Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies' Experiences with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements
Published: 2002-05-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 was designed to improve the quality of public housing and the lives of its residents. Since fiscal year 2000, housing agencies managing low-rent or tenant-based Section 8 units have been required to develop and submit five-year and annual plans. As of January 2002, 98 percent of public housing agency plans for fiscal year 2000 had been submitted and approved. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had mixed views about the fiscal year 2000 plan process and its value. The field locations that responded to GAO's survey reported that their review of fiscal year 2000 plans was hampered by several factors, including difficulty in transmitting data between public housing agencies and HUD. Most field locations responded that public housing agencies are implementing their plans but acknowledged that there may be some problems, particularly in fulfilling requirements related to resident participation in the process. The eight public housing agencies GAO visited had differing views on the usefulness of the planning process, the level of resources required to prepare the plans, the sufficiency of HUD's guidance on completing the plans, and the difficulty of meeting the resident participation requirement.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, commonly  referred to as the Public Housing Reform Act (P.L. 105-276), was major  legislation designed to improve the quality of public housing and the lives  of public housing residents.  The act included over 80 provisions that  revised key requirements related to the Department of Housing and Urban  Development’s (HUD’s) low-rent housing and tenant-based Section 8  housing assistance programs.  The act also gave public housing agencies  more flexibility and discretion in using funds to address the needs of low- income families and encouraged resident involvement in housing  management.
In an effort to ensure that public housing agencies remained accountable to  HUD while exercising these new flexibilities, Section 511 of the act created  a new requirement. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, housing agencies  managing low-rent or tenant-based Section 8 units have been required to  develop and submit five-year and annual plans.  Agencies were required to  obtain resident participation in developing these plans.  The five-year plan  is to describe the public housing agency’s mission and long-range goals,  while the annual plan is to identify objectives and strategies for achieving  these goals and to detail the agency’s policies and procedures.  The annual  plan also serves as an application to HUD for some grant funding for  agencies with low-rent units.  Since housing agencies that administer  tenant-based Section 8 units only do not receive this type of funding, they  do not use the plan as a grant application.  Once a public housing agency  has submitted its plans to HUD, HUD must review the plans to ensure that  they contain the appropriate information, and either approve them or  disapprove them,  and notify the public housing agency of deficiencies in  the plans that need to be addressed before the plans can be approved.
Section 511 also required us to audit and review a sample of these public  housing agencies plans to provide an overview of how the process has  worked so far.  As agreed with your offices, to fulfill this requirement  within the required deadline we determined: (1) the status of public  housing agencies’ fiscal year 2000 plans, (2) HUD’s experiences with the  fiscal year 2000 plan process and opinions concerning the value of the  plans, and (3) selected public housing agencies’ experiences with and  opinions regarding the fiscal year 2000 plan process.  We examined HUD’s  experiences to provide information on the universe of plans filed, as well as  HUD’s perspective on the process, while selected housing agencies’  experiences were examined for insight into agencies’ perspectives on the  planning process.  In January 2002, in fulfillment of the act’s requirement,  we briefed your offices on our key findings.  We have enclosed the slides  from that briefing in appendix I.  Also, as you requested at our briefing, we  are providing information on the status of the fiscal year 2001 plans and any  significant changes in the plan review process.
To determine the status of fiscal year 2000 plans, we analyzed information  from HUD’s databases and interviewed HUD officials.  In examining HUD’s  experiences with the plan process, we surveyed HUD’s 43 Public and  Indian Housing field offices and 2 troubled agency recovery centers  (hereafter referred to as field locations).  These field locations were  responsible for reviewing and approving submitted plans.  Ninety-six  percent of these locations responded to our survey.
To gather detailed information on selected public housing agencies’  experiences with the process, we visited eight agencies that we selected  based on factors including size and geographic location, as shown in table 1.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Congress  created the federal public housing program to assist communities in  providing decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for low-income families.   Today, more than 4,100 public housing agencies provide housing for low- income households.  Over 3,100 agencies operate low-rent or a  combination of low-rent and tenant-based Section 8 units, and about 1,000  provide housing through tenant-based Section 8 units only.  Public housing  agencies are typically municipal, county, or state agencies created under  state law to develop and manage public housing units for low-income  families.  Housing agencies that participate in the low-rent program  contract with HUD to provide housing in exchange for federal grants and  subsidies.  HUD provides funding to agencies to operate and repair low- rent units through the Operating Fund and the Capital Fund.  The Operating  Fund provides annual subsidies to housing agencies to make up the  difference between the amount they collect in rent and the cost of  operating the units.  The Capital Fund provides grants to public housing  agencies for the major repair and modernization of the units.
Under the tenant-based Section 8 program, eligible households select their  own units in the private housing market and receive subsidies to cover part  of the rent.  Public housing agencies that participate in the tenant-based  Section 8 program enter into contracts with HUD and receive HUD funds to  provide rent subsidies to the owners of private housing on behalf of the  assisted households.
Fiscal year 2000 was the first year that public housing agencies were  required to submit a five-year plan and an annual plan.  This requirement  only applies to public housing agencies that receive HUD funds to provide  housing under the low-rent or tenant-based Section 8 programs.  The five- year plan describes the agency’s mission and its long-range goals and  objectives for achieving its mission over the subsequent 5 years.  The  annual plan details the agency’s immediate objectives and strategies for  achieving these goals, as well as the agency’s policies and procedures.  For  agencies that manage low-rent units, the annual plan also serves as the  application for the capital fund and public housing drug elimination grant  programs.  HUD distributes these grants on a formula basis.
The Public Housing Reform Act sets forth requirements governing the  submission, review, and approval of agency plans.  Plans must be submitted  to HUD 75 days before the start of the agency’s fiscal year.  In addition, the  plans are to be developed by the public housing agency in consultation with  a resident advisory board and be consistent with other HUD-required  community planning documents.  Public housing agencies are also required  to hold a public hearing on the plans and to address comments received  during the hearing before submitting the plans to HUD.  HUD, in turn, must  review submitted plans to determine that they contain the information  required by the act, agree with information from other data sources  available to HUD such as community planning documents, and comply  with other applicable laws.  HUD must issue a written notice either  approving or disapproving the plans within 75 days of its receipt of the  plans.  If HUD does not meet this deadline, plans are considered approved.
section_title: Most Public Housing Agencies Have Approved Fiscal Year 2000 Plans, and HUD Is Considering Sanctions against Those That Do Not
paragraphs: For fiscal year 2000, 4,055 required plans had been submitted to and  approved by HUD, and 89 required plans had not been approved.  The 89  unapproved plans were in varying stages: 53 plans had not been submitted;  34 plans had been submitted, disapproved due to cited deficiencies, and not  yet resubmitted with the deficiencies corrected; and 2 plans were in the  process of being reviewed by HUD.  Of the housing agencies that should  have had approved plans but did not, 76 provide housing through tenant- based Section 8 units only.  The remaining 13 manage low-rent units only or  a combination of low-rent and tenant-based Section 8 units.
HUD is considering sanctions against all public housing agencies that do  not have approved fiscal year 2000 agency plans.  Since agencies that  manage low-rent units use the annual plan as the application for their  capital fund and public housing drug elimination formula grants, HUD does  not plan to release the fiscal year 2000 formula grants to agencies without  approved plans.  Although these grant funds have been committed to the  agencies based on the formula allocation, the funds have not been released  to agencies without approved fiscal year 2000 plans and are not available  for those agencies’ use.  According to a HUD official, any agency that  manages low-rent units and did not submit its annual plan to HUD by  September 30, 2001, may lose its capital fund and public housing drug  elimination program formula grants for fiscal year 2000.  Fourteen public  housing agencies may lose about $2.6 million in fiscal year 2000 capital  fund grants and one of these agencies may also lose a $39,426 public  housing drug elimination program grant.
HUD is considering a similar sanction for those public housing agencies  that administer only tenant-based Section 8 units and do not have approved  fiscal year 2000 plans.  While tenant-based Section 8-only agencies make up  24 percent of all housing agencies, they represent 85 percent of agencies  without approved plans.  For these agencies, HUD could withhold a portion  of the administrative fees these public housing agencies receive for  managing the tenant-based Section 8 program.  In addition, HUD requires  these public housing agencies to have approved fiscal year 2000 plans to be  eligible for additional Section 8 vouchers in fiscal year 2002.
section_title: HUD Field Locations Had Mixed Views Regarding the Fiscal Year 2000 Review Process but Believe Plans Have Value and Are Generally Being Implemented
paragraphs: The majority of HUD field locations reported that they experienced some  problems with the fiscal year 2000 plan review process but were able to  complete almost all reviews.  Some of these problems were addressed in  the fiscal year 2001 process.  A majority of respondents reported that the  fiscal year 2000 plans were useful in helping HUD field locations identify  certain housing agency needs but believed the plans were more important  to housing agencies with low-rent units than to housing agencies that  administer only tenant-based Section-8 units.  Most respondents also  believed that agencies are implementing their fiscal year 2000 plans, but  many also believed that agencies are having difficulty implementing some  portions of the plans.
subsections: section_title: HUD Field Locations Experienced Problems with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Review but Approved Almost All Plans
paragraphs: Seventy-four percent of field locations that responded to our survey  reported problems or difficulties with the fiscal year 2000 plan review and  approval process.  For example, over 50 percent of respondents said that  the electronic transmission of plans from housing agencies to HUD and the  conversion of plans into a readable format once received at HUD had a  negative or very negative effect on their ability to review and approve  plans.  Respondents also reported that HUD-provided guidance on the plan  process was less than adequate.  One respondent reported that  headquarters guidance at the beginning of the process was not very good  and was delayed in getting to the field locations, while another reported  that changing rules made it difficult to know what the housing agencies  should do and what the field locations should look for in reviewing plans.
Changes that have been made for the 2001 plan process suggest that  lessons learned and experience gained during the first year resulted in  some improvements, but it is too early to determine whether these changes  have fully resolved the problems.  For example, several respondents  reported that technical data transmission and conversion problems were  less frequent for fiscal year 2001.  They also reported that HUD  headquarters had streamlined guidance and provided it in a timelier  manner.  HUD headquarters officials also cited several initiatives  undertaken as a result of lessons learned during the first year, including  developing a database to better track agency plan information, hiring a new  contractor to manage the database, and providing consolidated guidance in  the form of a desk guide to assist housing agencies and field locations.
Respondents reported that, for fiscal year 2000, almost half of the plans  reviewed had to be resubmitted by the housing agencies because of  deficiencies.  The majority of field locations said that deficiencies requiring  correction and resubmission commonly occurred in the plans’ sections  documenting capital improvement needs, the housing needs of the  community, and the fulfillment of resident participation requirements.   Among the problems with capital improvement sections were the omission  or incompleteness of required documentation, such as plans for the use of  the agency’s capital funds.  Regarding the sections on determining housing  needs, some agencies submitted data sources on housing availability that  were unclear or conflicted with other local planning documents.  Regarding  the sections describing resident participation, one field location that has a  large number of small housing agencies in its jurisdiction reported that its  agencies had trouble finding residents willing to participate in the planning  process and that this was reflected in their plans.
section_title: HUD Field Locations Generally View Plans as Valuable but Less Important to Section 8-only Agencies
paragraphs: Between 60 and 72 percent of survey respondents indicated they found the  plans helpful in identifying public housing agency needs relative to setting  operational priorities, developing resident participation, and planning  strategically.  Some also reported that the planning process helped field  locations provide technical assistance to housing agencies on identified  problem areas.  For example, one respondent reported that the plan review  process enabled the field locations to provide technical assistance to public  housing agencies in the areas of setting priorities and effective strategic  planning.
Responses to our survey suggested that field locations think that the plans  are more important for agencies with low-rent units than for agencies with  only tenant-based Section 8 units.  Specifically, about 70 percent of  respondents thought the plans were important in setting operational  priorities for agencies that maintain low-rent units, while only 40 percent  thought they were important in setting operational priorities for agencies  with tenant-based Section 8 units only.  One respondent commented that  operating a tenant-based Section 8 program has substantially different  planning needs than operating a low-rent housing program.  According to  this respondent, because tenant-based Section 8 units are located in  privately-owned housing, there is no “physical asset” for the tenant-based  Section 8 agency to maintain, and other problems with being a landlord or  owner are not present.  The fact that the plan serves as a grant application  for agencies that operate the low-rent program, but not for agencies that  operate the tenant-based Section 8 program only, may also contribute to  the respondents’ opinion that plans are less important to these agencies.
section_title: Field Locations Believe Agencies Can Implement Their Plans but Are Having Some Problems
paragraphs: About 72 percent of respondents believed that, for the most part, housing  agencies can implement the plans they developed, submitted, and had  approved.  At the same time, about 54 percent of respondents said housing  agencies are having difficulty implementing the resident participation  requirement.  A recurring theme from several respondents was that  housing agencies had difficulty getting residents interested in forming or  participating on resident advisory boards.  Several respondents  emphasized that getting participation in small and tenant-based Section 8  only housing agencies was especially difficult.  In addition, some  respondents said that it is difficult to get residents appointed to the housing  agencies’ board of directors in some areas, as is required.
section_title: Public Housing Agencies We Visited Had Differing Experiences with the Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Process
paragraphs: Staff at the eight public housing agencies we visited described varying  experiences with the fiscal year 2000 plan process.  For example, some  found the process useful, while others did not; some found HUD guidance  helpful, while others did not.  Generally, larger agencies had more positive  responses than did smaller agencies.  While the information collected on  our visits cannot be generalized to the universe of public housing agencies,  it provides insight into individual public housing agencies’ concerns.
The public housing agencies we visited held varying views on the  usefulness of the fiscal year 2000 process.  Four had positive experiences,  two did not, and two had no comment.  One of the larger agencies told us  that the first year of the plan process was useful because it forced the  agency to review and update its policies.  This agency also uses the plan as  a training aid for newly hired staff and believes the plan is useful as a  vehicle for obtaining resident input.  The other larger agency said that the  plan is useful in the agency’s strategic planning.  In contrast, the two small  agencies we visited reported that they did not find the process useful:  One  said that it took time away from the staff’s essential day-to-day operational  duties.  The other said it perceived no value in the plan process.
Although the amount and type of resources that agencies devoted to the  plan process for fiscal year 2000 varied, seven of the eight public housing  agencies we visited told us they used additional staff or resources in  developing their fiscal year 2000 plans.  Three of the eight used consultants  to develop their plans.  One extra-large agency hired an additional staff  person specifically to coordinate development of its fiscal year 2000 plans.   In contrast to the other seven public housing agencies we visited, a  medium-sized agency told us that it did not spend significantly more staff  time or additional resources preparing the plans because most of the  required updating of operational policies had been completed earlier.
All eight housing agencies we visited expressed some frustration with the  quantity or quality of HUD guidance for the first year, particularly regarding  the agency plan template that HUD provided electronically to serve as a  guide to developing and formatting the agency plans.  Although each of the  eight agencies had some negative feelings about the template, some  balanced their comments with positive remarks.  For example, one extra- large agency told us that the template provided guidance for formatting the  plan submission.  A large agency we visited told us that the template was  sufficiently easy to use and added that, in its opinion, HUD had improved  the template for fiscal year 2001.  On the other hand, one of the small  agencies told us that the template does not give individual housing agencies  the flexibility to describe unusual situations relating to local needs.  In  addition, one of the medium-sized agencies told us that the template was  not user friendly.
Agencies also had mixed experiences with the resident participation  requirement for the fiscal year 2000 plan.  For example, one extra-large  public housing agency, with a widely dispersed housing inventory and  several different types of resident populations, had a positive experience.   Staff at this agency said that the resident participation requirement brought  together a cross-section of residents that would otherwise not have met  and provided these residents with an appreciation of the competing needs  of resident populations and the commensurate difficulty the housing  agency faced in meeting those needs.  The other extra-large agency told us  that its experience with this requirement was positive because the planning  process generally encouraged resident participation.  In contrast, one of  the small agencies told us that resident apathy made it difficult to meet this  requirement.
section_title: Observations
paragraphs: Our work raised questions about the relative value and burden of the  planning process for two groups of public housing agencies.  Survey  responses highlighted questions about the value of the plans to those  agencies that administer only tenant-based Section 8 units, while  comments received during our visits to eight agencies suggested that small  agencies may find less value in the planning process and that the process  puts a greater burden on their resources.  As we did not visit a  representative sample of small public housing agencies, further  examination of these agencies’ experiences, including those that provide  housing only through the tenant-based Section 8 program, would be needed  to determine the value of annual plans to these agencies.  As agreed with  your offices, we are planning to further investigate the challenges facing  small housing agencies, especially the impact and benefits of regulatory  and administrative requirements.  As many of the smaller agencies provide  housing only through the tenant-based Section 8 program, this work might  also provide some insights into the usefulness and applicability of the plans  for this type of public housing agency.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The mandate in Section 511 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility  Act of 1998 required that we review and audit a representative sample of  the nation’s housing agencies that are required to submit agency plans.   This is a universe of over 4,000 housing agencies.  When we met with you  and your office to clarify our reporting requirements under the mandate,  we agreed that available resources and reporting deadlines would not  permit us to review and audit a representative sample of these housing  agencies and their plans.  We also agreed that a survey of HUD field  locations to assess HUD’s management of the fiscal year 2000 agency plan  process would serve as a proxy to auditing the universe of housing  agencies, as each HUD field location has direct knowledge of all housing  agencies within its respective jurisdiction and was responsible for  reviewing and approving those agencies’ plans.  We agreed to supplement  this survey by collecting data on the status of all required plans and by  visiting a nonrepresentative sample of public housing agencies to gain  insight into particular agencies’ experiences.
To determine the status of plans submitted to and approved by HUD for  fiscal year 2000, we interviewed HUD Public and Indian Housing policy  development, Grants Management Center, and program officials.  We also  obtained data from several Public and Indian Housing databases on public  housing agencies and fiscal year 2000 approved plans.  We analyzed the  data, discussed it with HUD staff, and resolved any discrepancies in the  data with HUD staff.
To assess HUD’s management of the fiscal year 2000 agency plan review  process, we developed an automated survey instrument that we posted on  our Web site.  We requested that all 43 HUD Public and Indian Housing field  offices and both troubled agency recovery centers complete the survey.   These HUD field locations are responsible for reviewing and approving  agency plans.  We sent E-mail messages asking officials at these field  offices and recovery centers to fill out the questionnaire.  We received  responses from 41 field offices and both troubled agency recovery centers,  which is a 96 percent response rate.  Field locations responding to our  survey were responsible for reviewing 4,033 or about 97 percent of the  plans required to be submitted in fiscal year 2000.  Our survey results  reflect the information provided by the HUD officials.  We did not  independently verify the field locations’ responses to our questions.
During the design of the questionnaire, we pretested our questionnaire with  officials from two field offices and modified it on the basis of the feedback  and comments we received during the pretests.  In addition, we obtained  comments on the questionnaire from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian  Housing.
To assess selected public housing agencies’ experiences with the fiscal year  2000 agency plan process, we visited eight geographically dispersed  agencies with low-rent and tenant-based Section 8 units.  We selected the  eight housing agencies based on criteria such as size and performance  designation, which determines the type of plans each agency is required to  submit.  We interviewed the executive director or other staff responsible  for preparing the agency plans, residents, and resident board members. We  also reviewed documents supporting the agencies’ fiscal year 2000 plans.   In addition, we contacted public housing industry groups to obtain their  constituents’ perspectives on the first year of the required planning  process.
We conducted our review from January 2001 through March 2002 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to HUD to obtain comments.  On May 2,  2002, the deputy assistant secretary for policy, programs, and legislative  initiatives, Office of Public and Indian Housing, provided oral comments.  HUD generally agreed with the draft and provided editorial and clarifying  comments that were incorporated in the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and members of Congress; the secretary of HUD; and other  interested parties. We also will make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have further questions, please call me at (202) 512-7631.  The key  contact and other contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Briefing Slides to Congressional Staff on HUD and Public Housing Agencies’ Experiences with Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements
subsections: section_title: A HUD official stated that field offices have contacted all
paragraphs: PHAs without approved plans in an effort to obtain fiscal year 2000 plans.  The official added that 14 Low- Rent/Combined PHAs that did not submit fiscal year 2000 plans by September 30, 2001, may forfeit their fiscal year 2000 formula grant funds.
Fourteen PHAs may forfeit about $2.6 million in capital fund program grants.
One PHA also may forfeit a $39,426 public housing drug elimination program grant.
subsections: section_title: A HUD official noted that, as tenant-based Section 8-only PHAs do
paragraphs: not receive formula funds, HUD could not take the same action against the 76 tenant-based Section 8-only PHAs that do not have approved fiscal year 2000 plans.  To address this issue, HUD  could withhold a portion of the administrative fees tenant- based Section 8-only PHAs receive for managing the program, pending submission and approval of the required plans, and  requires PHAs to have an approved fiscal year 2000 plan in order to apply for additional Section 8 vouchers for fiscal year 2002.
Seventy-four percent of HUD field offices that responded to our survey reported they experienced problems with the fiscal year 2000 review process. Specific problems included  data transmission delays.  Technical problems occurred during the following steps:  PHAs’ transmission of plans to HUD headquarters.  HUD headquarters’ transmission of plans to HUD field offices.
HUD headquarters’ posting of plan approval notification.  a general lack of guidance from HUD headquarters, including  delayed guidance on how to review plans.  changing guidance on how to help PHAs complete plans.
HUD took action to address reported problems for fiscal year 2001 plan submissions.  Specific changes included  developing a new database to track plan approval and hiring a contractor to manage it, and  providing more timely guidance, such as a field office desk guide for reviewing the plans.
section_title: Survey respondents reported that 49 percent of the fiscal year 2000
paragraphs: agency plans had to be resubmitted.  The most common deficiencies for which plans had to be resubmitted related to PHAs’ completion of the following plan components:  capital improvement needs.  statement of housing needs.  resident participation requirement.
section_title: A majority of HUD field offices that responded to our survey said
paragraphs: plans were useful in helping the field office identify a number of PHA needs.
Plans Moderately to Extremely Useful in Identifying Specific PHA Needs (percentage of field offices)
section_title: A higher percentage of field offices responded to our survey that the plan was important in helping PHAs set management priorities for low-rent units than for Section 8 units because many components of the plan do not apply to the Section 8 program.
paragraphs: Plan Is Important for Setting Management Priorities for Types of Units (percent of field offices)
section_title: A majority of field offices responded to our survey that PHAs are
paragraphs: implementing their fiscal year 2000 plans.  The most commonly cited problem areas concerned the following plan components.
Plan Components PHAs Reported Difficulty In Implementing  (percentage of field offices)
section_title: Field offices reported the following reasons for PHAs’ problems
paragraphs: implementing particular plan components:  Resident participation: Resident apathy made it difficult for some PHAs, especially small and Section 8-only PHAs, to fulfill this requirement.
Capital improvement plans: PHAs were affected by funding constraints or shortages.
Statement of housing needs: Small and rural PHAs with limited resources had difficulty gathering the relevant information, such as local demographics.
section_title: Groups representing PHAs generally agreed that their members
paragraphs: found the plan process quite difficult for fiscal year 2000, the first year.  Problems cited included the following:  PHAs were unable to obtain meaningful information from HUD on reasons plans were disapproved.
Some PHAs found it hard to establish resident advisory boards.
Small PHAs lacked the resources and staff to complete the plans.
PHAs’ assessment of the usefulness of the plans varied at the eight PHAs we visited.  Larger PHAs generally had more positive assessments than smaller PHAs.
Positive remarks: The process and plans  helped the PHA get other local funding,  forced the PHA to review and update policies,  gave PHA residents a vehicle for input, and  are used for strategic planning, as a training aid, and as an information source for HUD field offices.
Negative remarks: The process and plans  took time away from other duties, and  are not used.
section_title: On the other hand, one PHA said it did not spend significantly more
paragraphs: staff time or resources preparing the plans because most of the required updating of policies had already been completed before HUD provided guidance for plans.
section_title: The PHAs’ we visited assessment of the helpfulness of HUD’s
paragraphs: template also varied.
Positive remarks: The template  provided guidance for formatting,  was sufficiently easy to use, and  was improved for fiscal year 2001.
Negative remarks: The template  lacked flexibility,  did not sufficiently define terms such as “affordability” and “quality”, and  was not user friendly, as PHAs had to go to several HUD sources to complete it.
PHAs’ we visited assessment of the resident participation requirement also varied.
Positive remarks: The resident participation requirement  brought a cross-section of residents together, and  encouraged resident participation.
Negative remark: The resident participation requirement  was difficult to sustain because of resident apathy.
section_title: At PHAs and HUD offices we visited, we observed that the burden
paragraphs: and value of the plans varied.
Smaller PHAs we visited viewed the process and plans  as consuming a larger portion of their resources, and  as having limited value.
Most HUD field offices and some larger PHAs we visited  as a valuable tool to help PHAs define their strategic vision and monitor their progress toward management goals, and  as having limited value to tenant-based Section 8-only PHAs.
HUD made changes for fiscal year 2001 plans, including  simplified plans for small PHAs, and  modified requirements for tenant-based Section 8-only PHAs.
section_title: While the vast majority of PHAs have submitted and had their fiscal
paragraphs: year 2000 plans approved, tenant-based Section 8-only PHAs have a higher rate of noncompliance.  Tenant-based Section 8- only PHAs are  24 percent of all PHAs, and  85 percent of PHAs without approved plans.
HUD has recently determined that it can sanction tenant-based Section 8-only PHAs that fail to submit plans.  HUD   could withhold a portion of the administrative fee, and  requires an approved fiscal year 2000 plan for PHAs to be eligible for additional vouchers for fiscal year 2002.
section_title: Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Johnnie Barnes, Sherrill Dunbar,  Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Miko Johnson, John McGrail, Luann Moy, Don  Watson, and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs