HOUSING FOR 

SPECIAL NEEDS

Funding for HUD’s 

Supportive Housing 

Programs

Report to Congressional Committees

May 2016

GAO-16-424

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-424, a report to 

congressional committees

May 2016

HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

Funding for HUD’s Supportive Housing Programs

Why GAO Did This Study

Over 151,000 very low-income elderly 

and disabled households rely on the 

Section 202 and the Section 811 

programs to provide affordable rents 

and housing with supportive services. 

Before fiscal year 2012, nonprofit 

organizations interested in developing 

units for these populations could apply 

to HUD for grants known as capital 

advances, which did not have to be

repaid as long as the property 

continued to serve these populations

for 40 years. Since fiscal year 2012, 

Congress has not appropriated any 

funding for capital advances for either 

program, although it has continued to 

fund rental assistance for existing 

developments. 

The House report accompanying the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act of 2015 contained a 

provision for GAO to provide 

information on HUD capital advances 

for the Section 202 and Section 811 

programs from 2008–2013. 

This report examines (1) how HUD 

determined the capital advance

amounts awarded to sponsors for 

Section 202 and Section 811 and (2) 

the number of capital advance awards

and amounts by state from fiscal years 

2008–2011 and any changes in the 

distribution of capital advances over 

that period. GAO reviewed budget 

documents and funding 

announcements and interviewed 

agency officials.

GAO makes no recommendations in 

this report. GAO provided a draft to 

HUD for its review and received

technical comments, which were 

incorporated as appropriate. 

What GAO Found

Until program funding for new development ceased in fiscal year 2012, the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) used a two-phase 

process to allocate and award capital advances for Section 202 Supportive 

Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) and Section 811 Supportive Housing for 

Persons with Disabilities (Section 811). First, HUD headquarters allocated the 

amount of appropriated funds for capital advances to each of the 18 regional 

offices using a funding formula, which accounted for regional housing needs and 

cost characteristics. Funding was further divided among 52 local offices using a 

set-aside formula and was also split between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 

areas for Section 202. In 2010, HUD eliminated the set-aside which had 

guaranteed a minimum amount of funding for each local field office. The process 

for making capital advance awards did not change, but HUD was better able fund 

properties at a higher level. Second, applicants submitted applications to the 

applicable HUD regional office, and staff from these offices evaluated and scored 

applications based on various criteria, including capacity to provide housing and 

ability to secure funding from other sources. Applicants in each regional office 

were ranked highest to lowest and funded in that order. Any residual funds that 

were not sufficient to fund the next project in rank order were pooled nationwide 

and HUD headquarters used a national ranking to fund additional projects.

Most but not all states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) had 

applicants that received capital advances for Section 202 and Section 811 in 

fiscal years 2008 through 2011. GAO found that some states had applicants that

received capital advances in each of the years reviewed, while other states did 

not. In the period reviewed, four states had no applicants that received Section 

202 capital advance awards, and eight states had no applicants that received

Section 811 capital advance awards. HUD officials cited several reasons 

applicants from some states may not have received funding during this period, 

including applications that were submitted may have been ineligible or higherscoring applications from other states may have been selected instead. The 

capital advance amounts varied. For Section 202, total capital advance amounts 

for fiscal years 2008-2011 for states that received at least one award ranged 

from less than $24 million to more than $75 million. For Section 811, total capital 

advance amounts for fiscal years 2008-2011 for states that received at least one 

capital advance award ranged from less than $4 million to more than $15 million. 

Number of States with Capital Advance Awards, Fiscal Years 2008–2011

View GAO-16-424. For more information, 

contact Daniel Garcia-Diaz, 202-512-8678 or 

garciadiazd@gao.gov
Page i GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Letter 1

Background 3

HUD Allocated Capital Advances to Its Regional Offices Based on 

Relative Regional Housing Needs 6

Most but Not All States Had Applicants That Received Capital 

Advances during Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 10

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 16

Appendix I Number and Amount of Section 202 and Section 811 Capital 

Advance Awards, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 18

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 26

Tables

Table 1: Appropriations for the Section 202 and Section 811 

Programs, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 (dollars in 

thousands) 5

Table 2: Number of Applications for Section 202 Capital Advance 

Awards in States That Did Not Have an Award, Fiscal 

Years 2008 through 2011 13

Table 3: Number of Applications for Section 811 Capital Advance 

Awards in States That Did Not Have an Award, Fiscal 

Years 2008 through 2011 16

Table 4: Number of Section 202 Capital Advances Awarded by 

State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 18

Table 5: Total Dollar Amount (percentage) of Section 202 Capital 

Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 

2011 20

Table 6: Number of Section 811 Capital Advance Awards by 

State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 22

Table 7: Total Dollar Amount (percentage) of Section 811 Capital 

Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 

2011 23

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Figures

Figure 1: Process for Allocating and Awarding Capital Advances, 

2010 through 2011 8

Figure 2: Total Number of Section 202 Capital Advances Awarded 

by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 11

Figure 3: Total Dollar Amount of Section 202 Capital Advances 

Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 12

Figure 4: Total Number of Section 811 Capital Advances Awarded 

by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 14

Figure 5: Total Dollar Amount of Section 811 Capital Advances 

Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 15

Abbreviations

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IRS Internal Revenue Service

PRAC Project Rental Assistance Contract

Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly

Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
Page 1 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 31, 2016

The Honorable Susan Collins

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mario Diaz-Balart

Chairman

The Honorable David Price

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has funded 

through capital advances approximately 151,000 units for very lowincome elderly households and persons with disabilities through the 

Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202) and the 

Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 

811) programs.1 From November 1990 through November 2011, the 

programs provided capital advances to nonprofit organizations to develop 

affordable housing units.2 These programs also provide rental assistance 

funding to these organizations to help ensure the affordability of rent. 

Together, Section 202 and Section 811 help address unmet housing 

needs among these vulnerable populations.

The House report accompanying the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 includes a provision for GAO to 

 1

HUD uses the term “elderly” to identify adults who are aged 62 or older. HUD defines 

“very low income” as income that is at or below 50 percent of the area median income.

2

This includes nonprofit consumer cooperatives. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

provide information on HUD capital advances for the Section 202 and 

Section 811 programs by state for fiscal years 2008 through 2013.3 This 

report examines (1) how HUD determined the capital advance amounts 

for Section 202 and Section 811 and (2) the Section 202 and Section 811 

capital advance amounts by state from fiscal years 2008 through 2011 

and any changes in the distribution of capital advances over that period.4

To obtain information on how HUD determined capital advance amounts 

for Section 202 and Section 811, we reviewed the funding allocation and 

application processes described in HUD’s Notices of Funding Availability 

for fiscal years 2008 through 2013, the years addressed in our mandate. 

We also reviewed budget justifications and committee reports. We 

reviewed relevant studies from GAO, HUD, the HUD Office of Inspector 

General, and housing advocacy groups on the Section 202 and Section 

811 programs. We interviewed officials in HUD’s Office of Multifamily 

Housing and housing groups that represent low-income older adults and 

individuals with disabilities.

To obtain information on the capital advance amounts awarded from 

fiscal years 2008 through 2011, we obtained and analyzed capital 

advance award decisions for both the Section 202 and Section 811 

programs for these years. While these award determinations generally 

were made at the HUD regional office level, we report the awards by state 

to respond to the mandate.5 We were not able to review individual 

applications for capital advances to understand the score each 

application received because HUD only retains these records for a period 

of 3 years and records from the period under our review have been 

destroyed. Our analysis allowed us to identify the number of awards and 

the total award amount each state received in the years under our review.

To determine the reliability of these data, we reviewed information about 

the system used to collect the data and agency statements on the data. 

We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

 3

H.R. Rep. No. 113-464, at 88 (2014).

4

For the purposes of this report, “states” include the 50 states plus the District of Columbia 

and Puerto Rico. For reporting purposes, we looked at data through 2011 since that was 

when the last capital advances were made. 

5

Some capital advance award decisions were made at the HUD headquarters level once 

all regional offices had completed their award process and returned any unused funds to 

HUD headquarters.
Page 3 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

We also interviewed officials at HUD to better understand funding trends 

and funding decisions.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2015 to May 2016 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The Section 202 and Section 811 programs are two federally funded 

programs intended to expand the supply of affordable housing for very 

low-income elderly persons and individuals with disabilities, respectively. 

The Housing Act of 1959, as amended, established the Section 202 

Direct Loan Program to provide direct loans to nonprofit organizations to 

develop housing and provide supportive services for low-income older 

adults and individuals with disabilities.6 Under this loan program, over 

278,000 units were funded from 1959 through 1990.7 In 1990, the 

Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act amended the 

Housing Act of 1959 and created separate programs: (1) the Section 202 

Supportive Housing for the Elderly program to support affordable housing 

for very low-income elderly persons and (2) the Section 811 program for 

very low-income persons with disabilities. Section 202 households must 

be very low income (at or below 50 percent of area median income) and 

must include at least one member who is at least 62 years old. Section 

811 households must also be very low income with at least one adult 

member with a disability (such as a physical or developmental disability or 

chronic mental illness). Since 1990, the Section 202 program has 

provided approximately 120,000 affordable housing units for older adults.8

As of fiscal year 2011, Section 811 has provided approximately 31,000 

units for individuals with disabilities.

 6

12 U.S.C. 1701q (See program regulations at 24 CFR Sections 891.500 et seq.).

7

Housing developed under the direct loan program is not included in the scope of this 

report.

8

In 1990 the Section 202 program was changed to provide capital advances rather than 

loans to developers. 

Background
Page 4 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Since 1990, the Section 202 and Section 811 programs have provided 

financing to nonprofit organizations known as sponsors through capital 

advances for the construction, acquisition, or rehabilitation of new 

affordable housing units. Section 202 and Section 811 sponsors are not 

required to repay the capital advance as long as they continue to make 

supportive housing affordable to eligible households for 40 years. HUD 

also provides rental assistance payments to Section 202 and Section 811 

sponsors to cover the difference between the unit’s rent and the

household’s rental contribution, which is typically equal to 30 percent of 

the household income.9 For Section 202, sponsors can also use rental 

assistance payments to help pay for activities of daily living and 

instrumental activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing, managing 

finances, and managing medications.10

Funding for Section 202 and Section 811 capital advances and rental 

assistance has decreased in recent years (see table 1). The combined 

fiscal years 2010 and 2011 Notice of Funding Availability was the last 

capital advance competition for new units in both programs. Beginning 

with fiscal year 2012, appropriations have not been made for the 

production of new units.11 In the combined fiscal years 2010 and 2011 

capital advance competition cycle, HUD awarded 99 Section 202 capital 

advances in 33 states and 86 Section 811 capital advances in 34 states. 

With the suspension of funding for new construction or rehabilitation, 

housing developers must now rely on other funding sources, such as Low 

Income Housing Tax Credits, if they wish to build housing for these 

 9

HUD enters into a contract with the sponsor to provide rental assistance payments. The 

initial Project Rental Assistance Contract (PRAC) covers 3 years. The PRAC amount 

awarded is determined by multiplying the number of units for very low-income elderly 

residents (residents with disabilities for Section 811) by the appropriate operating cost 

standard times three. The operating cost standard is published in a HUD Notice. Since 

2012, HUD has also provided Project Rental Assistance for Section 811, which provides 

project-based rental assistance contracts to state housing agencies for affordable housing 

units for extremely low-income persons with disabilities. 

10Activities of daily living are basic, routine tasks such as bathing, dressing, and eating 

that most people are able to perform on a daily basis without assistance. Instrumental 

activities of daily living are more complex tasks that require physical dexterity, sound 

judgement, and organizational skills, such as preparing meals and using transportation. 

11For this reason, the data in this report are focused primarily on fiscal years 2008 through 

2011. 
Page 5 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

populations.12 Although Congress continues to appropriate funds for 

rental assistance for existing Section 202 and Section 811 units, these 

appropriations also declined from 2011 to 2013. According to HUD, most 

Section 202 and Section 811 projects that received funding in fiscal year 

2008, fiscal year 2009, or the combined fiscal year 2010/ 2011 funding 

cycle have been completed but some are still in the process of being 

completed.13

Table 1: Appropriations for the Section 202 and Section 811 Programs, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 (dollars in thousands)

Program 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012a 2013 

Section 202

Capital Advances and New Rental 

Assistance Contracts

$549,303 $522,726 $509,954 $99,800 $8,000 $0

Renewal/ Amendment of Rental 

Assistance Contracts

$79,546 $102,674 $158,096 $206,486 $258,627 $97,861

Section 811

Capital Advances and New Rental 

Assistance Contracts

$136,737 $124,697 $162,000 $46,634 $0 $0

Renewal/ Amendment of Rental 

Assistance Contracts

$23,015 $34,603 $48,900 $66,000 $90,296 $55,937b

Source: Office of Management and Budget Apportionment Schedules, which delineate the distribution of total appropriations. (Schedule #132). .| GAO-16-424

Note: The Department of Housing and Urban Development combined the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 

funding into one Notice of Funding Availability because the fiscal year 2011 appropriation was 

minimal.

a

Congress did not appropriate any funding for capital advances for Section 202 or Section 811 in 

fiscal years 2012 or 2013.

b

In 2013, HUD also reprogramed $29.8 million for a new Project Rental Assistance Demonstration for 

Section 811.

 

12The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is jointly administered by the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS) and the state housing finance agency. Under this program, tax credits are 

awarded to developers of qualified projects. See GAO, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: 

Joint IRS-HUD Administration Could Help Address Weaknesses in Oversight, 

GAO-15-330 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2015).

13In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, HUD combined the appropriations for each of the two 

programs into a single Notice of Funding Availability (one for Section 202 and one for 

Section 811) because the fiscal year 2011 appropriation for both Section 202 and Section 

811 was minimal. 
Page 6 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Until fiscal year 2012, when funding for new units ceased, HUD used a 

two-phase process to allocate and award Section 202 and Section 811 

capital advances (see fig. 1). First, HUD headquarters allocated the total 

amount of appropriated funds for capital advances to each of the 18 Hubs 

(which in this report we refer to as regional offices) based on a funding 

formula, which accounted for regional housing needs and cost 

characteristics.14 Second, applicants submitted applications online and 

staff from the applicable regional office evaluated applications using a 

technical review and a point system and awarded capital advances to the 

highest-scoring applicants. While our discussion of funding below 

analyzes the number of capital advances and the amount by state, award 

determinations were based on applications received in each regional 

office.

For the Section 202 program, HUD used a needs-based funding 

allocation formula that reflected the relevant characteristics of prospective 

program beneficiaries in each regional office.15 Under the Section 202 

program, HUD allocated 85 percent of the total capital advance amount to 

metropolitan areas and 15 percent to nonmetropolitan areas within each 

regional office.16 HUD then applied a “fair share” factor for each 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan portion of each of the 18 regional 

offices, which allowed it to adjust the allocated funds per region based on 

the number of elderly very low-income adults with housing conditions and 

geographic costs of providing housing in each region.17

According to HUD officials, in fiscal year 2010, HUD implemented 

changes in the way it distributed capital advances among the regional 

offices to better target resources for the Section 202 program. Prior to 

 

14A HUD field office region is a geographic area that encompasses multiple field offices. 

HUD’s organizational structure has changed since the period reviewed in this report. On 

April 24, 2013, HUD announced the transformation of the Office of Multifamily Housing 

Programs. The transformation plan included the consolidation of field operations from 52 

field offices organized under 18 Hubs into 12 locations across five regions. HUD expects 

to complete this reorganization in 2016.

15This funding formula is specified in 24 CFR 791.402(a). 

16HUD uses the June 2003 Office of Management and Budget definitions of metropolitan 

and nonmetropolitan areas. 

17Housing conditions are defined as paying more than 30 percent of income for gross rent, 

or occupying a unit lacking some or all kitchen facilities, or occupying an overcrowded unit 

(1.01 persons per room or more). 

HUD Allocated 

Capital Advances to 

Its Regional Offices 

Based on Relative 

Regional Housing 

Needs

Process for Allocating 

Section 202 and Section 

811 Capital Advances 

Considered Regions’ 

Housing and Cost 

Characteristics
Page 7 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

2010, HUD allocated funds to each of the 18 regional offices and then 

further subdivided the funds among 52 local program offices associated 

with each regional office. At that time, each local program office received 

a minimum set-aside for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The 

set-aside was intended to provide enough funding to support the 

development of at least 20 units in metropolitan areas and 5 units in 

nonmetropolitan areas. However, in the combined fiscal year 2010/2011 

capital advance competition, HUD did not subdivide the funds to local 

offices and discontinued the minimum set-aside of 20 units in 

metropolitan and 5 units in nonmetropolitan areas in order to fund 

properties at a higher level. According to HUD headquarters officials, by 

eliminating the field office set-aside, HUD could develop affordable 

housing in a more cost-effective manner. HUD officials said that while the 

2010 Notice of Funding Availability no longer had a minimum set-aside, 

the process for reviewing applications and making award determinations 

remained the same.

Prior to 2010/2011, under the Section 811 program, each local office 

received capital advance funds for a minimum of 10 units. Similar to 

Section 202, the Section 811 program applied a “fair share” factor to 

distribute capital advances. The Section 811 funding formula for fiscal 

years 2010/2011 used the number of institutionalized persons age 16 to 

64 with a disability, as well as geographic costs of providing housing, to 

allocate funding to each region. Unlike for Section 202, for Section 811 

HUD did not require that a portion of the funding be allocated to 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.
Page 8 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Figure 1: Process for Allocating and Awarding Capital Advances, 2010 through 2011

Both Section 202 and Section 811 followed a similar competitive process 

for awarding capital advances. After HUD announced the availability of 

funds, applicants submitted applications online and were then routed on 

to the applicable regional office.18 The review process involved a 

technical review followed by a rating process. During the technical review, 

regional office staff examined each application to determine adherence to 

eligibility requirements, such as responsiveness to local housing needs, 

project size, and development cost limits. They also assessed each 

 18HUD announces the availability of funds in Notices of Funding Availability, which provide 

guidance about eligibility requirements, funding criteria, and the application process.

HUD Regional Offices 

Scored Applicants for 

Section 202 and Section 

811 Capital Advances in a 

Competitive Process
Page 9 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

application to identify deficiencies that are curable—for example, 

incomplete information submitted by the applicant that is not part of the 

scored application. If an application included curable deficiencies, the 

regional office notified the applicant and provided a time frame for 

resolving the deficiencies. Applications that did not pass the technical 

review were rejected. HUD provided a written notice to rejected 

applicants, which included the rationale for rejection and an opportunity 

for appeal. According to HUD headquarters officials, common reasons for 

rejection were noncompliance with environmental requirements and site 

control. Rejected applicants could file an appeal with HUD.

Applications that passed the technical review proceeded to the rating 

process. During the rating process, the regional office evaluated each 

application in several categories using a point system. These categories 

were (1) capacity of the applicant and relevant organizational staff; (2) 

need, or the extent of the problem; (3) soundness of approach; (4) 

leveraging resources; and (5) achieving results and program evaluation.

Each application was scored on a number of criteria within each of these 

categories, and applications were required to meet a minimum point 

threshold in order to be considered for funding. According to HUD, once 

scores were compiled, HUD awarded capital advances through a 

competitive process to applicants selected in each region with the 

greatest number of points in each regional office. Because the regional 

offices received separate funding allocations for metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan areas for Section 202, they were required to first split the 

applications into metropolitan and nonmetropolitan developments and 

then rank each application within these areas. The funding levels 

provided did not allow them to fund all eligible applicants. Each regional 

office selected eligible applications from highest to lowest scores until no 

more funding from the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan allocations 

remained. If an applicant were next in rank order but needed more funds 

than remained, regional offices were not permitted to skip over that 

applicant in order to select another lower scoring applicant whose project 

required less funds. Instead, according to HUD headquarters officials, 

once each regional office had awarded all the funds it could based on the 

stated criteria in the Notice Of Funding Availability (NOFA), HUD 

headquarters combined any remaining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 

funds to select the next highest ranked application from either a 

metropolitan or nonmetropolitan area.

Once each regional office finished selecting applicants, any remaining 

funds were returned to HUD headquarters, where the remaining eligible 

applicants were entered into a nationwide competitive pool. Then HUD 
Page 10 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

headquarters awarded the remaining capital advance funds starting with 

the highest rated application nationwide that had not already received 

funding. HUD headquarters first selected the next highest ranked 

nonmetropolitan applications in order to satisfy its statutory requirement 

of 15 percent of the dollars going to nonmetropolitan areas. Any 

remaining funds were then used to fund qualified metropolitan 

applications. The allocation process continued until HUD headquarters 

allocated all available funds to eligible applicants. During this process, 

HUD headquarters was allowed to skip over a higher-rated applicant if 

selecting a lower-rated applicant meant all the remaining funds would be 

exhausted.

From fiscal years 2008 through 2011, most states had at least one 

Section 202 applicant that received capital advance award dollars. See 

appendix I for a full list of all Section 202 and Section 811 awards and 

award amounts from fiscal years 2008 through 2011. As shown in figure 

2, for fiscal years 2008 through 2011, applicants in 9 states received 10 

or more awards, 15 states received between 5 and 9 awards, 19 states 

received between 2 and 4 awards, and 5 states received 1 award.

Most but Not All 

States Had Applicants 

That Received 

Capital Advances 

during Fiscal Years 

2008 through 2011
Page 11 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Figure 2: Total Number of Section 202 Capital Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Note: States include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Total capital advance amounts awarded varied across states for the 

Section 202 program (see fig. 3). From fiscal years 2008 through 2011, 

three states received total capital advances of $75 million or more. All 

three of these states (California, Florida, and New York) have large 

metropolitan areas, and all three received 10 or more awards during the 

period under review. Eight states received between $50 million and 

$74,999,999, while 6 states received between $25 million and 
Page 12 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

$49,999,999. Thirty-one states received between $1,085,400 and 

$24,999,999.19

Figure 3: Total Dollar Amount of Section 202 Capital Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Note: States include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

 19Hawaii received a single capital advance in fiscal year 2009 with an award amount of 

$1,085,400.
Page 13 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Four states had no Section 202 awards during this period: the District of 

Columbia, New Mexico, South Dakota, and West Virginia. As shown in 

table 2, HUD’s regional offices received applications from sponsors to 

develop properties in all four of these states in at least one of the funding 

years. Since applications were only maintained for 3 years, HUD officials 

were not able to tell us why a specific application did not receive funding, 

but they identified possible reasons why applicants may not have 

received funding during this period. Specifically, HUD officials noted that 

applications that were submitted may have been ineligible; applications 

may have failed to meet the minimum point threshold for selection; or 

higher-scoring applications from other states may have been selected 

instead.

Table 2: Number of Applications for Section 202 Capital Advance Awards in States 

That Did Not Have an Award, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 

State 2008 2009 2010/2011

District of Columbia 0 1 0

New Mexico 4 1 2

South Dakota 1 1 0

West Virginia 0 3 6

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development data. | GAO-16-424

Note: HUD combined awards for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

Similarly, from fiscal years 2008 through 2011, Section 811 applicants in 

most states received funding for Section 811 projects. As shown in figure 

4, applicants in 8 states received 10 or more awards, 12 states received 

between 5 and 9 awards, 19 states received between 2 and 4 awards, 

and 5 states received 1 award.
Page 14 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Figure 4: Total Number of Section 811 Capital Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Note: States include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Total amount of capital advances awarded varied across states for the 

Section 811 program (see fig. 5). From fiscal years 2008 through 2011, 6 

states received capital advances of $15 million or more. Five of these 

were states that received 10 or more capital advances during the period 

under review, while the sixth state, California, received 7 during this 

period. Six states received between $10 million and $14,999,999, while 
Page 15 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

11 states received between $5 million and $9,999,999. Twenty-one states 

received between $652,100 and $4,999,999.20

Figure 5: Total Dollar Amount of Section 811 Capital Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Note: States include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

 20Delaware received a single capital advance in fiscal year 2008 with an award amount of 

$652,100. 
Page 16 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Eight states did not have any Section 811 awards during this period: the 

District of Columbia, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Puerto 

Rico, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming. As shown in table 3, HUD’s regional 

offices received applications to develop Section 811 properties in six of 

these states in at least 1 of the 3 funding years. Sponsors did not submit 

applications to develop properties in the District of Columbia and 

Wyoming in any of these years. HUD officials said that sponsors in these 

states did not receive capital advances for reasons similar to those for the 

Section 202 program.

Table 3: Number of Applications for Section 811 Capital Advance Awards in States 

That Did Not Have an Award, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 

State 2008 2009 2010/2011

District of Columbia 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 1

New Hampshire 0 2 0

New Mexico 1 3 4

Puerto Rico 1 0 0

Utah 0 0 1

Vermont 0 0 2

Wyoming 0 0 0

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development data. | GAO-16-424

Note: HUD combined awards for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

We provided a copy of this report to HUD for its review. HUD provided us 

technical comments which we incorporated where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development and interested congressional committees. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 17 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are listed on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Daniel Garcia-Diaz

Director, Financial Markets

 and Community Investment
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 18 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Tables 4 through 7 show the number of Section 202 and Section 811 

capital advance awards and the total dollar amounts by state (including 

the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) from fiscal years 2008 through 

2011. Tables 5 and 7 also include the percentage of the total 

appropriated capital advance amount that each state received as well as 

the total percentage for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. As noted in the 

report, capital advance award decisions were made at the Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) regional office and were not made by state, 

but rather across all states within a region. The fair share factor that HUD 

applied to the appropriated amount each year to determine the funding 

available to each region accounted for the number of elderly (or disabled 

for Section 811) renter households in each metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan portion of the United States. That number was then 

adjusted to reflect the relative cost of providing housing in each HUD 

region and then multiplied by the respective total remaining capital 

advance funds nationwide to ensure that each HUD region received its 

fair share of the funding. The amount of funding and awards across 

individual states within each region could vary from year to year.

Table 4: Number of Section 202 Capital Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 

State 2008 2009 2010/2011

Total

number of advances

awarded, 2008–2011

Alaska 2 1 0 3

Alabama 2 2 0 4

Arkansas 2 1 3 6

Arizona 1 1 0 2

California 5 4 10 19

Colorado 0 1 0 1

Connecticut 3 2 2 7

Delaware 0 0 2 2

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 3 2 5 10

Georgia 3 3 3 9

Hawaii 0 1 0 1

Iowa 0 2 1 3

Idaho 1 1 0 2

Illinois 4 3 4 11

Indiana 3 2 1 6

Kansas 1 1 1 3

Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance 

Awards, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 19 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

State 2008 2009 2010/2011

Total

number of advances

awarded, 2008–2011

Kentucky 4 1 2 7

Louisiana 2 2 1 5

Massachusetts 3 2 3 8

Maryland 3 2 4 9

Maine 0 1 1 2

Michigan 3 2 6 11

Minnesota 2 2 4 8

Missouri 1 2 2 5

Mississippi 1 2 0 3

Montana 1 0 0 1

North Carolina 3 4 3 10

North Dakota 0 1 1 2

Nebraska 1 0 1 2

New Hampshire 2 4 2 8

New Jersey 1 3 3 7

New Mexico 0 0 0 0

New York 6 6 8 20

Nevada 1 1 0 2

Ohio 7 5 7 19

Oklahoma 2 2 0 4

Oregon 1 1 0 2

Pennsylvania 4 2 4 10

Puerto Rico 0 0 1 1

Rhode Island 2 1 2 5

South Carolina 2 1 1 4

South Dakota 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 3 3 1 7

Texas 5 5 5 15

Utah 1 1 0 2

Vermont 0 1 1 2

Virginia 1 2 0 3

Washington 3 2 4 9

West Virginia 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin 1 1 0 2

Wyoming 0 1 0 1
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 20 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

State 2008 2009 2010/2011

Total

number of advances

awarded, 2008–2011

Total number of advances 

awarded, by fiscal year 96 90 99 285

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development data. | GAO-16-424

Note: HUD combined awards for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

Table 5: Total Dollar Amount (percentage) of Section 202 Capital Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

State 2008 2009 2010/ 2011a

Total

amount of advances

awarded, 2008–2011

Alaska $2,005,800 (.4%) $4,362,900 (1%) $0 $6,368,700 (.5%)

Alabama 8,826,800 (2) 7,975,600 (2) 0 16,802,400 (1)

Arkansas 3,115,800 (.7) 1,818,500 (.5) 3,306,200 (.6) 8,240,500 (.6)

Arizona 5,650,100 (1) 4,679,400 (1) 0 10,329,500 (.7)

California 46,451,100 (10) 43,813,900 (11) 85,102,800 (15) 175,367,800 (12)

Colorado 0 6,802,700 (2) 0 6,802,700 (.5)

Connecticut 16,610,700 (4) 7,679,700 (2) 8,113,800 (1) 32,404,200 (2)

Delaware 0 0 9,898,900 (2) 9,898,900 (.7)

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 22,969,500 (5) 20,359,300 (5) 37,534,100 (7) 80,862,900 (6)

Georgia 12,444,600 (3) 9,687,300 (2) 6,963,200 (1) 29,095,100 (2)

Hawaii 0 1,085,400 (.3) 0 1,085,400 (.1)

Iowa 0 3,011,600 (.8) 2,147,500 (.4) 5,159,100 (.3)

Idaho 3,471,500 (.8) 4,297,700 (1) 0 7,769,200 (.6)

Illinois 25,752,300 (6) 18,180,500 (5) 26,613,400 (5) 70,546,200 (5)

Indiana 9,245,400 (2) 7,262,900 (2) 5,773,300 (1) 22,281,600 (2)

Kansas 5,118,700 (1) 5,158,700 (1) 3,149,700 (.6) 13,427,100 (1)

Kentucky 9,128,100 (2) 2,763,200 (.7) 5,947,100 (1) 17,838,400 (1)

Louisiana 4,879,100 (1) 2,038,600 (.5) 5,578,900 (1) 12,496,600 (.9)

Massachusetts 16,995,500 (4) 10,079,900 (3) 15,892,900 (3) 42,968,300 (3)

Maryland 18,641,400 (4) 9,793,000 (2) 28,652,300 (5) 57,086,700 (4)

Maine 0 2,520,800 (.6) 3,102,000 (.6) 5,622,800 (.4)

Michigan 15,366,800 (3) 11,903,000 (3) 34,270,400 (6) 61,540,200 (4)

Minnesota 11,460,200 (3) 12,834,900 (3) 29,127,000 (5) 53,422,100 (4)

Missouri 4,896,000 (1) 9,991,200 (3) 11,416,700 (2) 26,303,900 (2)

Mississippi 1,925,300 (.4) 3,208,200 (.8) 0 5,133,500 (.4)

Montana 3,519,000 (.8) 0 0 3,519,000 (.3)
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 21 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

State 2008 2009 2010/ 2011a

Total

amount of advances

awarded, 2008–2011

North Carolina 11,841,900 (3) 15,684,100 (4) 10,215,900 (2) 37,741,900 (3)

North Dakota 0 2,951,000 (.7) 3,014,600 (.5) 5,965,600 (.4)

Nebraska 2,240,000 (.5) 0 5,726,800 (1) 7,966,800 (.6)

New Hampshire 7,730,500 (2) 10,713,400 (3) 5,841,900 (1) 24,285,800 (2)

New Jersey 11,249,600 (2) 21,002,200 (5) 21,419,100 (4) 53,670,900 (4)

New Mexico 0 0 0 0

New York 38,474,300 (9) 37,712,500 (9) 66,545,800 (12) 142,732,600 (10)

Nevada 6,996,000 (2) 4,665,100 (1) 0 11,661,100 (.8)

Ohio 17,294,600 (4) 15,902,500 (4) 32,633,100 (6) 65,830,200 (5)

Oklahoma 2,303,400 (.5) 3,303,800 (.8) 0 5,607,200 (.4)

Oregon 5,535,700 (1) 1,633,800 (.4) 0 7,169,500 (.5)

Pennsylvania 16,533,100 (4) 14,928,800 (4) 23,275,600 (4) 54,737,500 (4)

Puerto Rico 0 0 5,392,600 (1) 5,392,600 (.4)

Rhode Island 10,079,500 (2) 3,151,000 (.8) 5,912,100 (1) 19,142,600 (1)

South Carolina 5,848,500 (1) 3,324,400 (.8) 1,252,700 (.2) 10,425,600 (.7)

South Dakota 0 0 0 0

Tennessee 4,502,400 (1) 7,385,900 (2) 2,534,100 (.5) 14,422,400 (1)

Texas 26,449,100 (6) 19,221,300 (5) 22,972,900 (4) 68,643,300 (5)

Utah 7,859,700 (2) 2,320,100 (.6) 0 10,179,800 (.7)

Vermont 0 1,260,400 (.3) 4,543,800 (.8) 5,804,200 (.4)

Virginia 5,028,300 (1) 6,689,300 (2) 0 11,717,600 (.8)

Washington 20,133,200 (4) 9,456,300 (2) 20,039,600 (4) 49,629,100 (4)

West Virginia 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin 4,006,100 (.9) 4,090,200 (1) 0 8,096,300 (.6)

Wyoming 0 2,130,900 (.5) 0 2,130,900 (.2)

Total amounts awarded, 

by fiscal year $452,579,600 $398,835,900 $553,910,800 $1,405,326,300

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development data. | GAO-16-424

Note: HUD combined awards for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

a

In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, HUD combined the appropriations into a single Notice of Funding 

Availability because the fiscal year 2011 appropriation was minimal.
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 22 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Table 6: Number of Section 811 Capital Advance Awards by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011 

State 2008 2009 2010/ 2011

Total

number of advances

awarded, 2008–2011

Alaska 0 1 2 3

Alabama 0 1 1 2

Arkansas 0 1 3 4

Arizona 3 2 0 5

California 0 2 5 7

Colorado 2 1 2 5

Connecticut 0 1 1 2

Delaware 1 0 0 1

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 3 3 5 11

Georgia 4 5 4 13

Hawaii 1 1 0 2

Iowa 0 1 0 1

Idaho 0 0 1 1

Illinois 3 2 6 11

Indiana 1 1 1 3

Kansas 1 1 0 2

Kentucky 2 2 2 6

Louisiana 1 1 1 3

Massachusetts 1 3 3 7

Maryland 6 2 3 11

Maine 1 1 1 3

Michigan 1 0 3 4

Minnesota 2 0 0 2

Missouri 6 1 4 11

Mississippi 1 0 1 2

Montana 0 0 0 0

North Carolina 3 1 5 9

North Dakota 1 0 0 1

Nebraska 1 0 1 2

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 5 4 5 14

New Mexico 0 0 0 0

New York 1 2 4 7
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 23 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

State 2008 2009 2010/ 2011

Total

number of advances

awarded, 2008–2011

Nevada 1 1 0 2

Ohio 3 3 2 8

Oklahoma 2 1 1 4

Oregon 3 0 1 4

Pennsylvania 5 5 2 12

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0

Rhode Island 2 2 3 7

South Carolina 1 1 0 2

South Dakota 1 0 0 1

Tennessee 1 1 1 3

Texas 3 2 3 8

Utah 0 0 0 0

Vermont 0 0 0 0

Virginia 2 2 1 5

Washington 4 2 4 10

West Virginia 0 1 1 2

Wisconsin 4 2 3 9

Wyoming 0 0 0 0

Total number of advances 

awarded, by fiscal year 83 63 86 232

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development. | GAO-16-424

Note: HUD combined awards for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

Table 7: Total Dollar Amount (percentage) of Section 811 Capital Advances Awarded by State, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

State 2008 2009 2010/ 2011

Total amount of advances 

awarded, 2008–2011

Alaska $0 $2,085,000 (3%) $3,436,000 (3%) $5,521,000 (2%)

Alabama 0 1,524,300 (2) 816,000 (.6) 2,340,300 (.7)

Arkansas 0 928,000 (1) 3,777,300 (3) 4,705,300 (1)

Arizona 4,025,200 (4) 3,032,400 (4) 0 7,057,600 (2)

California 0 5,841,900 (7) 12,538,400 (10) 18,380,300 (6)

Colorado 3,437,000 (3) 1,927,900 (2) 1,906,400 (1) 7,271,300 (2)

Connecticut 0 903,500 (1) 2,294,400 (2) 3,197,900 (1)

Delaware 652,100 (.6) 0 0 652,100 (.2)

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0

Florida 5,444,500 (5) 4,067,400 (5) 7,874,100 (6) 17,386,000 (5)
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 24 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

State 2008 2009 2010/ 2011

Total amount of advances 

awarded, 2008–2011

Georgia 3,417,400 (3) 2,914,000 (4) 3,545,500 (3) 9,876,900 (3)

Hawaii 854,800 (.8) 884,300 (1) 0 1,739,100 (.6)

Iowa 0 1,505,800 (2) 0 1,505,800 (.5)

Idaho 0 0 1,428,500 (1) 1,428,500 (.5)

Illinois 3,083,900 (3) 2,719,400 (3) 8,089,600 (6) 13,892,900 (4)

Indiana 2,025,000 (2) 1,650,600 (2) 2,393,200 (2) 6,068,800 (2)

Kansas 1,019,300 (1) 1,674,100 (2) 0 2,693,400 (.9)

Kentucky 2,335,200 (2) 2,661,500 (3) 2,362,200 (2) 7,358,900 (2)

Louisiana 1,580,300(1) 687,700(.9) 944,500(.7) 3,212,500 (1)

Massachusetts 614,400 (.6) 2,828,500 (4) 1,973,400 (2) 5,416,300 (2)

Maryland 6,658,500 (6) 2,742,300 (3) 3,580,500 (3) 12,981,300 (4)

Maine 576,600 (.5) 599,400 (.8) 536,500 (.4) 1,712,500 (.5)

Michigan 1,524,554 (1) 0 5,861,967(4) 7,386,521(2)

Minnesota 3,724,500 (3) 0 0 3,724,500 (1)

Missouri 8,484,900 (8) 1,326,200 (2) 8,303,800 (6) 18,114,900 (6)

Mississippi 1,372,900 (1) 0 1,483,000 (1) 2,855,900 (.9)

Montana 0 0 0 0

North Carolina 3,109,400 (3) 1,453,700 (2) 7,748,200 (6) 12,311,300 (4)

North Dakota 680,000 (.6) 0 0 680,000 (.2)

Nebraska 1,097,700 (1) 0 1,604,300 (1) 2,702,000 (.9)

New Hampshire 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 4,724,200 (4) 3,876,800 (5) 7,035,200 (5) 15,636,200 (5)

New Mexico 0 0 0 0

New York 2,080,900 (2) 4,133,500 (5) 6,867,200 (5) 13,081,600 (4)

Nevada 3,108,400 (3) 1,475,900 (2) 0 4,584,300 (1)

Ohio 3,318,100 (3) 3,229,400 (4) 3,326,300 (3) 9,873,800 (3)

Oklahoma 2,216,400 (2) 440,600 (.6) 1,431,700 (1) 4,088,700 (1)

Oregon 5,282,200 (5) 0 1,878,600 (1) 7,160,800 (2)

Pennsylvania 6,559,800 (6) 6,155,200 (8) 2,866,700 (2) 15,581,700 (5)

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0

Rhode Island 2,002,400 (2) 2,595,400 (3) 4,740,100 (4) 9,337,900 (3)

South Carolina 1,841,000 (2) 1,678,400 (2) 0 3,519,400 (1)

South Dakota 2,014,000 (2) 0 0 2,014,000 (.6)

Tennessee 1,429,200 (1) 1,215,100 (2) 1,178,300 (.9) 3,822,600 (1)

Texas 3,565,700 (3) 3,225,800 (4) 4,175,400 (3) 10,966,900 (3)

Utah 0 0 0 0
Appendix I: Number and Amount of Section 

202 and Section 811 Capital Advance Awards, 

Fiscal Years 2008 through 2011

Page 25 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

State 2008 2009 2010/ 2011

Total amount of advances 

awarded, 2008–2011

Vermont 0 0 0 0

Virginia 988,200 (.9) 1,223,200 (2) 1,325,300 (1) 3,536,700 (1)

Washington 6,672,000 (6) 3,511,500 (4) 7,474,700( 6) 17,658,200 (6)

West Virginia 0 498,500 (.6) 1,694,900 (1) 2,193,400 (.7)

Wisconsin 5,571,500 (5) 2,428,800 (3) 4,359,200 (3) 12,359,500 (4)

Wyoming 0 0 0 0

Total amounts awarded, 

by fiscal year $107,092,154 $79,646,000 $128,808,967 $317,589,521

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development data. | GAO-16-424

Note: HUD combined awards for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 26 GAO-16-424 Supportive Housing Funding

Daniel Garcia-Diaz, (202) 512-8678 or garciadiazd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Paul Schmidt, Assistant Director; 

Rachel Siegel, Analyst-in-Charge; John McGrail; Ruben Montes de Oca; 

Jennifer Schwartz; Jena Sinkfield; and Nina Thomas-Diggs made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100093)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.