	Background

The assistance PIH provides to low-income families encompasses three  broad program areas: public housing, which offers units for eligible tenants in properties  generally owned and administered by state and local public housing  agencies (PHA); tenant-based rental assistance, which provides vouchers that eligible  households can use to rent houses or apartments in the private  housing market; and
Native American programs, which provide block grants and loan  guarantees to tribal entities for housing development and assistance  and housing-related services. The program is intended to give participating PHAs the flexibility to  design and test innovative strategies for providing and administering  housing assistance. FSS was authorized in 1990 to help families receiving  vouchers or living in public housing become self-sufficient through  case management and referrals to education, training, and other  supportive services. In  recent years, the voucher program has helped provide affordable  rental housing to about 2 million very low- or extremely low-income  households annually. IHBG Program. HUD’s Office of Native American Programs  within PIH administers NAHASDA. HUD Has Taken Initial Actions to Better Assess the Moving to Work and Family Self- Sufficiency Programs

In our prior work on the MTW and FSS programs, we concluded that HUD  could take additional steps to understand program outcomes. We made  eight recommendations in our April 2012 report on the MTW program,  seven of which have been implemented. We made two  recommendations to HUD concerning FSS in a July 2013 report on self- sufficiency programs.recommendations. I for a full list of the recommendations from these  reports and their status.) HUD Has Taken Steps to Improve What is Known about the Moving to Work Program

In our April 2012 report on the MTW program, we identified a number of  weaknesses that limited HUD’s ability to determine program outcomes as  they related to statutory purposes. HUD subsequently implemented all three of these recommendations. We recommended that HUD create a process to  systematically identify lessons learned. HUD agreed and in response  stated that once its revised reporting requirements were implemented, the  resulting data would inform an effort to establish lessons learned. To address limitations in HUD’s oversight of the FSS program, we  recommended that HUD develop and implement a process to better  ensure that data on FSS participant grants were complete. To  improve what is known about and better inform Congress on residents’  progress towards self-sufficiency, we recommended that HUD develop  and implement a strategy for regularly analyzing FSS participation and  outcome data. However, HUD has not  yet determined what level of subsidy reserves PHAs should retain or  provided Congress with criteria for redistributing excess reserves. HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. However, consistent with our recommendation, in the President’s budgets  for fiscal years 2013-2016, HUD proposed a number of statutory changes  to streamline administrative requirements for the voucher program. In  addition, in January 2015 HUD published a proposed rule that included a  number of program and administrative simplification measures for the  voucher program. Differing federal environmental review requirements. HUD agreed with the recommendation. In June 2015,  HUD told us it would continue collaborating with the other agencies to  develop a coordinated environmental review process that would  simplify efforts to develop tribal housing.collaborating agencies hoped to have some recommendations on the  process by September 2015. concluded that a more comprehensive approach would include input  from tribes that had not yet used HUD’s new procedures so that their  concerns could be addressed. HUD has also developed a location on its  website that collects and disseminates best practices on housing  development to tribes, TDHEs, and the general public. HUD has made progress in implementing some of our  recommendations, but additional actions are needed to address others. Appendix I: Content and Status of Relevant GAO Recommendations

The following table summarizes the status of our prior recommendations  to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from our  April 2012, July 2013, March 2012, and March 2014 reports that discuss  Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) programs.
Why GAO Did This Study

HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) administers programs that help some of the nation's most vulnerable households—including low-income families and members of Native Americans tribes—obtain safe, decent, and affordable housing. PIH also operates complementary programs, such as FSS, that are designed to help assisted households become more self-sufficient. PIH programs accounted for about 60 percent of HUD's budget authority for fiscal year 2015, or about $26 billion.
GAO has issued four reports since March 2012 on PIH programs, including the MTW, FSS, voucher, and IHBG programs, that contained recommendations to HUD (see GAO-12-300 , GAO-12-490 , GAO-13-581 , and GAO-14-255 ). This testimony is based on these four reports. It discusses, among other things, HUD's progress in addressing prior GAO recommendations on the MTW and FSS programs, the voucher program, and the IHBG program.
To update the status of prior recommendations, GAO reviewed new or revised HUD policies, procedures, and reports and interviewed officials.

What GAO Found

As of June 2015, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had addressed some of GAO's 16 prior recommendations for four programs: Moving to Work (MTW), Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS), Housing Choice Voucher (voucher), and Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG). But other recommendations require further attention. Specifically:
HUD has addressed seven of eight recommendations GAO made in April 2012 to improve assessment of MTW, capture lessons learned, and enhance program oversight. The MTW program is intended, among other things, to give state and local housing agencies flexibility to design and test innovative strategies for providing housing assistance. HUD agreed or partially agreed with most of GAO's recommendations. However, it has yet to fully implement a process for systematically identifying lessons learned.
HUD has taken initial steps to address GAO's two recommendations from a July 2013 report to develop and implement (1) a process to better ensure that data on FSS grants were complete and (2) a strategy for regularly analyzing FSS participation and outcome data. The FSS program is designed to help families receiving HUD housing assistance become self-sufficient through case management and referrals to supportive services such as education and training. HUD agreed with the recommendations and has revised its data collection and analysis procedures. But it has not yet provided full documentation of these efforts so that GAO can assess its actions.
HUD has implemented one of three recommendations GAO made in a 2012 report on the voucher program. The voucher program subsidizes private market rents for about 2 million low-income households. HUD neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations. But HUD has addressed one that is aimed at streamlining the program's administration by, among other things, publishing a proposed rule that includes measures to simplify administrative processes. HUD has not yet provided GAO evidence that it has implemented the two other recommendations, one on informing Congress about excess state and local housing agency reserves and one on informing Congress about HUD's criteria for redistributing these reserves.
HUD has implemented two of three GAO recommendations from a March 2014 report on the IHBG program. IHBG annually provides more than $600 million in housing assistance to about 570 federally and state-recognized Indian tribes. Consistent with GAO's recommendations, HUD has broadened its solicitation of input from block grant recipients and developed a location on its website to collect and disseminate best practices on housing development. HUD has also taken steps to address a third recommendation to collaborate with other agencies that work with Indian tribes to improve interagency coordination on environmental reviews for tribal housing development. The agencies' efforts to develop a coordinated environmental review process are ongoing.