Public Housing: Information on the Roles of HUD, Public Housing Agencies, Capital Markets, and Service Organizations
Published: 2006-02-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Under the Public Housing Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local public housing agencies (PHA) provide housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. Today, over 3,000 PHAs administer approximately 1.2 million public housing units throughout the nation. First authorized in 1937, the program has undergone changes over the decades. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 increased managerial flexibility but also established new requirements for housing agencies. Some observers have questioned the program's ability to provide quality, affordable housing to the nation's neediest families. This testimony, which is based upon a number of reports that GAO has issued related to public housing since 2002, discusses the roles of (1) HUD (2) public housing agencies, (3) capital markets, and (4) community services organizations in the public housing system.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Traditionally, HUD's role has been to provide PHAs with funding, guidance, and oversight. HUD provides both capital and operating funding. In addition, HUD has provided selected agencies with grants under the HOPE VI program to demolish and revitalize severely distressed public housing and provide community and supportive services. HUD provides guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations and explicitly convey required program policies and procedures. Based on past work, GAO has made recommendations to HUD to improve the clarity and timeliness of its guidance to PHAs and to improve its oversight of the program. PHAs are responsible for managing public housing in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements. They are also required to develop and submit plans detailing the agency's goals and strategies for reaching these goals. Further, PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are required to provide residents with supportive services. GAO's work has identified challenges that the agencies face in carrying out their responsibilities, including difficulty with HUD's data systems and lack of resources for hiring and training staff. GAO has not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can play a role in the public housing system, but its examination of the HOPE VI program and other work has identified examples of leveraging federal funds with funds from a variety of other public and private sources. HUD encourages public housing agencies to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding from other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units developed at project sites. The examples GAO has found include private funding for both capital projects and the provision of supportive services. PHAs may utilize community service organizations to assist public housing residents. Work GAO has done on federal housing programs that benefit the elderly, as well as recent work focused on public housing for the elderly and residents with disabilities, identified examples of supportive services being offered or provided to public housing residents. Such services may be provided through HUD grants as well as through partnerships between public housing agencies and community-based nonprofit organizations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to be here today as the Committee considers  the nation’s public housing. The Public Housing Program was established  in 1937 to provide decent and safe rental housing for low-income families.  Congress annually appropriates funds for the program, and the  Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates them to  local public housing agencies (PHA). Today, over 3,000 PHAs administer  approximately 1.2 million public housing units throughout the nation  under HUD’s oversight.
My statement is based on a number of reports that we have issued related  to public housing, primarily since 2002. The topics of these reports have  included (1) how HUD assesses PHAs’ performance and the steps it takes  to remedy poor performance; (2) the agencies’ experiences with reforms  instituted by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA)  of 1998; (3) various aspects of the HOPE VI program for revitalizing  severely distressed public housing; and (4) most recently, the condition of  public housing for the elderly and disabled. As you requested, my  statement discusses the roles of (1) HUD (2) public housing agencies, (3)  capital markets, and (4) community services organizations in the public  housing system. In preparing this information, we excerpted and  summarized information from reports issued between 2002 and 2005. A list  of these reports appears at the end of this statement.
Traditionally, HUD’s role has been to provide PHAs with funding,  guidance, and oversight. HUD provides both capital and operating funding.  In addition, HUD has provided selected agencies with grants under the  HOPE VI program to demolish and revitalize severely distressed public  housing and provide community and supportive services. HUD provides  guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations and explicitly convey  required program policies and procedures. Based on our past work, we  have made recommendations to HUD to improve the clarity and timeliness  of its guidance to PHAs, and to improve its oversight of the program.
PHAs are responsible for managing public housing in accordance with  HUD regulations and requirements. They are also required to develop and  submit plans detailing the agency’s goals and strategies for reaching these  goals. Further, PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are required to provide  residents with supportive services. Our work has identified challenges that  the agencies face in carrying out their responsibilities, including difficulty  with HUD’s data systems and lack of resources for hiring and training  staff.
While we have not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can play a  role in the public housing system, our examination of the HOPE VI  program and other work has identified examples of leveraging federal  funds with funds from a variety of other public and private sources. HUD  encourages PHAs to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding from  other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units  developed at project sites. The examples we have found include private  funding for both capital projects and the provision of supportive services.
PHAs may utilize community service organizations to assist public housing  residents. Work we have done on federal housing programs that benefit  the elderly, as well as recent work focused on public housing for the  elderly and residents with disabilities, identified examples of supportive  services being offered or provided to public housing residents. Such  services may be provided through HUD grants as well as through  partnerships between PHAs and community-based nonprofit  organizations.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Under the U. S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Congress created the  federal public housing program to provide decent and safe rental housing  for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.  HUD administers the program with PHAs, typically local agencies created  under state law that manage housing for low-income residents at rents  they can afford. Agencies that participate in the program contract with  HUD to provide housing to eligible low-income households and, in return,  receive financial assistance from HUD. Public housing comes in all sizes  and types, from scattered single-family houses to high-rise apartments.
In 1992, Congress established the HOPE VI program, which is  administered by HUD. The program provides grants to PHAs to  rehabilitate or rebuild severely distressed public housing and improve the  lives of public housing residents through supportive services. In 2003,  Congress expanded the statutory definition of “severely distressed public  housing” for the purpose of HOPE VI to include indicators of social  distress, such as a lack of supportive services and economic opportunities.  Between fiscal years 1993 and 2005, Congress appropriated $6.8 billion for  the HOPE VI program.
In addition to managing public housing, some PHAs administer other HUD  programs that provide housing assistance for low-income households.  Under the Housing Choice Voucher Program, about 2,500 participating  PHAs enter into contracts with HUD and receive funds to provide rent  subsidies to the owners of private housing on behalf of assisted low- income households. In addition, PHAs assist in administering HUD’s  project-based rental assistance programs, through which HUD pays  subsidies to private owners of multifamily housing that help make this  housing affordable for lower income households.
section_title: HUD Provides Funding, Guidance, and Oversight for Local PHAs
paragraphs: Traditionally, HUD has provided funding to local PHAs to manage the  public housing system, as well as for the revitalization of severely  distressed public housing. HUD’s role has also included providing PHAs  with guidance and overseeing their performance, including providing  technical assistance.
subsections: section_title: Funding and Guidance
paragraphs: HUD provides funding to housing agencies through two formula grant  programs: the Operating Fund and the Capital Fund. The Operating Fund  provides annual subsidies to housing agencies to make up the difference  between the amount they collect in rent and the cost of operating the  units. The Capital Fund provides grants to PHAs for the major repair and  modernization of the units. In addition, HUD has provided selected  agencies with grants under the HOPE VI program to help housing agencies  replace and revitalize severely distressed public housing with physical and  community and supportive service improvements. As shown in table 1, this  HUD funding has totaled about $31.5 billion over the past 5 fiscal years.
In exchange for capital and operating funding, PHAs enter into annual  contributions contracts. According to this written contract, HUD agrees to  make payments to the PHA and the PHA agrees to administer the housing  program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements. HUD  provides guidance to PHAs to supplement its regulations, and explicitly  convey required program policies and procedures.
Some of our past work has shown a need for HUD to improve the clarity  and/or timeliness of its guidance to housing authorities. For example:    For our 2002 review of HUD’s and housing agencies’ experiences in  preparing annual plans required by the Quality Housing and Work  Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), we surveyed HUD field offices and  interviewed eight PHAs to gain insight into their experiences.  Respondents reported that HUD-provided guidance on the planning  process was less than adequate. One respondent reported that  headquarters guidance was delayed in getting to field locations, while  another reported that changing rules made it difficult to know what the  PHAs should do and what the field locations should look for in reviewing  plans. However, some PHAs balanced their comments with positive  remarks; for example, one large agency told us that HUD had improved the  template for fiscal year 2001. HUD provided a desk guide to assist housing  agencies and field locations in fiscal year 2001, in an effort to improve the  planning process.
In surveying the directors of PHAs on their experiences with a number of  QHWRA housing reforms, we again found late and unclear guidance from  HUD. Public housing directors reported having to spend more  administrative time in implementing reforms, partially due to a lack of  clear guidance from HUD.
In reviewing HUD’s management of the HOPE VI program, we found that  the department’s guidance on the role of field offices was unclear, and, as  a result, some field offices did not seem to understand their role in HOPE  VI oversight. For example, some officials stated that they had not  performed annual reviews of HOPE VI projects because they did not think  they had the authority to monitor grants. Based upon these findings, we  recommended that the Secretary of HUD clarify the role of HUD field  offices in HOPE VI oversight and ensure that the offices conduct required  annual reviews of HOPE VI grants. HUD agreed with this recommendation  and published new guidance in March 2004 that clarified the role of the  HUD field offices and changed the annual review requirements.
section_title: Oversight and Technical Assistance
paragraphs: HUD is responsible for overseeing PHAs’ overall performance and for  helping agencies improve their performance (see fig. 1). In 1997, as a part  of its 2020 Management Reform Plan, HUD instituted a new approach for  evaluating PHAs’ performance. The approach includes “scoring” each of  several categories of performance, assigning each housing agency to a risk  category, designating agencies as “troubled” if their scores are  substandard and, in some cases, appointing receivers to actively manage  the agencies. Also as a part of its oversight, HUD identifies housing  agencies that need technical assistance. HUD’s technical assistance  involves activities such as training housing agency staff on how to use  HUD systems or comply with reporting requirements.
HUD uses the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) to evaluate  public housing agencies’ performance, while its Public and Indian Housing  Information Center (PIC) risk assessment uses the PHAS score and  information about funding and compliance issues to classify housing  authorities as high, moderate, or low risk. PHAS is designed to evaluate  housing agencies’ overall performance in managing rental units, including  the physical condition of units, soundness of agencies’ financial  operations, the effectiveness of their management operations, and the  level of resident satisfaction with the services and living conditions. HUD  designed the PIC system to facilitate a Web-based exchange of data  between PHAs and local HUD offices. PIC contains a detailed inventory of  public housing units and information about them, including the number of  developments and units, age of the development, and the extent to which  apartment units are accessible for persons with disabilities. The system  also tracks tenant (household) information, such as age, disability status,  and income.
Our past work has identified opportunities for HUD to improve its  oversight of housing agencies and it provision of technical assistance. For  example:  In 2002, we reported that the results of the PHAS and PIC systems were  inconsistent. Specifically, in comparing information in the two systems,  we found that 12 of the agencies that HUD—using PHAS scores—had  determined were “troubled” were classified in the PIC system as “low”  risk. Accordingly, we recommended that HUD classify all troubled housing  authorities as high risk to better ensure that they receive sufficient  monitoring. HUD agreed with our recommendation and incorporated it  into its risk-assessment system.
In preparing a 2002 report on HUD’s human capital management, directors  of several HUD field offices told us that they lacked the staff to provide the  level of oversight and technical assistance that the housing authorities  need. In light of this and other findings, we recommended that the  Secretary of HUD develop a comprehensive strategic workforce plan. HUD  subsequently hired a contractor to develop a Strategic Workforce Plan,  which it completed in 2004. The plan includes analysis of current and  future demand for staff and an analysis of the skills and competencies  needed to accomplish tasks.
In our October 2003 report, we noted that small agencies are more likely to  require assistance with the day-to-day management of HUD programs and  that HUD does not maintain centralized, detailed information on the types  of assistance PHAs require or request from them. HUD reported that it  was developing a system that would allow it to collect such information in  the future.
In 2005, we reported on HUD’s efforts to assess PHAs’ compliance with its  policies for determining rent subsidies. We found that HUD had  undertaken special reviews that, while useful, had suffered from a lack of  clear policies and procedures and that the training and guidance HUD  provided to PHAs on its policies for determining rent subsidies were not  consistently adequate or timely. We recommended that the HUD Secretary  (1) make regular monitoring of PHAs’ compliance with HUD’s policies for  determining rent subsidies a permanent part of HUD’s oversight activities  and (2) collect complete and consistent information from these monitoring  efforts and use it to help focus corrective actions where needed. HUD  concurred with the recommendations but has not yet fully implemented  them.
HUD can take enforcement actions against PHAs that it identifies, through  PHAS, as being “troubled.” For such agencies, HUD assigns a recovery  team and develops a plan to remedy the problems. Initially, HUD may offer  technical assistance and training, but it may also sanction an authority; for  example, by withholding funding. Ultimately, HUD may place a PHA under  an administrative receivership, in which a receiver replaces the top  management of the agency. Additionally, some PHAs may have receivers  appointed by judges (these are known as judicial receivers). In February  2003, we reported that under administrative or judicial receivers, nearly all  of the 15 agencies under receivership showed improvement during their  years of receivership, according to changes in HUD’s assessed scores  and/or other evidence. The four PHAs under judicial receiverships  generally had continued to demonstrate strong performance. While PHAs  under administrative receiverships had also made improvements, some  continued to demonstrate a significant problem with housing units being  in very poor physical condition.
Finally, HUD’s headquarters and field offices are responsible for  overseeing PHAs’ use of HOPE VI grants. In 2003, we reported that HUD’s  oversight of HOPE VI grants had been inconsistent due to staffing  limitations, confusion about the role of field offices, and a lack of formal  enforcement policies. Based upon these findings, we recommended that  HUD clarify the role of its field offices in HOPE VI oversight; ensure that  the offices conduct required annual reviews of HOPE VI grants; and  develop a formal, written enforcement policy to hold PHAs accountable  for the status of their grants. HUD agreed with these recommendations  and clarified the role of HUD field offices, changed the annual review  requirements, and developed an enforcement policy, which it shared with  grantees in December 2003.
section_title: PHAs Are Responsible for Managing Public Housing in Accordance with HUD Regulations and Requirements
paragraphs: Generally, PHAs are responsible for administering the public housing  program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements.  Specifically, PHAs must provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to their  residents, manage their financial resources, meet HUD’s standards for  management operations, and address residents’ satisfaction. Among other  things, PHAs are responsible for ensuring that tenants are eligible for  public housing and that tenant subsidies are calculated properly. PHAs are  also required to develop both short- and long-term plans outlining their  goals and strategies. PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants are subject to  additional requirements associated with those grants; for example, the  agencies must provide residents of HOPE VI sites with certain types of  supportive services.
During the 1990s, PHAs gained broader latitude from HUD and the  Congress to establish their own policies in areas such as selecting tenants  and setting rent levels. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act  of 1998 (QHWRA), which extensively amended the U.S. Housing Act of  1937, allowed PHAs to exercise still more discretion over rents and  admissions. For example, QHWRA increased managerial flexibility by,  among other things, making HUD-provided capital and operating funds  more fungible, allowing housing authorities to sell some units to residents,  and developing mixed-income housing units in order to bring more  working and upwardly mobile families into public housing.
QHWRA also established new requirements for housing agencies,  including, for example, mandatory reporting requirements in the form of a  5-year plan and annual reporting plans. Five-year plans include long-range  goals, while annual plans detail the agency’s objectives and strategies for  achieving these goals, as well as the agency’s policies and procedures. For  our May 2002 report, we examined PHAs’ experiences in preparing the  first of their required plans. We visited eight PHAs in the course of this  work, and found that their views differed on the usefulness of the planning  process and the level of resources required to prepare the plans, among  other things. In June 2003, in response to concerns that some QHWRA  reforms were placing an undue burden on small PHAs, HUD issued  regulations allowing small PHAs to submit streamlined annual plans. We  have not revisited this issue, and therefore cannot say how HUD or the  PHAs view the usefulness of the plans today.
QHWRA also required PHAs to implement a number of additional reforms  that affect the Public Housing Program. For our October 2003 report, we  surveyed PHAs to find out their views on 18 key changes brought about by  QHWRA and to see if views differed among large, medium, and small  agencies. Some agencies in each size category viewed both the 5-year  plan and the annual plan requirements as helpful to them in managing and  operating their programs, although proportionately fewer small agencies  had this view. We also found that agencies of all sizes reported spending  more time on HUD-subsidized programs after QHWRA than before the  reforms were enacted, in part because of increased reporting  requirements, difficulties in submitting data to HUD, and lack of resources  for hiring and training.
PHAs that receive HOPE VI grants to revitalize public housing must obtain  HUD’s approval for their revitalization plans and must report project  status information to HUD. The agencies are also required to offer  community and supportive services—such as child care, transportation,  job training, job placement and retention services, and parenting classes— to all original residents of public housing affected by HOPE VI projects,  regardless of their intention to return to the revitalized site. In our  November 2002 report on HOPE VI financing, we found that PHAs that had  been awarded grants in fiscal years 1993 to 2001 had budgeted a total of  about $714 million for community and supportive services. Of this  amount, about 59 percent were HOPE VI funds while 41 percent was  leveraged from other resources. In our November 2003 report on HOPE VI  impacts, we reported that limited HUD data on 165 HOPE VI grantees  awarded through fiscal year 2001, and additional information, indicated  that supportive services had achieved or contributed to positive  outcomes.
section_title: Private Capital Has Been Involved in Some HOPE VI Projects
paragraphs: While we have not reviewed the extent to which capital markets can be  used with the public housing system, our reviews of the HOPE VI program  have shown that some PHAs use HOPE VI revitalization grants to leverage  additional funds from a variety of other public and private sources.
HUD encourages PHAs to use their HOPE VI grants to leverage funding  from other sources to increase the number of affordable housing units  developed at HOPE VI sites. Public funding can come from other federal,  state, or local sources. Private sources can include mortgage financing and  financial or in-kind contributions from nonprofit organizations. In our  November 2002 report on HOPE VI project financing, we found that  financial leveraging of projects had shown a general increase over time,  and that PHAs expected to leverage—for every dollar received in HOPE VI  revitalization grants awarded through fiscal year 2001—an additional $1.85  in funds from other sources. Our report also noted that HUD had not  reported annual leveraging and cost information about the HOPE VI  program to the Congress, as it had been required to do since 1998.  Consequently, we recommended that HUD provide annual reports on the  program, including information on the amounts and sources of funding  used at HOPE VI sites, to Congress. In response to this recommendation,  in December 2002, HUD began issuing annual reports that include funding  information.
We also found in the November 2002 report that housing agencies with  HOPE VI revitalization grants expected to leverage $295 million in  additional funds for community and supportive services. In our most  recent report concerning public housing (December 2005), we found that  PHAs have used HOPE VI revitalization grants to leverage additional funds  from a variety of sources, including private loans. In particular, we noted  an example of a renovation and the colocation of supportive services that  were made possible through coordination of efforts and use of mixed  financing—the Allegheny County Housing Authority’s revitalization of the  Homestead Apartments outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The housing  agency built space on-site for two nonprofit elder-care service providers in  addition to remodeling the buildings. Approximately 67 percent of the  funding for the Homestead renovation was based on Low-Income Housing  Tax Credits. Under this program, states are authorized to allocate federal  tax credits as an incentive to the private sector to develop rental housing  for low-income households. While this represents a way for private capital  to be used in conjunction with public housing projects, we noted in our  November 2002 report that such funding does entail a federal cost (in the  form of taxes foregone).
section_title: Community Services Organizations May Provide Supportive Services to Public Housing Residents
paragraphs: PHAs may utilize community service organizations to provide supportive  services to public housing residents. Our recent work has focused on the  services that PHAs can provide to elderly and non-elderly persons with  disabilities.
In a February 2005 report on housing programs that offer assistance for  the elderly, we identified programs that public housing agencies can use to  assist elderly public housing residents. For example, through the  Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency (ROSS) grant program, HUD  awards grants to PHAs for the purpose of linking residents with supportive  services. Also, HUD’s Service Coordinator Program provides funding for  PHA managers of public housing designated for the elderly or persons  with disabilities to hire coordinators to assist residents in obtaining  supportive services from community agencies; and its Congregate Housing  Services Program provides grants for the delivery of meals and  nonmedical supportive services to residents of public and multifamily  housing who are elderly or have disabilities.
For our December 2005 report on public housing for the elderly and  persons with disabilities, we surveyed the directors of 46 PHAs that  manage public housing developments that we identified as both severely  distressed and primarily occupied by the elderly and persons with  disabilities. This work identified examples of partnerships between PHAs  and local organizations such as community-based nonprofits and churches  to provide supportive services for the elderly and non-elderly persons with  disabilities. In some cases, the local agencies paid for the services, while in  others the housing agencies used federal grants. For example:    A building manager for one development that we visited said the  development partnered with a nearby church, which provided a van to  take residents shopping once a week. Local churches also provided food  assistance to elderly residents and residents with disabilities who were not  able to leave their apartments.
At another housing development, a community-based organization  provided lunches on a daily basis to residents and assorted grocery items  such as bread, fruit, and cereal on a weekly basis.
The aforementioned Homestead Apartments—a high-rise, primarily elderly  occupied public housing development—was revitalized to provide  enhanced supportive services to elderly residents, in particular frail  elderly residents. To do so, the housing agency partnered with several non- HUD entities to improve services for the elderly and colocate an assisted  living type of facility at the development. To help the most frail elderly  residents, the housing agency partnered with a nonprofit organization,  which offers complete nursing services, meals, and physical therapy to  Homestead residents who are enrolled in the program. For most  participants, these comprehensive services permitted them to continue  living at home.
In a partnership in Seattle, Washington, the housing agency partnered with  a community-based organization to provide an on-site community center  for the elderly, where residents had access to meals, social activities, and  assistance with filling prescriptions. Residents at this development also  had access to an on-site health clinic.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, over the past few years we have identified  several ways for HUD to improve its administration of the public housing  program. Our work has also identified challenges faced by the local public  housing agencies that play such an essential program delivery role, not  only those associated with implementing the reforms provided under  QHWRA but also such day-to-day matters as correctly determining tenants’  incomes and rents. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee as  it considers the future of the public housing program.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  answer any questions at this time.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact David G. Wood  at (202) 512-8678. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  included Isidro Gomez, Lisa Moore, David Pittman, Paul Schmidt, and  Julie Trinder.
section_title: Related Products
paragraphs: Public Housing: Distressed Conditions in Developments for the Elderly  and Persons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for Improvement.  GAO-06-163. Washington, D.C.: December 9, 2005.
Project-Based Rental Assistance: HUD Should Streamline Its Processes to  Ensure Timely Housing Assistance Payments. GAO-06-57. Washington,  D.C.: November 15, 2005.
HUD Rental Assistance: Progress and Challenges in Measuring and  Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies. GAO-05-224. Washington, D.C.:  February 18, 2005.
Elderly Housing: Federal Housing Programs That Offer Assistance for  the Elderly. GAO-05-174. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2005.
Public Housing: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in  Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites. GAO-04-109. Washington, D.C.:  November 21, 2003.
Public Housing: Small and Larger Agencies Have Similar Views on  Many Recent Housing Reforms. GAO-04-19. Washington, D.C.: October 30,  2003.
Public Housing: HUD’s Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs to Be More  Consistent. GAO-03-555. Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003.
Public Housing: Information on Receiverships at Public Housing  Authorities. GAO-03-363. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of  Housing and Urban Development. GAO-03-103. Washington, D.C.: January  1, 2003.
Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but HUD Has Not  Met Annual Reporting Requirement. GAO-03-91. Washington, D.C.:  November 15, 2002.
HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce  Planning Needed. GAO-02-839. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002.
Public Housing: HUD and Public Housing Agencies’ Experiences with  Fiscal Year 2000 Plan Requirements. GAO-02-572. Washington, D.C.: May  31, 2002.
Public Housing: New Assessment System Holds Potential for Evaluating  Performance. GAO-02-282. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.