As discussed in this  report, for example, HUD has issued guidance recommending that  grantees update their AIs every 3 to 5 years. We also (1) did not receive AIs from 25  grantees despite repeated requests that they provide them, which suggests  that, in some cases, grantees may not maintain the documents as is  required; and (2) several grantees provided documents with their status as  AIs not clear due to their brevity and lack of content. Further, we found that current AIs generally contained several basic  elements suggested in HUD’s guidance, such as demographic data and  analysis, and recommendations to overcome identified impediments. However, a significant majority of the current AIs did not identify time  frames for implementing the recommendations or contain the signatures  of top elected officials as is also suggested in HUD’s guidance. An Estimated 29 Percent of AIs Are Outdated and Thus May Not Provide a Reliable Basis for Identifying and Mitigating Current Impediments to Fair Housing

We estimate that while 64 percent of all grantees have current AIs, 29  percent may be outdated having been prepared in 2004 or earlier  (including 11 percent from the 1990s), and the date for 6 percent could not  be determined (fig. HUD’s 2009 internal study on AI conformance also concluded that many  grantees’ AIs were outdated. In sum, our findings that many AIs are outdated, may not be  prepared as required, or lack time frames and signatures, together with the  findings of HUD’s study, raise significant questions as to whether the AI is  effectively serving as a tool to help ensure that all grantees are committed  to identifying and overcoming potential impediments to fair housing  choice as required by statutes governing the CDBG and HOME programs  and HUD regulations. For example, we found  that HUD officials rarely request grantees’ AIs during on-site monitoring  reviews or receive complaints from the public about such documents,  which means that the department often has minimal information about the  status of grantees’ AIs in terms of their timeliness and content. Recognizing the limitations in its AI  requirements and oversight and enforcement approaches, in 2009, HUD  initiated a process to update relevant regulations, but it is not clear what  issues any revised regulatory requirements will address or when they will  be completed. In the absence of a department-wide  initiative to strengthen AI requirements and oversight and enforcement,  many grantees may place a low priority on ensuring that their AIs serve as  effective planning tools. HUD Regulations Do Not Establish Standards for the Timeliness of AIs or their Format, and Grantees Are Not Required to Submit Them for the Department’s Review

As discussed previously, HUD’s regulatory requirements pertaining to AIs  are limited. On-site monitoring reviews to assess grantee compliance with HUD  requirements, which can include reviews of AFFH documentation, such  as AIs. Conclusions

While HUD regulations have required the preparation of AIs for many  years, whether they serve as an effective tool for grantees that receive  federal funds through the CDBG and other programs to identify and  address impediments to fair housing within their jurisdictions is unclear. Specifically, grantees are not required through  regulation to update their AIs periodically, include certain information,  follow a specific format in preparing AIs, or submit them to HUD for  review. In its written comments, HUD highlighted its recent actions to  affirmatively further fair housing. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our report are to (1) assesses both the conformance of  Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment  Partnerships Program (HOME) grantees’ Analysis of Impediments (AI)  with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance  pertaining to their timeliness and content as well as the AIs’ potential  usefulness as fair housing planning tools and (2) identify factors that may  help explain any potential weaknesses in grantees AIs, particularly factors  related to HUD’s regulatory requirements and oversight and enforcement  approaches.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations require grantees, such as cities, that receive federal funds through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) to further fair housing opportunities. In particular, grantees are required to prepare planning documents known as Analyses of Impediments (AI), which are to identify impediments to fair housing (such as restrictive zoning or segregated housing) and actions to overcome them. HUD has oversight responsibility for AIs. This report (1) assesses both the conformance of CDBG and HOME grantees AIs' with HUD guidance pertaining to their timeliness and content and their potential usefulness as planning tools and (2) identifies factors in HUD's requirements and oversight that may help explain any AI weaknesses. GAO requested AIs from a representative sample of the nearly 1,200 grantees, compared the 441 AIs received (95 percent response based on final sample of 466) with HUD guidance and conducted work at HUD headquarters and 10 offices nationwide.

What GAO Found

On the basis of the 441 AIs reviewed, GAO estimates that 29 percent of all CDBG and HOME grantees' AIs were prepared in 2004 or earlier, including 11 percent from the 1990s, and thus may be outdated. HUD guidance recommends that grantees update their AIs at least every 5 years. GAO also did not receive AIs from 25 grantees, suggesting that, in some cases, the required documents may not be maintained, and several grantees provided documents that did not appear to be AIs because of their brevity and lack of content. GAO reviewed 60 of the current AIs (those dating from 2005 through 2010) and found that most of these documents included several key elements in the format suggested in HUD's guidance, such as the identification of impediments to fair housing and recommendations to overcome them. (See table below for common impediments identified in 30 of these 60 current AIs.) However, the vast majority of these 60 AIs did not include time frames for implementing their recommendations or the signatures of top elected officials, as HUD guidance recommends, raising questions about the AI's usefulness as a planning document. As a result, it is unclear whether the AI is an effective tool for grantees that receive federal CDBG and HOME funds to identify and address impediments to fair housing. HUD's limited regulatory requirements and oversight may help explain why many AIs are outdated or have other weaknesses. Specifically, HUD regulations do not establish requirements for updating AIs or their format, and grantees are not required to submit AIs to the department for review. A 2009 HUD internal study on AIs, department officials, and GAO's work at 10 offices identified critical deficiencies in these requirements. For example, HUD officials rarely request grantees' AIs during on-site reviews to assess their compliance with overall CDBG and HOME program requirements, limiting the department's capacity to assess AIs' timeliness and content. While HUD initiated a process to revise its AI regulatory requirements in 2009, what the rule will entail or when it will be completed is not clear. In the absence of a department-wide initiative to enhance AI requirements and oversight, many grantees may place a low priority on ensuring that their AIs serve as effective fair housing planning tools.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that, through regulation, HUD require grantees to update their AIs periodically, follow a specific format, and submit them for review. HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations but noted recent efforts to improve compliance and oversight.