United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Federalism 

and the Census, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

PUBLIC HOUSING 

Information on the Roles of 

HUD, Public Housing 

Agencies, Capital Markets, 

and Service Organizations 

Statement of David G. Wood, Director 

Financial Markets and Community Investments 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST 

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 

 

GAO-06-419T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 15, 2006

PUBLIC HOUSING

Information on the Roles of HUD, Public 

Housing Agencies, Capital Markets, and 

Service Organizations 

Highlights of GAO-06-419T, a testimony to 

the Subcommittee on Federalism and the 

Census, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

Under the Public Housing Program,

the Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) and

local public housing agencies

(PHA) provide housing for lowincome residents at rents they can 

afford. Today, over 3,000 PHAs 

administer approximately 1.2 

million public housing units

throughout the nation. First 

authorized in 1937, the program has

undergone changes over the 

decades. The Quality Housing and

Work Responsibility Act of 1998

increased managerial flexibility but 

also established new requirements

for housing agencies. Some

observers have questioned the

program’s ability to provide quality, 

affordable housing to the nation’s 

neediest families. 

This testimony, which is based 

upon a number of reports that GAO 

has issued related to public 

housing since 2002, discusses the 

roles of (1) HUD (2) public housing 

agencies, (3) capital markets, and 

(4) community services 

organizations in the public housing 

system. 

Traditionally, HUD’s role has been to provide PHAs with funding, guidance, 

and oversight. HUD provides both capital and operating funding. In 

addition, HUD has provided selected agencies with grants under the HOPE 

VI program to demolish and revitalize severely distressed public housing and 

provide community and supportive services. HUD provides guidance to 

PHAs to supplement its regulations and explicitly convey required program 

policies and procedures. Based on past work, GAO has made 

recommendations to HUD to improve the clarity and timeliness of its 

guidance to PHAs and to improve its oversight of the program.

PHAs are responsible for managing public housing in accordance with HUD 

regulations and requirements. They are also required to develop and submit 

plans detailing the agency’s goals and strategies for reaching these goals. 

Further, PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are required to provide residents 

with supportive services. GAO’s work has identified challenges that the 

agencies face in carrying out their responsibilities, including difficulty with 

HUD’s data systems and lack of resources for hiring and training staff. 

GAO has not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can play a role in 

the public housing system, but its examination of the HOPE VI program and 

other work has identified examples of leveraging federal funds with funds 

from a variety of other public and private sources. HUD encourages public 

housing agencies to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding from other 

sources to increase the number of affordable housing units developed at 

project sites. The examples GAO has found include private funding for both 

capital projects and the provision of supportive services. 

PHAs may utilize community service organizations to assist public housing 

residents. Work GAO has done on federal housing programs that benefit the 

elderly, as well as recent work focused on public housing for the elderly and

residents with disabilities, identified examples of supportive services being 

offered or provided to public housing residents. Such services may be

provided through HUD grants as well as through partnerships between 

public housing agencies and community-based nonprofit organizations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-419T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David G. Wood 

at (202) 512-8678 or woodd@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today as the Committee considers

the nation’s public housing. The Public Housing Program was established 

in 1937 to provide decent and safe rental housing for low-income families. 

Congress annually appropriates funds for the program, and the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates them to 

local public housing agencies (PHA). Today, over 3,000 PHAs administer 

approximately 1.2 million public housing units throughout the nation 

under HUD’s oversight. 

My statement is based on a number of reports that we have issued related

to public housing, primarily since 2002. The topics of these reports have 

included (1) how HUD assesses PHAs’ performance and the steps it takes 

to remedy poor performance; (2) the agencies’ experiences with reforms 

instituted by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) 

of 1998; (3) various aspects of the HOPE VI program for revitalizing 

severely distressed public housing; and (4) most recently, the condition of

public housing for the elderly and disabled. As you requested, my 

statement discusses the roles of (1) HUD (2) public housing agencies, (3) 

capital markets, and (4) community services organizations in the public 

housing system. In preparing this information, we excerpted and 

summarized information from reports issued between 2002 and 2005. A list 

of these reports appears at the end of this statement. 

In brief: 

• Traditionally, HUD’s role has been to provide PHAs with funding, 

guidance, and oversight. HUD provides both capital and operating funding. 

In addition, HUD has provided selected agencies with grants under the 

HOPE VI program to demolish and revitalize severely distressed public 

housing and provide community and supportive services. HUD provides 

guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations and explicitly convey 

required program policies and procedures. Based on our past work, we 

have made recommendations to HUD to improve the clarity and timeliness 

of its guidance to PHAs, and to improve its oversight of the program. 

• PHAs are responsible for managing public housing in accordance with 

HUD regulations and requirements. They are also required to develop and 

submit plans detailing the agency’s goals and strategies for reaching these 

goals. Further, PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are required to provide 

residents with supportive services. Our work has identified challenges that

the agencies face in carrying out their responsibilities, including difficulty 

Page 1 GAO-06-419T 
with HUD’s data systems and lack of resources for hiring and training 

staff. 

• While we have not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can play a 

role in the public housing system, our examination of the HOPE VI 

program and other work has identified examples of leveraging federal

funds with funds from a variety of other public and private sources. HUD 

encourages PHAs to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding from 

other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units 

developed at project sites. The examples we have found include private 

funding for both capital projects and the provision of supportive services. 

• PHAs may utilize community service organizations to assist public housing 

residents. Work we have done on federal housing programs that benefit 

the elderly, as well as recent work focused on public housing for the 

elderly and residents with disabilities, identified examples of supportive 

services being offered or provided to public housing residents. Such 

services may be provided through HUD grants as well as through 

partnerships between PHAs and community-based nonprofit 

organizations. 

Under the U. S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Congress created the 

federal public housing program to provide decent and safe rental housing 

for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. 

HUD administers the program with PHAs, typically local agencies created 

under state law that manage housing for low-income residents at rents 

they can afford. Agencies that participate in the program contract with 

HUD to provide housing to eligible low-income households and, in return, 

receive financial assistance from HUD. Public housing comes in all sizes 

and types, from scattered single-family houses to high-rise apartments. 

In 1992, Congress established the HOPE VI program, which is 

administered by HUD. The program provides grants to PHAs to 

rehabilitate or rebuild severely distressed public housing and improve the 

lives of public housing residents through supportive services. In 2003, 

Congress expanded the statutory definition of “severely distressed public 

housing” for the purpose of HOPE VI to include indicators of social 

distress, such as a lack of supportive services and economic opportunities. 

Between fiscal years 1993 and 2005, Congress appropriated $6.8 billion for 

the HOPE VI program. 

Background 

Page 2 GAO-06-419T 
In addition to managing public housing, some PHAs administer other HUD 

programs that provide housing assistance for low-income households. 

Under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, about 2,500 participating 

PHAs enter into contracts with HUD and receive funds to provide rent 

subsidies to the owners of private housing on behalf of assisted lowincome households. In addition, PHAs assist in administering HUD’s 

project-based rental assistance programs, through which HUD pays 

subsidies to private owners of multifamily housing that help make this 

housing affordable for lower income households. 

Traditionally, HUD has provided funding to local PHAs to manage the 

public housing system, as well as for the revitalization of severely 

distressed public housing. HUD’s role has also included providing PHAs 

with guidance and overseeing their performance, including providing 

technical assistance. 

HUD provides funding to housing agencies through two formula grant 

programs: the Operating Fund and the Capital Fund. The Operating Fund 

provides annual subsidies to housing agencies to make up the difference 

between the amount they collect in rent and the cost of operating the 

units. The Capital Fund provides grants to PHAs for the major repair and 

modernization of the units. In addition, HUD has provided selected 

agencies with grants under the HOPE VI program to help housing agencies

replace and revitalize severely distressed public housing with physical and 

community and supportive service improvements. As shown in table 1, this 

HUD funding has totaled about $31.5 billion over the past 5 fiscal years. 

Table 1: Appropriations for the Public Housing Program for Fiscal Years 2002-2006

HUD Provides 

Funding, Guidance, 

and Oversight for 

Local PHAs 

Funding and Guidance 

Millions of dollars 

Fiscal year 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006aTotal

Operating 

Fund $3,495 $3,577 $3,579 $2,438 $3,564 $16,653

Capital Fund 2,843 2,712 2,696 2,579 2,439 13,269

Hope VI 574 570 149 143 99 1,535

Total $6,912 $6,859 $6,424 $5,160 $6,102 $31,457

Source: GAO.

a

Budget totals include the 1.0 percent across the board rescission to nondefense discretionary 

resources provided in FY 2006 regular appropriations acts per P.L. No: 109-148. 

Page 3 GAO-06-419T 
In exchange for capital and operating funding, PHAs enter into annual 

contributions contracts. According to this written contract, HUD agrees to 

make payments to the PHA and the PHA agrees to administer the housing 

program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements. HUD 

provides guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations, and explicitly 

convey required program policies and procedures. 

Some of our past work has shown a need for HUD to improve the clarity 

and/or timeliness of its guidance to housing authorities. For example: 

• For our 2002 review of HUD’s and housing agencies’ experiences in 

preparing annual plans required by the Quality Housing and Work 

Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), we surveyed HUD field offices and 

interviewed eight PHAs to gain insight into their experiences.1

Respondents reported that HUD-provided guidance on the planning 

process was less than adequate. One respondent reported that 

headquarters guidance was delayed in getting to field locations, while 

another reported that changing rules made it difficult to know what the 

PHAs should do and what the field locations should look for in reviewing 

plans. However, some PHAs balanced their comments with positive 

remarks; for example, one large agency told us that HUD had improved the 

template for fiscal year 2001. HUD provided a desk guide to assist housing 

agencies and field locations in fiscal year 2001, in an effort to improve the 

planning process. 

• In surveying the directors of PHAs on their experiences with a number of 

QHWRA housing reforms, we again found late and unclear guidance from 

HUD.2

 Public housing directors reported having to spend more 

administrative time in implementing reforms, partially due to a lack of 

clear guidance from HUD. 

• In reviewing HUD’s management of the HOPE VI program, we found that 

the department’s guidance on the role of field offices was unclear, and, as 

a result, some field offices did not seem to understand their role in HOPE 

VI oversight.3

 For example, some officials stated that they had not 

 1

GAO, Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies’ Experiences with Fiscal Year

2000 Plan Requirements, GAO-02-572 (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2002). 

2

GAO, Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views on Many Recent

Housing Reforms, GAO-04-19 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2003). 

3

GAO, Public Housing: HUD’s Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs to Be More Consistent, 

GAO-03-555 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003). 

Page 4 GAO-06-419T 
performed annual reviews of HOPE VI projects because they did not think 

they had the authority to monitor grants. Based upon these findings, we 

recommended that the Secretary of HUD clarify the role of HUD field 

offices in HOPE VI oversight and ensure that the offices conduct required

annual reviews of HOPE VI grants. HUD agreed with this recommendation 

and published new guidance in March 2004 that clarified the role of the 

HUD field offices and changed the annual review requirements. 

HUD is responsible for overseeing PHAs’ overall performance and for 

helping agencies improve their performance (see fig. 1). In 1997, as a part 

of its 2020 Management Reform Plan, HUD instituted a new approach for 

evaluating PHAs’ performance. The approach includes “scoring” each of 

several categories of performance, assigning each housing agency to a risk 

category, designating agencies as “troubled” if their scores are 

substandard and, in some cases, appointing receivers to actively manage

the agencies. Also as a part of its oversight, HUD identifies housing 

agencies that need technical assistance. HUD’s technical assistance 

involves activities such as training housing agency staff on how to use 

HUD systems or comply with reporting requirements. 

Oversight and 

Technical Assistance 

Page 5 GAO-06-419T 
Figure 1: HUD’s Oversight Structure for the Public Housing Program 

HUD uses the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) to evaluate 

public housing agencies’ performance, while its Public and Indian Housing 

Information Center (PIC) risk assessment uses the PHAS score and 

information about funding and compliance issues to classify housing 

authorities as high, moderate, or low risk. PHAS is designed to evaluate 

housing agencies’ overall performance in managing rental units, including 

Page 6 GAO-06-419T 
the physical condition of units, soundness of agencies’ financial 

operations, the effectiveness of their management operations, and the 

level of resident satisfaction with the services and living conditions. HUD 

designed the PIC system to facilitate a Web-based exchange of data 

between PHAs and local HUD offices. PIC contains a detailed inventory of

public housing units and information about them, including the number of 

developments and units, age of the development, and the extent to which

apartment units are accessible for persons with disabilities. The system 

also tracks tenant (household) information, such as age, disability status, 

and income.

Our past work has identified opportunities for HUD to improve its 

oversight of housing agencies and it provision of technical assistance. For 

example: 

• In 2002, we reported that the results of the PHAS and PIC systems were 

inconsistent.4

 Specifically, in comparing information in the two systems, 

we found that 12 of the agencies that HUD—using PHAS scores—had 

determined were “troubled” were classified in the PIC system as “low” 

risk. Accordingly, we recommended that HUD classify all troubled housing 

authorities as high risk to better ensure that they receive sufficient 

monitoring. HUD agreed with our recommendation and incorporated it 

into its risk-assessment system. 

• In preparing a 2002 report on HUD’s human capital management, directors 

of several HUD field offices told us that they lacked the staff to provide the 

level of oversight and technical assistance that the housing authorities 

need.5

 In light of this and other findings, we recommended that the 

Secretary of HUD develop a comprehensive strategic workforce plan. HUD 

subsequently hired a contractor to develop a Strategic Workforce Plan, 

which it completed in 2004. The plan includes analysis of current and 

future demand for staff and an analysis of the skills and competencies 

needed to accomplish tasks. 

• In our October 2003 report, we noted that small agencies are more likely to 

require assistance with the day-to-day management of HUD programs and 

that HUD does not maintain centralized, detailed information on the types 

 4

GAO, Public Housing: New Assessment System Holds Potential for Evaluating 

Performance, GAO-02-282 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002). 

5

GAO, HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce Planning 

Needed. GAO-02-839 (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002). 

Page 7 GAO-06-419T 
of assistance PHAs require or request from them.6

 HUD reported that it 

was developing a system that would allow it to collect such information in 

the future. 

• In 2005, we reported on HUD’s efforts to assess PHAs’ compliance with its 

policies for determining rent subsidies.7

 We found that HUD had 

undertaken special reviews that, while useful, had suffered from a lack of

clear policies and procedures and that the training and guidance HUD 

provided to PHAs on its policies for determining rent subsidies were not 

consistently adequate or timely. We recommended that the HUD Secretary 

(1) make regular monitoring of PHAs’ compliance with HUD’s policies for 

determining rent subsidies a permanent part of HUD’s oversight activities 

and (2) collect complete and consistent information from these monitoring 

efforts and use it to help focus corrective actions where needed. HUD 

concurred with the recommendations but has not yet fully implemented 

them. 

HUD can take enforcement actions against PHAs that it identifies, through 

PHAS, as being “troubled.” For such agencies, HUD assigns a recovery 

team and develops a plan to remedy the problems. Initially, HUD may offer 

technical assistance and training, but it may also sanction an authority; for 

example, by withholding funding. Ultimately, HUD may place a PHA under 

an administrative receivership, in which a receiver replaces the top 

management of the agency. Additionally, some PHAs may have receivers 

appointed by judges (these are known as judicial receivers). In February

2003, we reported that under administrative or judicial receivers, nearly all 

of the 15 agencies under receivership showed improvement during their 

years of receivership, according to changes in HUD’s assessed scores 

and/or other evidence.8

 The four PHAs under judicial receiverships 

generally had continued to demonstrate strong performance. While PHAs 

under administrative receiverships had also made improvements, some 

continued to demonstrate a significant problem with housing units being 

in very poor physical condition. 

 6

GAO-04-19. 

7

GAO, HUD Rental Assistance: Progress and Challenges in Measuring and Reducing 

Improper Rent Subsidies. GAO-05-224 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005). 

8

GAO, Public Housing: Information on Receiverships at Public Housing Authorities. 

GAO-03-363 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2003). 

Page 8 GAO-06-419T 
Finally, HUD’s headquarters and field offices are responsible for 

overseeing PHAs’ use of HOPE VI grants. In 2003, we reported that HUD’s 

oversight of HOPE VI grants had been inconsistent due to staffing 

limitations, confusion about the role of field offices, and a lack of formal 

enforcement policies.9

 Based upon these findings, we recommended that

HUD clarify the role of its field offices in HOPE VI oversight; ensure that 

the offices conduct required annual reviews of HOPE VI grants; and 

develop a formal, written enforcement policy to hold PHAs accountable

for the status of their grants. HUD agreed with these recommendations 

and clarified the role of HUD field offices, changed the annual review 

requirements, and developed an enforcement policy, which it shared with 

grantees in December 2003. 

Generally, PHAs are responsible for administering the public housing 

program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements. 

Specifically, PHAs must provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to their 

residents, manage their financial resources, meet HUD’s standards for 

management operations, and address residents’ satisfaction. Among other 

things, PHAs are responsible for ensuring that tenants are eligible for 

public housing and that tenant subsidies are calculated properly. PHAs are 

also required to develop both short- and long-term plans outlining their 

goals and strategies. PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are subject to 

additional requirements associated with those grants; for example, the 

agencies must provide residents of HOPE VI sites with certain types of 

supportive services. 

During the 1990s, PHAs gained broader latitude from HUD and the 

Congress to establish their own policies in areas such as selecting tenants 

and setting rent levels. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act 

of 1998 (QHWRA), which extensively amended the U.S. Housing Act of 

1937, allowed PHAs to exercise still more discretion over rents and 

admissions.10 For example, QHWRA increased managerial flexibility by, 

among other things, making HUD-provided capital and operating funds 

more fungible, allowing housing authorities to sell some units to residents, 

and developing mixed-income housing units in order to bring more 

working and upwardly mobile families into public housing. 

PHAs Are 

Responsible for 

Managing Public

Housing in 

Accordance with 

HUD Regulations and 

Requirements 

 9

GAO-03-555. 

10Some of QHWRA’s provisions went into effect when QHWRA was enacted on October 21, 

1998, while other provisions took effect later. 

Page 9 GAO-06-419T 
QHWRA also established new requirements for housing agencies, 

including, for example, mandatory reporting requirements in the form of a 

5-year plan and annual reporting plans. Five-year plans include long-range 

goals, while annual plans detail the agency’s objectives and strategies for 

achieving these goals, as well as the agency’s policies and procedures. For 

our May 2002 report, we examined PHAs’ experiences in preparing the 

first of their required plans.11 We visited eight PHAs in the course of this 

work, and found that their views differed on the usefulness of the planning

process and the level of resources required to prepare the plans, among 

other things. In June 2003, in response to concerns that some QHWRA 

reforms were placing an undue burden on small PHAs, HUD issued 

regulations allowing small PHAs to submit streamlined annual plans. We

have not revisited this issue, and therefore cannot say how HUD or the 

PHAs view the usefulness of the plans today. 

QHWRA also required PHAs to implement a number of additional reforms 

that affect the Public Housing Program. For our October 2003 report, we 

surveyed PHAs to find out their views on 18 key changes brought about by

QHWRA and to see if views differed among large, medium, and small 

agencies.12 Some agencies in each size category viewed both the 5-year 

plan and the annual plan requirements as helpful to them in managing and 

operating their programs, although proportionately fewer small agencies 

had this view. We also found that agencies of all sizes reported spending 

more time on HUD-subsidized programs after QHWRA than before the 

reforms were enacted, in part because of increased reporting 

requirements, difficulties in submitting data to HUD, and lack of resources 

for hiring and training. 

PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants to revitalize public housing must obtain 

HUD’s approval for their revitalization plans and must report project 

status information to HUD. The agencies are also required to offer 

community and supportive services—such as child care, transportation, 

job training, job placement and retention services, and parenting classes—

to all original residents of public housing affected by HOPE VI projects, 

regardless of their intention to return to the revitalized site. In our 

November 2002 report on HOPE VI financing, we found that PHAs that had 

been awarded grants in fiscal years 1993 to 2001 had budgeted a total of 

 11GAO-02-572. 

12GAO-04-19.

Page 10 GAO-06-419T 
about $714 million for community and supportive services.13 Of this 

amount, about 59 percent were HOPE VI funds while 41 percent was 

leveraged from other resources. In our November 2003 report on HOPE VI 

impacts, we reported that limited HUD data on 165 HOPE VI grantees 

awarded through fiscal year 2001, and additional information, indicated

that supportive services had achieved or contributed to positive 

outcomes.14

While we have not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can be

used with the public housing system, our reviews of the HOPE VI program 

have shown that some PHAs use HOPE VI revitalization grants to leverage

additional funds from a variety of other public and private sources. 

HUD encourages PHAs to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding 

from other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units 

developed at HOPE VI sites. Public funding can come from other federal, 

state, or local sources. Private sources can include mortgage financing and 

financial or in-kind contributions from nonprofit organizations. In our 

November 2002 report on HOPE VI project financing, we found that 

financial leveraging of projects had shown a general increase over time, 

and that PHAs expected to leverage—for every dollar received in HOPE VI 

revitalization grants awarded through fiscal year 2001—an additional $1.85 

in funds from other sources.15 Our report also noted that HUD had not 

reported annual leveraging and cost information about the HOPE VI 

program to the Congress, as it had been required to do since 1998. 

Consequently, we recommended that HUD provide annual reports on the 

program, including information on the amounts and sources of funding 

used at HOPE VI sites, to Congress. In response to this recommendation, 

in December 2002, HUD began issuing annual reports that include funding 

information. 

We also found in the November 2002 report that housing agencies with 

HOPE VI revitalization grants expected to leverage $295 million in 

additional funds for community and supportive services. In our most 

Private Capital Has 

Been Involved in 

Some HOPE VI 

Projects

 13GAO, Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not Met 

Annual Reporting Requirement, GAO-03-91 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2002). 

14GAO, Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods 

Surrounding Grant Sites, GAO-04-109, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2003). 

15GAO-03-91. 

Page 11 GAO-06-419T 
recent report concerning public housing (December 2005), we found that 

PHAs have used HOPE VI revitalization grants to leverage additional funds 

from a variety of sources, including private loans.16 In particular, we noted

an example of a renovation and the colocation of supportive services that 

were made possible through coordination of efforts and use of mixed 

financing—the Allegheny County Housing Authority’s revitalization of the 

Homestead Apartments outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The housing 

agency built space on-site for two nonprofit elder-care service providers in 

addition to remodeling the buildings. Approximately 67 percent of the 

funding for the Homestead renovation was based on Low-Income Housing 

Tax Credits. Under this program, states are authorized to allocate federal 

tax credits as an incentive to the private sector to develop rental housing 

for low-income households. While this represents a way for private capital 

to be used in conjunction with public housing projects, we noted in our 

November 2002 report that such funding does entail a federal cost (in the 

form of taxes foregone).17

PHAs may utilize community service organizations to provide supportive 

services to public housing residents. Our recent work has focused on the 

services that PHAs can provide to elderly and non-elderly persons with 

disabilities. 

In a February 2005 report on housing programs that offer assistance for 

the elderly, we identified programs that public housing agencies can use to 

assist elderly public housing residents.18 For example, through the 

Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) grant program, HUD 

awards grants to PHAs for the purpose of linking residents with supportive 

services. Also, HUD’s Service Coordinator Program provides funding for 

PHA managers of public housing designated for the elderly or persons 

with disabilities to hire coordinators to assist residents in obtaining 

supportive services from community agencies; and its Congregate Housing 

Services Program provides grants for the delivery of meals and 

Community Services 

Organizations May 

Provide Supportive 

Services to Public 

Housing Residents 

 16GAO, Public Housing: Distressed Conditions in Developments for the Elderly and

Persons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for Improvement, GAO-06-163 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 9, 2005). 

17GAO-03-91. 

18GAO, Elderly Housing: Federal Housing Programs That Offer Assistance for the 

Elderly, GAO-05-174 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2005).

Page 12 GAO-06-419T 
nonmedical supportive services to residents of public and multifamily 

housing who are elderly or have disabilities. 

For our December 2005 report on public housing for the elderly and 

persons with disabilities, we surveyed the directors of 46 PHAs that 

manage public housing developments that we identified as both severely 

distressed and primarily occupied by the elderly and persons with 

disabilities.19 This work identified examples of partnerships between PHAs 

and local organizations such as community-based nonprofits and churches 

to provide supportive services for the elderly and non-elderly persons with 

disabilities. In some cases, the local agencies paid for the services, while in 

others the housing agencies used federal grants. For example: 

• A building manager for one development that we visited said the 

development partnered with a nearby church, which provided a van to 

take residents shopping once a week. Local churches also provided food 

assistance to elderly residents and residents with disabilities who were not 

able to leave their apartments. 

• At another housing development, a community-based organization 

provided lunches on a daily basis to residents and assorted grocery items 

such as bread, fruit, and cereal on a weekly basis. 

• The aforementioned Homestead Apartments—a high-rise, primarily elderly 

occupied public housing development—was revitalized to provide 

enhanced supportive services to elderly residents, in particular frail 

elderly residents. To do so, the housing agency partnered with several nonHUD entities to improve services for the elderly and colocate an assisted 

living type of facility at the development. To help the most frail elderly 

residents, the housing agency partnered with a nonprofit organization, 

which offers complete nursing services, meals, and physical therapy to 

Homestead residents who are enrolled in the program. For most 

participants, these comprehensive services permitted them to continue 

living at home. 

• In a partnership in Seattle, Washington, the housing agency partnered with 

a community-based organization to provide an on-site community center 

for the elderly, where residents had access to meals, social activities, and

assistance with filling prescriptions. Residents at this development also 

had access to an on-site health clinic. 

 19GAO-06-163. 

Page 13 GAO-06-419T 
In summary, Mr. Chairman, over the past few years we have identified 

several ways for HUD to improve its administration of the public housing 

program. Our work has also identified challenges faced by the local public

housing agencies that play such an essential program delivery role, not 

only those associated with implementing the reforms provided under 

QHWRA but also such day-to-day matters as correctly determining tenants’ 

incomes and rents. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee as 

it considers the future of the public housing program. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

answer any questions at this time. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact David G. Wood

at (202) 512-8678. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

included Isidro Gomez, Lisa Moore, David Pittman, Paul Schmidt, and 

Julie Trinder. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 14 GAO-06-419T 
Page 15 GAO-06-419T 

Related Products 

Public Housing: Distressed Conditions in Developments for the Elderly 

and Persons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for Improvement. 

GAO-06-163. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005.

Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Streamline Its Processes to

Ensure Timely Housing Assistance Payments. GAO-06-57. Washington,

D.C.: November 15, 2005.

HUD Rental Assistance: Progress and Challenges in Measuring and 

Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies. GAO-05-224. Washington, D.C.: 

February 18, 2005. 

Elderly Housing: Federal Housing Programs That Offer Assistance for 

the Elderly. GAO-05-174. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2005.

Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in 

Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites. GAO-04-109. Washington, D.C.: 

November 21, 2003. 

Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views on 

Many Recent Housing Reforms. GAO-04-19. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 

2003. 

Public Housing: HUD’s Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs to Be More

Consistent. GAO-03-555. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003. 

Public Housing: Information on Receiverships at Public Housing 

Authorities. GAO-03-363. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003. 

Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. GAO-03-103. Washington, D.C.: January 

1, 2003. 

Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not

Met Annual Reporting Requirement. GAO-03-91. Washington, D.C.: 

November 15, 2002. 

HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce 

Planning Needed. GAO-02-839. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002. 

Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies’ Experiences with 

Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements. GAO-02-572. Washington, D.C.: May 

31, 2002. 
Public Housing: New Assessment System Holds Potential for Evaluating 

Performance. GAO-02-282. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002.

Page 16 GAO-06-419T (250281) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER