We initially designated HUD’s organizational structure a management deficiency in 1994 because the overlapping roles of field offices and headquarters reduced the organization’s effectiveness and prevented management from being accountable for HUD’s programs. At the time of our 1995 report, HUD was reorganizing its field office structure to clarify the lines of programmatic and administrative authority, enhance communications between headquarters and the field, eliminate unnecessary management layers, and improve customer service. In September 1995, HUD completed the field reorganization, eliminating 10 regional offices, transferring authority for field staff and resources to Assistant Secretaries in HUD headquarters, and restructuring the Department’s 81 field offices. To date, HUD has not evaluated the impact that these changes have had on the Department’s effectiveness. HUD is in the process of further reorganization to reduce the size of the headquarters staff and redeploy and train staff. Also, HUD is currently making a study of closing additional field offices. HUD has historically had difficulty maintaining a workforce capable of effectively delivering and monitoring its myriad of programs. In 1995, we reported that the number and qualifications of HUD staff were inadequate to perform essential functions—particularly in light of the Department’s inadequate information systems. In 1997, we reported on HUD’s continued efforts to improve the skills of its staff, noting that in the past 2 years, HUD had increased the amount of training available to staff, encouraged employees to formulate individual development plans, forged partnerships with colleges and universities, and begun a needs assessment process to identify future training needs. In 1995, we also reported that after a decade of problems, HUD’s information systems continued to be poorly integrated, ineffective, and generally unreliable. However, we noted that the Department was committed to correcting its long-standing problems and making its information resources management program more responsive to HUD’s mission. In 1997, we reported that HUD had subsequently taken numerous actions to create a network of flexible, integrated computer systems that will enable program staff to oversee the financial and programmatic integrity of their operations. However, we also noted that some major financial and information systems will not be completed before the year 2001 and that some systems currently cannot be relied on to provide timely, accurate, and reliable information and reports to management. In 1995, we reported that HUD still needed to complete its efforts to address internal control weaknesses. At that time, the Department was developing a new method of integrating management controls into program delivery and budget development by requiring each division to annually identify and rank the risks in each of its programs and to devise a strategy for abating those risks. Our 1997 High-Risk Series report noted that HUD had fully implemented its management planning and control program in fiscal year 1995, but serious problems remain. In addition, we, HUD’s Inspector General, and independent auditors have identified a lack of monitoring in certain programs as a continuing problem. The majority of field directors we surveyed considered the September 1995 field office reorganization successful and believed that it achieved most of HUD’s intended goals. These goals included clarifying the lines of programmatic and administrative authority and accountability, improving communication with HUD’s customers, empowering field managers and staff, and improving communication between headquarters and the field. (See figs. 1 and 2.) Three-quarters of the directors said that, overall, HUD has made excellent or good progress toward the goals of the reorganization. However, the directors from community planning and development (CPD) programs generally had more negative views: They were almost evenly divided between those who said the reorganization’s success was excellent or good and those who said it was only fair or poor. (See app. II, questions 7-9, for the directors’ views on HUD’s progress toward each goal, summarized by type of director.) When asked to rate HUD’s success in terms of each individual goal of the reorganization, the directors indicated that the Department has been most successful in clarifying the lines of programmatic authority and improving communication with HUD’s customers and least successful in clarifying the lines of administrative authority. As noted in figure 2, opinions differed by program area. For example, most multifamily housing directors believed that HUD’s progress toward the goal of empowering staff was excellent or good, whereas the majority of CPD directors said that HUD’s progress toward that goal was only fair or poor. There was a similar variation in the directors’ views on how successful HUD has been in improving communication between headquarters and field offices. Again, most multifamily housing directors said that HUD’s progress toward this goal was excellent or good, whereas almost half of the CPD directors thought that HUD’s progress was only fair (24 percent) or poor (24 percent). Overall success To gauge the effect of HUD’s reorganization and new management approach on the activities conducted in the field, we asked directors whether headquarters placed appropriate emphasis on nine specific activities. (See table 1.) A majority of the directors said that the emphasis that headquarters placed on most activities was about right, although most said that HUD does not place enough emphasis on learning technical skills (67 percent) or cross-training (59 percent). The only objective that was overemphasized was reaching numeric performance goals, according to a significant number of the directors. Forty percent of the directors (and 64 percent of single-family housing directors) said that HUD headquarters placed too much emphasis on this objective. Most directors said they were satisfied with the skills of their staffs. Four out of five directors said they were very satisfied or generally satisfied with their staffs’ skills, and most said that the skills of their staffs had improved greatly or somewhat in the past 2 years. (See app. II, questions 10-14, for the directors’ views on staffs’ skills and training.) As shown on figure 3, for the five types of skills we asked about, they rated their staffs’ technical skills highest, but they had similarly favorable views of their staffs’ interpersonal skills, knowledge of new programs, knowledge of new regulations, and knowledge of information systems. Nonetheless, a significant number of directors said the skills of their staffs were weak in specific areas. The weaknesses they identified varied somewhat by program area. For example, 40 percent of the public housing directors rated their staffs’ interpersonal skills as only fair. More than half of all multifamily housing directors rated their staffs’ knowledge of information systems as fair (39 percent) or poor (17 percent). In addition, a third of the single-family housing directors said their staffs’ knowledge of new regulations was fair. Most directors believed that the quality of training at HUD has improved over the past 2 years; however, many indicated that the quality and quantity of training need additional improvement. Overall, more than a third of the directors said they consider the quality of HUD’s current training only fair. The single-family housing directors were most critical—a majority said HUD’s training was fair or poor. Moreover, while the directors’ responses indicated that the efforts to improve HUD’s training curriculum may have produced some benefits, most directors indicated that their staffs need more training in information systems (88 percent), technical job skills (73 percent), program regulations and changes (67 percent), and interpersonal skills (52 percent). Most directors also believed that maintaining adequate staffing levels is a continuing problem. Seventy-seven percent said that they have fewer staff than they need to effectively carry out essential program activities. This opinion held across program areas, although the directors in some areas were more likely to say that they were short-staffed. For example, 89 percent of the multifamily housing directors reported that they were short-staffed, whereas 61 percent of the single-family housing directors said that they had fewer staff members than they needed. Consistent with the fact that most directors said that they had fewer staff members than they needed, most also reported that their workloads had increased over the last 2 years. Seventy-three percent said that the workloads of the individuals in their areas of responsibility had increased. Again, the responses varied somewhat by program area. Almost every CPD director indicated that workloads had increased, whereas only half of the single-family housing directors reported increased workloads. Overall, the directors who reported increased workloads most frequently attributed the increases to reductions in staff (77 percent), new regulations and initiatives in existing programs (76 percent), the creation of new programs (73 percent), and new Department-wide management initiatives (71 percent). On the other hand, more than a third of the single-family housing directors reported that the elimination of some programs had actually reduced their workloads to some extent. Each program area uses several different systems, and each system is in various stages of development, integration, and implementation. The directors’ overall satisfaction with HUD’s information systems varied by program area. The CPD and public housing directors were most satisfied with the systems in their areas of responsibility. More than 70 percent of the directors from those program areas were generally satisfied. In contrast, the single-family and multifamily housing directors were least satisfied with their systems. (See app. II, questions 15 and 16, for the directors’ views on information systems.) The directors’ responses also varied by program area when they were asked to rate the information systems in their areas of responsibility against five specific criteria: accuracy, usefulness for monitoring, usefulness for other duties, ease of reporting, and ability to share data with other systems within HUD. The multifamily housing directors were consistently least satisfied with their systems; the public housing directors generally reported the highest levels of satisfaction. (See fig. 4.) Directors in all program areas tended to be most satisfied with the accuracy of the data in the reports generated by HUD’s information systems and least satisfied with the ability of the systems they use to share data or to interact. In fact, half of the directors, across program areas, rated the ability of their systems to share data as poor, while a third of the directors rated this category as fair. The ease of generating reports from their information systems was also an area of concern for directors in all program areas—the majority rated their systems as fair or poor in this category as well. satisfaction Despite the fact that many directors were dissatisfied with their current systems, most said those systems were at least as good or better than they were 2 years ago. When asked whether or not their systems had changed over the past 2 years, most directors said that the accuracy of the data had improved, while about one-half said that the ease of reporting, the usefulness of information systems for monitoring and other job duties, and the ability to share data with other HUD systems had stayed about the same. The public housing directors were consistently the most likely to report that their systems had improved over the past 2 years, and the single-family directors were the least likely to do so. Although most directors believed HUD’s overall system of internal controls was good or excellent, a significant percentage said some specific internal controls were only fair or poor. For example, many directors characterized as fair or poor HUD’s internal controls for ensuring data reliability (50 percent) and compliance with laws and regulations (44 percent); also characterized as fair or poor were the controls for ensuring that resources are protected from fraud (38 percent) and that resources are used efficiently and effectively (31 percent). (See app. II, question 17, for the directors’ views on internal controls.) Overall, the directors in all program areas reported similar levels of satisfaction with internal controls in their areas of responsibility (see fig. 5). However, their responses varied by program area and type of control. The directors were most satisfied with the internal controls to ensure that program goals and objectives are met. Ninety-two percent of the single-family housing and 89 percent of the multifamily housing directors rated these activities as good or excellent. The public housing directors were somewhat less satisfied than the other directors with the internal controls in place to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. The multifamily directors reported the least satisfaction with the internal controls to ensure that reported data are reliable—about 64 percent rated those controls as fair or poor. effectiveness HUD’s Department Management Control Program Handbook recognizes that monitoring program participants is a critical management control. Despite its importance, monitoring continues to be a problem area for HUD. Many directors said HUD’s management needs to place greater emphasis on activities that reduce the risk of fraud and waste (44 percent), particularly conducting essential program monitoring (42 percent). The vast majority of the directors who considered current monitoring inadequate said that insufficient staff was a major reason (66 percent) or minor reason (23 percent) that adequate monitoring is not being carried out. A smaller percentage of the directors also cited lack of travel funds, headquarters’ emphasis, and staffs’ skills as reasons for inadequate monitoring. The directors most frequently identified the on-site monitoring of HUD’s clients (71 percent) and monitoring of HUD’s contractors (57 percent) as specific types of monitoring that should be increased. The single-family housing directors were least satisfied with the levels of monitoring being done in these areas; 83 percent reported a need to increase on-site monitoring, and 69 percent said that more monitoring of HUD contractors should be done. In addition, the multifamily housing directors (72 percent) and the public housing directors (51 percent) frequently said that HUD needs to increase its reviews of the audit reports submitted by independent public accountants on behalf of those who receive and spend HUD’s funds. We obtained information for this report from a telephone survey of directors of HUD’s major programs in the field. Our survey, conducted during August 1996, asked the directors for their views on HUD’s 1995 field office reorganization and other corrective actions the Department has taken in the past 2 years. It included 155 persons serving as the directors of single-family housing, multifamily housing, CPD, and public housing at 40 of HUD’s largest field offices, as well as the 14 Directors of Housing who are located in those field offices. Although we have not reported their responses separately, the opinions of the Directors of Housing are included whenever we present results for all directors. (See app. II for the full text of our survey and the responses to it.) Our survey population does not represent directors from other programs or the directors from HUD’s smallest offices. We surveyed directors who had been in their current position for at least 4 months and with HUD for at least 24 months. We did not survey directors with less than 4 months of experience, who may be less familiar with the effects of the changes that have recently occurred at HUD. Seven directors were excluded for this reason. In addition, one eligible director declined to participate in our survey, resulting in a 99-percent response rate. To summarize the directors’ opinions in bar graphs, for questions with the response categories “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” and “poor,” we assigned values of 3, 2, 1, and 0 points, respectively, to the responses and averaged the numerical values. For questions using a satisfaction scale, a parallel strategy was used. We met with agency officials to discuss our survey results. They noted that they had not evaluated any of the management initiatives discussed in our report and therefore had no basis to dispute our survey results. However, in several instances they provided observations about the directors’ responses to our survey. For example, concerning the negative tenor of the CPD directors’ responses, the officials commented that the CPD directors’ responses appear to be intended to send headquarters a message rather than answer questions on the basis of the real situations in the field. They also noted that addressing the training needs identified at the time of our survey will not ensure that future training needs are met because the Department is about to go through significant changes due to buyouts, redeployments, and consolidations. The officials recognized that there are staffing and workload imbalances, particularly in the field, and commented that these imbalances may be contributing to the directors’ perceptions that their workloads are increasing. The officials also conceded that reaching numeric performance goals is overemphasized by headquarters management and noted that efforts are being made to correct this situation. We performed our work from April 1996 through January 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) 0 66 34 0 0 0 36 44 19 0 3 71 19 3 3 3 74 17 6 0 0 39 39 23 0 1 59 30 9 0 (continued) Program area (Responses in percent) Throughout the survey, the directors who had held their current position for less than 2 years were asked to discuss only the changes that had occurred since they assumed that position. Fran Featherston The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: GAO surveyed Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) field directors in four of HUD's major program areas to obtain the directors' perspectives on the corrective actions HUD has undertaken over the past 2 years. GAO found that its survey showed: (1) most field directors considered HUD's field office reorganization, completed in September 1995, an overall success, but there were differences of opinion among the directors and program areas concerning HUD's success in meeting certain reorganization goals; (2) a majority of the directors said that: (a) they were satisfied with the skills of their staffs and that staff training had increased over the last 2 years; (b) training needed to be further increased in all areas; and (c) they did not have enough staff members to effectively administer their programs; (3) the satisfaction with information and financial management systems differed by program area; (4) almost three-quarters of the community planning and development and public housing directors were satisfied with their systems, whereas only one-third of the multifamily housing directors were satisfied; and (5) although a majority of the directors rated HUD's overall internal control system as good or excellent, a substantial number said that their systems were only fair or poor for certain activities, such as ensuring data reliability and compliance with laws and regulations, and HUD's programs have not received adequate monitoring.