the demand for and
    availability of credit in rural

    Credit Is Available in Most areas, USDA found no evidence of widespread or
    economically important

    Rural Areas market failures or imperfections. USDA concluded that financial
    markets

    are serving the credit needs of rural America reasonably well. The report
    cited increased competition in rural housing markets and the increased
    secondary market activity of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other secondary
    market institutions in rural areas as key factors in reducing the rural
    financial market inefficiencies that plagued the sector in the past.
    Nonetheless, the study noted that interest rates were slightly higher in
    rural areas for most types of home mortgages. The report found that, with
    the exception of some smaller and remote rural areas, the banking system and
    other lenders active in rural America generally have sufficient deposits and
    access to money markets and other sources of funds to respond quickly to
    changes in the demand for credit. The report also found that the interest
    rates on home mortgages eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae, Freddie

    Mac, or other secondary market institutions are comparable in rural and
    urban areas. However, rural borrowers often pay slightly higher rates
    because the cost of doing business is greater in sparsely populated areas
    and loans to rural borrowers often have unconventional terms that make them
    ineligible for purchase by secondary market institutions. For example,
    housing factors, such as unacceptable water and sewer facilities and dated
    utility systems, and employment factors, such as a higher incidence of
    seasonal or self- employment, make rural loans less likely to meet the
    underwriting standards of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other secondary
    market institutions.

    Major RHS Rural RHS offers a wide array of services to rural residents. An
    increased

    Housing Programs and emphasis in recent years on leveraging limited funds
    with public- and

    private- sector partners and a general move away from direct lending How
    They Have

    programs has led RHS to streamline and centralize its operations in some
    Changed Over Time

    states. This increased centralization reflects RHS' overall shift in
    emphasis from being primarily an on- site lender of last resort to being
    primarily a facilitator delivering a variety of low- income housing and
    other community development services as a part of USDA's restructured Rural
    Development mission area.

    RHS Offers a Wide Array of USDA's Farmers Home Administration managed rural
    housing programs

    Housing and Community along with farm credit programs until the Department's
    1994 reorganization

    Development Services legislation split these functions. Farm credit programs
    were then shifted to

    the new Farm Service Agency, and housing programs were moved to the newly
    created RHS in the new Rural Development mission area that was tasked with
    helping improve the economies of rural communities.

    RHS' homeownership programs provide highly subsidized direct loans to
    households with very low and low incomes, guaranteed loans to households
    with low and moderate incomes, and grants and direct loans to rural
    residents for housing repairs. Multifamily programs provide direct and
    guaranteed loans to developers or nonprofit organizations for new rental
    housing; grants and loans to public or nonprofit agencies or to individual
    farmers to build affordable rental housing for farm workers; housing
    preservation grants to local governments, nonprofit organizations, and
    Native American tribes; and rental assistance subsidies that are attached to
    about half of RHS' rental units. In addition, RHS administers community
    facilities programs that provide direct and guaranteed loans

    and grants to help finance rural community centers, health care centers,
    child care facilities, and other public structures and services.

    For fiscal year 2000, RHS received an appropriation of $1.3 billion and loan
    authorizations of about $4. 6 billion, primarily for its guaranteed loan
    programs. RHS employs about 6, 500 staff and oversees an outstanding single-
    family and multifamily direct loan portfolio of about $28 billion. RHS'
    major housing programs were funded at higher levels both 20 years ago and in
    1994, when the Congress set up the current organizational structure. Table 1
    lists RHS' programs, briefly describes them, and compares the spending for
    them in fiscal year 1999 with the spending for them in fiscal years 1979 and
    1994.

    Table 1: Data on RHS' Housing Programs Dollars in millions

    Number of Total dollars

    Total dollars Total dollars

    households RHS housing

    spent, fiscal spent, fiscal

    spent, fiscal helped, fiscal

    Type of program

    year 1979 year 1994

    year 1999 year 1999 assistance

    Single- Family $2, 870.0 $1,656. 8 $966. 9 15, 600 Loans subsidized as

    Housing Direct low as 1 percent interest

    Loans (sec. 502) Single- Family

    $725. 9 a $2, 980. 0 a 38, 600 No money down, Housing

    no monthly mortgage Guaranteed Loans

    insurance loans (sec. 502)

    Single- Family Home $33.7 $52. 7 $46. 8 9, 021 Grants for elderly and

    Repair Grants and loans subsidized as low

    Loans (sec. 504) as 1 percent interest

    Single Family $5.6 $12. 8 $25. 4 1, 350 Grants to nonprofit and

    Housing Mutual public entities to provide

    Self- Help Grants technical assistance

    (sec. 523) Multifamily Direct

    $869.5 $512. 4 $114. 3 2, 181 Loans to developers Rural Rental

    subsidized as low as Housing (sec. 515)

    1 percent interest Multifamily Housing

    $74. 8 a 2, 540 Guaranteed loans for Guaranteed Loans

    developing moderate- income (sec. 538)

    apartments

    Dollars in millions Number of Total dollars

    Total dollars Total dollars

    households RHS housing

    spent, fiscal spent, fiscal

    spent, fiscal helped, fiscal

    Type of program

    year 1979 year 1994

    year 1999 year 1999 assistance

    Multifamily Housing $68.8 $56. 3 $33. 2 622 Grants and

    Farm Labor Grants loans subsidized

    and Loans (secs. at 1 percent interest

    516/ 514) Multifamily Housing

    $23. 0 $7. 2 1, 800 Grants to nonprofit Preservation Grants

    organizations, local (sec. 533)

    governments, and Native American tribes, usually leveraged with outside
    funding

    Multifamily Housing $423.0 $446. 7 $583. 4 42, 000 Rental assistance

    Rental Assistance to about one- half the

    (sec. 521) residents in RHSrental

    and farm labor units

    a Dollar amount represents private- sector loan levels guaranteed by RHS.
    Actual federal outlays are much lower because they are based on subsidy
    costs and projected losses that are less than loan levels.

    Declining Budgets Have In recent years, RHS has changed how it delivers its
    major programs in

    Increased the Use of response to declining budgets. RHS has increased its
    use of guaranteed

    Guaranteed Loans, Led to lending, streamlined its delivery systems, and
    relied more on public and

    Streamlined Delivery private partners to deliver its programs.

    Systems, and Increased

    Increased Use of Loan Guarantees

    Reliance on Partners Competing demands for limited budgetary resources have
    increased RHS' reliance on loan guarantees, which, because of their lower
    subsidy rates, require less budget authority than does the highly subsidized
    direct loan program. For example, RHS' single- family direct loan program,
    with a subsidy rate of 8. 53 percent for fiscal year 2000, is very costly
    compared with the single- family guaranteed program, with a subsidy rate of
    0. 61 percent. That is, for every $100 that RHS lends directly, it costs the
    U. S. Treasury $8.53, whereas, for every $100 in single- family loans that
    RHS guarantees, it costs the Treasury only $0.61. RHS' multifamily direct
    loan program is also more expensive than its multifamily guaranteed loan
    program (39.68 percent versus 0. 48 percent). While the guaranteed programs
    cost the government less than the direct programs, they generally

    help fewer households with very low incomes. As table 1 indicated, RHS
    guaranteed more multifamily loans than it made directly (2, 540 versus
    2,181), and it guaranteed two and one- half times more single- family loans
    than it made directly (38,600 versus 15, 600) in fiscal year 1999.

    The increased emphasis on guaranteed loans has also affected RHS'
    traditional mission of serving as a temporary lender of last resort. For
    example, although single- family direct loans are available only to
    borrowers who cannot obtain private credit, lenders that offer guaranteed
    single- family loans must only certify that a borrower could not obtain
    financing without the benefit of an insured or guaranteed loan, be it from
    RHS, FHA, VA or a private insurer.

    More Streamlined Delivery Systems

    The 1990s also saw significant streamlining of USDA's locally based program
    delivery structure, including the creation of a new in- house center to
    centrally service its single- family direct loans.

    From the 1930s through the early 1990s, USDA had field staff in almost every
    rural county, usually with separate offices for credit, conservation, and
    farm programs. Consistent with the 1994 reorganization, over 1, 500 county
    offices were closed or consolidated into “USDA service centers”
    that include staff representing the Department's Farm Services,
    Conservation, and Rural Development mission areas. 5

    Since the 1994 reorganization, about 600 Rural Development field positions
    were transferred to the St. Louis Centralized Servicing Center, further
    cutting the need for Rural Development field staff. Previously, RHS staff in
    hundreds of local field offices manually serviced RHS' portfolio of 765,000

    5 State Rural Development offices were given the authority to develop their
    own program delivery systems for three sister agencies. RHS is the largest
    of the three, with 89 percent of Rural Development's fixed funding and 86
    percent of its estimated staff years. In addition to rural housing, RHS
    addresses the need for health facilities, fire stations, and other community
    facilities in rural areas. The Rural Utilities Service addresses rural needs
    for basic services such as clean running water, sewers and waste disposal,
    electricity, and telecommunications. The Rural- Business Cooperative Service
    helps rural areas develop new job opportunities. The Rural Community
    Advancement Program gives USDA the flexibility to reallocate up to 25
    percent of each state's Rural Development funding among the three Rural
    Development agencies. As of August 2000, about 6, 500 USDA employees
    delivered Rural Development programs through the Department's headquarters
    in Washington, D. C.; 47 state headquarters, 144 area, and 671 local Rural
    Development offices; and the St. Louis Centralized Servicing Center.

    direct loans. However, cuts in the single- family direct program since 1994
    have reduced the number of loans that are serviced out of St. Louis by 28
    percent, raising questions as to the Centralized Servicing Center's longterm
    viability. According to the Centralized Servicing Center's director, without
    new direct loans or additional servicing work, the center could be
    underutilized within a few years. The center's director is seeking new work
    from other federal agencies and the private sector, proposing to service
    RHS' guaranteed loans, FHA's and VA's assigned loans, and private
    residential loans, as well as collect nonhousing debt, such as food stamp
    overpayments and amounts owed to IRS. As of July 2000, USDA was awaiting
    approval from the Department of the Treasury to begin a pilot project that
    would involve the Centralized Servicing Center in servicing all severely
    delinquent debts in Rural Development programs. According to the center's
    director, this project could add up to 40,000 new accounts to the center's
    portfolio.

    Increased Emphasis on Partnering

    Growing budgetary pressures during the 1990s also increased RHS' emphasis on
    partnering with state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, banks,
    and other federal agencies. RHS multifamily funds have been used in
    combination with low- income housing tax credit developments. In addition,
    RHS has leveraged its single- family direct loan programs with funding from
    private banks and its single- family guaranteed program with assistance from
    state HFAs.

    Authorized in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the Low- Income Housing Tax Credit
    program is currently the largest federal program to fund the development and
    rehabilitation of multifamily housing for low- income households. Under this
    program, the states are authorized to allocate federal tax credits to the
    private sector as an incentive to develop rental housing for low- income
    households. Our 1997 report on this program reported that 53 percent of the
    tax credit properties and 28 percent of the tax credit units placed in
    service from 1992 through 1994 were in rural areas. 6 RHS' multifamily
    direct loans were a financing source for many of those rural tax credit
    properties. With its funding for multifamily direct loans drastically
    reduced, RHS has made very few new direct loans and is focusing more on
    managing the portfolio of loans it has already made.

    6 Tax Credits: Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low- Income Housing
    Program (GAO/ GGD/ RCED- 97- 55, Mar. 28, 1997).

    Rural developers have more recently been focusing on using tax- exempt bonds
    with tax credits and funding from HUD programs to finance new rural low-
    income housing developments.

    Multiple funding sources are also becoming the norm in financing rural
    single- family homes. For example, RHS has developed a leveraged mortgage
    program to help make its single- family direct loan program funds go
    further. Private lenders provide a market- rate first mortgage loan, and RHS
    provides a second mortgage, typically covering 80 percent of the loan
    amount, to ensure affordability. Some bank officials we spoke with consider
    the program to be a loss leader because of the relatively high costs of
    servicing such small loans. Others said they believe the program is
    costeffective and virtually risk free because the banks assume the first
    position on the mortgage. Bankers we spoke with who participate in the
    program said they generally support the program for its goodwill and credit
    reform benefits and because they understand that the more leveraging
    involved, the more loans RHS can underwrite. A number of RHS state officials
    added that they were originally hesitant about leveraging direct loans but
    now believe that the additional bank oversight and homeowner education
    requirements most banks impose make better borrowers and improve the overall
    quality of RHS' portfolio.

    Five of the six states we visited were using RHS' single- family guaranteed
    program to leverage state HFA funds. The exception was Mississippi, where,
    according to the state Rural Development director, the state HFA tentatively
    agreed in May 2000 to use some of its bond proceeds to help reduce the
    interest rate on RHS single- family guaranteed loans. Mississippi has lagged
    behind most states in making single- family guaranteed loans. Mississippi
    state Rural Development officials told us they believed that a reduction of
    as little as 1 percent in the guaranteed program's interest rate would
    encourage realtors to get more involved in the program, which in turn would
    pressure lenders to get involved.

    Overlap Between RHS' In addition to RHS, FHA, state HFAs, and others operate
    housing programs,

    and Others' Programs though these programs are not targeted to rural areas.
    The extent of

    overlap between the products offered and the markets served by RHS and
    others varies, depending on the program. For example, although RHS' single-
    family loan guarantee is similar to the mortgage insurance offered by FHA,
    RHS' deeply subsidized single- family direct loans have no counterparts in
    other agencies. Furthermore, although FHA insures far more single- family
    loans than RHS guarantees, RHS guarantees more loans

    in many remote rural areas than FHA insures. As for multifamily programs,
    there is more overlap in both the products offered and the markets served by
    RHS and HUD. Nonetheless, RHS still is a major source of financing for
    multifamily housing in more remote rural areas. The extent of overlap
    between RHS' and other entities' specialized programs varies by program and
    program mission.

    National and State Housing FHA's and the VA's single- family mortgage
    insurance programs are the

    Programs largest national programs of their kind, operating in urban and
    rural areas.

    HUD also operates multifamily programs that provide mortgage insurance,
    rental assistance, and public housing nationwide. Furthermore, HUD operates
    two major grant programs- the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
    program and the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)- that promote
    affordable rental housing and homeownership nationwide, although, by
    statute, 30 percent of CDBG funding and 40 percent of HOME funding is
    allocated to the states for distribution to smaller communities.

    State HFAs provide subsidized financing for affordable housing in urban and
    rural areas. Specifically, states sell tax- exempt mortgage revenue and
    multifamily bonds and use the proceeds to finance discount mortgages for
    lower- income first- time homebuyers and to construct apartments affordable
    to lower- income renters.

    Some Overlap in SingleFamily State HFAs' mortgage revenue bond programs and
    FHA's principal singlefamily

    Products and mortgage insurance program are the major programs that are

    Markets Served in Rural offered in the same markets as RHS' single- family
    programs. The state

    Areas HFAs' mortgage revenue bond programs offer below- market- interest-
    rate

    loans in markets served by RHS' single- family direct loan program; FHA's
    and VA' s programs offer mortgage insurance and guaranteed loans in markets
    served by RHS' single- family guaranteed loan program. The extent to which
    these programs serve rural areas and the similarities and differences in
    their products are described below. Table 2 shows the key features of the
    single- family programs offered by RHS and the other nationwide programs
    that operate in rural areas. A discussion of the overlap between the
    programs of RHS and the other principal organizations that operate in rural
    areas follows.

    Table 2: Key Features of the Principal Single- Family Programs Offered in
    Rural Areas

    Loan guarantee/

    Interest Income

    Location Agency Direct loans

    insurance subsidy targeting targeting

    RHS X X X a X X State HFAs X b X X X c HUD/ FHA d X VA X

    a Direct loans only. b State HFAs self- insure some of the loans that they
    make as well as purchase some guaranteed/ insured loans made by RHS, FHA,
    and VA. c Varies by state.

    d FHA makes direct single- family loans as part of property disposition.

    RHS Direct Loans and State HFA Direct Loans

    RHS and state HFAs both subsidize direct loan interest rates for lowincome
    borrowers in rural areas. However, their products differ in the amount of
    subsidy offered, and although the two programs serve similar income groups,
    state HFAs have less activity in rural areas than does RHS. Each program has
    helped about 2 million families become homeowners, but because RHS' direct
    loan program targets poorer, more rural areas, it has assisted more rural
    families to date. In addition, RHS offers larger subsidies, so its program
    complements, rather than duplicates, the direct loan programs offered by
    state HFAs. In fact, most state HFAs work directly with RHS. For example,
    according to RHS, as of October 1999, 39 state HFAs were participating in
    RHS' guaranteed programs, which typically allow borrowers to obtain below-
    market- interest- rate loans and/ or obtain down payment and closing cost
    assistance. However, the funding for RHS' direct loan program- about $1
    billion per year- is down significantly from its peak of $2.9 billion in
    1976. On the other hand, more state HFAs have developed housing assistance
    programs in recent years, and bond activity is expected to increase starting
    in 2003, when a phased- in increase in the bond cap from $50 to $75 per
    capita will begin to take effect. Starting in 2003, each state's cap will
    increase in equal annual increments until it reaches the greater of $75 per
    capita or $225 million in 2007. Thus, while RHS offers deeper subsidies and
    targets rural households, state HFA

    programs offer greater growth potential for low- income households
    nationwide. However, state funding for housing must compete with other state
    priorities and not all states give priority to housing.

    According to RHS Centralized Servicing Center officials, new RHS
    singlefamily direct loans made to low- and very- low income households are
    usually subsidized so that the effective interest rate to the borrower is
    between 1 and 3 percent. In fact, RHS' mortgage loans are subsidized to the
    point that the portion of a family's income going toward the RHS mortgage is
    comparable to what the family would pay under federal rental assistance
    programs, such as RHS' rental housing or HUD's public and assisted housing
    program. State HFA funds, which are raised through a state's issuance of
    tax- exempt housing bonds, generally do not offer such deep subsidies.
    Nebraska, for example, is offering a 3- percent interest rate for low-
    income borrowers and is targeting rural counties. But most states do not
    subsidize as deeply; typically, they offer only a point or two below the
    market rate. According to the National Council of State Housing Agencies, a
    typical bond- financed mortgage saves a first- time homebuyer up to $100 a
    month compared with a conventional mortgage. The executive director of
    Vermont's HFA told us that her agency does not try to compete with RHS'
    deeply subsidized direct loans. Vermont's bond- financed mortgage loan
    program offers a rate that is about 1 percent below the market rate.

    Although state HFAs finance properties in rural areas, they do not focus
    their lending on those areas as RHS does. Of the single- family properties
    whose location was reported by the 30 state HFAs that financed these
    properties in 1998, 77 percent were inside and 23 percent were outside metro
    counties. Available data do not allow for an analysis of how many of the
    properties outside metro counties are in urbanized, rural, or completely
    rural nonmetro counties. Of the states we visited, Maine, Vermont, and New
    Hampshire had active statewide programs, whereas Mississippi, Missouri, and
    Ohio focused on urban areas. In comparison, RHS made about 15, 600 single-
    family direct loans in 1999, of which about 8,500, or 55 percent, were
    outside metro areas. Of those nonmetro loans, about 1,900, or 22 percent,
    were in urbanized nonmetro areas; about 5,600, or 66 percent, were in rural
    nonmetro areas; and just over 1, 000, or 12 percent, were in completely
    rural nonmetro areas.

    RHS Loan Guarantees and FHA Mortgage Insurance

    RHS and FHA both operate in rural areas and offer similar insured
    singlefamily products. Along with VA, which offers a mortgage insurance
    program, both RHS and FHA encourage lenders to make loans by insuring them
    against losses they might incur when borrowers default on their mortgages. 7
    However, only veterans are eligible for VA's program. Although RHS'
    guaranteed loan program and FHA's mortgage insurance program require that
    borrowers meet the same debt- to- income ratios, RHS' program offers more
    generous terms than FHA's program. 8 Specifically, RHS borrowers are not
    required to make a down payment, may finance closing costs, pay a lower up-
    front fee, and do not pay monthly mortgage insurance. FHA borrowers may
    finance the up- front fee and closing costs, but they are required to make a
    3- percent down payment, pay an up- front fee of up to 2. 25 percent, and
    pay monthly mortgage insurance. As a result, a borrower eligible for both
    programs would be prudent to choose an RHS mortgage.

    Despite the differences in the terms of their programs, RHS, FHA, and VA all
    serve a significant share of low- income households. According to Home
    Mortgage Disclosure Act data, about 45 percent of all FHA, VA, and RHS loans
    made in 1998 went to households that had very low or low incomes. RHS
    reported that about 30 percent of its single- family guaranteed loans in
    1999 went to households with very low and low incomes.

    RHS differs from FHA and VA in that it is precluded from lending to
    households with incomes above the moderate level- that is, above 115 percent
    of the local area's median income. 9 Hence, the remaining 70 percent of RHS
    loans went to moderate- income families. In comparison, over 20 percent of
    all FHA and VA loans in 1998- the majority of which were FHA loans- were
    made to borrowers with incomes above 120 percent of the local area's median
    income, according to Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data.

    7 FHA covers essentially 100 percent of the losses on any foreclosed loan.
    RHS covers up to 90 percent. 8 Both RHS and FHA require that borrowers not
    have housing debt payments exceeding 29 percent of their monthly incomes or
    total debt exceeding 41 percent of their total incomes. 9 A recent
    legislative proposal would expand eligibility for the program, particularly
    in poorer states, by using the greater of statewide or national median
    income in place of the local area's median income.

    RHS also differs from FHA in that its programs are substantially smaller and
    a higher proportion of its activities are concentrated in rural areas,
    including remote rural areas. Whereas RHS guaranteed $3 billion in
    singlefamily loans in fiscal year 1999, FHA insured about $112 billion in
    singlefamily loans. Yet even though 20 percent of the U. S. population
    resides outside metro areas, only 7 percent of FHA's single- family insured
    loan activity in fiscal year 1999 was outside metro areas. In contrast, 55
    percent of the loans RHS guaranteed in fiscal year 1999 were made to
    households outside metro areas. Nonetheless, because FHA insures 33 housing
    loans for every loan RHS guarantees, FHA does much more business than RHS in
    most areas, including rural areas. Yet in 18 percent of the rural and
    completely rural counties, RHS guaranteed more loans than FHA insured.
    Specifically, RHS guaranteed more loans than FHA insured in 360 of the 2,053
    rural and completely rural nonmetro counties. RHS also guaranteed more loans
    in 23 additional metro counties and urbanized nonmetro counties. (See fig.
    3.) In fact, RHS is a significant source of mortgage insurance in some of
    the least populated counties. The 383 counties in which RHS guaranteed more
    single- family loans than FHA insured contain only 3 percent of the nation's
    population and are primarily located in the Midwest.

    Figure 3: Counties Where RHS Guaranteed More Loans Than FHA Insured in 1999

    Metro counties (10) Urbanized nonmetro counties (13) Rural nonmetro counties
    (228) Completely rural nonmetro counties (132)

    One possible reason for the low number of FHA- insured loans in some
    counties is low bank participation. Some bank officials indicated that they

    do not want to deal with the extra paperwork required for governmentinsured
    loans or get involved with 30- year loans. An FHA official said that she
    believes some small rural banks do not participate in FHA's programs because
    they do not want to hold FHA loans in their portfolios and are not large
    enough to benefit from pooling loans to back securities sold to investors.
    In contrast, rural bank officials cited certain advantages of participating
    in RHS' programs, including the opportunity to advertise guaranteed loans
    that require no money down and the assistance provided by local RHS staff.

    More Overlap Within Like its single- family programs, RHS' multifamily
    programs are small

    Multifamily Products and relative to HUD's. But there is more overlap in the
    products offered and the

    Markets Served in Rural groups served by the two agencies' multifamily
    programs, even though RHS

    Areas has a greater presence across nonmetro counties. Similarities and

    differences in the agencies' products and the extent to which their programs
    serve rural areas are discussed following table 3, which shows the key
    features of the multifamily programs offered by RHS and HUD. The two
    principal ways in which RHS and HUD make multifamily housing affordable-
    mortgage credit and rental assistance- along with the location of units
    receiving assistance by RHS and HUD are also described.

    Table 3: Key Features of the Principal Multifamily Programs Offered in Rural
    Areas Loan guarantee/

    Interest Rental

    Income Location Agency Direct loans insurance subsidy assistance targeting
    targeting

    RHS X X X X X X HUD X X X X

    RHS and HUD subsidize multifamily housing through multifamily subsidized
    loan and rental assistance programs. HUD's portfolio of about 1.4 million
    subsidized units in about 38,000 properties overshadows RHS' multifamily
    portfolio of about 466,000 subsidized units in 17, 702 properties. 10 But
    unlike HUD's single- family mortgage insurance programs, which insured only
    7 percent of the loans in fiscal year 1999 to families living outside metro
    counties, HUD provided assistance to over 210,000, or 16 percent of its
    subsidized multifamily housing units, outside metro counties. 11 In
    comparison, about 65 percent, or about 303,000 of RHS' 466,000 subsidized
    multifamily units, were outside metro counties. Figure 4, which compares the
    locations of HUD and RHS multifamily units outside metro counties, shows
    that RHS has a large number of multifamily units in all but urbanized
    nonmetro counties. 12

    10 HUD also provides funding to 1. 3 million public housing units and 1. 4
    million privately owned units rented by tenants with certificates and
    vouchers. 11 Because we could not identify county classification code data
    for about 108,000 HUD units, our analysis is based on about 1. 3 million HUD
    multifamily subsidized units. 12 About 45, 000 of the units that HUD
    subsidizes are located in developments financed by RHS.

    Figure 4: Locations of Units Subsidized by HUD and RHS in Nonmetro Areas

    Subsidized units in thousands 250

    200 150 100

    50 0

    Urbanized Rural nonmetro Completely nonmetro rural nonmetro

    HUD RHS

    Note: Not included in the figure are approximately 1. 1 million HUD-
    subsidized and 163,000 RHSsubsidized units in metro counties.

    As shown in figure 5, RHS has more subsidized units in its portfolio than
    HUD for 1, 870 counties. These counties have a total population of 54
    million, or 20 percent of the U. S. population. About 322, 000 units, or
    about 69 percent of RHS' multifamily portfolio, and about 122,000 units, or
    about 9 percent of HUD's multifamily portfolio, are located in these 1, 870
    counties. Thus, although RHS' overall multifamily market share is small
    relative to HUD's, in 60 percent of the primarily rural nonmetro counties
    spread throughout the nation, RHS subsidizes more multifamily units than
    does HUD.

    Figure 5: Counties Where RHS Subsidizes More Units Than HUD

    Metro counties (239) Urbanized nonmetro counties (75) Rural nonmetro
    counties (962) Completely rural nonmetro counties (594)

    RHS' and HUD's multifamily programs differ in the way they are managed. Most
    rural HUD multifamily developments are managed from a distance, from 18 hubs
    and 33 program centers, typically located in urban areas. RHS multifamily
    developments are typically managed from district or local offices, although
    program administration varies greatly by state. RHS officials believe their
    developments are better monitored with closer local supervision. HUD
    believes its newly consolidated, regional structure allows it to quickly
    identify weaknesses in its portfolio. Developers and property managers told
    us that differences in the management of low- income housing tax credits,
    RHS' and HUD's multifamily programs, and various RHS state programs create
    inconsistent rules that lead to frustration and extra paperwork.

    Despite differences in the way they manage their multifamily programs, RHS
    and HUD are facing similar challenges. Both agencies are dealing with aging
    properties that have increasing rehabilitation needs. In addition, both
    agencies may lose affordable housing units if owners decide to leave the
    programs, and both are offering incentives for owners to stay. For example,
    RHS offered equity loan incentives to 43 developments in fiscal year 1999.
    In addition, the Congress and HUD have taken steps to encourage property
    owners to renew their rental assistance contracts or mitigate the impact on
    households when owners decide to not renew their rental assistance
    contracts. Finally, in recent years, HUD and RHS have set up separate
    systems to monitor the physical and financial condition of their properties.

    Variation in the Degree of In addition to its primary single- family and
    multifamily programs, RHS

    Overlap With RHS' offers a number of programs that target special
    employment, age, or ethnic

    Specialized Programs groups or offer services to communities in general. The
    degree of overlap

    between these and other programs varies in terms of the products they offer
    and the people they serve. In some instances, RHS is the only source of
    funding. In other instances, a number of agencies offer similar programs.
    Table 4 shows the key features of the specialized programs offered by RHS
    and other organizations in rural areas. A discussion of the programs follows
    the table.

    Table 4: Key Features of Specialized Programs Offered in Rural Areas Elderly
    Farm worker

    Self- help Indian

    housing Community Agency/ entity housing housing housing

    repairs Weatherization development

    RHS X X X X X Bureau of Indian

    X Affairs HUD X X X X

    Department of X Energy State HFAs X X X X

    Nonprofit X X X X X organizations RHS is the only national source of funds
    for the construction of farm

    worker housing. Farm workers are frequently the most poorly housed people in
    the country, often found living in tents, shacks without running water, or
    crowded, poorly built dormitories. Since the early 1960s, RHS has provided
    low- interest loans and grants to public or nonprofit agencies or to
    individual farmers to build affordable rental housing. The program is
    limited to housing employees that are involved in production agriculture,
    including aquaculture and on- farm processing. In some states, such as
    California, farm laborers have been able to build their own homes through
    RHS' self- help housing program.

    RHS has administered the self- help housing program since 1971. This
    program, which allows families to obtain small direct mortgage loans in
    amounts based on how much “sweat equity” they put into the
    construction of their homes, is one of the few RHS programs whose funding
    levels have increased. RHS contracts with four regional organizations to
    provide (1) training and technical assistance to selfhelp sponsors and (2)
    assistance to applicants to become self- help sponsors. Habitat for Humanity
    International, a religious- based nonprofit organization, which receives
    grants for land and infrastructure costs from HUD's Self- Help Homeownership
    Opportunities Program, and Fannie Mae also offer “sweat equity”
    programs in urban and rural areas.

    HUD and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs offer
    direct housing assistance programs for Native Americans. HUD started two new
    rural housing assistance programs for Native Americans in the

    1990s. The Native American Loan Guarantee Program, first offered in 1994,
    provides homeownership opportunities to Native Americans interested in
    owning a home on tribal, individual trust, or Indian area lands. The Native
    American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act of 1996 established
    a block grant approach to housing for Native Americans. Tribes or tribally
    designated entities are now empowered to determine how housing and community
    development funds should be used to address community- specific needs. In
    addition, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs
    administers the Housing Improvement Program, which provides grants to
    repair, renovate, replace, or provide housing for the neediest Indian
    families living in substandard housing or lacking recourse for assistance.
    Although RHS does not offer housing programs specifically for Native
    Americans, it uses its existing housing programs to fund single- family and
    multifamily loans to Native Americans. For example, in fiscal year 1999, RHS
    made 250 single- family direct loans and over 250 single- family direct
    repair loans and grants to Native Americans, and it provided direct and
    guaranteed financing for 263 multifamily units of rental housing on Native
    American reservations or in communities where the majority of tenants are
    Native Americans. Furthermore, according to RHS Indian housing staff,
    coordination with HUD has improved as RHS' programs are being included in
    many of the tribal housing plans required under the Native American Housing
    Assistance and Self- Determination Act of 1996. RHS anticipates that
    coordination with Indian tribes and HUD will increase as Native American
    communities become more familiar with RHS' programs.

    RHS serves rural elderly homeowners by offering repair grants and
    lowinterest loans. FHA, Fannie Mae, and some state HFAs have developed
    reverse mortgage programs that are available throughout the country. These
    programs allow elderly homeowners to take equity out of their homes to pay
    for needed repairs. Because income has nothing to do with getting a loan or
    the amount of the loan, reverse mortgages are a viable way for low- income
    rural elderly families who own their homes outright to make needed repairs.
    RHS does not have its own reverse mortgage program. An RHS outreach staffer
    in Vermont told us that he educates consumers whenever possible about
    reverse mortgage programs available in his area. In two other states, RHS
    officials told us that they were not sufficiently informed about reverse
    mortgage programs to offer advice.

    RHS' predecessor agency made weatherization loans from 1977 through 1983.
    Today, weatherization grants of up to $2, 032 per household are available
    nationwide through a program administered by the Department of Energy. In
    fiscal year 1999, the $133 million formula grant program weatherized about
    70,000 low- income dwellings nationwide. RHS and community development
    officials told us that they often use Department of Energy weatherization
    grants to supplement repair grants for the elderly that can go up to $7,500
    per household. In addition, RHS' repair loan program, which is available to
    all very- low- income families and allows them to borrow up to $20,000 at 1
    percent interest, can be used to weatherize homes.

    As part of USDA's state Rural Development offices, RHS serves rural
    communities in general by packaging its housing and community development
    programs to fit the development needs of small towns. For example, a state
    Rural Development office could offer financing for a new fire station, a
    health care facility, and a new sewer plant along with a self- help housing
    program grant for a particular town. As such, RHS has a great deal in common
    with HUD's community builders program, which began in 1998 and is run out of
    HUD's 81 field offices. Similar to RHS staff in more proactive states, HUD
    community builders focus on improving relationships between HUD and banks,
    local governments, and businesses. However, few HUD community builders have
    been active in rural areas, and the noncareer fellows portion of the program
    has been terminated. In addition, both RHS and HUD officials noted that
    coordination between RHS staff and HUD community builders varied by state.

    Options for Optimizing The rural housing environment has changed
    dramatically since rural

    the Federal Role in housing programs were first created. As the quality of
    housing in rural

    areas has improved, technology has advanced, and access to credit has Rural
    Housing

    become more prevalent, the distinctions between rural and urban areas
    Development

    have blurred. These changes- along with RHS' growing reliance on guaranteed
    lending, leveraged funds, and partners- raise questions about how best to
    ensure the availability of decent affordable housing in rural areas. For
    example, is the housing market in rural areas different enough from other
    housing markets for federal housing programs to (1) be targeted to rural
    areas, (2) carry better rates and terms in rural areas, and (3) have a
    separate rural delivery system?

    Rural housing experts we spoke with discussed proposals for optimizing the
    federal role in rural housing development. These proposals typically
    involved changes in RHS' product features, targeting, or delivery systems.
    Specifically, to optimize the federal role, a range of options is available,
    including options to continue or discontinue targeting housing programs to
    rural areas, providing households in rural areas with greater subsidies than
    their urban counterparts, and operating separate systems for delivering
    rural programs. In addition, the best working features of rural housing
    programs could be merged with other comparable federal housing programs.
    Arguments for and against these options follow.

    Targeting Housing Programs to Rural Areas Arguments for continuing to target

    Arguments against continuing to housing programs to rural areas

    target housing programs to rural areas Some rural areas continue to

    The single- family program's have substandard housing

    emphasis has shifted from direct Some rural areas have few

    to guaranteed loans, which have resources and lack the capacity

    more in common with FHA's to obtain funding on their own

    insured loans Overall, national programs,

    With little new funding for particularly those offered by

    construction, RHS' multifamily HUD and VA, do not target rural

    program is targeting few new areas and some do not target

    units in rural areas low- income households Rural housing assistance is a
    part

    of the community development packages offered by state Rural Development
    offices RHS is the major agency offering

    single- family direct loans and grants and farm worker housing to very- low-
    income rural residents

    Providing Better Rates and Terms on Mortgages for Households in Rural Areas

    Arguments for providing better Arguments against providing better

    terms in rural areas terms in rural areas

    Rural borrowers often pay higher There is no urban counterpart to

    mortgage interest rates because RHS' direct loan program that

    the costs of doing business are would allow very- low- income

    greater in sparsely populated urban residents to become

    areas homeowners

    Such terms support the basic FHA cannot compete with RHS

    tenet that homeownership is a guaranteed loans requiring no

    part of the culture of rural money down and no monthly

    America mortgage insurance payments

    Median incomes are generally lower in rural areas, but housing development
    costs are about the same as or higher than in urban areas Some rural areas
    do not have the

    capacity to take advantage of HUD's CDBG, HOME, and other assistance
    programs that often focus on urban areas

    Maintaining a Separate System for Delivering Housing Programs in Rural Areas

    Arguments for a separate system Arguments against a separate system RHS
    believes some rural

    RHS' field role has changed from residents do not have access to

    primarily originating and modern telecommunications or

    servicing direct loans to other means to obtain

    leveraging deals with partner information on affordable

    organizations housing opportunities

    In some states, local banks, RHS believes borrowers often

    nonprofit organizations, social need local servicing in the first

    workers, and other local year of the loan

    organizations are doing much of the front- line interaction with rural
    households that was previously done by RHS staff RHS' new community

    development mission serves much the same function as HUD's community
    builders program Most of RHS' direct loan

    servicing is done by the Centralized Servicing Center

    Merging Rural Housing Programs With Other Housing Programs Arguments for
    merging housing

    Arguments against merging housing programs

    programs Current RHS staff with local

    Rural areas could lose their contacts could provide a field

    federal voice presence for HUD, and for other

    Rural areas could lose the public partners, applying their

    benefits of lower rates and terms leveraging/ partnering skills to all

    offered by current RHS direct communities

    and guaranteed loan programs RHS' centralized servicing center

    HUD, other federal partners, and could seek to increase its

    some state HFAs have not servicing workload by competing

    focused on rural areas to service loans for other federal

    State HFAs could have less agencies or private companies

    funding for other programs RHS and HUD could combine

    multifamily portfolio management functions that are now provided under
    separate systems RHS' mortgage guarantee and

    FHA's mortgage insurance programs could be combined because both operate
    throughout rural areas State HFAs could use the

    increased funding from the increase in the bond cap to operate a more highly
    subsidized single- family direct loan program

    Conclusions In some rural areas, particularly those that are far from urban
    centers, housing quality is still below par and credit costs are slightly
    higher than

    elsewhere. But many former problems with infrastructure, housing quality,
    and credit are no longer prevalent in rural areas today, and in much of the
    country, the divisions between rural and urban areas are not clearly
    defined. Budget cutbacks; technology improvements; and greater reliance on
    guaranteed lending, leveraged funds, and public and private partners have
    also led to fundamental changes in the ways rural housing programs operate.
    Some of these changes have occurred since the Congress last restructured
    USDA's rural housing delivery system in 1994, and their effect has generally
    been to reduce the distinctions between RHS' rural housing programs and
    other agencies' programs that are available in rural areas. For example,
    RHS' single- family guaranteed loan program and FHA's singlefamily insured
    loan program both primarily target low- and moderateincome households, use
    the same qualifying ratios, and operate in the same markets. Even though
    RHS' program offers slightly more attractive terms for the borrower and is
    available only in rural areas, whereas FHA's program is available
    nationwide, both programs could be offered through the same network of
    lenders. Similarly, efficiencies could be achieved by merging RHS' and FHA's
    multifamily programs, adapting each one's best practices for use by the
    other, and eliminating inconsistencies in the rules applicable to private
    owners under the current programs. However, without prodding by the
    Congress, it is unlikely that RHS and FHA would consider examining the
    benefits and costs of merging these programs. Although state HFAs have
    expanded their programs offering below- market interest rates to low- income
    homebuyers, RHS' single- family direct loan program remains unique in
    offering highly subsidized home mortgages to low- income homebuyers unable
    to qualify for credit elsewhere. Similarly, RHS is the only major provider
    of farm worker housing and self- help housing programs for very- low- income
    rural residents. However, questions exist as to whether a separate field
    structure is needed to deliver these programs or whether local public and
    private organizations could provide the same services more efficiently.
    Finally, competing to service other agencies' direct loans could increase
    the efficiencies of RHS' Centralized Servicing Center. Appendix I expands on
    these and other ideas that could be considered in merging some of RHS'
    programs with those of HUD and others, as well as in improving the
    effectiveness of the current programs.

    Matter for To optimize the federal role in rural housing, the Congress may
    wish to

    Congressional consider requiring USDA and HUD to examine the benefits and
    costs of

    merging those programs that serve similar markets and provide similar
    Consideration

    products. As a first step, the Congress could consider requiring RHS and HUD
    to explore merging their single- family insured lending programs and
    multifamily portfolio management programs, taking advantage of the best
    practices of each and ensuring that targeted populations are not adversely
    affected.

    Agency Comments We provided USDA and HUD with a draft of this report for
    their review and comment. USDA said it believes that the report does an
    excellent job of

    describing the general picture of rural housing programs and the general
    condition of rural homes. USDA said it believes that some of the suggestions
    made in the report to improve the effectiveness of current programs may
    better serve rural areas and that the agency will further explore some of
    these issues over the next 6 months. However, USDA also said it believes
    that the gap in housing affordability between rural and urban areas, as well
    as the importance of rural housing programs to the Department's broader
    Rural Development mission area, would make merging RHS' programs with HUD's
    programs unfeasible and detrimental to rural America. USDA also believes
    that merging programs would result in rural areas' losing a federal voice.
    The report recognizes that some rural areas, particularly remote ones, have
    severe housing affordability gaps. However, others, including USDA's
    Economic Research Service, have reported that, overall, the affordability
    gap in rural areas is no worse than in urban areas. Furthermore, the report
    recognizes that rural housing is part of USDA's broader Rural Development
    mission area. Now that HUD is also adopting a holistic management approach
    with its community builders program, we believe both agencies could benefit
    from evaluating best practices and exploring opportunities to merge common
    programs. We also recognize that an argument against merging programs is
    that rural areas could lose a federal voice. For this and other reasons, we
    maintain that the Congress needs to consider whether the housing market in
    rural areas is sufficiently distinct to justify targeted programs, better
    terms, and a separate program delivery system. USDA's complete letter and
    our response to specific areas of disagreement with USDA appear in appendix
    III.

    HUD also commended the report in general, stating that it presents an
    informed description and analysis of the quality of rural housing, access of

    rural households to mortgage credit, and relationship of RHS' programs to
    other public and private affordable housing programs today. HUD also stated
    that it believes any opportunity to improve the delivery of rural housing
    services should be explored. However, HUD believes the differences between
    RHS' and FHA's single- family programs are sizable and that without
    legislative changes to product terms, efforts to merge the programs would
    likely result in a more cumbersome rather than a more efficient delivery
    system. HUD added that it has been working and will continue to work with
    USDA in a mutual exchange of information on best practices and will explore
    possible avenues of coordination. While HUD and RHS are working on best
    practices and exploring opportunities for improving coordination, we believe
    that they should also explore the potential benefits of merging similar
    programs because merged programs need not be more cumbersome or inefficient
    than separate programs are today. The complete text of HUD's comments and
    our evaluation of them appear in appendix IV.

    Scope and Overall, our work was based on our review of published data and
    visits to

    Methodology Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont,
    where

    we were able to observe a variety of rural housing conditions, RHS' methods
    of delivering its products, and RHS' interactions with partner
    organizations. We judgmentally selected these six states to obtain a cross
    section of rural housing conditions, delivery structures, and states with
    differing concentrations of rural counties. We also used data from RHS, FHA,
    and state HFAs to measure the markets they serve.

    To describe the physical condition of today's rural housing, we reviewed
    published information from HUD's American Housing Survey and the decennial
    Census. To describe rural households' access to affordable housing credit,
    we relied on information supplied by USDA's Economic Research Service, RHS,
    and others.

    To document the rural housing programs offered by RHS and the ways in which
    its programs have adapted to changes in federal housing assistance levels,
    we interviewed appropriate officials at USDA's RHS headquarters, Centralized
    Servicing Center, and Office of Budget Program Analysis; HUD's offices of
    Housing, Community Planning and Development, Public and Indian Housing, and
    Policy Development and Research; and other public and private organizations
    involved in delivering rural housing programs. To measure the effectiveness
    of different RHS state offices' program delivery systems, we analyzed data
    on lending activity and staffing

    by state. During our visits to the six states, we also met with RHS
    officials and officials of nonprofit organizations, banks, state HFAs, and
    other public and private partners to get firsthand knowledge of how rural
    housing programs are implemented and received.

    To assess any overlap between RHS' and other agencies' programs, we analyzed
    RHS, FHA, and HFA databases to evaluate single- family and multifamily
    programs at the county level. Where possible, we used the Economic Research
    Service's codes, used to describe counties' “ruralness,” to
    place nonmetro county data into three subcategories that best correspond to
    RHS' program eligibility criteria. Appendix II associates these county data
    with corresponding population statistics.

    We developed options for maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of the
    federal role in rural housing after synthesizing the information developed
    under the first three objectives and proposals set forth by rural housing
    experts. We discussed these options, as well as individual proposals
    affecting RHS only, with these rural housing experts.

    We performed our work from January through August 2000 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
    distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At
    that time, we will send copies of the report to interested congressional
    committees and Members of Congress; the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of
    Agriculture; the Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban
    Development; the Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director, Office of Management and
    Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to
    others on request.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
    at (202) 512- 7631. Key contributors to this report are Andy Finkel, Jerry
    Hall, Rich LaMore, and Matt Scire.

    Stanley J. Czerwinski Associate Director, Housing and

    Community Development Issues

    Appendi xes Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of

    Appendi xI

    Current Rural Housing Programs Through discussions with Rural Housing
    Service (RHS) officials and others, we identified a number of proposals that
    could be used for improving the efficiency of existing rural housing
    programs, whether they are merged or not. For example, some RHS state
    officials believe that the requirement to operate housing programs out of
    the U. S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) service centers does not match
    RHS' new mission of serving communities. In addition, some state and
    industry officials believe that the eligibility criteria for certain
    programs could be modified to reach more rural residents and the procedures
    for administering other programs could be changed to increase their
    efficiency or accessibility. We are presenting the options below with
    arguments for and against each one.

    Centralize RHS State When state Rural Development offices were given the
    authority to develop

    Delivery Systems their own program delivery systems as part of the 1994
    reorganization,

    some states did not change, believing that they needed to maintain a county-
    based structure with a fixed local presence to deliver services oneon- one
    to potential homeowners. Other states tried innovative, less costly
    approaches to delivering services, such as consolidating local offices to
    form district offices and using traveling loan originators for single-
    family programs. However, RHS has undergone a major shift in mission during
    the past few years. RHS is still a lending agency like its predecessor, the
    Farmers Home Administration, but it now emphasizes community development,
    using leveraging for rural communities to develop housing, community
    centers, schools, fire stations, health care centers, child care facilities,
    and other community service buildings. Some state Rural Development
    officials we spoke with questioned the efficiency and costeffectiveness of
    maintaining a county- based field structure in a streamlined environment
    where leveraging, rather than one- on- one lending, has become the focus of
    the work.

    For example, Mississippi, which maintains a county- based Rural Development
    field structure, has the most staff and field offices of any state; its
    productivity is also next to the lowest, as measured by dollar program
    activity per staff member. Ohio, on the other hand, ranks fifth in overall
    productivity, operating at less than one- fifth of Mississippi's cost per
    staff member. We recognize that it is more difficult to underwrite loans in
    the Mississippi Delta and other economically depressed areas than in rural
    areas generally, and Mississippi does have a substantial multifamily
    portfolio. Nevertheless, the number of field staff in Mississippi far
    exceeds that in most other states. Ohio, whose loan originators are based in
    four offices and travel across the state with laptop computers, ranks
    seventh in

    the dollar value of single- family guaranteed loans made, and fifth in the
    dollar amount of direct loans made, per staff member. Ohio has also done a
    good job of serving all of its counties, while Mississippi has experienced a
    drop in business in the counties where it has closed local offices. Ohio's
    travel and equipment costs have increased with the use of traveling loan
    originators.

    The Maine Rural Development office also fundamentally changed its
    operational structure, moving from 28 offices before the reorganization to
    15 afterwards, and it now operates out of 3 district offices. The current
    state director, who also headed the Farmers Home Administration state office
    in the 1970s, said he has headed the agency under both models and believes
    the centralized system is much more effective. He said he believes
    centralized offices are more productive because his staff work better as a
    team than spread across the state in county offices with small staffs. He
    added that by centralizing, the state was able to reduce its leasing costs
    and better manage its resources overall. This idea was reflected in the
    state's 1996 office- restructuring plan that said centralization would allow
    for flexibility in accommodating the changes that occur between programs and
    resources. He added that under the current structure, staff can no longer
    sit in the office waiting for clients to come to them. He also maintained
    that a centralized structure is better suited to building the partnerships
    with real estate agents, banks, and other financial institutions that have
    become the core element of RHS' work.

    Option 1: Centralize RHS State Delivery Systems

    For Against Could increase productivity

    Would lose fixed local presence Could lower overall costs

    Could increase travel and Could result in a more

    equipment costs manageable structure

    Allow RHS Personnel Consistent with its 1994 reorganization legislation,
    USDA closed or

    to Locate Separately consolidated hundreds of county offices and established
    “USDA service

    centers” that include staff representing farm services, conservation,
    and From USDA Service

    rural development programs. However, the primary goal of the original
    Centers

    USDA/ Office of Management and Budget (OMB) task team that designed the
    service centers was to place all the county- based agencies together,
    particularly those that dealt directly with farmers and ranchers, to reduce

    personnel and overhead expenses by sharing resources. But while the farm
    finance functions from the old Farmers Home Administration fit well into the
    new county- based Farm Service Agency, the housing finance functions that
    moved to the new state Rural Development offices were never a natural fit in
    the centers. According to a USDA Rural Development program budget office
    specialist, the decision to collocate Rural Development and Farm Service
    offices was based on the fact that Rural Development had a similar county-
    based field structure and the Department needed to fill space in the new
    service centers. He added, however, that collocating Rural Development and
    Farm Service offices makes less sense today, especially in states where
    Rural Development operations have been centralized.

    All the states we visited had centralized some operations. Staff in several
    offices emphasized their belief that cost savings result from sharing
    building space and telecommunications systems. Some also said it makes sense
    for staff to be close to their customers. But for Rural Development staff,
    the move to the new USDA service centers often meant moving from town
    centers to more remote areas that were closer to farm clients. In
    particular, some staff questioned the benefits of placing Rural Development
    outreach personnel in small, county- based service centers that were
    designed to serve farmers or ranchers. These personnel spend their days in
    rural communities working with bankers, in nonprofit homeownership centers
    providing homeownership education and outreach, and with real estate brokers
    marketing their programs. For example, the majority of Vermont's Rural
    Development staff work out of one USDA service center in the state capital.
    But five outreach staff maintain offices in county- based USDA service
    centers. The outreach staff we met with emphasized that they have nothing in
    common with the farm and resource agencies that operate out of the centers,
    and they said they typically visit the service centers only once or twice a
    week to pick up their mail. In Ohio, personnel use four USDA service centers
    as their home bases. Like the Vermont outreach workers, they spend the
    majority of their time meeting with nonfarm clients wherever they can find
    acceptable space. Staff in Maine cited what they believe to be cultural
    differences between Rural Development and Farm Service agencies. They said
    they prefer to meet at their customers' locations because USDA service
    centers are “jeans and workboot” places that are fine for
    meeting with farmers, but Rural Development's customers expect business
    dress.

    In 1993 testimony before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, we
    reported that USDA should be restructured in the context of the newer
    management concepts that guide private- sector corporations and that the new
    management concepts should emphasize flexibility, flattened hierarchies, and
    a customer focus. We also stated that USDA's missions and corresponding
    restructuring should be continually reassessed and updated to address
    changing conditions. 1 USDA's November 1999 report Modernization Plan of the
    USDA County- Based Agencies examines a number of important issues, such as
    how to deal with outmoded business practices and technology and reduce
    program delivery costs. But it does not consider the more fundamental
    question of how to deal with an increasingly centralized Rural Development
    mission area in a county- based USDA service center environment.
    Consequently, some suggest that Rural Development offices be located apart
    from USDA service centers. For example, outreach personnel could be
    collocated with community development partners. This option could, however,
    create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    Option 2: Allow RHS Personnel to Locate Separately From USDA Service Centers

    For Against Would place Rural Development

    Would increase vacant space in staff where customers are

    USDA service centers located

    Could create an appearance of Staff in some states already

    conflict of interest by other spend much of their time running

    lending partners if staff are community education/ outreach

    collocated with community programs with community

    development agencies development partners

    1 Revitalizing USDA: A Challenge for the 21st Century (GAO/ T- 93- 62, July
    21, 1993)

    Combine All Rural While the disparities between average weekly earnings for
    rural and other

    Capacity- Building areas of the United States decreased over the past
    decade, some rural areas

    still have fewer resources and lack the capacity needed to obtain funds for
    Initiatives Into One

    housing and community development. A local organization that can Notice of
    Funding

    successfully compete for limited funds can be the difference between the
    Availability Under One

    success or failure of a local housing initiative. We witnessed this during
    our state visits, where a strong local nonprofit group was often the lead in

    Organization community outreach and in leveraging funding from a variety of
    federal,

    state, and local organizations. For example, in northwest Mississippi, the
    combination of an active nonprofit group and a proactive RHS office put
    together a new single- family development with funding from RHS, the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development
    Block Grant (CDBG), the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLBank), and the local
    government. According to a local official, the new development also had the
    benefit of revitalizing the area, as other homeowners adjacent to the new
    development began fixing up their homes after they saw the new homes going
    in.

    Recognizing the need for more local involvement in rural areas, the Congress
    recently enacted programs in HUD and RHS aimed at building capacity at the
    state and local levels for rural housing and community development. HUD's
    program made $25 million available for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for
    building the capacity of local rural nonprofit organizations, community
    development corporations, and other local organizations. Over 700
    organizations responded to a notice of funding availability in fiscal year
    1999, and over 600 responded in fiscal year 2000. In a separate notice, RHS
    announced the availability of a $6 million grant program in fiscal year 2000
    to develop the capacity and ability of private nonprofit organizations and
    low- income communities to improve housing, essential community facilities,
    or community and economic development through a program of technical
    assistance in rural areas. Qualified private and public (including tribal)
    intermediary organizations proposing to carry out technical assistance
    programs are eligible to receive funding. The intermediary must provide
    matching funds from nonfederal sources in an amount at least equal to the
    grant. More recently, the administration proposed a third program, a $22
    million CDBG set- aside for developing capacity in the Lower Mississippi
    Delta. While each grant program has its unique goals and application
    requirements, all three are designed to meet a common goal of rural capacity
    building. Merging the programs into one notice of funding availability and
    under one organization could make the process more efficient and cost-
    effective. However, special funding for the

    Mississippi Delta would have to be legislatively targeted. Requiring
    matching funds would ensure local commitment, allow more applicants to be
    funded, and- assuming fewer applicants applied- further reduce processing
    costs. A matching requirement could, however, eliminate some areas that need
    capacity building most but do not have access to matching funds.

    Option 3: Combine All Rural Capacity- Building Initiatives Into One Notice
    of Funding Availability Under One Organization

    For Against One lead agency and one notice of

    Mississippi Delta funds would have funding availability would be more

    to be legislatively targeted efficient than two or three

    Make Funds Available RHS' farm worker housing loans and grants can be used
    only to house

    for Off- Farm Worker employees that are involved in production agriculture,
    including

    aquaculture and on- farm processing. However, in some rural areas of the
    Housing

    country, new agribusiness jobs are available in off- farm processing plants,
    particularly in aquaculture, poultry, and pork- processing operations.
    Officials in Mississippi and Missouri told us that poor, primarily minority
    workers, many of whom would have worked in the fields before the use of
    mechanization, are now accepting these agricultural processing jobs. Often,
    there are housing shortages in towns where the new plants are built.
    According to the director of Missouri's RHS single- family housing program,
    three or four families end up sharing small, often substandard, single-
    family homes. However, these processing workers are not eligible for farm
    worker housing. Expanding the farm worker housing program's eligibility
    criteria to include these off- farm workers or developing a separate program
    for them could help alleviate this problem; at the same time, though, it
    would reduce the funding available for farm worker housing.

    Another possibility would be to target HUD/ CDBG state and small cities
    funds for off- farm worker housing. A recent legislative proposal includes
    $5

    million for a housing demonstration program for agriculture, aquaculture,
    and seafood- processing workers

    Option 4: Make Funds Available for Off- Farm Worker Housing

    For Against Would recognize changes in rural

    Without new funding, off- farm labor markets

    worker housing would compete Would update programs to fill a

    with on- farm worker housing current need

    Could concentrate worker housing in one location

    Encourage Families RHS offers direct grant and loan programs for home
    repair, basing

    With Sufficient Equity eligibility on income level and need. Equity in the
    home is not considered.

    RHS state officials said that the grant funds typically run out early in the
    to Obtain Reverse

    year but that loan funds are usually available because often families cannot
    Mortgages Instead of

    afford to repay loans, even at interest rates as low as 1 percent. Reverse
    Repair Grants and

    mortgages, however, are based solely on equity; income is not a factor. As a
    result, rural homeowners who have sufficient equity are eligible to take

    Loans cash out of their homes for repairs or other purposes. In addition,
    reverse

    mortgages for the elderly require no monthly payments and involve minimum
    out- of- pocket costs, such as transaction fees, for the borrower. Some
    state Rural Development staff we met with suggested that RHS' elderly repair
    grants and loans go only to families that do not have sufficient equity in
    their homes to qualify for a privately placed reverse mortgage. Encouraging
    borrowers with sufficient equity to obtain a reverse mortgage is in line
    with the repair grant and loan program's eligibility criteria, which limit
    funds to very- low- income borrowers who are unable to obtain affordable
    credit elsewhere and whose homes present health and safety issues. RHS could
    also partner with banks, state housing finance agencies (HFA), and other
    lending institutions that offer programs to further subsidize the loans.

    Figure 6 shows a home that received an RHS repair grant to pay for the
    residents' first indoor bathroom. RHS state officials said they did not
    consider a reverse mortgage as a possibility, but they are confident that
    the owner did not have sufficient equity in the home to qualify. In
    contrast, figure 7 shows a home purchased in 1959 by a couple using a $4,000
    RHS direct loan. In 1999, the couple, who are now retired and living on a
    fixed income, received a $10, 745 RHS repair loan, at 1 percent interest,
    for

    rehabilitation work. The major repairs included a new roof, siding, and
    insulation, and the kitchen and bathroom were remodeled. RHS state officials
    told us they had not considered a reverse mortgage as a possibility when the
    loan was made, but they believed the couple had sufficient equity in the
    home to qualify for a reverse mortgage and cover the needed repairs.

    Figure 6: RHS Elderly Repair Grant Home

    Figure 7: RHS Repair Loan Home

    Front view Side view

    Rural housing officials told us that, in their view, the instances in which
    prior RHS borrowers would have sufficient equity in their homes to justify a
    reverse mortgage would generally be limited to areas adjacent to growing
    metropolitan areas. They also expressed concern that most of their repair
    grants and loans are for only a few thousand dollars and that their
    clientele would be hurt by high transaction costs and possibly by predatory
    lenders. However, Fannie Mae, HUD, and the American Association of Retired
    Persons are strong advocates of reverse mortgages. All three organizations
    see reverse mortgages as a way for house- rich but cash- poor seniors to tap
    into their home equity to make repairs, pay bills, or supplement Social
    Security. As such, the reverse mortgage option would be particularly

    helpful for RHS clients interested in taking out more equity than needed to
    cover the average home repair. In addition, all three organizations do
    outreach to inform seniors about reverse mortgages, and HUD offers free
    counseling and referrals to HUD- approved lenders.

    On the basis of our visits to rural areas in six states, we agree that the
    typical RHS client would likely not have sufficient equity to qualify for a
    reverse mortgage. However, there are exceptions, such as in the case
    illustrated in figure 7, which was not near a growing metropolitan area.
    Each client with sufficient equity that chose to use a reverse mortgage loan
    instead of an RHS grant or loan would free RHS funds for a client without
    equity whose home is in need of health and safety repairs.

    Reverse mortgages can have the additional benefit of allowing borrowers who
    have paid off their RHS direct loans but deferred the repayment of interest
    subsidies to repay these subsidies. RHS policy allows borrowers who pay off
    their direct RHS loans but continue to occupy their properties to defer this
    repayment, commonly known as interest credit recapture. As of July 31, 1999,
    RHS' records showed that about $140 million of interest credit recapture was
    owed by borrowers who had paid off or refinanced their mortgages but were
    continuing to occupy their properties. RHS does not charge interest on the
    amounts owed by these borrowers. To receive a reverse mortgage, a borrower
    must either pay off any debt against his or her home before applying for the
    mortgage or, as most borrowers do, use an immediate cash advance from the
    reverse mortgage to pay off the debt. It is likely that, in some cases, the
    size of the interest credit recapture would be too great, leaving little
    equity to make the reverse mortgage worthwhile for the elderly homeowner.
    But when the borrower has sufficient equity to cover the money needed for
    home repairs and pay off the interest credit recapture, the reverse mortgage
    can be used for both purposes.

    Option 5: Encourage Families With Sufficient Equity to Obtain Reverse
    Mortgages Instead of Repair Grants and Loans

    For Against Would allow homeowners to use

    Clients would incur transaction equity in homes for repairs or

    costs to obtain reverse other purposes

    mortgages Programs are already available in

    Would deplete limited wealth for private sector

    some homeowners Would save limited repair grant

    and loan funds for homes without equity Would create opportunities to

    partner with banks and others to make funding go farther Could enable RHS to
    collect

    outstanding interest recapture

    Estimated 1999 Census by Metro and

    Appendi xII

    Nonmetro Categories Number of Percent of

    Percent of Average County type counties a counties Population population by
    county

    Metro 836 26. 6 217,911, 140 79. 9 260, 659 Urbanized nonmetro 252 8. 0
    17,209, 599 6.3 68, 292 Rural nonmetro 1,270 40. 5 31,059, 199 11. 4 24, 456
    Completely rural

    783 24. 9 6, 510, 875 2.4 8, 315 nonmetro Total 3, 141 100 272,690, 813 100
    86, 817

    a Numbers also include some cities or census areas.

    Comments From the Department of

    Appendi xI II

    Agriculture See comment 1. See comment 2.

    See comment 3. See comment 4. See comment 5.

    See comment 6.

    See comment 7.

    See comment 2.

    See comment 8. See comment 9.

    See comment 10

    See comment 11. See comment 12.

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Agriculture's letter
    dated August 24, 2000.

    GAO's Comments 1. We recognize that RHS' housing programs are a component of
    the Rural Development mission area. However, with 89 percent of Rural

    Development's fixed funding and 86 percent of its staff years, RHS is the
    largest component of the Rural Development mission area. We also recognize
    that HUD, like Rural Development, is moving toward a holistic approach
    through its community builders program.

    2. We agree that there is a housing affordability crisis in parts of rural
    America, just as there is a housing affordability crisis in parts of urban
    America. In particular, we recognize that in some remote areas, such as the
    Mississippi Delta, the Colonias on the Mexican border, Appalachia, and
    Indian trust lands, residents have unique problems obtaining financing.
    However, as we state in our report, USDA's Economic Research Service found,
    in its 1997 study entitled Credit in Rural America, that the increased
    competition in rural housing markets and the increased secondary market
    activity of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other secondary market institutions
    in rural areas have reduced the rural financial market inefficiencies that
    plagued the sector in the past. In addition, in the 1999 study by Belden and
    Wiener that RHS cites in its comments, a leading housing expert maintains
    that, overall, the affordability issue is less severe in rural areas than in
    urban ones. Specifically, she states, “Although incomes in rural areas
    tend to be somewhat lower than those in urban areas, housing costs are also
    lower. Therefore, rural households are less likely to face affordability
    problems than are households in central cities or urbanized areas.” 1

    3. Although the Congress placed most new rural housing and other rural
    development functions in USDA, the Congress did locate a recent rural
    program, a rural capacity- building grant program, in HUD. We examined
    today's rural housing programs from an historical perspective to see whether
    continuing the overall policy is still the most efficient and effective way
    for the Congress to maximize the federal role in rural housing. Our
    conclusion- that budget cutbacks, technology improvements, and other factors
    have led to changes in the

    1 Joseph N. Belden and Robert J. Wiener, Housing in Rural America( SAGE
    Publications, 1999), p. 17.

    ways rural housing programs operate- led us to suggest that the Congress
    consider requiring USDA and HUD to take steps towards merging those programs
    that provide similar products and serve similar markets.

    4. We do not understand USDA's basis for commenting that merging these
    programs would be devastating to rural areas. In fact, as part of our matter
    for congressional consideration, we noted that it was important to ensure
    that targeted populations are not adversely affected.

    5. We did not perform detailed cost- benefit analyses of merging rural and
    urban housing programs in this review. However, we believe the changes in
    the rural environment and the overlap in the markets served by RHS and HUD
    indicate a need to identify best practices, including the efficiencies
    resulting from those practices.

    6. There is also a gap in access to affordable housing credit in urban areas
    for those who cannot qualify for single- family housing loans from HUD or
    the private sector. Urban areas have no counterpart to RHS' direct loan
    program, and HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) cannot compete with
    the terms of RHS' guaranteed loans- no money down and no monthly mortgage
    insurance payments.

    7. We agree, as stated in our report, that many smaller communities have few
    resources and lack the capacity to compete with more urban areas.
    Recognizing this situation, the Congress recently enacted programs in HUD
    and RHS aimed at building capacity at the state and local levels for rural
    housing and community development. We see this as another area where RHS and
    HUD could examine their best practices and explore the benefits of merging
    similar programs.

    8. We believe that this statement is equally true for urban and rural
    households. Households with low incomes, low skills, and little collateral
    fail to qualify for loans in both urban and rural areas. But the disparity
    between a rural borrower, who can obtain a guaranteed loan with no money
    down, and an urban borrower, who must pay 3 percent down under FHA's terms,
    raises the question of whether the economic differences between rural and
    urban areas are still great enough to support the provision of better terms
    in rural areas.

    9. The paragraph referenced in USDA's comments on access to credit is from
    the introduction to the proceedings of a 1996 Fannie Mae policy

    roundtable conference on rural housing issues, the highlights of which were
    published in Belden and Wiener's 1999 study entitled Housing in Rural
    America. It should be noted that the next paragraph in the introduction
    states that “credit access problems may be reduced by using computer
    technology, increasing the role of nonprofit intermediaries to establish
    public- private partnerships, and providing technical assistance to remote
    rural lenders.” We believe that progress has been made in all three
    areas since 1996.

    10. We focused on single- family insured loan programs because these
    programs have the greatest similarities and operate in markets where
    distinctions between rural and urban areas have blurred. In merging similar
    programs, USDA and HUD should consider the savings that may be achieved and
    the impact that merging may have on targeted populations. Such an analysis
    should be part of any review of “best practices,” as we mention
    in the report. With regard to RHS' guaranteed loan program in particular,
    the report already recognizes that RHS offers better terms than FHA, which
    explains, in part, its greater cost. In contrast, FHA's single- family
    insurance program is self- sufficient.

    11. We agree that originating direct loans is still an important part of
    Rural Development's mission. We changed the wording in this section of our
    report to match the wording in the body of the report. However, we maintain
    that several factors- budget cuts in direct loan funding, the new
    centralized servicing operation, and the emphasis in Rural Development's new
    community development mission on leveraging deals with partner
    organizations- reflect a fundamental change in program operations.

    12. We recognize the tie between the delivery system and the potential to
    merge programs. For example, we recognize that the single- family direct
    loan program, the farm worker housing program, and the selfhelp housing
    program are unique in both the products they offer and the way they are
    delivered. In contrast, RHS' delivery system for guaranteed loans program is
    not unique. Both RHS and FHA rely on private lenders to deliver their
    products. Given the diminishing distinctions between rural and urban areas,
    we believe aspects of delivery systems should be examined in the course of
    reviewing best practices, not only between HUD and RHS but also within RHS
    itself, where delivery systems vary greatly from state to state.

    Comments From the Department of Housing

    Appendi xI V

    and Urban Development See comment 1.

    See comment 2. See comment 3.

    The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development's letter dated August 23, 2000.

    GAO's Comments 1. We agree that merging programs would require statutory
    changes and that in some cases the costs may exceed the benefits. That is
    why we

    are focusing on having RHS and HUD explore the potential benefits of merging
    similar programs, focusing on the best practices of each and insuring that
    the targeted populations are not adversely affected.

    2. In our July report on HUD's housing portfolios, we noted that HUD had
    established quality assurance procedures; however, we also found that gaps
    or weaknesses in some of those procedures substantially limited their
    effectiveness. 1

    3. We revised the report to make it clear that only the noncareer fellows
    portion of the community builders program has been terminated.

    1 HUD Housing Portfolios: HUD Has Strengthened Physical Inspections but
    Needs to Resolve Concerns About Their Reliability (GAO/ RCED- 00- 168; July
    25, 2000).

    (385819) Lett er

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    Page 1 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Contents

    Contents Page 2 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Page 3 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options United States General
    Accounting Office

    Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 4 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 5 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 6 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 7 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 8 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 9 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 10 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 11 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 12 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 13 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 14 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 15 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 16 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 17 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 18 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 19 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 20 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 21 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 22 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 23 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 24 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 25 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 26 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 27 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 28 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 29 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 30 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 31 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 32 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 33 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 34 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 35 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 36 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 37 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 38 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 39 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 40 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 41 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    B- 284435 Page 42 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Page 43 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Page 44 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 45 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 46 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 47 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 48 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 49 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 50 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 51 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 52 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 53 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix I Opportunities to Improve the Effectiveness of Current Rural
    Housing Programs

    Page 54 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Page 55 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix II

    Page 56 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 57 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 58 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 59 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 60 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 61 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 62 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 63 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 64 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 65 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 66 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 67 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 68 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 69 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 70 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix III Comments From the Department of Agriculture

    Page 71 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Page 72 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix IV

    Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Page 73 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Appendix IV Comments From the Department of Housing and Urban Development

    Page 74 GAO/ RCED- 00- 241 Rural Housing Options

    Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
    copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

    the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
    accepted, also.

    Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
    discounted 25 percent.

    Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
    DC 20013

    Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
    U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

    Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
    receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
    days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
    will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

    Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
    Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to:
    info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
    gao. gov

    To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact one: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm e-
    mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

    Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

    Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***