HUD: Field Directors' Views on Recent Management Initiatives (Letter
Report, 02/12/97, GAO/RCED-97-34).
GAO surveyed Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) field
directors in four of HUD's major program areas to obtain the directors'
perspectives on the corrective actions HUD has undertaken over the past
2 years.
GAO found that its survey showed: (1) most field directors considered
HUD's field office reorganization, completed in September 1995, an
overall success, but there were differences of opinion among the
directors and program areas concerning HUD's success in meeting certain
reorganization goals; (2) a majority of the directors said that: (a)
they were satisfied with the skills of their staffs and that staff
training had increased over the last 2 years; (b) training needed to be
further increased in all areas; and (c) they did not have enough staff
members to effectively administer their programs; (3) the satisfaction
with information and financial management systems differed by program
area; (4) almost three-quarters of the community planning and
development and public housing directors were satisfied with their
systems, whereas only one-third of the multifamily housing directors
were satisfied; and (5) although a majority of the directors rated HUD's
overall internal control system as good or excellent, a substantial
number said that their systems were only fair or poor for certain
activities, such as ensuring data reliability and compliance with laws
and regulations, and HUD's programs have not received adequate
monitoring.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-97-34
TITLE: HUD: Field Directors' Views on Recent Management Initiatives
DATE: 02/12/97
SUBJECT: Housing programs
Community development programs
Management information systems
Financial management systems
Internal controls
Human resources utilization
Federal agency reorganization
Human resources training
Public housing
IDENTIFIER: GAO High Risk Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
February 1997
HUD - FIELD DIRECTORS' VIEWS ON
RECENT MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
GAO/RCED-97-34
HUD Telephone Survey
(385656)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
CPD - community planning and development
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-275606
February 12, 1997
The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Dear Mr. Secretary:
In 1994, we designated the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as a high-risk area because of four long-standing
deficiencies that made it especially vulnerable to waste, fraud,
abuse, and mismanagement. These deficiencies were an ineffective
organizational structure, insufficient staff skills, inadequate
information and financial management systems, and weak internal
controls.
Since then, we have issued two reports as part of GAO's High
Risk-Series that update HUD's progress in addressing the problems
that led to HUD's high-risk designation. In February 1995, we
reported that HUD had begun to (1) redesign its field structure, (2)
increase its training efforts, (3) improve and integrate its
management information systems, and (4) implement a new management
approach that balanced risks with results.\1 In February 1997, we
reported that additional progress had been made in overhauling the
Department's operations.\2 However, we noted that changes to the
organizational structure were continuing; the quantity and quality of
training still needed improvement; much work still remained to
improve HUD's information and financial management systems; and
major, long-standing internal control problems persisted.
In preparing our 1997 report, we conducted a telephone survey of 155
directors in four of HUD's major program areas--single-family
housing, multifamily housing, public housing, and community planning
and development--at HUD's 40 largest field offices. (See app. I for
a list of the offices and app. II for a copy of the survey and its
results.) The survey obtained the directors' perspectives on the
corrective actions HUD has undertaken over the past 2 years. We are
sending you this report to assist you in evaluating the effectiveness
of the Department's efforts to date and in identifying those areas
needing further management attention.
In summary, our survey showed the following:
-- Most field directors considered HUD's field office
reorganization, completed in September 1995, an overall success,
but there were differences of opinion among the directors and
program areas concerning HUD's success in meeting certain
reorganization goals.
-- A majority of the directors said that (1) they were satisfied
with the skills of their staffs and that staff training had
increased over the last 2 years, (2) training needed to be
further increased in all areas, and (3) they did not have enough
staff members to effectively administer their programs.
-- The satisfaction with information and financial management
systems differed by program area; almost three-quarters of the
community planning and development and public housing directors
were satisfied with their systems, whereas only a third of the
multifamily housing directors were satisfied.
-- Although a majority of the directors rated HUD's overall
internal control system as good or excellent, a substantial
number said that (1) their systems were only fair or poor for
certain activities, such as ensuring data reliability and
compliance with laws and regulations, and (2) HUD's programs
have not received adequate monitoring.
--------------------
\1 High-Risk Series: Department of Housing and Urban Development
(GAO/HR-95-11, Feb. 1995).
\2 High-Risk Series: Department of Housing and Urban Development
(GAO/HR-97-12, Feb. 1997).
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
We initially designated HUD's organizational structure a management
deficiency in 1994 because the overlapping roles of field offices and
headquarters reduced the organization's effectiveness and prevented
management from being accountable for HUD's programs. At the time of
our 1995 report, HUD was reorganizing its field office structure to
clarify the lines of programmatic and administrative authority,
enhance communications between headquarters and the field, eliminate
unnecessary management layers, and improve customer service. In
September 1995, HUD completed the field reorganization, eliminating
10 regional offices, transferring authority for field staff and
resources to Assistant Secretaries in HUD headquarters, and
restructuring the Department's 81 field offices. To date, HUD has
not evaluated the impact that these changes have had on the
Department's effectiveness. HUD is in the process of further
reorganization to reduce the size of the headquarters staff and
redeploy and train staff. Also, HUD is currently making a study of
closing additional field offices.
HUD has historically had difficulty maintaining a workforce capable
of effectively delivering and monitoring its myriad of programs. In
1995, we reported that the number and qualifications of HUD staff
were inadequate to perform essential functions--particularly in light
of the Department's inadequate information systems. In 1997, we
reported on HUD's continued efforts to improve the skills of its
staff, noting that in the past 2 years, HUD had increased the amount
of training available to staff, encouraged employees to formulate
individual development plans, forged partnerships with colleges and
universities, and begun a needs assessment process to identify future
training needs.
In 1995, we also reported that after a decade of problems, HUD's
information systems continued to be poorly integrated, ineffective,
and generally unreliable. However, we noted that the Department was
committed to correcting its long-standing problems and making its
information resources management program more responsive to HUD's
mission. In 1997, we reported that HUD had subsequently taken
numerous actions to create a network of flexible, integrated computer
systems that will enable program staff to oversee the financial and
programmatic integrity of their operations. However, we also noted
that some major financial and information systems will not be
completed before the year 2001 and that some systems currently cannot
be relied on to provide timely, accurate, and reliable information
and reports to management.
In 1995, we reported that HUD still needed to complete its efforts to
address internal control weaknesses.\3 At that time, the Department
was developing a new method of integrating management controls into
program delivery and budget development by requiring each division to
annually identify and rank the risks in each of its programs and to
devise a strategy for abating those risks. Our 1997 High-Risk Series
report noted that HUD had fully implemented its management planning
and control program in fiscal year 1995, but serious problems remain.
In addition, we, HUD's Inspector General, and independent auditors
have identified a lack of monitoring in certain programs as a
continuing problem.
--------------------
\3 An agency's internal control system provides the framework for
accomplishing management objectives, ensuring accurate financial
reporting, and complying with laws and regulations. Effective
internal controls provide reasonable assurance that resources are
effectively managed and accounted for.
DIRECTORS GENERALLY CONSIDER
THE REORGANIZATION A SUCCESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The majority of field directors we surveyed considered the September
1995 field office reorganization successful and believed that it
achieved most of HUD's intended goals. These goals included
clarifying the lines of programmatic and administrative authority and
accountability, improving communication with HUD's customers,
empowering field managers and staff, and improving communication
between headquarters and the field. (See figs. 1 and 2.)
Three-quarters of the directors said that, overall, HUD has made
excellent or good progress toward the goals of the reorganization.
However, the directors from community planning and development (CPD)
programs generally had more negative views: They were almost evenly
divided between those who said the reorganization's success was
excellent or good and those who said it was only fair or poor. (See
app. II, questions 7-9, for the directors' views on HUD's progress
toward each goal, summarized by type of director.)
When asked to rate HUD's success in terms of each individual goal of
the reorganization, the directors indicated that the Department has
been most successful in clarifying the lines of programmatic
authority and improving communication with HUD's customers and least
successful in clarifying the lines of administrative authority. As
noted in figure 2, opinions differed by program area. For example,
most multifamily housing directors believed that HUD's progress
toward the goal of empowering staff was excellent or good, whereas
the majority of CPD directors said that HUD's progress toward that
goal was only fair or poor. There was a similar variation in the
directors' views on how successful HUD has been in improving
communication between headquarters and field offices. Again, most
multifamily housing directors said that HUD's progress toward this
goal was excellent or good, whereas almost half of the CPD directors
thought that HUD's progress was only fair (24 percent) or poor (24
percent).
Figure 1: Directors' Opinions
on the Success of HUD's Field
Reorganization in Meeting Four
Goals, Average Scores by Type
of Director
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Figure 2: Directors' Opinions
on the Success of HUD's Field
Reorganization in Meeting Three
Additional Goals, and on
Overall Success, by Type of
Director
(See figure in printed
edition.)
To gauge the effect of HUD's reorganization and new management
approach on the activities conducted in the field, we asked directors
whether headquarters placed appropriate emphasis on nine specific
activities. (See table 1.) A majority of the directors said that the
emphasis that headquarters placed on most activities was about right,
although most said that HUD does not place enough emphasis on
learning technical skills (67 percent) or cross-training (59
percent).\4 The only objective that was overemphasized was reaching
numeric performance goals, according to a significant number of the
directors. Forty percent of the directors (and 64 percent of
single-family housing directors) said that HUD headquarters placed
too much emphasis on this objective.
Table 1
Percentage of Directors Who Said
Headquarters' Emphasis on Some
Objectives Should be Higher
All
Single- Multifam Public director
Management objective family ily CPD housing s
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Learning technical 78 60 69 69 67
skills
Learning 42 33 50 41 40
interpersonal
skills
Keeping up to date 34 17 49 29 31
on regulations
Becoming cross- 66 67 50 56 59
trained in other
job
responsibilities
Performing essential 57 31 59 23 42
program monitoring
Increasing customer 25 17 15 14 20
satisfaction
Improving service 33 25 21 29 29
delivery
Reducing risk of 56 22 50 46 44
fraud and waste
Reaching numeric 6 3 3 0 3
performance goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
\4 That is, providing staff with opportunities to obtain a broader
range of skills than those essential to performing their current
duties.
DIRECTORS BELIEVED THAT STAFFS'
SKILLS AND TRAINING HAVE
IMPROVED, BUT PROBLEMS REMAIN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Most directors said they were satisfied with the skills of their
staffs. Four out of five directors said they were very satisfied or
generally satisfied with their staffs' skills, and most said that the
skills of their staffs had improved greatly or somewhat in the past 2
years. (See app. II, questions 10-14, for the directors' views on
staffs' skills and training.) As shown on figure 3, for the five
types of skills we asked about, they rated their staffs' technical
skills highest, but they had similarly favorable views of their
staffs' interpersonal skills, knowledge of new programs, knowledge of
new regulations, and knowledge of information systems.
Figure 3: Directors' Opinions
on Staffs' Skills, Average
Scores by Type of Director
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Nonetheless, a significant number of directors said the skills of
their staffs were weak in specific areas. The weaknesses they
identified varied somewhat by program area. For example, 40 percent
of the public housing directors rated their staffs' interpersonal
skills as only fair. More than half of all multifamily housing
directors rated their staffs' knowledge of information systems as
fair (39 percent) or poor (17 percent). In addition, a third of the
single-family housing directors said their staffs' knowledge of new
regulations was fair.
Most directors believed that the quality of training at HUD has
improved over the past 2 years; however, many indicated that the
quality and quantity of training need additional improvement.
Overall, more than a third of the directors said they consider the
quality of HUD's current training only fair. The single-family
housing directors were most critical--a majority said HUD's training
was fair or poor. Moreover, while the directors' responses indicated
that the efforts to improve HUD's training curriculum may have
produced some benefits, most directors indicated that their staffs
need more training in information systems (88 percent), technical job
skills (73 percent), program regulations and changes (67 percent),
and interpersonal skills (52 percent).
Most directors also believed that maintaining adequate staffing
levels is a continuing problem. Seventy-seven percent said that they
have fewer staff than they need to effectively carry out essential
program activities. This opinion held across program areas, although
the directors in some areas were more likely to say that they were
short-staffed. For example, 89 percent of the multifamily housing
directors reported that they were short-staffed, whereas 61 percent
of the single-family housing directors said that they had fewer staff
members than they needed.
Consistent with the fact that most directors said that they had fewer
staff members than they needed, most also reported that their
workloads had increased over the last 2 years. Seventy-three percent
said that the workloads of the individuals in their areas of
responsibility had increased. Again, the responses varied somewhat
by program area. Almost every CPD director indicated that workloads
had increased, whereas only half of the single-family housing
directors reported increased workloads. Overall, the directors who
reported increased workloads most frequently attributed the increases
to reductions in staff (77 percent), new regulations and initiatives
in existing programs (76 percent), the creation of new programs (73
percent), and new Department-wide management initiatives (71
percent). On the other hand, more than a third of the single-family
housing directors reported that the elimination of some programs had
actually reduced their workloads to some extent.
HUD DIRECTORS HAD MIXED
OPINIONS ABOUT INFORMATION
SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Each program area uses several different systems, and each system is
in various stages of development, integration, and implementation.
The directors' overall satisfaction with HUD's information systems
varied by program area. The CPD and public housing directors were
most satisfied with the systems in their areas of responsibility.
More than 70 percent of the directors from those program areas were
generally satisfied. In contrast, the single-family and multifamily
housing directors were least satisfied with their systems. (See app.
II, questions 15 and 16, for the directors' views on information
systems.)
The directors' responses also varied by program area when they were
asked to rate the information systems in their areas of
responsibility against five specific criteria: accuracy, usefulness
for monitoring, usefulness for other duties, ease of reporting, and
ability to share data with other systems within HUD. The multifamily
housing directors were consistently least satisfied with their
systems; the public housing directors generally reported the highest
levels of satisfaction. (See fig. 4.) Directors in all program
areas tended to be most satisfied with the accuracy of the data in
the reports generated by HUD's information systems and least
satisfied with the ability of the systems they use to share data or
to interact. In fact, half of the directors, across program areas,
rated the ability of their systems to share data as poor, while a
third of the directors rated this category as fair. The ease of
generating reports from their information systems was also an area of
concern for directors in all program areas--the majority rated their
systems as fair or poor in this category as well.
Figure 4: Directors' Opinions
on Their Information Systems,
Average Scores by Type of
Director
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Despite the fact that many directors were dissatisfied with their
current systems, most said those systems were at least as good or
better than they were 2 years ago. When asked whether or not their
systems had changed over the past 2 years, most directors said that
the accuracy of the data had improved, while about one-half said that
the ease of reporting, the usefulness of information systems for
monitoring and other job duties, and the ability to share data with
other HUD systems had stayed about the same. The public housing
directors were consistently the most likely to report that their
systems had improved over the past 2 years, and the single-family
directors were the least likely to do so.
DIRECTORS HAD MIXED VIEWS ON
THE ADEQUACY OF INTERNAL
CONTROLS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Although most directors believed HUD's overall system of internal
controls was good or excellent, a significant percentage said some
specific internal controls were only fair or poor. For example, many
directors characterized as fair or poor HUD's internal controls for
ensuring data reliability (50 percent) and compliance with laws and
regulations (44 percent); also characterized as fair or poor were the
controls for ensuring that resources are protected from fraud (38
percent) and that resources are used efficiently and effectively (31
percent). (See app. II, question 17, for the directors' views on
internal controls.)
Overall, the directors in all program areas reported similar levels
of satisfaction with internal controls in their areas of
responsibility (see fig. 5).\5 However, their responses varied by
program area and type of control. The directors were most satisfied
with the internal controls to ensure that program goals and
objectives are met. Ninety-two percent of the single-family housing
and 89 percent of the multifamily housing directors rated these
activities as good or excellent. The public housing directors were
somewhat less satisfied than the other directors with the internal
controls in place to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
The multifamily directors reported the least satisfaction with the
internal controls to ensure that reported data are reliable--about 64
percent rated those controls as fair or poor.
Figure 5: Directors' Views on
the Effectiveness of HUD's
Internal Controls, Average
Scores by Type of Director
(See figure in printed
edition.)
HUD's Department Management Control Program Handbook recognizes that
monitoring program participants is a critical management control.
Despite its importance, monitoring continues to be a problem area for
HUD. Many directors said HUD's management needs to place greater
emphasis on activities that reduce the risk of fraud and waste (44
percent), particularly conducting essential program monitoring (42
percent). The vast majority of the directors who considered current
monitoring inadequate said that insufficient staff was a major reason
(66 percent) or minor reason (23 percent) that adequate monitoring is
not being carried out. A smaller percentage of the directors also
cited lack of travel funds, headquarters' emphasis, and staffs'
skills as reasons for inadequate monitoring.
The directors most frequently identified the on-site monitoring of
HUD's clients (71 percent) and monitoring of HUD's contractors (57
percent) as specific types of monitoring that should be increased.
The single-family housing directors were least satisfied with the
levels of monitoring being done in these areas; 83 percent reported a
need to increase on-site monitoring, and 69 percent said that more
monitoring of HUD contractors should be done. In addition, the
multifamily housing directors (72 percent) and the public housing
directors (51 percent) frequently said that HUD needs to increase its
reviews of the audit reports submitted by independent public
accountants on behalf of those who receive and spend HUD's funds.
--------------------
\5 The directors' ratings of five specific types of controls were
averaged to obtain a measure of their overall satisfaction.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We obtained information for this report from a telephone survey of
directors of HUD's major programs in the field. Our survey,
conducted during August 1996, asked the directors for their views on
HUD's 1995 field office reorganization and other corrective actions
the Department has taken in the past 2 years. It included 155
persons serving as the directors of single-family housing,
multifamily housing, CPD, and public housing at 40 of HUD's largest
field offices, as well as the 14 Directors of Housing who are located
in those field offices.\6 Although we have not reported their
responses separately, the opinions of the Directors of Housing are
included whenever we present results for all directors. (See app.
II for the full text of our survey and the responses to it.) Our
survey population does not represent directors from other programs or
the directors from HUD's smallest offices.
We surveyed directors who had been in their current position for at
least 4 months and with HUD for at least 24 months. We did not
survey directors with less than 4 months of experience, who may be
less familiar with the effects of the changes that have recently
occurred at HUD. Seven directors were excluded for this reason. In
addition, one eligible director declined to participate in our
survey, resulting in a 99-percent response rate. To summarize the
directors' opinions in bar graphs, for questions with the response
categories "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor," we assigned
values of 3, 2, 1, and 0 points, respectively, to the responses and
averaged the numerical values. For questions using a satisfaction
scale, a parallel strategy was used.\7
We met with agency officials to discuss our survey results. They
noted that they had not evaluated any of the management initiatives
discussed in our report and therefore had no basis to dispute our
survey results. However, in several instances they provided
observations about the directors' responses to our survey. For
example, concerning the negative tenor of the CPD directors'
responses, the officials commented that the CPD directors' responses
appear to be intended to send headquarters a message rather than
answer questions on the basis of the real situations in the field.
They also noted that addressing the training needs identified at the
time of our survey will not ensure that future training needs are met
because the Department is about to go through significant changes due
to buyouts, redeployments, and consolidations. The officials
recognized that there are staffing and workload imbalances,
particularly in the field, and commented that these imbalances may be
contributing to the directors' perceptions that their workloads are
increasing. The officials also conceded that reaching numeric
performance goals is overemphasized by headquarters management and
noted that efforts are being made to correct this situation.
We performed our work from April 1996 through January 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\6 We ranked the offices by size using data provided by HUD's
headquarters on the number of staff assigned to each location; the
staff assigned to the 40 offices in our survey population represent
86 percent of HUD's field staff.
\7 This scaling approach assumes equal intervals between response
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Judy A. England-Joseph
Director, Housing and Community
Development Issues
HUD'S FIELD OFFICES INCLUDED IN
THE TELEPHONE SURVEY
=========================================================== Appendix I
1. Illinois State Office*
2. Georgia State Office*
3. Colorado State Office*
4. Texas State Office*
5. New York State Office*
6. California State Office*
7. Pennsylvania State Office*
8. Washington State Office*
9. Kansas/Missouri State Office*
10. Massachusetts State Office*
11. Los Angeles Area Office*
12. Michigan State Office*
13. Arizona State Office
14. Jacksonville Area Office*
15. North Carolina State Office
16. Buffalo Area Office
17. District of Columbia Office
18. New Jersey State Office
19. San Antonio Area Office
20. Minnesota State Office
21. Oklahoma State Office
22. Cleveland Area Office
23. Ohio State Office
24. Virginia State Office
25. Maryland State Office
26. Indiana State Office
27. Alabama State Office
28. Louisiana State Office
29. Houston Area Office
30. Pittsburgh Area Office
31. Wisconsin Area Office
32. St. Louis Area Office*
33. South Carolina State Office
34. Caribbean Office
35. Arkansas State Office
36. Connecticut State Office
37. Kentucky State Office
38. Tennessee State Office
39. Mississippi State Office
40. Albany Area Office
Note: Asterisk denotes offices that have a Director of Housing.
GAO TELEPHONE SURVEY OF HUD FIELD
DIRECTORS WITH RESPONSES
========================================================== Appendix II
Program area (Responses in percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-
family Multifamil Public Housing
Question housing y housing CPD housing directors Total
----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
1. Our first
series of
questions asks
about workload
of individual
staff in your
area of
responsibility
over the last 2 50 83 93 65 85 73
years.\a 15 0 0 3 0 4
35 17 7 32 15 22
a. Would you say
this workload n=34\b n=36 n=29 n=31 n=13 n=143
has...?
1. Increased
2. Decreased
3. Stayed about
the same
b. (For those who
said increased)
would you 65 50 70 60 64 61
say...? 35 50 30 40 36 39
1. Increased
greatly
2. Increased n=17 n=30 n=27 n=20 n=11 n=105
somewhat
c. (For those who
said decreased)
would you
say...? 20 0 0 0 0 17
1. Decreased 80 0 0 100 0 83
greatly
2. Decreased n=5 n=0 n=0 n=1 n=0 n=6
somewhat
2. Next, I'll
read a list of
changes that may
have affected
the workload in
your area of
responsibility
over the last 2
years. For each
one I read,
please tell me
whether it has
increased,
decreased, or
has not affected
your and your
staff's
workload. If any
item does not
apply to you,
just tell me.
a. New programs
in your area of
responsibility. 66 60 79 81 92 73
1. Increased 34 37 21 19 8 27
2. No effect 0 3 0 0 0 1
3. Decreased
n=35 n=35 n=28 n=32 n=13 n=143
b. New
regulations and
new initiatives 83 78 90 56 71 76
in your 9 8 3 31 29 14
programs. 9 14 7 13 0 10
1. Increased
2. No effect n=35 n=36 n=29 n=32 n=14 n=146
3. Decreased
c. New management
initiatives such
as reinvention.
1. Increased 69 83 86 59 43 71
2. No effect 26 8 7 22 36 18
3. Decreased 6 8 7 19 21 11
n=35 n=36 n=28 n=32 n=14 n=145
d. Reductions in
staff within
your area of 74 83 76 75 79 77
responsibility. 23 11 24 25 14 20
1. Increased 3 6 0 0 7 3
2. No effect
3. Decreased n=35 n=36 n=29 n=32 n=14 n=146
e. Elimination of
programs in your 0
area of 13 3 88 0 8 5
responsibility. 50 84 13 84 77 76
1. Increased 38 13 16 15 20
2. No effect n=24
3. Decreased n=32 n=32 n=32 n=13 n=133
3. Please
consider the
number of staff
you need in
order to
effectively
carry out the
programs and
activities in
your area of
responsibility.
Given your
workload, do you
have more staff,
less staff, or
about the right
number to carry
out your
activities?
1. More 8 3 0 0 0 3
2. About the 31 8 18 26 21 21
right number 61 89 82 74 79 77
3. Less
n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
4. We'd like to
ask about
several types of
monitoring that
might be done
within your area
of
responsibility.
For each one I
read, please
tell me whether
or not your
staff has done
that type of
monitoring since
October 1, 1995.
Then tell me
whether the
amount of that
monitoring
should be
increased,
decreased, or
stay the same as
it is now.
a. Has your staff
conducted on-
site inspections
since October 1, 89 100 91 94 100 94
1995? 11 0 9 6 0 6
1. Yes
2. No n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
b. Should the
amount of on-
site
inspections...?
83 65 66 69 71 71
17 32 28 29 29 27
1. Increase 0 3 6 3 0 3
2. Stay the
same n=36 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=154
3. Decrease
c. Has your staff
conducted
telephone
inquiries since 64 78 88 97 71 80
October 1, 36 22 13 3 29 20
1995?
1. Yes n=36 n=37 n=32 n=34 n=14 n=153
2. No
d. Should the
amount of
telephone
inquiries...?
44 19 26 56 29 36
53 75 65 38 64 58
1. Increase 3 6 10 6 7 6
2. Stay the
same n=34 n=36 n=31 n=34 n=14 n=149
3. Decrease
e. Has your staff
reviewed reports
and records
submitted by
recipients of
HUD funding, 92 100 100 100 100 98
such as grantees 8 0 0 0 0 2
or lenders?
1. Yes n=36 n=37 n=33 n=34 n=14 n=154
2. No
f. Should review
of reports and
records
submitted by
recipients of
HUD funding, 46 49 25 44 43 41
such as grantees 51 43 53 53 50 50
or lenders...? 3 8 22 3 7 9
1. Increase
2. Stay the n=35 n=37 n=32 n=34 n=14 n=152
same
3. Decrease
g. Has your staff
reviewed IPA
reports since
October 1, 15 95 94 100 100 78
1995? 85 5 6 0 0 22
1. Yes
2. No n=34 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=12 n=151
h. Should reviews
of IPA
reports...?
23 72 19 51 73 46
1. Increase 73 22 61 49 27 48
2. Stay the 3 6 19 0 0 6
same
3. Decrease n=30 n=36 n=31 n=35 n=11 n=143
i. Do you use
contractors in
your area of 100 97 79 83 100 91
responsibility? 0 3 21 17 0 9
1. Yes
2. No n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=154
j. Has your staff
reviewed the
work done by
contractors
since 100 94 81 79 100 91
October 1, 0 6 19 21 0 9
1995?
1. Yes n=36 n=35 n=26 n=29 n=14 n=140
2. No
k. Should the
amount of
contractor
monitoring...?
69 49 56 46 64 57
31 51 40 50 36 42
1. Increase 0 0 4 4 0 1
2. Stay the
same n=36 n=35 n=25 n=28 n=14 n=138
3. Decrease
5. You've
mentioned that
monitoring
should be
increased, at
least in some
areas. Let me
read you a list
of reasons that
the level of
this monitoring
activity may be
lower now than
it should be.
For each one I
read, tell me
whether this is
a major reason,
minor reason, or
not a reason.
a. Not enough HUD
staff
available. 64 76 55 63 75 66
1. Major reason 21 21 28 20 25 23
2. Minor reason 15 3 17 17 0 12
3. Not a reason
n=33 n=33 n=29 n=30 n=12 n=137
b. Available HUD
staff do not
have the skills
to do 24 15 7 20 23 17
monitoring. 52 52 31 33 54 44
1. Major reason 24 33 62 47 23 39
2. Minor reason
3. Not a reason n=33 n=33 n=29 n=30 n=13 n=138
c. Not enough
travel funds. 30 36 59 27 23 36
1. Major reason 33 24 24 43 15 30
2. Minor reason 36 39 17 30 62 34
3. Not a reason
n=33 n=33 n=29 n=30 n=13 n=138
d. Monitoring is
not a high
enough priority 19 6 33 14 25 19
at this time. 39 25 26 7 33 25
1. Major reason 42 69 41 79 42 56
2. Minor reason
3. Not a reason n=31 n=32 n=27 n=28 n=12 n=130
e. Monitoring is
not included in
management's
performance 34 16 18 3 15 18
goals. 28 16 7 17 23 18
1. Major reason 38 69 75 80 62 64
2. Minor reason
3. Not a reason n=32 n=32 n=28 n=30 n=13 n=135
6. There are many
competing goals
in every
organization,
and some things
displace others
in the priority
system. I would
like to know
what emphasis
you feel HUD
headquarters
currently places
on the activity-
-not just in
words but in
their actions.
Our categories
are low, medium,
high, and no
opinion. Then,
after you give
each answer,
I'll ask about
the emphasis you
as a manager
feel should be
placed on each
of these
activities,
whether you
think the
emphasis should
be higher,
lower, or about
the same
amount.
a. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
reaching numeric
performance 0 0 19 23 0 9
goals...? 0 11 36 46 0 20
1. Low 100 89 45 31 100 70
2. Medium
3. High n=36 n=36 n=31 n=35 n=14 n=152
b. Do you think
the emphasis on
reaching numeric
goals should 6 3 3 0 7 3
be...? 1. 31 64 55 74 64 57
Higher 64 33 42 26 29 40
2. About the
same n=36 n=36 n=31 n=35 n=14 n=152
3. Lower
c. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
cross- 26 33 42 47 33 36
training...? 51 44 42 41 33 44
1. Low 23 22 16 13 33 20
2. Medium
3. High n=35 n=36 n=31 n=32 n=12 n=146
d. Do you think
the emphasis on
cross-training
should be...? 66 67 50 56 42 59
1. Higher 34 33 50 41 58 41
2. About the 0 0 0 3 0 1
same
3. Lower n=35 n=36 n=30 n=32 n=12 n=145
e. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
learning new 25 25 21 24 23 24
interpersonal 36 31 42 35 23 35
skills...? 39 44 36 41 54 41
1. Low
2. Medium n=36 n=36 n=33 n=34 n=13 n=152
3. High
f. Do you think
the emphasis on
learning new
interpersonal
skills should 42 33 50 41 23 40
be...? 53 64 47 53 62 55
1. Higher 6 3 3 6 15 5
2. About the
same n=36 n=36 n=32 n=34 n=13 n=151
3. Lower
g. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
learning
technical skills 33 14 34 40 14 29
needed for job 44 38 47 31 50 41
responsibilities 22 49 19 29 36 31
...?
1. Low n=36 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=154
2. Medium
3. High
h. Do you think
the emphasis on
learning
technical skills
needed for job
responsibilities 78 60 69 69 50 67
should be...? 22 38 31 31 50 33
1. Higher 0 3 0 0 0 1
2. About the
same n=36 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=154
3. Lower
i. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
keeping up to 9 11 33 15 8 16
date with 60 46 39 29 31 43
regulations...? 31 43 27 56 62 41
1. Low
2. Medium n=35 n=37 n=33 n=34 n=13 n=152
3. High
j. Do you think
the emphasis on
keeping up to
date with 34 17 49 29 23 31
regulations 66 78 49 68 77 66
should be...? 0 6 3 3 0 3
1. Higher
2. About the n=35 n=36 n=33 n=34 n=13 n=151
same
3. Lower
k. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
completing 9
essential 28 3 41 37 7 18
program 44 39 38 54 43 40
monitoring...? 28 58 22 50 42
1. Low n=35
2. Medium n=36 n=36 n=32 n=14 n=153
3. High
l. Do you think
the emphasis on
completing
essential
program 57 31 59 23 43 42
monitoring 43 69 41 74 57 57
should be...? 0 0 0 3 0 1
1. Higher
2. About the n=35 n=36 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=152
same
3. Lower
m. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
increasing 3 0 3 6 0 3
customer 6 3 6 9 0 5
satisfaction...? 92 97 91 86 100 92
1. Low
2. Medium n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=13 n=153
3. High
n. Do you think
the emphasis on
increasing
customer
satisfaction 25 17 15 14 39 20
should be...? 69 72 73 86 54 73
1. Higher 6 11 12 0 8 7
2. About the
same n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=13 n=153
3. Lower
o. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
improving 8 3 3 9 0 5
service 11 14 24 20 15 17
delivery...? 81 83 73 71 85 78
1. Low
2. Medium n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=13 n=153
3. High
p. Do you think
the emphasis on
improving
service delivery
should be...? 33 25 21 29 46 29
1. Higher 64 75 79 69 54 70
2. About the 3 0 0 3 0 1
same
3. Lower n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=13 n=153
q. Is
headquarters'
emphasis on
reducing the 31 11 27 23 21 23
risk for fraud 31 24 46 31 14 31
and waste...? 39 65 27 46 64 47
1. Low
2. Medium n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
3. High
r. Do you think
the emphasis on
reducing the
risk for fraud
and waste should 56 22 50 46 50 44
be...? 44 78 50 51 50 56
1. Higher 0 0 0 3 0 1
2. About the
same n=36 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=154
3. Lower
7. Now, we'd like
to ask some
questions about
the
reorganization
that has been
happening at HUD
and how it has
affected your
area of
responsibility.
I'll read a list
of objectives
that were
planned for the
reorganization
over the past 3
years. For each
one I read,
please tell me
whether you rate
today's progress
toward that
objective as
excellent, good,
fair, or poor
for your program
division at HUD.
If you don't
have an opinion
about an
objective, just
tell me and
we'll go on to
the next one.
a. Establishing
clear lines of
programmatic 29 60 38 31 86 44
authority. 60 27 41 40 7 39
1. Excellent 11 8 19 20 0 13
2. Good 0 5 3 9 7 5
3. Fair
4. Poor n=35 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=153
b. Establishing
clear lines of
administrative 17 11 0 20 14 12
authority. 39 32 30 37 43 36
1. Excellent 28 41 39 34 29 35
2. Good 17 16 30 9 14 17
3. Fair
4. Poor n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
c. Establishing
clear lines of
accountability. 19 35 22 24 50 28
1. Excellent 67 54 44 38 36 50
2. Good 11 5 22 29 7 16
3. Fair 3 5 13 9 7 7
4. Poor
n=36 n=37 n=32 n=34 n=14 n=153
d. Empowering
staff, that is,
giving your
staff the
authority to 31 54 6 31 57 34
make decisions 43 35 39 46 36 40
on their own. 26 11 27 17 0 18
1. Excellent 0 0 27 6 7 8
2. Good
3. Fair n=35 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=154
4. Poor
e. Empowering
managers, like
you, in the 42 62 6 29 79 39
field offices. 47 30 49 49 14 41
1. Excellent 11 8 30 23 0 16
2. Good 0 0 15 0 7 4
3. Fair
4. Poor n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
f. Improving
communications
between the
field and 31 38 15 26 36 29
headquarters. 43 46 36 37 43 41
1. Excellent 23 14 24 31 14 22
2. Good 3 3 24 6 7 8
3. Fair
4. Poor n=35 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=154
g. Improving
communications
with HUD's
customers. 40 39 27 26 50 35
1. Excellent 51 50 55 54 29 50
2. Good 9 8 18 20 14 14
3. Fair 0 3 0 0 7 1
4. Poor
n=35 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=153
8. Overall, how
would you rate
HUD's success
with the
reorganization
in terms of 17 32 10 29 54 25
improving your 63 51 42 46 31 49
area of 20 8 39 20 8 20
responsibility? 0 8 10 6 8 6
1. Excellent
2. Good n=35 n=37 n=31 n=35 n=13 n=151
3. Fair
4. Poor
9. The
reorganization
has emphasized
increasing the
skills of staff.
I'd like to read
a list of areas
and ask you to
rate the skills
of the people
who work for
you.
a. Interpersonal
skills 8 11 15 20 0 12
1. Excellent 64 62 64 37 86 59
2. Good 28 24 21 40 14 27
3. Fair 0 3 0 3 0 1
4. Poor
n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
b. Technical
skills related
to the
employee's job 33 24 27 31 36 30
responsibilities 61 60 67 46 43 57
1. Excellent 6 14 6 20 14 12
2. Good 0 3 0 3 7 2
3. Fair
4. Poor n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
c. Knowledge of
new programs
1. Excellent 9 11 12 20 29 14
2. Good 69 68 67 51 57 63
3. Fair 20 22 21 26 14 21
4. Poor 3 0 0 3 0 1
n=35 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=154
d. Knowledge of
new regulations
1. Excellent 6 8 21 17 14 13
2. Good 61 75 52 54 50 60
3. Fair 33 11 27 26 36 25
4. Poor 0 6 0 3 0 2
n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=154
e. Knowledge of
information
systems 11 6 0 11 7 7
1. Excellent 50 39 59 51 64 51
2. Good 36 39 22 34 21 32
3. Fair 3 17 19 3 7 10
4. Poor
n=36 n=36 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=153
10. Generally
speaking, how
satisfied are
you with the
current match
between your
staff's skills 19 19 9 17 14 16
and the skills 72 68 72 57 71 68
needed to carry 8 11 19 23 14 15
out their 0 3 0 3 0 1
duties?
1. Very n=36 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=154
satisfied
2. Generally
satisfied
3. Generally
dissatisfied
4. Neither
11. We are
interested in
improvements you
may have seen in
the skills of
your staff over
the past 2
years. Have
they...?
1. Improved 20 26 8 28 39 23
greatly 63 66 73 53 54 62
2. Improved
somewhat 17 9 19 19 8 15
3. Improved very
little, if at n=35 n=35 n=26 n=32 n=13 n=141
all
12. Now I have
some questions
on training.
First, we want
to know whether
you think the
training now
available is
adequate. For
each type I
read, please
tell me whether
the training
available in
this area should
be increased,
decreased, or
stay the same.
a. Courses that
help your staff
increase
interpersonal 60 54 53 51 29 52
skills. 31 43 38 46 57 41
1. Increased 9 3 9 3 14 7
2. Same
3. Decreased n=35 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=153
b. Courses that
keep staff up to
date on program
regulations and 67 51 79 80 43 67
changes. 33 46 21 20 57 33
1. Increased 0 3 0 0 0 1
2. Same
3. Decreased n=36 n=37 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=155
c. Courses that
train staff to
use information 78 100 91 83 85 88
systems. 22 0 9 17 15 12
1. Increased 0 0 0 0 0 0
2. Same
3. Decreased n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=13 n=153
d. Courses that
teach staff
technical skills
related to their 89 61 72 77 54 73
job 11 36 28 23 46 26
responsibilities 0 3 0 0 0 1
.
1. Increased n=36 n=36 n=32 n=35 n=13 n=152
2. Same
3. Decreased
13. Now please
think about the
quality of the
training
available to you
and your staff.
Overall, how do 0 18 13 6 14 9
you rate the 44 53 44 58 57 50
training 50 29 41 36 21 38
currently 6 0 3 0 7 3
available?
1. Excellent n=36 n=34 n=32 n=33 n=14 n=149
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
14. How does the
quality of
current training
at HUD compare
to the training 63 82 52 75 92 71
available 2 29 18 35 25 8 25
years ago? 9 0 14 0 0 5
1. Better
2. Same n=35 n=34 n=29 n=32 n=13 n=143
3. Worse
15. Next, I have
a few questions
about
information
systems at HUD-
-how well they
work for you and
your staff and
how they have
changed, for
better or worse,
over the last 2
years. HUD's
information
systems include
computer systems
for both
financial and
management
information.
a. How do you
rate the
accuracy of data
in reports that
you and your
staff get out of 22 0 25 20 7 16
HUD's 53 32 59 66 21 49
information 14 49 13 14 43 25
systems? 11 19 3 0 29 10
1. Excellent
2. Good n=36 n=37 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=154
3. Fair
4. Poor
b. Compared to 2
years ago, would
you say the
accuracy of data
in reports that
you and your
staff get out of 39 56 53 94 50 60
HUD's 44 36 38 6 43 32
information 17 8 9 0 7 9
systems is...?
1. Better n=36 n=36 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=153
2. Same
3. Worse
c. How do you
rate the ease of
generating
reports from the 3 3 6 6 0 4
information 42 15 31 53 36 35
systems? 33 41 47 27 21 35
1. Excellent 22 41 16 15 43 25
2. Good
3. Fair n=36 n=34 n=32 n=34 n=14 n=150
4. Poor
d. Compared to 2
years ago, is
the ease of
generating
reports from the 33 33 38 65 39 42
information 44 64 59 32 54 50
systems...? 22 3 3 3 8 8
1. Better
2. Same n=36 n=33 n=32 n=34 n=13 n=148
3. Worse
e. How do you
rate the
usefulness of
information from
these systems
for monitoring 11 0 12 11 7 8
program 58 22 52 66 29 47
activities? 28 53 33 17 29 33
1. Excellent 3 25 3 6 36 12
2. Good
3. Fair n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=154
4. Poor
f. Compared to 2
years ago, is
the usefulness
of information
from these
systems for 33 31 30 80 43 44
monitoring 56 63 64 17 57 50
program 11 6 6 3 0 6
activities...?
1. Better n=36 n=35 n=33 n=35 n=14 n=153
2. Same
3. Worse
g. How do you
rate the
usefulness of
the information
systems when you
and your staff
need data for 3 0 3 9 0 3
job 61 17 47 60 29 44
responsibilities 28 58 47 26 36 39
other than 8 25 3 6 36 13
monitoring?
1. Excellent n=36 n=36 n=32 n=35 n=14 n=153
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
h. Compared to 2
years ago, is
the usefulness
of the
information
systems when you
and your staff 31 44 38 80 46 48
need data for 58 53 63 17 46 47
job 11 3 0 3 8 5
responsibilities
other than n=36 n=36 n=32 n=35 n=13 n=152
monitoring...?
1. Better
2. Same
3. Worse
i. How do you
rate the
systems' ability 7 0 0 0 2
to share data or 19 11 4 20 0 16
interact? 29 20 21 50 27 32
1. Excellent 45 69 32 30 73 50
2. Good 43
3. Fair n=31 n=35 n=30 n=11 n=135
4. Poor n=28
j. Compared to 2
years ago, is
the systems'
ability to share 32 37 39 60 30 41
data or 65 57 54 40 60 55
interact...? 3 6 8 0 10 5
1. Better
2. Same n=31 n=35 n=26 n=30 n=10 n=132
3. Worse
16. What is your
overall level of
satisfaction
with the
information 0 0 3 3 0 1
systems in your 66 36 71 74 39 59
area of 34 44 19 17 39 30
responsibility? 0 19 3 6 23 9
1. Very 0 0 3 0 0 0
satisfied
2. Generally n=35 n=36 n=31 n=35 n=13 n=150
satisfied
3. Generally
dissatisfied
4. Very
dissatisfied
5. Neither
17. One past
criticism of HUD
was that it
lacked adequate
internal
controls to
prevent waste,
fraud, and
mismanagement.
By internal
controls, we
mean such things
as on-site
monitoring,
supervisory
reviews, data
verification,
and separation
of financial
duties. I'll be
asking you a set
of questions
about internal
controls. As I
read each one,
please think
about the
internal
controls
currently in
place in your
area of
responsibility,
both for HUD's
customers and
for HUD
employees.
a. How would you
rate the
internal
controls in
place to protect 11 8 9 11 8 10
resources from 44 58 58 51 54 53
fraud? 39 33 24 34 31 33
1. Excellent 6 0 9 3 8 5
2. Good
3. Fair n=36 n=36 n=33 n=35 n=13 n=153
4. Poor
b. How would you
rate the
internal
controls in
place to ensure
that resources 3 8 7 14 21 9
are used 61 69 55 57 50 60
efficiently and 33 17 29 23 21 25
effectively? 3 6 10 6 7 6
1. Excellent
2. Good n=36 n=36 n=31 n=35 n=14 n=152
3. Fair
4. Poor
c. How would you
rate the
internal
controls in
place to ensure 28 33 19 14 64 28
that program 64 56 48 69 29 57
goals and 6 8 23 17 7 13
objectives are 3 3 10 0 0 3
met?
1. Excellent n=36 n=36 n=31 n=35 n=14 n=152
2. Good
3. Fair
4. Poor
d. How would you
rate the
internal
controls in
place to ensure 11 6 10 11 7 9
that reported 50 31 37 46 43 41
data are 33 50 40 34 36 39
reliable? 6 14 13 9 14 11
1. Excellent
2. Good n=36 n=36 n=30 n=35 n=14 n=151
3. Fair
4. Poor
e. How would you
rate the
internal
controls in
place to ensure
that all parties 8 6 7 3 8 6
comply with laws 50 58 50 40 54 50
and 39 33 33 43 31 37
regulations? 3 3 10 14 8 7
1. Excellent
2. Good n=36 n=36 n=30 n=35 n=13 n=150
3. Fair
4. Poor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Throughout the survey, the directors who had held their current
position for less than 2 years were asked to discuss only the changes
that had occurred since they assumed that position.
\b "n" is the number of responses. Percentages may not add to 100
due to rounding.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ISSUE AREA
Glenn Davis
Janet Boswell
Eugene Chuday
Woodliff Jenkins
Joan Mahagan
DESIGN, METHODOLOGY, AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE GROUP
Fran Featherston
*** End of document. ***