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. ***