MOVING TO WORK 

DEMONSTRATION

Improved Information 

and Monitoring Could 

Enhance Program 

Assessment

Statement of Mathew J. Scirè, Director, Financial 

Markets and Community Investment

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Housing 

and Insurance, Committee on Financial 

Services, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

GAO-13-724T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-724T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Housing and 

Insurance, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives

June 2013

MOVING TO WORK DEMONSTRATION

Improved Information and Monitoring Could 

Enhance Program Assessment

Why GAO Did This Study

Implemented in 1999, HUD’s MTW 

demonstration program gives 

participating PHAs the flexibility to 

create innovative housing strategies. 

MTW agencies must create activities 

linked to three statutory purposes—

reducing costs, providing incentives for 

self-sufficiency, and increasing housing 

choices—and meet five statutory 

requirements. Congress has been 

considering expanding MTW. 

This testimony discusses (1) the 

program’s progress in addressing the 

three purposes, (2) HUD’s monitoring 

efforts, and (3) potential benefits of and 

concerns about expansion.

This testimony draws from a prior 

report on the MTW program (GAO-12-

490). For that report, GAO analyzed 

the most current annual reports for 30 

MTW agencies; compared HUD’s 

monitoring efforts with internal control 

standards; and interviewed agency 

officials, researchers, and industry 

officials. For this testimony, GAO also 

reviewed actions HUD has taken in 

response to the report’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommended that HUD improve 

MTW information and monitoring. HUD 

partially agreed with these 

recommendations and has since 

issued new guidance to MTW 

agencies. 

What GAO Found

Opportunities existed to improve how the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) evaluated the Moving to Work (MTW) program, which is 

intended to give participating public housing agencies (PHA) flexibility to design 

and test innovative strategies for providing housing assistance. GAO reported in 

April 2012 that HUD had not (1) developed guidance specifying that performance 

information collected from MTW agencies be outcome-oriented, (2) identified the 

performance data needed to assess results, or (3) established performance 

indicators for the program. The shortage of such standard performance data and

indicators had hindered comprehensive evaluation efforts; such evaluations are 

key to determining the success of any demonstration program. In addition, HUD 

had not developed a systematic process for identifying lessons learned from the 

program, which limited HUD’s ability to promote useful practices for broader 

implementation. Since the GAO report, HUD has revised reporting requirements

for MTW agencies. These requirements were approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget in May 2013. GAO is reviewing this new guidance.

In 2012, GAO also reported that HUD had not taken key monitoring steps set out 

in internal control standards, such as issuing guidance that defines program 

terms or assessing compliance with all the program’s statutory requirements. As 

a result, HUD lacked assurance that MTW agencies were complying with 

statutory requirements. Additionally, HUD had not done an annual assessment of 

program risks, although it had a requirement to do so, and had not developed 

risk-based monitoring procedures. Without taking these steps, HUD lacked

assurance that it had identified all risks to the program. Finally, HUD did not have 

policies or procedures in place to verify the accuracy of key information that 

MTW agencies self-report. For example, HUD staff did not verify self-reported 

performance information during their reviews of annual reports or annual site 

visits. Without verifying at least a sample of information, HUD could not be sure 

that self-reported information was accurate. According to HUD, the recently 

approved reporting requirements will result in more standardized data that HUD 

can verify either through audits or during site visits. 

Finally, GAO noted in 2012 that expanding the MTW program might offer benefits 

but also raised questions. According to HUD, affordable housing advocates, and 

MTW agencies, expanding MTW to additional PHAs would allow agencies to 

develop more activities tailored to local conditions and produce more lessons 

learned. However, data limitations and monitoring weaknesses raised questions 

about expansion. HUD had reported in 2010 that expansion should occur only if 

newly admitted PHAs structured their programs to permit high-quality evaluations 

and ensure that lessons learned could be generalized. Since the GAO report was 

issued, four additional agencies were admitted into the program. HUD required 

these agencies to implement and study rent reform activities through 

partnerships with local universities and a research organization. Until more 

complete information on the program’s effectiveness and the extent to which 

agencies adhered to program requirements is available, it will be difficult for 

Congress to know whether an expanded MTW would benefit additional agencies 

and the residents they serve. 

View GAO-13-724T. For more information, 

contact Mathew J. Scirè at (202) 512-8678 or 

sciremj@gao.gov. 
Page 1 GAO-13-724T

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Neugebauer, Ranking Member Capuano, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Moving to Work (MTW) 

demonstration program. The MTW program has three statutory purposes: 

to reduce costs and achieve greater cost-effectiveness in federal housing 

expenditures, to give families with children incentives to obtain 

employment and become self-sufficient, and to increase housing choices 

for low-income families. MTW was conceived to help test new ideas for 

providing and administering housing assistance that could be replicated 

on a broader scale. However, HUD only recently has begun to put in 

place policies and practices that could help realize that potential.

My statement today is based on an April 2012 report on the MTW 

program.1

For our April 2012 report, we reviewed the annual reports (as of January 

2012) for 30 MTW agencies and compared HUD’s guidance on the type 

of performance information participating agencies should report with the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA).

Specifically, I will discuss (1) what was known at that time 

about the extent to which the program had addressed statutory purposes, 

(2) HUD’s monitoring of the way MTW agencies addressed statutory 

purposes and met program requirements, and (3) potential benefits of 

and concerns about expanding the number of public housing agencies in 

the program. I also will provide information on actions that HUD has taken 

in response to the report’s recommendations.

2

 

1

See GAO, Moving to Work Demonstration: Opportunities Exist to Improve Information 

and Monitoring, 

We reviewed HUD’s 

monitoring policies and procedures and documentation of the steps HUD 

had taken to help ensure compliance with its policies and procedures. We 

compared HUD’s monitoring policies and procedures to internal control 

standards for federal agencies as well as HUD’s guidance on internal 

controls. We also reviewed studies, reports, and testimonies by 

researchers and affordable housing advocates, and interviewed HUD 

GAO-12-490 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2012). 

2

According to HUD data, as of January 2012, 35 agencies were in the MTW program. Of 

these, 30 had submitted an annual report to HUD and the other 5 had not been in the 

program long enough to report on their accomplishments. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-724T

officials, officials from a sample of seven MTW agencies, and 

organizations that advocate on behalf of residents, among others. Our 

prior report includes a detailed description of our scope and methodology.

For this testimony, we reviewed some recent changes to the program.

We performed the work on which this statement was primarily based from 

July 2011 to April 2012 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.

HUD implemented the MTW demonstration program in 1999.3 As of June 

2013, 35 public housing agencies (PHA) were participating through the 

end of their fiscal year 2018.4 To put in place the innovations intended 

under the program’s authorizing legislation, agencies may request 

waivers of certain provisions in the United States Housing Act of 1937, as 

amended.5

In addition to addressing the program’s three statutory purposes—reduce 

costs and achieve greater cost-effectiveness in federal housing 

expenditures, give families with children incentives to obtain employment 

and become self-sufficient, and increase housing choices for low-income 

families—MTW agencies must meet five requirements. The agencies 

must (1) serve substantially the same total number of eligible low-income 

families that they would have served had funding amounts not been

combined; (2) maintain a mix of families (by family size) comparable to 

those they would have served without the demonstration; (3) ensure that 

For example, housing agencies may combine the funding they 

are awarded annually from different programs—such as public housing 

capital funds, public housing operating funds, and voucher funds—into a 

single, authoritywide funding source.

 

3

The program was authorized by the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and 

Appropriations Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-281. 

4

While 39 are authorized to participate in the program, 35 have signed contracts with HUD 

and are actively participating. 

5

42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. 

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-724T

at least 75 percent of households served are very low-income;6

A standard agreement (between HUD and each MTW agency) governs 

the conditions of participation in the program. The agreement includes an 

attachment that sets out reporting requirements, as well as the 

information that MTW agencies must include in annual reports. For 

example, these reports must include detailed information on the impact of 

each activity.

(4) 

establish a reasonable rent policy to encourage employment and selfsufficiency; and (5) assure that the housing provided meets HUD’s 

housing quality standards.

MTW agencies also must self-certify that they are in compliance with 

three of the five statutory requirements: assisting substantially the same 

total number of eligible low-income families that they would have served 

had funding amounts not been combined; maintaining a mix (by family 

size) comparable to those they would have served had funding amounts 

not been combined under the demonstration; and ensuring that at least 

75 percent of households served are very low-income.

In our 2012 report, we identified a number of weaknesses related to MTW 

data, performance indicators, and identification of lessons learned—all of 

which resulted in a limited ability to determine program outcomes as they 

related to statutory purposes. Although MTW agencies reported annually 

on their activities, which included efforts to reduce administrative costs 

and encourage residents to work, the usefulness of this information was

limited because it was not consistently outcome-oriented. For example, 

for similar activities designed to promote family self-sufficiency, one MTW 

agency reported only the number of participants, which is generally 

considered an output, and another did not provide any performance 

information. In contrast, a third agency reported on the average income of 

program graduates, which we consider an outcome. To be consistent with 

GPRAMA, HUD’s guidance on reporting performance information should 

indicate the importance of outcome-oriented information.7

 

6

Section 3 of the 1937 Housing Act, as amended, defines very low-income families as 

those whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of the median family income for the area. 

Without more 

specific guidance on the reporting of performance information—for 

7

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). 

HUD Lacked Standard 

Data and Indicators 

That Would Aid 

Program Evaluation 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-724T

example, to report quantifiable and outcome-oriented information—HUD 

could not be assured of collecting information that reflected the outcomes 

of individual activities.

As we reported in 2012, HUD had not identified the performance data 

needed to assess the results of similar MTW activities or of the program 

as a whole.8 Obtaining performance information from demonstration 

programs is critical—because the purpose of a demonstration is to test 

which approach obtains positive results.9

HUD also had not established performance indicators for MTW. 

According to GPRAMA, federal agencies should establish efficiency, 

output, and outcome indicators for each program activity as appropriate. 

Federal internal control standards also require the establishment of 

performance indicators.

Although HUD started collecting 

additional data from MTW agencies (including household size, income, 

and educational attainment) in its MTW database, it had not analyzed the 

data. And since 2009, HUD had required agencies to provide information 

on the impact of activities, including benchmarks and metrics, in their 

annual MTW reports. While these reports were informative, they did not 

lend themselves to quantitative analysis because the reporting 

requirements did not call for standardized data, such as the number of 

residents who found employment. Whether these data would be sufficient 

to assess similar activities and the program as a whole was not clear, and 

as of April 2012 HUD had not identified the data it would need for such an 

assessment. 

10

The shortage of standard performance data and performance indicators 

had hindered comprehensive evaluation efforts, which are key to 

determining the success of any demonstration program. We 

As we noted in 2012, specific performance 

indicators for the MTW program could be based on the three statutory 

purposes of the program. For example, agencies could report on the 

savings achieved (reducing costs). However, without performance 

indicators HUD could not demonstrate the results of the program.

 

8

GAO-12-490. 

9

GAO, Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the Congress, 

GAO/PEMD-95-1 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 1995). 

10GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-724T

recommended in 2012 that HUD (1) improve its guidance to MTW 

agencies on providing performance information in their annual reports by 

requiring that such information be quantifiable and outcome-oriented, (2) 

develop and implement a plan for quantitatively assessing the 

effectiveness of similar activities and for the program, and (3) establish 

performance indicators for the program. HUD partially agreed with these 

recommendations. Since our report, HUD has revised the performance 

reporting requirements for MTW agencies. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) approved these revisions on May 31, 2013. The new 

requirements state that MTW agencies are to report standard metrics and 

report outcome information on the effects of MTW policy changes on 

residents. HUD also provided a standard format to allow analysis and 

aggregation across agencies for similar activities. We are currently 

assessing the extent to which these new requirements address our 

recommendations.

Furthermore, as we indicated in our 2012 report, while HUD had identified 

some lessons learned on an ad hoc basis, it did not have a systematic 

process in place for identifying such lessons. As previously noted, 

obtaining impact information from demonstration programs is critical.11

 

11

Since 2000, HUD had identified some activities that could be replicated 

by other housing agencies. For example, a HUD-sponsored contractor 

developed five case studies to describe issues and challenges involved in 

implementing MTW. However, these and subsequent efforts had 

shortcomings. In most cases, the choice of lessons learned was based on 

the opinions of HUD or contracted staff and largely involved anecdotal (or 

qualitative) data rather than quantitative data. Because HUD had not 

developed criteria and a systematic process for identifying lessons 

learned, we reported in 2012 that it was limited in its ability to promote 

useful practices for broader implementation. Thus, we recommended that 

HUD create a process to systematically identify lessons learned. HUD 

agreed and in response, stated that once its revised reporting 

requirements were implemented, the resulting data would inform an effort 

to establish lessons learned. Consistent with this, HUD noted that one 

purpose of the revised reporting requirements that OMB approved in May 

2013 was to identify promising practices learned through the MTW 

demonstration.

GAO/PEMD-95-1. 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-724T

HUD had policies and procedures in place to monitor MTW agencies but 

could have done more to ensure that MTW agencies demonstrated 

compliance with statutory requirements and to identify possible risks 

relating to each agency’s activities. For example, as noted in our 2012 

report, HUD had not issued guidance to MTW agencies clarifying key 

program terms, including definitions of the purposes and statutory 

requirements of the MTW program. Federal internal control standards 

require the establishment of clear, consistent goals and objectives.12

Additionally, we reported in 2012 that HUD had only recently assessed 

agencies’ compliance with two (self-certified) requirements—to serve 

substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families that 

they would have served had funding amounts not been combined and 

ensure that at least 75 percent of households served were very lowincome. Also, HUD had not assessed compliance with the third (also selfcertified) requirement—to maintain a comparable mix of families. Federal 

internal control standards require control activities to be in place to 

address program risks.

Agencies also must link each of their activities to one of the three 

program purposes cited in the MTW authorizing legislation. However, at 

that time HUD had not clearly defined what some of the statutory 

language meant, such as “increasing housing choices for low-income 

families.” HUD officials acknowledged that the guidance could be 

strengthened. At the time, they told us that they planned to update the 

guidance to more completely collect information related to the program’s 

statutory purposes and requirements. As discussed later, HUD has since 

updated its guidance.

13 In addressing these risks, management should 

formulate an approach for assessing compliance with program 

requirements.14

Furthermore, we reported that HUD had not annually assessed program 

risks, although it had a requirement to do so, and had not developed riskbased monitoring procedures. HUD’s internal control standards require 

Without a process for systematically assessing 

compliance with statutory requirements, HUD lacked assurance that 

agencies were complying with them.

 

12GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

13GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

14GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, 

D.C.: August 2001). 

HUD Could 

Strengthen Some 

Monitoring Policies 

and Procedures
 

Page 7 GAO-13-724T

program offices to perform an annual risk assessment of their programs 

or administrative functions using a HUD risk-assessment worksheet.15

Finally, we reported that HUD did not have policies or procedures in place 

to verify the accuracy of key information that agencies self-report, such as 

the number of program participants and the average income of residents 

“graduating” from MTW programs. Internal control standards and 

guidance emphasize the need for federal agencies to have control 

activities in place to help ensure that program participants report 

information accurately.

By 

not performing annual risk assessments or tailoring its monitoring efforts 

to reflect the perceived risk of each MTW agency, HUD lacked assurance 

that it had properly identified and addressed risks that may prevent 

agencies from addressing program purposes and meeting statutory 

requirements. HUD also lacked assurance that it had been using its 

limited monitoring resources efficiently.

16 For example, HUD staff did not verify selfreported performance information during their reviews of annual reports 

or annual site visits. GAO guidance on data reliability recommends 

tracing a sample of data records to source documents to determine 

whether the data accurately and completely reflect the source 

documents.17

To improve HUD’s oversight over the MTW program discussed 

previously, we recommended in April 2012 that HUD (1) issue guidance 

that clarifies key program terms, such as the statutory purposes and 

requirements MTW agencies must meet; (2) develop and implement a 

systematic process for assessing compliance with statutory requirements; 

(3) conduct an annual risk assessment for MTW and implement riskbased monitoring policies and procedures; and (4) implement control 

activities to verify the accuracy of a sample of the performance 

Because HUD had not verified the accuracy of any reported 

performance information, it lacked assurance that this information was 

accurate. To the extent that HUD relied on this information to assess 

program compliance with statutory purposes and requirements, its 

analyses were limited.

 

15HUD, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Departmental Management Control Program, 

Handbook 1840.1 Rev-3 (Washington, D.C.: 1999). 

16GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 and GAO-01-1008G. 

17GAO, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, GAO-09-680G

(Washington, D.C.: July 2009). 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-724T

information that MTW agencies self-report. HUD partially agreed with our 

recommendations, citing potential difficulties in verifying MTW 

performance data. HUD also described steps it was taking to improve its 

guidance to MTW agencies and implement risk-based monitoring 

procedures. In May 2013, OMB approved revised reporting guidance to 

MTW agencies. The guidance requires agencies to report information 

related to the program’s statutory purposes and requirements. For 

example, it includes a template for data on compliance with the 

requirement to maintain a comparable mix of families. Additionally, 

according to a HUD official, the recently approved reporting requirements 

will result in more standardized data that HUD can verify either through 

audits or during site visits. As noted above, we are assessing this 

guidance.

Legislation has been proposed to expand the number of PHAs that can 

participate in the MTW program, and a 2010 HUD report recommended 

expanding the program to up to twice its size.18

According to HUD, some affordable housing advocates, and MTW 

agencies we interviewed for our 2012 report, expanding the MTW 

program could help demonstrate the program’s effect and increase the 

number of lessons that could be learned from the program. HUD had 

reported that doubling the number of MTW agencies could help 

demonstrate the effects of MTW on a broader scale and enable the 

housing industry to learn even more from the demonstration.

We reported in 2012 that 

HUD and some stakeholders believed that expansion could provide 

information on the effect of the MTW program and allow more PHAs to 

test innovative ideas, but questions remained about the lack of 

performance information on current MTW activities. Since our report was 

issued, four additional agencies were admitted into the program. HUD 

required these agencies to implement and study rent reform activities 

through partnerships with local universities and a research organization.

19

 

18See S. 117 (112th Cong.); and HUD, Office of Public and Indian Housing and Office of 

Policy Research and Development, Moving to Work: Interim Policy Applications and the 

Future of the Demonstration, a report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: 2010). 

In addition, 

some affordable housing advocates that we met with emphasized the 

value of the changes, such as decreases in concentrated poverty, that 

19HUD, Moving to Work (2010). 

An MTW Expansion 

May Offer Benefits 

but Has Raised

Questions 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-724T

had occurred in some of the communities affected by the MTW program 

and indicated that expansion could enable more PHAs to address local 

needs and therefore benefit additional communities. Similarly, officials 

from MTW agencies that we contacted stated that expansion of the 

program would provide a broader testing ground for new approaches and 

best practices. Finally, information from a private research organization, 

affordable housing advocates, and MTW agencies suggested that 

allowing additional PHAs to participate in the program could result in 

additional opportunities to test innovative ideas and tailor housing 

programs and activities to local conditions. In 2004, the Urban Institute 

reported that the local flexibility and independence permitted under MTW 

appeared to allow strong, creative PHAs to experiment with innovative 

solutions to local challenges.20 We have reported separately on cost 

savings that could be realized from allowing additional housing authorities 

to implement some of the reforms MTW agencies have tested.21

Some proponents of expansion that we interviewed also noted that 

expanding the MTW program could provide more PHAs with the ability to 

use funding from different sources more flexibly than possible without 

MTW status. As we have seen, MTW agencies may request waivers of 

certain provisions of the 1937 Housing Act in order to combine annual 

funding from separate sources into a single authoritywide funding source. 

HUD field office staff with responsibility for monitoring MTW agencies 

observed that the single-fund flexibility was beneficial because it enabled 

participating agencies to develop supportive service programs, such as 

job training or educational programs, which help move families toward 

self sufficiency. Further, officials from the MTW agencies we interviewed 

agreed that this flexibility was beneficial. For example, officials from one 

MTW agency stated it had been able to use the single fund to organize 

itself as a business organization, develop a strategic plan based on the 

housing needs of low-income families in the community, leverage public 

funds and public and private partnerships, and develop mixed-income 

communities.

 

20Martin D. Abravanel, Robin E. Smith, et al., Housing Agency Responses to Federal 

Deregulation: An Assessment of HUD’s “Moving to Work” Demonstration (Washington, 

D.C.: 2004). 

21GAO, Housing Choice Vouchers: Options Exist to Increase Program Efficiencies, 

GAO-12-300 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 19, 2012). 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-724T

However, a lack of performance information (which creates a limited basis 

for judging what lessons could be taken from the program to date), limited 

HUD oversight, and concerns about the program’s impact on residents 

raised questions about expanding the MTW program. In its 2010 report to 

Congress, HUD acknowledged that the conclusive impacts of many MTW 

activities, particularly as they relate to residents, were not yet known.22

In addition, our own work, some research organizations, and affordable 

housing advocates questioned HUD’s ability to effectively manage an 

expanded MTW program. As previously noted, HUD’s monitoring 

procedures had several key weaknesses, including the lack of a 

systematic process for assessing agencies’ compliance with statutory 

requirements and an assessment of program risks. Some research 

organizations also had questioned HUD’s capacity to oversee additional 

MTW agencies. For example, the Urban Institute reported that the 

approval process that HUD was using at the time of the institute’s 2004 

review would not be feasible for an expanded program because of the 

administrative burden involved.

For example, the report noted that the rent reforms implemented under 

MTW varied greatly and were not implemented using a controlled 

experimental methodology. As a result, it was not clear which aspects of 

rent reforms should be recommended for all PHAs. The report also noted 

the limitations relating to evaluating the outcomes of MTW—limitations 

that stemmed from the weak initial reporting requirements and lack of a 

research design. The report concluded that, given these limitations, 

expansion should occur only if newly admitted PHAs structured their 

programs for high-quality evaluations that permitted lessons learned to be 

generalized for other PHAs. Similarly, representatives of affordable 

housing advocates and legal aid organizations that we interviewed stated 

that because lessons had not been learned from MTW, there was no 

basis for expanding the program.

23

 

22HUD, Moving to Work (2010). 

At the time of the 2004 study as well as 

our review, HUD reviewed each individual request to waive specific 

provisions of the 1937 Housing Act before approving annual plans. Also 

at the time of our review, HUD had four full-time MTW coordinators, who 

each managed from 6 to 10 MTW agencies. According to the Director of 

the MTW Office at the time of our review, it took more resources for HUD 

to oversee MTW agencies than non-MTW agencies. Thus, if additional 

23Abravanel and others, An Assessment of HUD’s Moving to Work Demonstration (2004). 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-724T

agencies were added under the current program design, HUD might need 

additional resources.

Researchers and representatives of several affordable housing advocates 

and legal aid agencies with whom we met also suggested that an 

expanded program could negatively affect residents. For example, two 

research organizations had stated that some voucher policies could 

reduce portability—that is, residents’ ability to use their rental vouchers 

outside the area that the voucher-issuing PHA served. One of these 

organizations stated that differences in the way voucher programs were 

implemented across MTW agencies could reduce residents’ ability to use 

vouchers outside of the area where they received assistance. Officials 

from the other organization noted that some MTW agencies prohibited 

vouchers from being used outside of the originating jurisdictions, thereby 

limiting housing choices. According to HUD officials, MTW agencies with 

policies that limit portability could make exceptions. For example, these 

agencies had made exceptions for residents seeking employment 

opportunities.

Until more complete information on the program’s effectiveness and the 

extent to which agencies adhered to program requirements is available, it 

will be difficult for Congress to know whether an expanded MTW would 

benefit additional agencies and the residents they serve.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capuano, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-724T

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-8678 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Paige Smith, Assistant Director; Emily Chalmers; John McGrail; 

Lisa Moore; Daniel Newman; Lauren Nunnally; Barbara Roesmann; and 

Andrew Stavisky.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(250742)
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.
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. 

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.