HUD. LRAs. A Variety of Homeless Assistance Was Provided through BRAC 2005, but DOD and HUD Do Not Require Conveyance Data to Be Tracked after Agreements Are Reached

Thirty-nine of the 125 bases closed as a result of BRAC 2005 that had  surplus property provided a variety of homeless assistance in response to  notices of interest submitted by homeless assistance providers. Through our analysis of data collected from DOD, LRAs, and homeless  assistance providers, we found that as of October 2014, 27 of the 75  providers with legally binding agreements have received their homeless  assistance conveyance. HUD officials also stated that the homeless assistance  program could be improved if HUD was required to track data over time  regarding the status of the conveyances. By not requiring the tracking of the status of homeless assistance  conveyances, neither HUD or DOD know the effectiveness of the  program, to what extent properties are actually being conveyed to the  homeless assistance providers, the extent to which the providers are  using the properties for their intended use and, in the event of a provider  dropping out, the extent to which LRAs are making sufficient efforts to find  a replacement provider. BRAC Surplus Property Benefited Homeless Assistance Efforts, but Limited Information and Number of Dedicated HUD Resources Hampered the Timeliness and Feasibility of Assistance Provided

The process for conveying BRAC surplus property increased the potential  for addressing homelessness in communities. Local Providers Cited Benefits of the BRAC Homeless Assistance Process

Homeless assistance providers told us that the BRAC homeless  assistance program provided the overall benefit of a no-cost property  conveyance or financial assistance to support local homeless assistance  efforts, and at 11 of the 12 bases we contacted where homeless  assistance providers received assistance, providers shared other  perspectives on why they thought the program was beneficial. First, during required workshops and property tours, providers said that  LRAs gave limited information to them on the condition of the property. However, the extensions resulted in LRAs taking an average of 654 days  to submit their redevelopment plans. For  example, an LRA official from the Sergeant J.W. However, HUD did not have enough resources dedicated to meet the 60- day deadline established in the BRAC statute for reviewing the surge of  LRA redevelopment plans, which added to the delay in implementing the  BRAC homeless assistance provision. However, HUD has not fully developed options to address  reviewing the surge of plans. Without a means to ensure that sufficient  staff resources are dedicated to HUD’s review process, it will be difficult  for HUD to provide reasonable assurance that the delays experienced  during BRAC 2005 will not be repeated in the event of future BRAC  rounds, potentially hindering the effectiveness of the homeless assistance  process as established and ultimately the redevelopment of the closed  base. With 75 providers expected to receive nearly 50  parcels of property and over $29 million in assistance, the 2005 BRAC  homeless assistance program offered benefits. To assist homeless assistance providers and LRAs in completing the  steps of the BRAC homeless assistance process within required time  frames, to provide additional information to reduce unfulfilled expectations  about the decisions made in executing the homeless assistance  agreements, and to promote a greater dissemination of this information,  the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development and Defense, for  each of the following four elements, should update the BRAC homeless  assistance regulations; establish information-sharing mechanisms, such  as a website or informational pamphlets; or develop templates to include  specific guidance that clearly identifies the information that should be  provided to homeless assistance providers during tours of on-base  property, such as the condition of the property;  information for homeless assistance providers to use for preparing  their notices of interest; guidance for legally binding agreements and clarification on the  implications of unsigned agreements; and  specific information on legal alternatives to providing on-base  property, including acceptable alternative options such as financial  assistance or off-base property in lieu of on-base property, information  about rules of sale for on-base property conveyed to homeless  assistance providers, and under what circumstances it is permissible  to sell property for affordable housing alongside the no-cost homeless  assistance conveyance. DOD partially concurred with three of the joint  recommendations and did not concur with the remaining two joint  recommendations. Also as noted in the report, HUD and DOD officials stated that  they saw value in tracking the conveyance statuses. HUD  also stated that this will require DOD and military department agreement  to implement. DOD did not concur with the recommendation. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to address (1) the types of assistance  provided to homeless assistance providers as part of the 2005 base  realignment and closure (BRAC) round and the extent to which the  Departments of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development  (HUD) track implementation of the agreements reached and (2) any  benefits and challenges encountered as DOD, HUD, and the local  redevelopment authorities (LRA) addressed provisions for homeless  assistance as a result of BRAC 2005. Specifically, to identify the scope  of our review of 125 bases closed with surplus property during the 2005  BRAC round, we obtained comprehensive lists of base closures with  surplus property from DOD and HUD.
Why GAO Did This Study

The 2005 BRAC round resulted in 125 closed bases with over 73,000 acres of surplus property available. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, as amended, requires DOD and HUD to assist communities in determining the best reuse of land and facilities, balancing needs of the local economy with those of homeless individuals and families.
GAO was mandated to review the extent to which DOD and HUD implemented the homeless assistance provisions while disposing of BRAC surplus property. This report addresses (1) the assistance provided as a result of BRAC 2005 and the extent to which DOD and HUD track its implementation and (2) any benefits and challenges encountered as DOD, HUD, and LRAs addressed homeless assistance provisions. GAO reviewed homeless assistance plans; interviewed DOD and HUD officials; and interviewed LRAs and homeless assistance providers from a nongeneralizable sample of 23 closed bases, selected based on size, geography, and types of assistance provided.

What GAO Found

A variety of homeless assistance was provided as a result of the 2005 round of base realignments and closures (BRAC), but the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) do not require homeless assistance conveyance data to be tracked. Of the 125 large and small bases closed with surplus property, local redevelopment authorities (LRA) at 39 bases agreed to provide homeless assistance to 75 providers. If implemented, these agreements would provide nearly 50 parcels of property and over $29 million in total assistance. As of October 2014, GAO found that 27 of the 75 providers with agreements had received their property or monetary conveyances. However, DOD and HUD do not require tracking of the status of the homeless assistance conveyances. In contrast, the program administrator of the Title V homeless assistance program, which oversees conveyances for non-BRAC properties, developed policies to perform oversight in part because the government retains an interest in Title V properties. Without tracking the status of the conveyances, neither DOD nor HUD know the extent to which properties are actually being conveyed; the extent to which the providers are using the properties for their intended use; the extent to which LRAs are making sufficient efforts to find a replacement provider in the event of a provider dropping out; and ultimately the effectiveness of the homeless assistance program.
BRAC surplus property benefited homeless assistance efforts, but limited information and dedicated HUD resources contributed to challenges in the timeliness and feasibility of assistance provided. Homeless assistance providers GAO interviewed said that, among other things, the BRAC homeless assistance program provided the overall benefit of a no-cost property conveyance or financial assistance to support local homeless assistance efforts. However, LRAs and providers GAO interviewed also stated that they did not have sufficient and clear information from DOD and HUD regarding four steps of the homeless assistance process: (1) what information LRAs should give providers during property tours and workshops, (2) what information to include in providers' notices of interest about properties, (3) what information to include in developing legally binding agreements for conveying assistance, and (4) what alternatives are available to on-base property conveyances. For example, during required property tours and workshops, LRAs were unaware of what information to give and gave providers limited property condition information, which led to some providers withdrawing after they identified the cost of needed repairs. Without detailed information on these four steps, LRAs and providers may not have the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions. LRA officials also stated that they appreciated advice from HUD staff on the BRAC process. However, GAO found that HUD did not have enough resources dedicated to meet the 60-day review deadline in the BRAC statue for reviewing LRA redevelopment plans. According to HUD, two staff were assigned to review the plans, taking an average of 151 days longer than allowed to approve redevelopment plans with homeless assistance. However, HUD has not developed options to address reviewing the surge of plans in any future BRAC rounds. Without a means to ensure that needed staff resources are dedicated to HUD's review process, it will be difficult for HUD to provide reasonable assurance that the delays experienced during the BRAC 2005 round will not be repeated.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD and HUD track conveyance status and provide clear information on four steps of the homeless assistance process. HUD generally concurred, and DOD either partially concurred or did not concur with these recommendations, stating its existing guidance is sufficient. GAO believes these recommendations are still valid as discussed in the report. GAO also recommends that HUD address staff resources during a BRAC round, and HUD generally concurred.