# Recent Reports

Reports News from the GAO

- Restrictive Housing: Actions Needed to Enhance BOP and ICE Management and Oversight What GAO FoundFederal correctional and immigration detention facilities can place individuals in restrictive housing settings in certain circumstances. Restrictive housing generally consists of one- or two-person cells that isolate individuals from the general population. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have policies and processes that govern their use of restrictive housing. Two prior studies examined restrictive housing at BOP, both of which identified ways for BOP to improve oversight. The first was a 2014 contracted assessment and the second was a 2016 Department of Justice report.In February 2024, GAO reported that BOP had not fully implemented 54 of 87 recommendations from these two studies. BOP had fully implemented 33, partially addressed 42, and had not taken any steps to address the remaining 12 recommendations. This was due in part to BOP not assigning responsibility for recommendation implementation to appropriate officials and not establishing a time frame for completion. GAO recommended that BOP develop and execute an approach to fully implement recommendations from these prior studies. This would include assigning implementation responsibility, establishing a time frame for completion, and monitoring progress. BOP concurred and described its planned steps.BOP and ICE have not consistently collected or used information needed for restrictive housing oversight. In reports from 2020–2024, GAO recommended actions to improve both BOP's processes for monitoring restrictive housing operations and BOP and ICE's analysis of complaints data. For example:In February 2024, GAO found that BOP was not monitoring key aspects of restrictive housing operations. Specifically, it did not examine the cause behind substantial racial disparity in a restrictive housing unit designed for individuals with heightened security concerns. GAO recommended that BOP conduct an evaluation to determine and address the cause of the racial disparity. BOP concurred and as of February 2024, said it would take steps to implement it.	In August 2020 and February 2024, GAO found that neither ICE nor BOP was analyzing complaint data from those in its custody to identify areas for improvement, such as concerns over restrictive housing conditions. GAO made recommendations to ICE and BOP to analyze complaint data, which could help each agency identify trends and ultimately enhance oversight. As of December 2023, ICE has taken some steps, including integrating several data systems that store detention-related information into a new system to provide enhanced analysis capabilities. As of February 2024, BOP agreed to take steps toward implementation.Why GAO Did This StudyICE recorded 14,581 restrictive housing placements of detained noncitizens from fiscal years 2017 through 2021. Those placements increased by 18 percent from fiscal year 2017 to 2020 before declining in 2021. As of October 2023, BOP housed about 8 percent of all incarcerated individuals (approximately 11,600) in restrictive housing. Studies have shown some potentially harmful mental and physical impacts of such placements.This statement discusses the extent to which (1) BOP has addressed recommendations from two prior restrictive housing studies and (2) BOP and ICE have information needed to manage and oversee use of restrictive housing.This statement is based on three prior GAO reports published from August 2020 through February 2024, along with selected updates on ICE efforts to address previous GAO recommendations. To produce those reports, GAO reviewed ICE and BOP documentation, analyzed data, and interviewed agency officials. For selected recommendation updates, GAO reviewed documents and interviewed ICE officials.
- Evictions: National Data Are Limited and Challenging to Collect What GAO FoundLimited information is available on the prevalence of evictions nationally. Local courts generally administer evictions, a process that generally begins with a property owner giving tenants a notice and then filing a lawsuit that may end with a judgement for or against the tenant. Tenants also may be forced to vacate a residence through an informal eviction, which occurs outside the legal process, such as when a property owner changes the locks. The most recent national eviction estimates are based primarily on two sources:Eviction court records. The Eviction Lab at Princeton University estimated 7.8 evictions were filed per 100 renting households nationally in 2018. This estimate was based on available court record data and statistical modeling.	American Housing Survey. In 2017, the Census Bureau included survey questions designed to count forced moves due to evictions. Researchers estimated a national physical eviction rate of 5.3 percent based on the results of these questions. However, HUD officials and researchers noted the survey's small sample size may limit the accuracy of these estimates.Court record and survey data, which capture different aspects of evictions, both present challenges for collecting eviction data. Court record data capture whether an eviction has been filed in court, but they do not capture physical or informal evictions. Court records may vary in content and their availability to the public. Eviction case data also may not include the outcome of a filing, making it difficult to determine if a filing resulted in an eviction judgement. Surveys may capture physical moves by tenants, but may undercount evictions if the questions are not designed properly or response rates are low.Stakeholders GAO interviewed representing state and local jurisdictions, research organizations, and housing organizations identified two options to improve the collection of eviction data: (1) developing a national database of court record data or (2) strengthening national surveys. These stakeholders also identified several considerations for either option. GAO previously identified key practices applicable to such efforts. Examples of considerations and key practices include the following:Goals. Stakeholders stated that clearly defined goals could help plan collection efforts. Potential goals for using the data include helping target or assess federal efforts, such as those designed to reduce eviction and housing instability. The two options may have benefits and limitations in achieving different goals.	Data quality. To ensure the reliability of evidence, stakeholders stressed the importance of establishing clear definitions and standards for terminology, given the differing definitions of eviction used across the country. Otherwise, both potential options run the risk of collecting incomplete or unreliable data, which could produce misleading results.	Resources. Both options to improve collection of eviction data could involve substantial costs. Stakeholders noted that federal technical assistance and training for local court staff could help build capacity for data collection. Strengthening surveys could be the less costly option but would require additional resources to ensure they generated reliable results.Why GAO Did This StudyEstimates suggest that eviction affects millions of renter households annually. Evictions can have consequences for a family's mental health and housing stability, be expensive for the parties involved, and increase court caseloads. Comprehensive eviction data collection could have potential benefits for evaluating the effectiveness of policy interventions or remedies. However, relatively little comprehensive data exist on evictions in the U.S.The Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes a provision for GAO to review any barriers to collecting, digitizing, and standardizing data from the eviction process. This report (1) describes existing information about evictions and its limitations, (2) examines the capabilities and constraints of using court data and surveys on evictions, and (3) examines potential goals and options for federal data collection on evictions.GAO conducted a literature review on efforts to collect and improve eviction data. GAO also reviewed data, documentation, and studies from federal and academic sources. GAO interviewed 22 stakeholders, including officials from a nongeneralizable sample of eight state and local jurisdictions (selected to obtain a mix of characteristics such as renter population and geographic dispersion), federal agency officials, researchers, and representatives from housing organizations.For more information, contact Jill Naamane at (202) 512-8678 or naamanej@gao.gov.
- Homelessness: Barriers to Obtaining ID and Assistance Provided to Help Gain Access What GAO FoundPeople experiencing homelessness may encounter several barriers when attempting to obtain a government ID, according to studies GAO reviewed and interviews GAO conducted. Homeless individuals often lack a reliably safe place to store IDs and other important personal documents, making these items subject to loss, destruction by the elements, and theft. Items may also be discarded when these individuals and their belongings are removed from an area. Once ID documents are lost, replacing them can be especially difficult. Further, people experiencing homelessness may have difficulty providing a residential address for the purposes of applying for an ID. These individuals also may not be able to pay for the cost of obtaining an ID or to access transportation or technology needed to apply for an ID. Additionally, homeless youth may not be able to obtain parental consent to obtain an ID.To mitigate some of these barriers, several states allow third parties, such as social workers or shelter employees, to verify the residence of people experiencing homelessness by signing affidavits confirming their address (such as the address of a shelter). Some cities have created digital lockers to help these individuals maintain electronic copies of IDs and other essential documents. In addition, seven of the 10 states GAO reviewed offer a type of ID that can be obtained more easily than a REAL ID—ID that meets federal security standards and may be used by federal agencies for certain official purposes. This alternative to a REAL ID allows for a wider range of documents to verify identity, such as military or school records, court documents, and expired IDs. A trade-off to some of these mitigation options is that they may increase the risk of fraud.Federal homelessness assistance programs GAO reviewed allow providers to use program funds to help individuals obtain ID. For example, agencies permit grant funds to be used tohelp individuals navigate the process of getting an ID, such as through case management;	provide financial assistance associated with obtaining ID; and	help arrange for transportation to ID offices.For applicants to be eligible for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) largest rental assistance programs, public housing agencies or property owners must verify their Social Security number and citizenship or eligible immigration status. In addition, public housing agencies and property owners may require applicants to demonstrate legal identity and age, which may present ID-related barriers to accessing these programs. However, public housing agencies reported that most applicants experiencing homelessness have the required documentation by the time they are offered housing assistance because they have typically been working with homelessness assistance providers to obtain the needed documents.Why GAO Did This StudyHaving an ID is essential to taking certain steps to exit homelessness, such as gaining employment, securing housing, or accessing government benefits. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 and House Report 117-402, accompanying H.R. 8294, 117th Cong. (2022), include provisions for GAO to review issues related to ID barriers faced by individuals experiencing homelessness.This report examines (1) barriers the homeless population may encounter in obtaining an ID and options to mitigate those barriers; (2) the types of ID assistance services supported by federal homelessness assistance programs; and (3) ID requirements for HUD housing programs.GAO reviewed applicable laws and regulations, agency policies, and relevant academic literature. GAO also collected information from federal agencies on selected homelessness and rental assistance programs through standardized data collection instruments. GAO interviewed officials from federal agencies and homeless advocacy groups and from nongeneralizable samples of state ID-issuing agencies, public housing agencies, and homelessness assistance providers, chosen to reflect a variety of sizes, locations, programs, and strategies for overcoming ID barriers.For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov.
- Coast Guard: Better Feedback Collection and Information Could Enhance Housing Program What GAO FoundAround 41 percent of U.S. Coast Guard units are located in remote areas or high vacation rental areas, or both (see figure below), and military personnel generally rotate every 3 to 4 years. While most Coast Guard service members receive a private sector housing allowance, the service manages its housing program—including more than 2,500 government-owned housing units throughout the U.S. and its territories—using various policies and procedures. Coast Guard service members and spouses told GAO that certain areas can create challenges related to the affordability and availability of private sector housing, which the Coast Guard relies upon for most members.The Coast Guard has not conducted a service-wide survey of service members on their housing experiences and challenges since 2012. Establishing a process to routinely collect and use such feedback from service members and their spouses would better position the Coast Guard to manage its housing program to meet service member needs.Coast Guard Units Located in Areas that are Either Remote, Contain Majority High Vacation Rentals, or Both, as of 2023 GAO identified 10 Department of Defense (DOD) statutory housing authorities that Coast Guard officials stated could potentially benefit the service. For example, DOD has the authority to enter into utility service contracts for periods up to 10 years, as well as to enter into multiyear energy or fuel contracts for military installations. Coast Guard officials told GAO that having similar statutory authorities could be beneficial and may result in cost savings to the service. Assessing the extent of benefits from the 10 DOD authorities and developing a legislative proposal to obtain certain statutory authorities, as appropriate, could better position the Coast Guard to manage its housing program, as well as support its service members and dependents.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Coast Guard has over 41,000 active-duty military personnel stationed across the U.S. and its territories. Coast Guard units are often situated along major waterways and coastlines in remote areas or areas where most of the available housing is seasonal.The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 includes provisions for GAO to review the Coast Guard's housing program. This report addresses (1) how the Coast Guard manages its housing program, (2) the extent to which the Coast Guard collected and used service member feedback and other quality information to manage the program, and (3) the extent to which the Coast Guard has considered potentially beneficial DOD housing authorities.GAO analyzed Coast Guard policies, program documentation, and Coast Guard and DOD statutory housing authorities. GAO used Coast Guard and other data to determine the proportion of Coast Guard units located in remote areas, in areas with a high density of vacation rental properties, or both. GAO interviewed Coast Guard officials, toured housing at a non-generalizable sample of three bases, and met with base officials and housing residents, including spouses in Alameda, CA; Cape Cod, MA; and Kodiak, AK.
- Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: Opportunities to Improve Oversight The Big PictureThe U.S. has a widespread shortage of affordable housing. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is the largest source of federal assistance for developing affordable rental housing. It provides tax credits typically through state and local housing finance agencies to developers and private investors to develop affordable housing.Overview of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Process The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administers the tax credit at the federal level and housing finance agencies administer and oversee the program in states and localities. These agencies develop Qualified Allocation Plans, which identify priority housing needs and contain selection criteria for awarding the tax credits. The agencies evaluate proposed projects against their plans and award tax credits to developers. Agencies can use the plan's selection criteria to influence the types of projects developers propose and build.Projects awarded tax credits must remain affordable to qualifying low-income households for at least 30 years. Developers often try to attract investors willing to contribute financing in return for an ownership interest in a project (a process known as buying tax credits). A  syndicator  can be used to facilitate this process. Projects often require additional financing to cover development costs. Gaps in funding may be filled by private sources or federal, state, or local affordable housing programs such as the  Housing Trust Fund  .What GAO’s Work ShowsOur  2018  report identified areas for improving the oversight of the tax credit, including development costs. We also issued reports in  2015  and  2016  on the tax credit's administration and oversight.Despite LIHTC's size and complexity, federal oversight of the tax credit has been minimal. This is in part because IRS is the only federal agency that administers the program. According to IRS, the agency does not have the authority or resources to collect and report detailed information on the tax credit. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) collects some data on the program, but it does not have the authority to collect cost data.In 2018, we determined the per-unit cost of 1,849 LIHTC projects in selected locations. Project characteristics such as construction type (new construction or rehabilitation), number of units, target income level (low-income or mixed), location (urban, suburban, or rural), and local housing market conditions explained some cost differences across projects. Due to differences in these characteristics, we found that costs varied widely among the 12 housing finance agencies in our study.Adjusted Development Costs for Rental Housing That Received Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, Selected States, 2011–2015 Note: We adjusted project costs to 2023 dollars using the Calendar Year Chain-Weighted Gross Domestic Product Price Index.Our analysis was limited to selected variables we were able to consistently collect and that were similarly defined across the selected housing finance agencies. Housing finance agencies have flexibility in what cost-related data to collect, how to maintain these data, and how to define variables for evaluating the program. Inconsistency in how agencies collect cost-related data results in data limitations and constrains oversight and analysis of the program's efficiency and effectiveness.➢ We recommended that Congress consider designating an agency to regularly collect and maintain specified cost-related data from housing finance agencies and periodically assess and report on the tax credit's development costs.➢ We also recommended that IRS encourage housing finance agencies and other tax credit stakeholders to collaborate on developing standardized cost data.Our work also analyzed how housing finance agencies use their Qualified Allocation Plans to select projects to develop. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code requires that plans give preference to certain projects, including those that serve the lowest income tenants. It also specifies some selection criteria, such as project location and tenant populations with special housing needs. Housing finance agencies have flexibility to create their own methods for scoring developers' applications and can include selection criteria appropriate to local conditions. For example, agencies commonly included proximity to transit and energy efficiency as criteria. Other criteria included qualifications of the project development team, cost-effectiveness, and leveraging other federal or state programs.Challenges and OpportunitiesLIHTC is a key federal program for addressing the shortage of affordable housing, but it is difficult to compare cost drivers and trends across locations because federal oversight of cost data is limited and data collection is inconsistent. Designating an agency to collect and report on project development costs could more efficiently address existing oversight challenges. Further, greater standardization of cost data would allow better analysis of cost drivers and cost-management practices, which could help increase the program's efficiency.More from GAO's PortfolioLow-Income Housing Tax Credit:  GAO-18-637  ,  GAO-16-360  ,  GAO-15-330  ,  GAO-17-285r  ,  GAO-13-66 Affordable Housing:  GAO-23-105647  ,  GAO-23-106628  ,  GAO-23-105370 Manufactured Housing:  GAO-23-105615 HUD Rental Assistance:  GAO-23-106339  ,  GAO-23-105083 For more information, contact&nbsp;Jill Naamane at (202) 512-8678 or NaamaneJ@gao.gov.
- Financial Audit: Federal Housing Finance Agency's FY 2023 and FY 2022 Financial Statements What GAO FoundGAO found (1) the Federal Housing Finance Agency's (FHFA) financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2023, and 2022 are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) although internal controls could be improved, FHFA maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2023; and (3) no reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2023 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements GAO tested. In its written comments on a draft of this report, FHFA stated that it was pleased to accept GAO's unmodified audit opinions. In addition, it will continue to enhance its internal control and ensure the reliability of its financial reporting. This includes coordinating with its stakeholders involved in the financial statement consolidation process to implement additional controls to address the significant deficiency.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established FHFA as an independent agency empowered with supervisory and regulatory oversight of the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance. This act requires FHFA to prepare financial statements annually and requires GAO to audit the agency's financial statements. In accordance with the act, GAO audited FHFA's financial statements.For more information, contact Anne Sit-Williams at (202) 512-7795 or sitwilliamsa@gao.gov.
- Affordable Housing: Information on the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program What GAO FoundThe Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) is a competitive federal grant program that awards funds to eligible nonprofit organizations to help develop affordable housing units for purchase by low-income families. Eligible grantees may use SHOP funds for acquiring land on which to build a home and for improving infrastructure (the installation, construction, or improvement of utilities or other infrastructure). HUD also sets a limit on the amount of SHOP funds grantees can spend, on average, for an individual housing unit. The per-unit spending limit was $10,000 from fiscal years 1998 through 2003, and $15,000 from fiscal years 2004 through 2021, and has been $25,000 since fiscal year 2022.Since fiscal year 1998, the number of units delivered to qualifying families and individuals fluctuated before declining to 563 in fiscal year 2015. During the same period, the cost of land and infrastructure inputs (such as concrete and metal construction products) increased. For example, land prices in some areas of the country in which SHOP grantees operate more than doubled from 2012 to 2019. However, SHOP's per-unit limit generally did not keep pace with these market increases, leading to a decrease in SHOP's purchasing power.GAO analysis of SHOP and market data illustrates this reduction in SHOP's purchasing power due to the increases in market prices. For example, the median sales price of SHOP-assisted units increased from about $120,000 in 2011 to nearly $200,000 in 2019. SHOP's per-unit spending limit of $15,000 during this period would have contributed about 12 percent toward the median sales price in 2011 but only 8 percent in 2019.Relative Contribution of SHOP’s Per-Unit Spending Limit toward Median Sales Price of SHOP-Assisted Units, Fiscal Years 2011–2019Why GAO Did This StudyThe joint explanatory statement regarding the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 provides for GAO to evaluate various aspects of SHOP, including how increases in the costs of eligible activities have affected affordable housing development. This report provides information on trends in the use of SHOP funds and potential effects of a market-based per-unit spending limit.For more information, contact Jill Naamane at (202) 512-8678 or naamanej@gao.gov.
- Military Housing: Strengthened Oversight Needed to Make and Sustain Improvements to Living Conditions What GAO FoundJunior-enlisted service members without dependents (e.g., a spouse or child) typically live in military-managed barracks. GAO reported in September 2023 that some barracks pose serious health and safety risks. As part of site visits to selected installations, GAO observed a variety of living conditions that service members and unit leaders stated were negatively affecting their quality of life, such as sewage overflow, mold and mildew, and broken windows and locks.Potentially Serious Health and Safety Risks at GAO Site Visit Locations GAO found numerous challenges in the Department of Defense's (DOD) approach to managing its barracks, including the following:DOD standards for health and safety in barracks were not well defined.	Some barracks do not meet DOD standards for privacy and configuration, such as minimum number of bedrooms, in part because the military services' guidance for privacy and configuration do not reflect DOD standards.	DOD does not provide sufficient oversight of housing programs for barracks, such as through appropriate guidance or direction to the military services on tracking, assessing, and remediating deficiencies in barracks conditions.GAO's work similarly shows that DOD needs to continue to improve privatized military housing, which includes about 200,000 homes for service members and their families in the United States. Around 2018, reports of lead-based paint and other hazards, such as pest infestation, raised questions about DOD's management of privatized housing. In March 2020, GAO made several recommendations to improve DOD oversight, and DOD has taken steps to implement them. However, in April 2023, GAO reported that gaps remain in DOD's efforts. For example, GAO found that DOD had not (1) set clear and consistent inspection standards for homes undergoing change of occupancy or (2) provided adequate guidance or training to officials on assisting residents in using a new formal dispute resolution process.Improved oversight and addressing GAO's recommendations would position DOD to improve the quality of living conditions for its service members.Why GAO Did This StudyPoor living conditions in military housing decrease quality of life for service members and their families and can negatively affect military readiness. In recent years, reports of poor living conditions in government-owned barracks and military family housing owned and operated by private companies have raised questions about DOD's oversight of its military housing program.This statement examines DOD's management of its housing programs, specifically the department's (1) military barracks program, and (2) privatized family housing program.This statement is based on GAO's September 2023 report on military barracks conditions and its April 2023 report on privatized military family housing. To perform that work, GAO reviewed DOD documentation, analyzed data, interviewed DOD officials, and assessed DOD's efforts against relevant criteria. GAO also toured military housing and conducted discussion groups with housing residents during site visits to selected military installations.
- Manufactured Housing: Further HUD Action is Needed to Increase Available Loan Products What GAO FoundManufactured housing, prefabricated factory-built homes, can be financed with personal property or mortgage loans. The Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture administer loan guarantee programs for manufactured housing. Federal entities also participate in the secondary market to provide housing finance options. Ginnie Mae guarantees securities backed by federally insured mortgages, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (enterprises) purchase mortgages that are not federally guaranteed and securitize them (package them into securities and sell them to investors).Federal agency financing of manufactured homes increased for mortgages but not for personal property loans in recent years (see figure). Few personal property loans were made because these loans are capped at an amount lower than the average purchase price of a manufactured home. The limited secondary market for personal property loans also may deter lenders from making them.Federally Guaranteed Mortgage Loans and Personal Property Loans for Manufactured Housing, Fiscal Years 2008–2022Notes: Based on available agency data. HUD provided calendar year data for personal property loans and fiscal year data for mortgage loans. VA and USDA provided fiscal year data. VA did not track loans for manufactured housing before 2013.Several federal entities have supported increasing financing options for manufactured housing. For instance, VA and USDA developed new or modified existing loan programs to assist borrowers. The enterprises expanded eligibility requirements and increased purchase targets to help increase the availability of financing. HUD also has taken some steps to address long-standing requirements to improve the financing and securitization of manufactured housing, but has not fully implemented several proposed changes. Implementing these changes and establishing time frames and milestones for its actions would better assure that HUD could promote the availability and affordability of manufactured homes.Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. has a shortage of affordable housing, particularly for low- and medium-income households. Manufactured housing is a source of affordable housing. However, some stakeholders have raised questions about the limited options for financing manufactured housing.GAO was asked to review the federal role in supporting the financing of manufactured housing. Among its objectives, this report examines (1) trends in the use of federal financing for manufactured housing and (2) federal efforts to assess and improve financing options.GAO examined federal housing data, reviewed regulations, analyzed information on federal financing products, conducted a literature review, and interviewed federal entity officials and lenders, industry groups, and other stakeholders.
- Military Barracks: Poor Living Conditions Undermine Quality of Life and Readiness What GAO FoundService members reported to GAO that the conditions of barracks affect their quality of life and readiness. However, GAO found weaknesses in the Department of Defense's (DOD) efforts to maintain and improve their conditions. For example,DOD does not reliably assess conditions, and some barracks are substandard. DOD assessments of conditions are unreliable. GAO observed barracks that pose potentially serious health and safety risks—such as broken windows and inoperable fire systems—and that do not meet minimum DOD standards for privacy and configuration. Thousands of service members live in barracks below standards, according to officials.Examples of Poor Barracks Conditions at Military Installations GAO VisitedDOD does not have complete funding information to make informed decisions.  For example, DOD requested about $15 billion for overall facility sustainment for fiscal year 2024 but could not identify how much of this total would be spent toward barracks. In addition, DOD did not know how much it spent on housing allowances for service members who would normally be required to live in barracks, but did not because of insufficient space or poor living conditions. Complete funding information would help DOD target improvements and provide the department with more visibility into full costs.	DOD conducts insufficient oversight.  For example, DOD does not track information on the condition of barracks or facilitate collaboration on initiatives to improve barracks. Insufficient oversight hampers DOD's ability to identify and address long-standing challenges in barracks conditions across the department.By developing or clarifying guidance related to these weaknesses, DOD could better prioritize investments in barracks to improve living conditions for service members and help ensure that barracks housing programs across military services are consistently implemented and support quality of life and readiness.Why GAO Did This StudyDOD houses hundreds of thousands of service members in military barracks. Reports of poor conditions have raised questions about DOD's management of barracks.The Joint Explanatory Statement and Senate Report 117-39, accompanying bills for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, included provisions for GAO to review DOD's efforts to maintain and improve military barracks. This report examines, among other things, the extent to which DOD has (1) reliably assessed barracks conditions, (2) made informed decisions on barracks funding, and (3) conducted oversight to improve barracks.GAO analyzed DOD policies, budgets, and other documentation; interviewed DOD housing officials; toured barracks at a non-generalizable sample of 10 installations; and met with installation officials and barracks residents.
- Disaster Recovery: HUD Should Develop Data Collection Guidance to Support Analysis of Block Grant Fraud Risks What GAO FoundGAO's analysis of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (disaster block grant) applicant data identified vulnerabilities to fraud. Out of 8,260 households reviewed, GAO identifiedPotential duplication of benefits.&nbsp;500 households were approved for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance that is potentially duplicative of disaster block grant assistance. The FEMA-only assistance for these households totaled over $1 million. The figure shows other potentially duplicative assistance GAO identified.	Potentially ineligible households.&nbsp;197 households with estimated income over limits were approved. Estimated income for two of these households exceeded $330,000—far above the income limits.Households Potentially Receiving Duplicative Benefits from Multiple ProgramsNote: The categories in this figure are not mutually exclusive.GAO also found that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not require grantees and subrecipients to collect applicant data in a complete and consistent manner to support applicant eligibility determinations and fraud risk management.GAO's analysis of the disaster block grant contracting network identified key players who are important to HUD's risk-based monitoring because of the greater potential impact they have on the contracting environment. Specifically, GAO identified 16 contractors and 30 subcontractors that are key players within a network of 1,324 entities. While key players' ability to influence or diffuse information can lead to positive outcomes, fraud risk is heightened when information on control vulnerabilities or wrongdoing is more easily shared across the network.GAO's analysis of the 16 contractors that are key players illustrates how HUD and grantees could better understand the disaster block grant risk environment by collecting contractor and subcontractor data, such as unique entity identifiers. Currently, HUD's approach to identifying and managing risks focuses on monitoring individual grantees and may not fully assess risks across the contracting environment. HUD does not provide specific guidance to grantees on standards or requirements for collecting data. Additional guidance from HUD on what data elements to collect could support grantees' and subrecipients' ability to identify contractors that are debarred, suspended, or excluded from receiving federal contracts.Why GAO Did This StudyIn response to the damage caused by natural disasters in 2017 through 2019, Congress appropriated approximately $39 billion in disaster block grant funds to HUD. The decentralized environment in which HUD's disaster block grants operate creates vulnerabilities to different types of fraud as funds are distributed to grantees, subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors.As part of wide-ranging disaster-related work we are conducting, this report focuses on the potential for fraud in CDBG-DR homeowner assistance programs. This report examines, among other objectives, the extent to which (1) applicant data indicate vulnerabilities to fraud and data quality presents challenges to identifying such vulnerabilities and (2) network and other analyses can help HUD manage risks associated with the contracting environment.GAO conducted data matching and analysis to identify potentially ineligible households for our selected grantees and subrecipients. GAO also conducted network analysis, among other analyses, to help HUD better understand and monitor its decentralized grant environment.
- Affordable Housing: Improvements Needed in HUD's Oversight of the Housing Trust Fund Program What GAO FoundAs of March 1, 2022, Housing Trust Fund (HTF) grantees had developed 2,186 rental units (in 263 projects) for households with extremely low incomes (not exceeding 30 percent of the area median). Grantees had also committed HTF funds to another 519 projects with an estimated 6,646 units designated for extremely low-income households. Once grantees began receiving HTF funds in late 2016, production of completed units averaged about seven units per quarter from the fourth quarter of 2017 through 2018, but grew to almost 300 units per quarter in 2021.For the 12 selected grantees GAO reviewed, HTF accounted for about 10 percent of the total funds for 70 completed projects. Equity from investors in Low-Income Housing Tax Credits was the largest funding source. The average development cost for these 70 projects was about $232,000 per unit but varied by project type and location. For example, new construction projects were more expensive per unit than rehabilitation projects (see figure).Funding Sources and Average Per-Unit Development Costs for Housing Trust Fund Projects Completed by 12 Selected Grantees, as of March 1, 2022The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) monitors compliance with HTF funding commitment and expenditure deadlines, but weaknesses exist in its oversight and reporting. Specifically, HUD has notmonitored grantee compliance with requirements for reporting project completion dates or data on total project units in HUD's information system;	effectively communicated requirements for grantees to obtain cost certifications for completed HTF projects;	conducted or scheduled a comprehensive assessment of fraud risks; and	disclosed limitations in its external HTF reports that could lead to misinterpretation of project cost and funding data.HUD officials said they are drafting procedures for field monitoring of HTF grantees that is expected to begin in fiscal year 2024. While this monitoring could help address some of the weaknesses GAO identified, HUD could take additional steps in the near term to help ensure that HTF funds are used efficiently and effectively and that Congress understands the program's performance.Why GAO Did This StudyThe U.S. faces a widespread shortage of affordable rental housing. Congress authorized HTF in 2008 to increase and preserve the supply of housing for people with the lowest incomes. HTF is funded by set-asides from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that began in fiscal year 2016. HUD administers HTF and allocates funding to state grantees.GAO was asked to examine the use and oversight of HTF funds. This report examines (1) the number and production rate of HTF units; (2) how selected grantees have used HTF and other funding sources, and the development costs of their projects; and (3) HUD's HTF oversight and reporting.GAO analyzed data from HUD and a nongeneralizable sample of 12 grantees (selected for diversity in location and project characteristics and accounting for about 42 percent of HTF funding in 2021) on HTF-assisted projects completed by March 1, 2022. GAO also reviewed program documents and interviewed HUD and grantee officials.
- Military Housing: Army Should Improve Inspection Oversight and Long-Term Capital Investment Projections What GAO FoundUnder its March 2021 agreement with the Army, the private housing company Lendlease is expected to renovate more than 12,000 existing homes, build over 1,200 new homes, and demolish over 1,000 homes at six Army installations by 2027. As of December 2022, most infrastructure improvements, roof replacements, and renovations were in progress. However, of the five installations that have begun implementing the agreed-to development plan, three have encountered some construction delays due in part to new home design changes and possible changes to an Army unit's location, which could alter the need for new housing.Lendlease is required to report monthly on all development plan work to local Army housing offices, among other stakeholders. To meet this requirement, Lendlease provides three types of reports to the Army to track and monitor the development plan: construction reports, inspection reports, and financial reports. However, we found that these reports lack sufficient inspection detail, as required by the development plan. For example, none of these reports include the status of certain construction activity inspections, such as spot checks performed on minor and medium renovations and roof replacements. Until the Army and Lendlease develop a reporting process to facilitate Army housing office inspection oversight of all inspections, these housing offices risk not having the information needed to monitor construction.The Army conducts an annual sustainability analysis to evaluate financial risk and overall financial health of all Army housing projects, including the six managed by Lendlease. However, GAO found that the sustainability analysis relies on outdated financial projections for capital investment. Specifically, the Army was not enforcing a requirement for projects to include financial projections with development plans submitted for review and approval. Without enforcing this requirement, the Army may not have an accurate picture of project-specific development capability and financial health.Why GAO Did This StudySince 1996, the Army has had the authority to enter into long-term public-private partnerships (typically 50 years) with private housing companies to own, construct, renovate, and maintain family housing at Army garrisons. Over 86,000 homes–99 percent of the Army's family housing inventory in the United States–are privatized.In March 2021, the Army and Lendlease agreed to a development plan to improve housing for residents and expedite capital improvements at six installations. House Report 117-118, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, includes a provision for GAO to review this plan. This report (1) describes the status of the plan, and evaluates the extent to which the Army (2) established mechanisms to oversee implementation of the plan, and (3) developed a process for assessing long-term sustainment of the privatized housing at the six installations.GAO reviewed Army guidance and analyzed Army and Lendlease construction reports and Army long-term sustainment analyses. GAO also observed construction at three installations that collectively account for 80 percent of the plan's budget, and interviewed Lendlease representatives and Army housing officials from all six installations.
- Affordable Housing: HUD Could Improve Use of Data for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program What GAO FoundThe Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) is a competitive federal program that awards funds to eligible nonprofit organizations to help develop affordable housing units for purchase by low-income families. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers the program and collects some data from SHOP grantees at the aggregate level. For example, HUD collects data from grantees annually and semiannually on the number of housing units grantees developed with the assistance of SHOP funds and how much they spent on land acquisition and infrastructure improvements across projects.However, HUD has not used these program data or market data, such as changes to land costs, to inform key program decisions, including setting the limit on the amount of SHOP funds grantees can spend on each housing unit. According to HUD officials, they have begun working with the Office of Policy Development and Research to analyze SHOP data in order to make future programmatic decisions. By systematically analyzing program and market data, HUD could better position itself to make informed program decisions.Why GAO Did This StudyThe joint explanatory statement regarding the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 provides for GAO to evaluate various aspects of SHOP. This report examines how HUD collects and uses data for SHOP, including to inform key program decisions.
- HUD Rental Assistance: Enhanced Data and Strategy Could Improve Oversight of Accessibility Requirements What GAO FoundFederal civil rights laws require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations to help ensure that households with disabilities have equal opportunities to use and enjoy their homes. These requirements apply to public housing agencies (PHA) and other housing providers that administer rental assistance programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).Examples of Reasonable AccommodationsHUD does not collect certain key data on households with disabilities that participate in its three largest rental assistance programs. Although HUD collects information on a household's disability status, the agency does not systematically collect data on requests for reasonable accommodations. Doing so would make HUD more aware of whether the needs of assisted households were met. Moreover, many PHAs already collect data that HUD could use. For example, GAO surveyed PHAs that administer HUD rental assistance and estimates that over 83 percent (plus or minus 9 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval) collect information on a household's accessibility needs during application and generally annually thereafter.HUD also does not have a comprehensive, documented strategy for its oversight of compliance with reasonable accommodation requirements. HUD prioritizes its oversight on investigating complaints, which it is legally required to do. Because of the high volume of complaints, HUD is able to conduct only a limited number of discretionary compliance reviews of HUD-assisted housing providers. To target these reviews, officials said they consider factors such as complaints, press articles, and various data sources to assess risk. But HUD does not have basic assisted-household data to help support identification of potential noncompliance. HUD also does not document the criteria it uses to assess risk. Developing a comprehensive strategy for prioritizing and planning reviews, including policies for using assisted-household data, would allow HUD to proactively address compliance issues rather than respond after complaints are filed. Doing so also might reduce the number of complaint investigations, potentially freeing up resources for other fair housing-related activities.Why GAO Did This StudyHUD is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that require housing providers to make reasonable accommodations for households with disabilities. HUD serves many of these households through its rental assistance programs.GAO was asked to review HUD's rental assistance to low-income households with disabilities. This report examines (1) what data are available on reasonable accommodations provided to HUD-assisted households with disabilities and (2) how HUD oversees compliance with requirements for reasonable accommodations in its rental assistance programs.GAO analyzed HUD documentation, including reporting requirements; reviewed relevant laws and regulations; surveyed a generalizable sample of 756 PHAs operating in urban areas or entire states that administer HUD programs; and interviewed officials at HUD headquarters and all 10 regional offices.
- Hunger and Homelessness: Funding Distribution for Key Programs What GAO FoundFive key federal programs can provide food or housing assistance to those experiencing or at risk of homelessness: the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Continuum of Care (CoC) and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), and Department of Agriculture's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).Of the programs providing food or housing assistance, GAO analyzed the geographic distribution of funding for the three that use formulas to allocate funding to qualifying jurisdictions—EFSP, CoC, and ESG. None of the programs are required to use criteria related to homelessness in their formulas. State funding per capita for these programs did not always align with measures of homelessness, rental costs, and income inequality. For example, in fiscal year 2020, two states with some of the highest per capita funding for CoC—Connecticut and Louisiana—were among the states with the lowest level of homelessness. Another state with relatively high per capita funding for CoC, Ohio, ranked among the bottom half for each measure of need. Analysis of per capita funding also showed different geographic patterns. States in the Northeast and West tended to receive the highest EFSP and CoC funding per capita, while ESG funding tended to be concentrated in the Northeast and parts of the Midwest.A CARES Act-related change to the ESG funding formula in 2020 resulted in better targeting of funds to states with large homeless populations than under the traditional formula. The CARES Act provided funds to be awarded in two rounds. The first round allocated $1 billion using the traditional formula, which does not factor in measures of homelessness. The second round allocated $2.96 billion using a formula that weighted indicators of homelessness. As a result, states with the largest homeless populations received a greater share of program funds in the second round. For example, California, New York, Texas, and Florida accounted for over 50 percent of funds allocated in the second round, compared to about 34 percent in the first round.Emergency Solutions Grants – CARES ACT Round 1 and 2 Funding by Percentage of AllocationWhy GAO Did This StudyThe COVID-19 pandemic and recent economic challenges, including inflation and increased housing costs, have raised questions about whether more U.S. households are experiencing hunger and homelessness. House Report 117-99 includes a provision for GAO to conduct a study on federal programs that address hunger and homelessness. Among its objectives, this report (1) describes the geographic distribution of EFSP, CoC, and ESG funding and how per capita program funding aligns with state-level homelessness rates, median rents, and income inequality; and (2) compares the geographic distribution of two rounds of ESG funding under the CARES Act, one using the traditional ESG funding formula and the other a formula developed to target populations experiencing homelessness.GAO reviewed prior work and federal agency documentation and reports to identify key federal programs that can provide food or housing assistance to those experiencing or at risk of homelessness. GAO reviewed agency funding data and documentation. GAO analyzed the geographic distribution of funding of the three key programs that use formulas to allocate funding (EFSP, CoC, and ESG) and how per capita funding aligned with indicators of need that GAO determined relevant to the programs—two of which primarily focus on addressing homelessness. GAO also interviewed agency officials, advocacy groups, and recipient organizations.For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or CackleyA@gao.gov.
- Community Redevelopment: Significant Improvements in Policies and Procedures Are Needed at NeighborWorks America What GAO FoundThe mission of NeighborWorks America, a congressionally chartered nonprofit, is to revitalize neighborhoods. The organization has made progress in establishing policies, procedures, and internal controls relating to procurement, whistleblower complaints, and internal audits. But GAO found weaknesses remain.Procurement.  GAO reviewed a sample of contract files and purchase card transactions and found staff did not consistently follow procurement policies, including for documentation and supervisory approval. NeighborWorks has begun to implement a new procurement system, but the extent to which the new system will address these issues is unclear. NeighborWorks does not provide formal training on its procurement process and made some changes to its procedures without clearly communicating those changes to staff. Providing formal training to staff and clearly communicating changes in policy would help address weaknesses in the procurement process.NeighborWorks America's Documentation of Selected Required Elements of Sample Contract Files, by Contract Size, Fiscal Years 2019–2021Note: For more details, see figure 2 in GAO-23-105944.Whistleblowers.  NeighborWorks has a new whistleblower policy, but it does not include procedures for investigating complaints or criteria for who will conduct investigations. Developing and implementing such procedures and criteria would help ensure that potential violations of law or policy or misuse of taxpayer dollars are appropriately investigated.Internal audits.  NeighborWorks' internal audit function met most standards of The Institute for Internal Auditors—a recognized leader on internal auditing. However, it has not fully met standards on quality assurance and improvement. For example, Internal Audit has not had an external assessment—required every 5 years—since 2012. By implementing a quality assurance and improvement program, Internal Audit could assess the efficiency and effectiveness of its activities and identify opportunities for improvement.Why GAO Did This StudyNeighborWorks received an annual appropriation of $163 million in fiscal year 2021, which accounted for most of its funding, and has around 350 employees. However, past audits have raised questions about its procurement process.The Joint Explanatory Statement for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review NeighborWorks' compliance with regulatory requirements and internal policies in several areas. This report addresses the extent to which NeighborWorks established effective policies, procedures, and internal controls for procurement, whistleblowers, and audits, among others. GAO analyzed (1) NeighborWorks' policies and procedures in these areas, (2) a nongeneralizable sample of contract files and purchase card transactions from 2019–2021, and (3) whistleblower complaints from 2016–2022. GAO also interviewed current and former staff and conducted five focus groups with current staff.
- Homelessness: Enhanced Coordination Could Improve Disaster Shelter and Housing Assistance What GAO FoundNo federal programs are specifically designed to address the housing needs of the homeless population in a disaster. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Public Assistance program can provide this population with emergency shelter (available to the entire community after a disaster). In addition, grantees of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program can use program funds to provide the homeless population with housing assistance, such as transitional and permanent supportive housing.Two homelessness programs—HUD's Continuum of Care and Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) program—can provide housing assistance during a disaster, although they generally do not receive supplemental disaster funding. HUD may waive program requirements during a disaster to give affected recipients more flexibility. In 2020, the CARES Act provided $4 billion in ESG grants to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and authorized HUD to provide statutory and regulatory waivers and alternative program requirements for all recipients. For example, the act waived the 60 percent cap on street outreach and emergency shelter expenses. Recipients and homeless service providers GAO spoke with generally found these waivers to be useful. As of November 2022, HUD said it planned to evaluate the use of ESG waivers and alternative program requirements during the pandemic but did not provide an estimated time frame for doing so. Such a review would better inform HUD and Congress on the use of ESG waivers and alternative program requirements in future disasters.FEMA and HUD do not regularly coordinate on issues related to disaster sheltering and housing assistance provided to the homeless population. While both agencies participate in some interagency efforts on disaster response, these efforts either do not address the homeless population or do not occur regularly. Stakeholders GAO interviewed shared lessons learned regarding the importance of having established relationships between emergency management and homelessness stakeholders to collaborate on providing assistance for the homeless population. The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), which includes HUD and FEMA, plans to implement a federal strategy to strengthen coordination among homelessness, public health, and emergency management agencies. However, it has not yet determined when or how to do so. By regularly coordinating—for example, through efforts being undertaken through USICH to implement the federal strategy on improving collaboration in the event of a disaster—FEMA and HUD could help increase knowledge sharing and disseminate information among federal and local partners.Why GAO Did This StudyDisasters, such as hurricanes, cause billions of dollars in damage each year. People experiencing homelessness, who may be in shelters or on the streets, may be vulnerable and most severely affected by disasters.The 2019 Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act provided funding for GAO to conduct audits related to 2018 disasters. This report examines (1) how federal disaster programs can provide shelter or housing assistance to the homeless population, (2) how federal homelessness programs can provide housing assistance to this population during disasters, and (3) coordination by FEMA and HUD on these issues. GAO reviewed federal agency documentation and interviewed staff at FEMA and HUD offices and at state and local governments, selected program grantees and recipients, emergency managers, and homeless service providers in four states affected by 2018 disasters (California, Florida, North Carolina, and Wisconsin). GAO selected 2018 disasters in these states due to the significance of their impact and for geographic diversity.
- Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Housing and Urban Development What GAO FoundIn June 2022, GAO identified 11 priority recommendations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Since then, HUD implemented five of those recommendations, including by implementing a policy to analyze the effects of Moving to Work program flexibilities on tenants in two rental assistance programs and by completing an analysis of the optimal mix for contractors and in-house staff at Ginnie Mae.In May 2023, GAO identified five additional priority recommendations for HUD, bringing the total number to 11. These recommendations involve the following areas:Data collection on homelessness	Federal disaster recovery barriers efforts	Cybersecurity challenges	Real Estate Assessment Center's physical inspection process&nbsp;	Processes to address lead paint hazards	IT managementHUD's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations.Why GAO Did This StudyPriority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations.For more information, contact Daniel Garcia-Diaz at (202) 512-5106 or garciadiazd@gao.gov.
- Military Housing: DOD Can Further Strengthen Oversight of Its Privatized Housing Program [Reissued with Revisions Apr. 20, 2023] What GAO FoundThe Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to implement statutory requirements from the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (2020 NDAA). These statutory requirements were designed to increase assistance to residents of privatized housing, ensure DOD has adequate personnel to conduct oversight activities, and improve DOD's oversight of the condition of private housing units. DOD has taken steps to implement these requirements, but gaps in guidance and training remain. For example, GAO found a need forMore detailed formal dispute resolution guidance.  The 2020 NDAA required DOD to provide residents the right to enter into formal dispute resolution processes to resolve issues with private housing companies. The Office of the Secretary of Defense issued guidance establishing a formal dispute resolution process and directed the military departments to work with private housing companies to implement it. However, the guidance provided to residents on the process lacks detailed information, such as how and when they can file a formal dispute. Also, military housing officials have not received adequate guidance or training for assisting residents in the process.	Improved guidance on the role of the tenant advocate.  The 2020 NDAA required DOD provide residents with access to a tenant advocate. Each military department has designated personnel to act in this capacity. However, the military departments have not clearly identified the roles and responsibilities for these personnel, or communicated useful information to residents about how they can and cannot use the tenant advocates.	Better oversight of the condition of private housing units.  The 2020 NDAA required that DOD conduct inspections of privatized homes prior to resident occupancy. GAO found that, although each of the military departments is conducting these inspections as required, DOD has not developed clear or consistent inspection standards and the military departments have not provided adequate inspector training. This has contributed to inconsistencies in how inspectors rate homes, resulting in homes with similar issues receiving different ratings and, according to private housing company representatives, has increased project costs.By addressing these implementation weaknesses, DOD could enable personnel to more effectively perform their duties, reduce residents' confusion and frustration, and more fully meet the congressional intent of improving the privatized housing program.DOD has authorities and processes in place to hold private housing companies accountable for poor performance or misconduct, including fraud. Specifically, according to DOD officials, it can place companies on performance improvement plans, withhold performance incentive fees, or terminate and replace specific project stakeholders. DOD can also fully terminate a project, but has never identified the need to do so. Officials stated that such need would be unlikely, in part because the projects are structured to allow the military departments to address poor performance without disrupting the entire project. Moreover, private companies have typically shown a willingness to step out of projects due to poor performance when under pressure from DOD to do so.Why GAO Did This StudyPrivate companies own and operate 99 percent of family housing at domestic military installations, totaling approximately 203,300 units. Since 2019, questions have been raised about assistance available to residents, poor housing conditions, and private company performance. Legislation has included requirements aimed at improving DOD's oversight of the privatized housing program.GAO was asked to review DOD's oversight of the privatized housing program. This report evaluates the extent to which DOD has (1) implemented statutory requirements to improve assistance to residents, (2) improved oversight of privatized housing, and (3) the authorities and processes in place to hold private housing companies accountable for poor performance.GAO analyzed DOD policies and guidance; and interviewed DOD housing officials and private company representatives at five installations selected for variation in service and experience with initiatives. GAO met with a nongeneralizable sample of residents currently living in privatized housing and solicited views from private housing companies.
- Management Report: Federal Housing Finance Agency Should Improve Controls over Personnel and Payroll Information What GAO FoundDuring the audits of the Federal Housing Finance Agency's (FHFA) fiscal years 2022 and 2021 financial statements, GAO identified deficiencies in FHFA's internal control over the processing of personnel and payroll information. GAO did not consider these deficiencies to be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies, either individually or collectively. Nonetheless, they warrant FHFA management attention. Specifically, GAO found that FHFA did not reasonably assure that (1) it accurately recorded employee benefits information, (2) gross cost information in its financial statements was supported by detailed employee time charges, and (3) cash awards paid to employees and recorded in its financial statements matched the amounts management authorized.GAO communicated to FHFA management detailed information regarding these control deficiencies and made four new recommendations to address them.Why GAO Did This StudyThe purpose of this report is to communicate control deficiencies identified during GAO's audit testing of FHFA's 2022 and 2021 payroll operating expenses and GAO's four recommendations related to these new deficiencies. This report is intended for FHFA management's use.
- HUD Rental Assistance: Serving Households with Disabilities What GAO FoundThe Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided rental assistance to an estimated 1.8 million households with disabilities, according to the 2019 American Housing Survey (survey). HUD primarily served these households through the Housing Choice Voucher, public housing, and Project-Based Rental Assistance programs. Most HUD-assisted households with a member using a mobility device (such as a wheelchair) reported living in units with at least one accessibility feature (such as an entry-level bedroom). However, more than 300,000 assisted households with a member using a mobility device reported living in units without any accessibility features, according to the 2019 survey.Providers of HUD-assisted housing are required to provide reasonable accommodations—such as structural modifications—to allow households with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in HUD rental assistance programs. Housing providers also must use strategies, such as waitlist priorities, to match households with disabilities with units that meet their needs.Why GAO Did This StudyGAO was asked to examine HUD assistance for households with disabilities. Low-income households with disabilities can face challenges in securing affordable, accessible housing. This report provides information on how HUD serves low-income households (those with incomes at or below 80 percent of their areas' median income) with disabilities through its rental assistance programs.For more information, contact Alicia Puente Cackley at (202) 512-8678 or CackleyA@gao.gov.
- Emergency Rental Assistance: Treasury's Oversight is Limited by Incomplete Data and Risk Assessment What GAO FoundThe Department of the Treasury administers the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program, which provides nearly $46.55 billion to tribal, state, territorial, and local governments (grantees) to help low-income households affected by the COVID-19 pandemic pay rent and utilities. By June 2021—5 months into the program—about one-quarter of grantees had not made any payments. Multiple factors contributed to payment delays, based on GAO's interviews with grantees and review of their documentation. These factors included limited grantee staff and technology resources, gathering information for tenant eligibility determinations, and unclear program guidance. Grantees had spent less than half of the available funding by Treasury's deadline to begin reallocating excess funds (September 30, 2021).Treasury's reallocation of excess funds did not consistently align with renters' needs. Rebalancing the distribution of funds was critical to maximizing their use because renters' needs and grantees' capacity to deliver assistance varied across states. Treasury reallocated about $3.1 billion in ERA1 funds by the end of October 2022, but its prioritization of transfers between grantees in the same state limited its ability to address large funding differences across states and better align payments to the needs of renters and grantee capacity.Available data suggest that ERA payments served low-income renters and varied to meet local needs. According to limited Treasury data, 85 percent of households served by the first ERA appropriation had incomes below 50 percent of the area median, consistent with a legal requirement to prioritize such renters. Data also suggest grantees used funds to address local needs. Households received larger average payments in urban areas ($7,200) than in rural areas ($5,200) and in counties with higher rents and more rent-burdened households.Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA1) Distribution by Income Level, Quarter 4, 2021Oversight of the ERA program would benefit from improved data collection and assessment of improper payment risks. Although Treasury has taken recent steps to improve data collection and reporting, including issuing detailed final reporting requirements, to date the agency has not collected or reported complete data as required by the authorizing statute. Without better data collection and reporting, Congress and Treasury will lack information on the program's outcomes. And although Treasury completed a required assessment of improper payment risks for the program, the assessment focused on allocations to grantees and did not address missing payment data and potentially duplicative payments to households. Without a more detailed assessment of improper payment risks, Treasury's awareness of such risks and oversight of the ERA program will be limited.Why GAO Did This StudyCongress twice authorized funding for the ERA program in response to financial and housing instability resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of the emergency nature and expedited implementation of the program, Treasury had to develop program guidance and oversight procedures as grantees were beginning to make payments. GAO previously reported on the program's early implementation challenges and the need for effective oversight of grantees and payments.The CARES Act includes a provision for GAO to monitor federal efforts to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This report examines (1) factors that affected the timeliness of ERA payments, (2) reallocation of excess ERA funds, (3) ERA recipient and grantee spending characteristics, and (4) Treasury's ERA data collection and oversight efforts.GAO analyzed ERA payment and demographic data, as well as reallocation documentation; reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documentation; and interviewed officials from Treasury and 21 grantees selected based on expenditures, government type, and geography.
- Disaster Recovery: Better Information Is Needed on the Progress of Block Grant Funds What GAO FoundAs of July 2022, the seven states and territories receiving the vast majority of the 2017 and 2018 Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds had disbursed 28 percent of the $11.9 billion they allocated for housing activities. The grantees' disbursements for housing activities funded with 2017 CDBG-DR funds ranged from approximately 4 percent to 51 percent. The two grantees with the highest disbursement rates for 2017 funds (Texas and Florida) have more recent experience administering CDBG-DR funds.Texas expects to complete construction for its three Homeowner Assistance Programs by the end of 2023 or early 2024, and to serve about 7,900 homeowners. Texas opened applications for its first and largest Homeowner Assistance Program about 1.3 years after Hurricane Harvey was declared a major disaster. Texas expects that it will take another 4.4 years from then until construction on homes is complete.GAO's analysis of available data as of August 2022 showed that the application processing and preconstruction phases of Texas's Homeowner Assistance Programs each took longer than construction (see figure). Factors that can significantly affect the length of the application process include the time households take to complete the application and provide required documentation, as well as the time Texas takes to conduct damage assessments and environmental reviews. Data limitations prevented GAO's analysis from pinpointing the duration of some individual process steps.Texas Homeowner Assistance Program Time Line and Process StepsNote: This time line is for Texas's largest Homeowner Assistance Program. Because the phases' durations are medians, their sum does not equal the total duration.The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does not require Texas or other CDBG-DR grantees to collect accurate data on critical milestones. Texas's grant management system resets the date of key application processing milestones when an application has to repeat a step, which results in unreliable data for tracking those milestones. This limits Texas's ability to determine the true duration of individuals steps. Further, a HUD-funded 2019 study on the timeliness of CDBG-DR housing activities found that all but one grantee in the study faced challenges in developing a grant management system, which caused delays in program implementation. By requiring grantees to collect and analyze timeliness data, HUD could better ensure that its grantees identify problem milestones and take corrective actions.Why GAO Did This StudyCongress provided about $39 billion to HUD for CDBG-DR and mitigation grants to help communities recover from the 2017 and 2018 hurricanes and wildfires. Seven grantees—California, Florida, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands—received over 90 percent of the funds. They generally budgeted more than 50 percent of the CDBG-DR funds to address unmet housing needs.The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act of 2019 includes a provision for GAO to audit issues related to the 2018 presidentially declared major disasters. This report examines, among other things, (1) the status of the seven grantees' 2017 and 2018 CDBG-DR housing activities, (2) Texas's implementation of its Homeowner Assistance Programs, and (3) the extent to which HUD requires grantees to collect data to manage programs effectively.GAO analyzed data from HUD and the Texas grantee. GAO also reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from HUD and Texas. GAO focused on Texas in part because it had expended the most funds and plans to focus on other grantees in future work.
- Financial Audit: Federal Housing Finance Agency's FY 2022 and FY 2021 Financial Statements What GAO FoundGAO found (1) the Federal Housing Finance Agency's (FHFA) financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2022, and 2021, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles; (2) FHFA maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2022; and (3) no reportable noncompliance for fiscal year 2022 with provisions of applicable laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements GAO tested. In its written comments on a draft of this report, FHFA stated that it was pleased to accept GAO's unmodified audit opinions. In addition, it will continue to work to enhance its internal control and ensure the reliability of its financial reporting.Why GAO Did This StudyThe Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 established FHFA as an independent agency empowered with supervisory and regulatory oversight of the housing-related government-sponsored enterprises: the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the 11 Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Office of Finance. This act requires FHFA to prepare financial statements annually and requires GAO to audit the agency's financial statements. In accordance with the act, GAO audited FHFA's financial statements.For more information, contact Anne Sit-Williams at (202) 512-7795 or sitwilliamsa@gao.gov.
- Immigration Detention: Actions Needed to Collect Consistent Information for Segregated Housing Oversight What GAO FoundU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities can, under certain circumstances, place detained noncitizens in segregated housing—one or two-person cells separate from the general population—for up to 24 hours per day. ICE has policies and processes for managing and overseeing detention facilities' use of segregated housing, but information used for oversight is inconsistent. ICE requires field offices to provide headquarters documentation with explanations of segregated housing placements. However, this supporting documentation does not always contain sufficient detail explaining the circumstances leading to placements. Further, although ICE requires field offices to report any placement involving an individual identified as vulnerable—such as those with medical or mental health conditions—segregated housing data did not always identify vulnerable detained noncitizens. Issuing specific guidance on the documentation needed to support segregated housing placements and identifying all vulnerable population placements would help ICE oversee these placements. In particular, these actions could help ICE ensure the appropriateness of placements and proper care for vulnerable noncitizens.GAO's analysis of segregated housing placement data indicates that ICE made 14,581 segregated housing placements from fiscal years 2017 through 2021. About 40 percent of these placements were for disciplinary reasons, such as drug possession, and about 60 percent were for administrative reasons, such as protective custody or medical reasons. Available data also indicated that ICE placed individuals belonging to vulnerable populations in segregated housing from fiscal years 2017 through 2021 for various reasons and durations.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention Facility Segregated Housing Unit and CellOverall, segregated housing-related complaints to ICE increased from 2017 through 2019, before decreasing from 2020 to 2021. However, ICE does not conduct ongoing analyses of segregated housing-related complaints from various ICE offices or require its field offices to record resolutions of those complaints. In 2020, GAO recommended that ICE conduct comprehensive and ongoing analyses of detention-related complaints and require its field offices to record any actions taken on, and resolutions of these complaints. ICE concurred and is taking some steps to address them. Implementing the recommendations would include such analyses of segregated housing-related complaints.Why GAO Did This StudyICE is the lead agency responsible for providing safe, secure, and humane confinement for detained noncitizens in the U.S. Individuals in segregated housing have limited access to facility amenities, and detention facilities are required to provide ongoing medical and mental health care and reviews to those in segregated housing.GAO was asked to review ICE's management and oversight of segregated housing. This report addresses (1) ICE's processes for and oversight of segregated housing and ICE's collection of information on segregated housing placements; (2) the number and characteristics of segregated housing placements from fiscal years 2017 through 2021; and (3) the extent to which ICE receives and addresses segregated housing complaints.GAO reviewed policies and documents on segregated housing; interviewed officials at 12 ICE detention facilities and four ICE field offices; and analyzed segregated housing data and segregated housing complaint data from fiscal years 2017 through 2021.
- Disaster Assistance: Actions Needed to Strengthen FEMA's Housing Inspections Process What GAO FoundAbout 2.7 million people applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individuals and Households Program for major disasters declared from January 1, 2018 through November 1, 2021. Of these applicants, FEMA authorized housing inspections for about 1.4 million and approved about 710,000 applicants for assistance. For those who were not approved for assistance, the most common reasons for ineligibility were that they had insurance, or had insufficient or no reported damage. The median and mean amounts of Individuals and Households Program assistance per applicant were $2,314 and $4,157, respectively.Disaster-related Damages to Homes in California (left) and Texas (right) in 2021FEMA has taken actions since 2018 intended to improve the housing inspections process, but has not always assessed how the changes affect the Individuals and Households Program applicant awards. For example, in part to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, FEMA streamlined its approach in April 2020 for estimating damages to homes. Instead of recording itemized damages, inspectors estimated the overall damage level of a home based on a smaller set of key indicators (e.g., height of floodwater in a home). However, FEMA has not assessed this new approach to determine if it accurately estimates damages. GAO found that mean awards were 35 percent lower under the new approach than under the prior approach.In March 2020, FEMA began using applicant self-assessment questions to determine whether to authorize housing inspections for applicants. According to the new policy, applicants who self-assessed having minor home damage would not receive an inspection, and therefore not receive certain types of assistance, unless they took additional steps to request an inspection. FEMA's goal was to reduce the number of required inspections and deliver assistance to applicants with the greatest need first. However, FEMA analysis and GAO's observations indicate that these self-assessments are not a reliable indicator of eligibility. For example, from January 2018 to November 2021, 43 percent of applicants who self-assessed minor damage were found to have eligible damages. Although FEMA discontinued this practice, officials told GAO that the policy remains in place for FEMA to implement at its discretion in the future. Ensuring its policy on the use of self-assessments is supported by evidence could help FEMA ensure it accurately identifies eligibility for assistance.Why GAO Did This StudySince 2017, over 300 presidentially-declared major disasters have occurred across the country. Following such disasters, FEMA conducts housing inspections to assess damages and award assistance for home repairs and other needs to survivors who apply under the Individuals and Households Program.The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2019 included a provision for GAO to review issues following the 2018 disaster season. This report addresses, among other things, (1) how many Individuals and Households Program applicants were authorized housing inspections and received assistance for major disasters declared from January 2018 to November 2021 and (2) the extent to which FEMA has taken actions intended to improve its housing inspections process since 2018.GAO analyzed Individuals and Households Program applicant data from January 2018 to November 2021 and reviewed relevant documentation and policies. GAO interviewed FEMA officials and contracted housing inspectors; and observed selected housing inspections.
- Tracking the Funds: Specific Fiscal Year 2022 Provisions for Department of Housing and Urban Development What GAO FoundThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 appropriated approximately $1.5 billion to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 1,014 projects at the request of Members of Congress. The act includes specific provisions that designate an amount of funds for a particular recipient to use for a specific project. These provisions are called "Congressionally Directed Spending" in the U.S. Senate and "Community Project Funding" in the House of Representatives.GAO described, among other things, information about the intended uses for these funds, the recipients to whom they were designated, and when HUD expects recipients will have access to the funds:The intended uses of these funds are to support a variety of efforts including preventing homelessness, expanding the supply of affordable housing, and improving local infrastructure. Examples of projects include upgrading community centers, recreation centers and health care facilities.The designated recipients of these funds are tribal, state, and local governments and higher education and other nonprofit organizations. About 60 percent of the projects are receiving $1 million or less.HUD expects to obligate funds by September 2025 and recipients will be able to draw funds through the end of September 2030.Why GAO Did This StudyThe joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review agencies' implementation of Community Project Funding/Congressionally Directed Spending.For more information, contact William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov.
- Homelessness: VA Provides Support to the Most Vulnerable Women Veterans and Has Taken Steps to Improve Services What GAO FoundFrom fiscal years 2017 through 2021, the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program served about 11,100 women veterans annually, making up about 13 percent of all veterans served each year. About 40 percent of these women veterans had children with them. The program supports women veterans through (1) rapid re-housing to help those who are experiencing homelessness transition to permanent housing, and (2) prevention services to help veterans remain in their home as they resolve a housing crisis. The program prioritizes serving veterans who are experiencing homelessness and hence, about 57 percent of women veterans in SSVF were enrolled for rapid re-housing (see figure). About 56 percent of women veterans in SSVF received temporary financial assistance to help with housing costs. For example, SSVF provided an annual average of $911 to women veterans for help with paying rent, compared with $789 for men. SSVF officials said women veterans are more likely than men to be living with children and thus, require larger, more expensive apartments.Percentage of Veterans in SSVF Enrolled for Rapid Re-Housing or Homelessness Prevention by Gender, on Average Each Year, Fiscal Years 2017-2021SSVF uses veterans' feedback to identify and address service needs, and is taking steps to enhance its oversight of provider quality. Based on feedback, SSVF provided additional funding to service providers to hire staff to help veterans navigate health care and legal systems. Staff from five of the 10 service providers GAO interviewed described how these new efforts may benefit women veterans, such as those seeking health care for sexual trauma. SSVF also uses periodic audits and other tools to oversee the quality of service providers. However, GAO found that several providers continually ranked lower than their peers when veterans were asked about quality of services and courteousness of staff. Further, four of the six women veterans in GAO's discussion groups who had received SSVF services described feeling demoralized or shamed by VA or provider staff. SSVF officials outlined recent efforts to enhance oversight in this area, such as a new process implemented in fiscal year 2022 that requires service providers to address veteran feedback from surveys. Evaluating these new efforts would help SSVF determine whether additional actions are needed to improve provider quality. Reporting to Congress and the public on the results would be consistent with VA's commitment to accountability and transparency.Why GAO Did This StudyPast research shows that women who are experiencing homelessness are more likely to be veterans than those in the general population. Further, they are more often than men accompanied by children, according to VA. SSVF aims to promote housing stability among veterans facing homelessness, including their families. The program uses a nationwide network of nonprofit service providers to help with housing needs, services, and benefits, such as income support and child care.The Deborah Sampson Act of 2020 included a provision for GAO to review whether SSVF is meeting the needs of women veterans. GAO examined (1) the characteristics of women veterans who participated in SSVF and services they received; and (2) how VA ensures that SSVF service providers meet the needs of veterans, including women.GAO analyzed VA data on veterans served by SSVF from fiscal years 2017 through 2021, and interviewed VA officials and SSVF service providers in 10 localities. These localities were selected to achieve variation in factors including concentrations of veterans facing homelessness and geographic location. GAO also conducted four discussion groups with women veterans who had faced homelessness in the last 5 years. GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, policies, and VA guidance, as well as literature on women veterans and homelessness.
- Interagency Council on Homelessness: Written Policies for Implementing Statutory Requirements Are Needed What GAO FoundThe United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH), which includes 19 federal agencies and its own full-time staff, coordinates the federal response to homelessness. In 2017–2021, activities USICH performed corresponded to duties and functions set forth in its governing statute. For example, as part of its duty to provide technical assistance to nonfederal entities, USICH provided written guidance and regional knowledge-sharing workshops. As part of its duty to recommend improvements in programs, USICH worked with the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development to increase voucher use for supportive housing (housing combined with other services, such as healthcare and job training and placement).Homeless Encampment in Downtown Los Angeles, CaliforniaHowever, USICH did not have documented policies that specified how it would meet the statutory requirements GAO reviewed and did not consistently perform some obligations, such as annually updating its strategic plan. To monitor how the agency meets some statutory requirements, USICH staff use a spreadsheet (action plan) that briefly describes planned or completed activities. But USICH did not always update the plan or specify the steps staff should take to meet requirements. The plan also did not address some requirements, such as a reporting requirement in an annual appropriations act.Staff also could not clearly describe if or how USICH met certain requirements in prior years. For example, USICH consulted with the Office of Management and Budget and congressional appropriations staff on meeting certain reporting obligations, but could not describe related decisions (prior staff had not documented them). Federal internal control standards note the importance of documenting responsibilities through written policies. USICH staff told GAO they relied on informal processes used by their predecessors, but said written documentation would be beneficial, especially when facing staff turnover. By developing and documenting policies and procedures for meeting statutory requirements, USICH could help ensure it consistently performs statutory obligations and furthers its mission to prevent and end homelessness. Doing so also could help USICH communicate timely information to other stakeholders, including Congress and federal, state, and local partners.Why GAO Did This StudyThe mission of USICH is to coordinate the federal response to homelessness and partner with the private sector and state and local governments to prevent and end homelessness. Under its governing statute, the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, USICH must perform certain duties and functions, such as annually updating its national strategic plan to end homelessness, providing technical assistance to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations, and recommending improvements to programs that assist homeless individuals.House Report No. 116-452 includes a provision for GAO to review USICH's policies and procedures to ensure compliance with certain statutory requirements.This report addresses policies and procedures USICH used in fiscal years 2017–2021 to perform duties and functions under its governing statute and comply with certain appropriations requirements. GAO reviewed relevant statutes and agency documents (such as action plans, performance reports, and a charter) and interviewed senior USICH staff and agency representatives.