Between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, five HUD program offices administered a total of 20 technical assistance programs. The majority of these programs are administered through the Offices of Community Planning and Development (CPD) and Public and Indian Housing. The other three offices that administer technical assistance programs are the Offices of Housing, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control. Table 1 lists the 20 technical assistance programs and initiatives, by program office, and their budgets. See appendix I for details on the description and purpose of each as well as the providers, recipients, funding instruments, and oversight processes used. Information on how technical assistance is provided also is contained in appendix I. As shown in figure 1, between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, the annual funding for all of HUD’s technical assistance programs ranged from $108 million to $181 million. These sums accounted for less than 1 percent of HUD’s overall budget, which averaged about $28 billion in each of those years. Technical assistance funds fluctuated each year because the funds for specific technical assistance programs increased or decreased or because technical assistance programs were introduced or discontinued in any given year. For example, technical assistance funding increased by about 53 percent from fiscal year 1998 to 1999. During this time, the technical assistance funds (1) increased from $9 million to $17 million for the Office of Troubled Agency Recovery, (2) were initiated in 1999 with $11 million for Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency, and (3) increased from $18 million to $25 million for Section 4 capacity building. From fiscal year 2001 to 2002, estimated, technical assistance funding fell by more than 11 percent, primarily because the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction funds returned to the $5 million level, following a one-time $17 million increase in fiscal year 2001 to build capacity to comply with a new regulation; the HOME funds were reduced from $22 million to $12 million; HOPE VI funds were reduced from $10 million to $6.3 million; and the Drug Elimination Grant Program and its technical assistance funds were abolished. Figure 2 illustrates the breakdown of the cumulative technical assistance funding from fiscal years 1998 through 2002, by program office. Not surprisingly, the two offices that administer the largest number of programs have the largest share of the overall technical assistance budget. While the overriding purpose of technical assistance is to improve the ability of program participants to administer HUD’s programs more effectively, each HUD program office determines its own approach and administers technical assistance according to its program needs. Table 2 describes the purpose of the technical assistance as defined by the five HUD program offices. HUD provides appropriated funds for both its primary programs and related technical assistance programs. It distributes the program funds to program participants, such as state and local governments and other participating organizations, and it awards the technical assistance funds to providers, which use the money to deliver technical assistance to recipients. Figure 3 illustrates this process. The recipients of HUD’s technical assistance are generally those entities or organizations that administer HUD’s programs. They also vary by program and include state and local governments, public and Indian housing authorities, tenants of federally subsidized housing, property owners receiving federal housing subsidies, special interest groups, institutions of higher learning, community- and faith-based organizations, national and civil rights and disability groups, industry groups, and the public. The providers of technical assistance can be HUD officials, but typically they are entities or organizations that receive funding from HUD to deliver such assistance. Providers, which also vary by program, include state and local governments; community-based, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations; and resident service organizations. We visited with technical assistance providers in selected locations across the country to observe the various methods that each of the five program offices used to deliver technical assistance to recipients. The following cases detail the recipients, providers, and purposes of the technical assistance provided. The recipients of CPD’s technical assistance are local nonprofit organizations, state and local governments, and other organizations participating in and receiving funds through HUD’s community development programs. The providers of these technical assistance programs are for-profit and nonprofit organizations and government agencies that have demonstrated expertise in providing the guidance and training that program participants can use. For 2 days, we observed a technical assistance provider for the HOME Program work with two community housing development organizations in Arkansas. The purpose of the technical assistance was to help the organizations plan for and improve their procedures for developing low-income rural housing. Over the 2 days, the technical assistance provider evaluated the housing built by the community development organizations with HOME Program funds and advised them on HUD-mandated procedures for counseling prospective low-income home buyers. The recipients of technical assistance provided through the Office of Public and Indian Housing’s Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program’s capacity building funds are associations of public housing residents that HUD has determined lack the capacity to administer Welfare-to-Work Programs or conduct management activities. The providers of the technical assistance are resident and other nonprofit organizations. We observed a 1-day conference conducted by a Massachusetts statewide public housing tenant organization in conjunction with several other organizations. The training was designed to increase the knowledge and build the capacity of public housing agencies, their residents, and state and local officials involved in planning and rulemaking. The conference topics included income recertification, methods of influencing housing legislation, public housing safety and security, and private-market housing initiatives. A Boston HUD employee served as a panel member during one of the training sessions. The recipients of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity’s technical assistance include state and local fair housing enforcement agencies, public and private nonprofit fair housing agencies, and other groups that are working to prevent and eliminate discriminatory housing practices. According to an official from the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, providers of technical assistance are HUD staff and qualified, established fair housing enforcement agencies. We observed a fair housing employee in HUD’s San Francisco regional office provide technical assistance training to 10 employees of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The objective of the training was to help the state agency process fair housing complaints more effectively, and the topics included tips on investigating fair housing complaints, theories of discrimination, and case conciliation and evidence. The recipients of technical assistance provided through the Office of Housing’s Outreach and Technical Assistance Grants are tenants living in federally subsidized properties affected by mortgage restructuring through the Mark-to-Market Program. The providers of technical assistance are small or large community-based organizations that focus on improving tenants’ ability to understand the restructuring of their Section 8 property. In Columbus, Ohio, we observed a meeting between the potential new owners of a HUD property that was scheduled to undergo financial restructuring and two organizations representing the tenants who lived there. The purpose of the meeting, coordinated by a technical assistance provider, was to give tenants a role in the restructuring process and to keep them apprised of potential changes to their building. Topics discussed at the meeting included rent stabilization, building renovations, security systems, and modifications for handicapped accessibility. The recipients of technical assistance provided through the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control’s Technical Studies Programs include state, local, and tribal governments; private property owners; and individuals who are maintenance and renovation workers. The providers of technical assistance include academic, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations and state and local governments. We observed a technical assistance provider conduct mandatory classroom training for about 50 owners and workers of federally subsidized properties at a Philadelphia housing authority maintenance facility. The recipients hoped to become qualified to remove lead-based paint hazards from their HUD-assisted properties by learning safe work practices at the training. The course covered such topics as lead exposure and maintenance work, lead safety, and quality assurance. HUD selects technical assistance providers both competitively and noncompetitively. Sixteen of the 20 technical assistance programs used a competitive selection process. Since Congress specifies by statute that the organizations are to provide the technical assistance under three of CPD’s programs, HUD distributes the funds for those programs noncompetitively. The fourth noncompetitive program, the Fair Housing Assistance Program, is noncompetitive because the funds, including those for technical assistance, are distributed through a formula grant to all eligible state and local fair housing enforcement agencies. The process for obtaining an award also varies by funding instrument. HUD has a set policy explaining the policies and protocols for using the various funding instruments (contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements). When HUD selects technical assistance providers competitively, it awards funding through contracts, grant agreements, and cooperative agreements. HUD refers to these three award mechanisms as funding instruments. The following text provides descriptions of these mechanisms: A contract is used when the principal purpose of the award is the acquisition by purchase, lease, or barter of property or services for the direct benefit of the government. According to the Director of the Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, contracts are the award instrument that gives HUD the most control because HUD simply directs the contractor to do a specific task. For example, a program official in the Office of Native American Programs told us that her office retains decision-making authority by issuing contracts that enable her to control the technical assistance providers’ use of funds and outreach to recipients. A grant agreement is used when the principal purpose of the relationship between the awardee and HUD is the transfer of money or property for a public purpose and substantial federal involvement is not anticipated. A cooperative agreement’s purpose is similar to a grant agreement’s purpose but is generally used when the awarding agency anticipates the need for close federal involvement over the life of the award. The cooperative agreement stipulates the nature, character, and extent of the anticipated involvement. A HUD official told us that a cooperative agreement generally gives HUD less control than a contract, but more control than a grant agreement.