GAO Study is Critical of HUD Oversight of the Housing Trust Fund Program

person A.J. Johnson today 09/02/2023

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked by members of Congress to examine the use and oversight of funds from the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Program.  In August 2023, the GAO published its findings in a report titled, "Affordable Housing - Improvements Needed in HUD’s Oversight of the Housing Trust Fund Program." The report examines (1) the number and production rate of HTF units; (2) how selected grantees have used HTF and other funding sources; and (3) HUD’s HTF oversight and reporting.

What GAO Found

As of March 1, 2022, HTF grantees had developed 2,186 rental units (in 263 projects) for households with extremely low incomes (not exceeding 30% of the area median).

For the 12 selected grantees GAO reviewed, HTF accounted for about 10 percent of the total funds for 70 completed projects. Equity from investors in Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) was the largest funding source. 43 of the projects were new construction (with an average per unit development cost of $262,732), 26 of the projects were rehabilitation (with an average per unit development cost of $188,758), and one project was acquisition only ($34,590 per unit).

Average costs vary widely from state to state, with California being the highest ($359,593 per unit) to Mississippi being the lowest ($144,614 per unit).

Interestingly, the average per-unit development cost for projects with nonprofit developers was about $40,000 higher than costs for projects with for-profit developers. The reason for this appears to be that nonprofit organizations focus more on populations that are more costly to serve, such as special needs tenants who may require additional or enhanced facilities.

The selected grantees were the state agencies responsible for administering the HTF program in Arizona, California, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah.

HUD monitors compliance with HTF funding commitment and expenditure deadlines, but weaknesses exist in its oversight and reporting. Specifically, HUD has not -

  • Monitored grantee compliance with requirements for reporting project completion dates or data on total project units in HUD’s information system;
  • Effectively communicated requirements for grantees to obtain cost certifications for completed HTF projects;
  • Conducted or scheduled a comprehensive assessment of fraud risks; and
  • Disclosed limitations in its external HTF reports that could lead to misinterpretation of project cost and funding data.

HUD officials are drafting procedures for better monitoring of HTF grantees. Implementation of these procedures will begin in 2024.

HUD annually allocates HTF grant funds to states using a formula to determine grant amounts. The formula considers the shortage of rental homes affordable and available to very low-income and extremely low-income (ELI) renter households and the extent to which such households are living in substandard housing or spending more than 50% of their income on rent. The program has a minimum annual grant of $3 million for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In 2022, 21 states and DC received less than $5 million and 23 states received between $5 million and $25 million. Allocations for the remaining seven states ranged from $26 million (Pennsylvania) to $132 million (California).

By statute, all HTF funds must benefit very low- or extremely low-income households.  HUD has indicated that at least 80% of the funds must be used for the production, rehabilitation, preservation, or operation of rental housing. 75% of the funds for rental housing must benefit ELI families or families with incomes at or below the poverty line. HTF rental units must adhere to income and rent restrictions for an affordability period of 30 years.

The largest source of federal assistance for developing affordable rental housing is the LIHTC program, which provides federal income tax credits to encourage private equity investments in the construction or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. LIHTC equity represents about 40% of total funding.  A high percentage of HTF projects also utilize HOME funds, which is the largest HUD-administered program that funds housing development.

About 57% of HTF units completed have been efficiency or one-bedroom units, about 26% are two-bedroom units, and about 17% have three or more bedrooms. Almost all HTF activity has been rental since low-income and ELI households may have difficulty obtaining mortgages for homeownership.

Most completed HTF units (about 80%) are in projects located in metropolitan areas. Grantees generally use HTF funds to target special populations and build permanent supportive housing. Nine of the 12 selected grantees awarded HTF funds to projects that targeted special populations. Special populations include individuals experiencing homelessness, formerly incarcerated individuals, older adults, and veterans.

Weaknesses Identified in the Study

HUD identified two weaknesses in HUD’s oversight of project completion requirements:

  1. Project Completion Deadline: HUD does not have procedures for reviewing whether HTF grantees are entering completion information into the HUD database within the 120-day regulatory deadline and has not conducted reviews. It does appear that grantee confusion regarding completion requirements may be contributing to noncompliance in this area. One specific area of confusion is the difference between HTF and LIHTC definitions of project completion. Since HUD is not reviewing project completion times, it is unaware of grantee noncompliance in this area.
  2. Data on total units in completed projects: HUD’s data on the total number of units (HTF plus non- HTF units) in completed projects is inaccurate, and HUD does not have a centralized process for identifying likely errors.

Other program weaknesses include -

  • Failure of the grantees to comply with cost certification requirements;
  • HUD has not comprehensively assessed HTF fraud risks; and
  • HUD’s reporting on HTF costs and funding could be misinterpreted.

Conclusions

  • Because HUD does not review grantees’ final drawdown and completion dates, it has been unaware of grantee noncompliance with and confusion about the requirement to enter project completion information within 120 days of the final drawdown of funds. Conducting such reviews and providing grantees additional instruction on the requirement could help ensure the timely completion of HTF-assisted projects and enhance the accuracy of HUD’s data on HTF unit production.
  • HUD has not effectively communicated requirements for grantees to obtain cost certifications for completed HTF projects, as evidenced by the absence of cost certifications for many projects.
  • Because HUD has not scheduled or conducted a comprehensive assessment of fraud risks in the HTF program, it is not well-positioned to identify and mitigate risks that could reduce the program’s efficiency and effectiveness.

Recommendations of the GAO

  1. HUD should develop and implement a centralized process to monitor HTF grantee compliance with data entry requirements;
  2. HUD should develop and implement a system to monitor the total number of units in completed projects;
  3. HUD should use formal notices and training to enhance communication of the cost certification requirements;
  4. HUD should schedule and conduct a comprehensive assessment of HTF fraud risks; and
  5. HUD should revise its public reports on the HTF program to disclose that the amount of non-HTF funds may be underreported and that HTF units are only a portion of the total units in HTF-assisted projects.

HUD has agreed to all five recommendations and will implement policies to adopt these recommendations in 2024.

BOTTOM LINE

This report responds to a Congressional request to assess the utilization and supervision of funds from the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) program. The report covered the number of HTF units developed, funding sources, and oversight by the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD).

By March 2022, 2,186 rental units for ELI households were developed via the HTF. In a study of 12 grantees, HTF contributed around 10% of total funds for 70 completed projects, with LIHTC being a major source. Costs varied across states, with nonprofits incurring higher costs due to serving more costly populations.

HUD’s oversight was found to have weaknesses, including noncompliance with project completion reporting, lack of cost certifications, incomplete assessment of fraud risks, and misleading external reporting. The GAO recommends improving monitoring, communication, risk assessment, and public reporting. HUD agreed to implement these recommendations in 2024. All HTF grantees are encouraged to review the GAO report and be proactive in implementing changes that are likely to occur in 2024.

Latest Articles

Impact of Trump Administration's Regulatory Restructuring on HUD and IRS

The Trump administration's recent executive order on federal regulations, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative," signals significant changes for federal agencies. The order has particularly notable implications for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The New Regulatory Framework On February 19, 2025, President Trump signed this executive order as part of a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing what the administration views as bureaucratic overreach. The directive mandates that federal agencies conduct a comprehensive 60-day review of their regulatory frameworks to ensure alignment with both legal requirements and administration policies. The order targets explicitly regulations considered: Unconstitutional Based on improper delegations of legislative power Imposing excessive costs without clear public benefits Harmful to national interests Hindering development across various sectors This order is part of a series of regulatory rollbacks, including directives like "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" and "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," which expand upon the administration's previous deregulatory efforts. Specific Impacts on the IRS The IRS faces several significant challenges under this new directive: Continued Hiring Freeze: The executive order maintains an existing hiring freeze at the IRS, which will remain in effect until the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director, determines that lifting it serves the national interest. Increased White House Oversight: IRS regulations will once again be subject to White House review through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), reinstating a policy from Trump's first term that adds another layer of scrutiny to IRS rulemaking. "10-for-1" Deregulation Mandate: The IRS must eliminate ten existing guidance documents for every new rule or guidance it issues, significantly constraining its ability to update tax regulations and provide new guidance. These measures could substantially impact the IRS's capacity to uphold compliance and maintain operational efficiency, potentially affecting tax administration and enforcement nationwide. Implications for HUD For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the executive order brings equally significant changes: Comprehensive Program Review: The order requires a review of hundreds of HUD programs, potentially leading to significant restructuring or budget cuts. Grant Funding Uncertainty: Although a federal court temporarily blocked a separate memo seeking to freeze federal grants, the administration's intent to reassess HUD funding remains evident. "10-for-1" Rule Application: Like the IRS, HUD must adhere to the requirement of eliminating ten existing regulations for every new one proposed, which could significantly impact housing policy implementation and program management. These changes may affect HUD's ability to administer housing assistance programs, enforce fair housing regulations, and support community development initiatives. Legal and Procedural Challenges The administration's deregulatory push faces potential legal obstacles: Agencies seeking to rescind or modify rules must generally follow a new rulemaking process, including issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, collecting public comments, and finalizing the new rule. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements could expose regulatory rollbacks to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making when modifying or rescinding regulations, and courts may overturn agency decisions if this standard is not met. Outlook As the 60-day review period progresses, the IRS and HUD must navigate competing demands: implementing the administration's deregulatory agenda while maintaining their core functions and avoiding legal challenges. The outcome will likely reshape how these agencies operate and could have lasting implications for the United States s tax administration and housing policy. The full impact of these changes will become more evident as agencies determine which regulations to target and how to implement the administration's directives while fulfilling their statutory obligations.

Understanding the HOTMA Educational Assistance Rules

Under the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA), specific rules govern how educational assistance is treated as income for Section 8 residents. HOTMA Educational Assistance Rule Overview HOTMA clarified and simplified the treatment of educational assistance in determining a household s income for many affordable housing programs, including most HUD programs, Rural Development Section 515, and the LIHTC program. Under the HOTMA rule: Exclusion of Educational Assistance:Most forms of educational assistance, including scholarships, grants, and work-study income, are excluded from the calculation of annual income. This exclusion applies to both the student and other household members. Limited Exceptions:The only types of educational assistance that may be counted as income are: Amounts exceeding the actual tuition cost, fees, books, and other required educational expenses. Payments for living expenses (e.g., housing, food, and transportation) that are included in the educational assistance package. Student Status and Eligibility: The rule applies to both dependent students and independent students. The educational assistance exclusion is broader for students under Section 8 over 23 with dependent children and generally includes all aid except for amounts used for living expenses. HOTMA s goal in modifying these rules was to reduce administrative complexity and ensure that educational aid meant to support academic success does not create a financial penalty for low-income families participating in HUD programs. Amounts Received Under Section 479B of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 Educational assistance received under the Higher Education Act is almost always excluded from income even if it exceeds the cost of actual educational expenses. The one exception is for Section 8 residents, where the full amount of educational assistance in excess of actual expenses is included in income. The one exception to this is for Section 8 residents over age 23 with dependent children. HEA assistance is always excluded for this category of resident, as it is for residents in all other affordable housing programs subject to HOTMA. Section 479B provides that certain types of student financial assistance are excluded in determining eligibility for benefits made available through federal, state, or local programs financed with federal funds. The types of financial assistance listed below are considered 479B student financial assistance programs. Federal Pell Grants Teach Grants Federal Work-Study Programs Federal Perkins Grants Student Financial Assistance received under the Bureau of Indian Education Higher Education Tribal Grants Tribally Controlled Colleges or Universities Grant Program Employment Training Program under Section 134 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Any other awards under Section 479B Other student financial assistance may also be excluded from income, but only to the extent it pays for actual educational expenses. Such assistance includes grants or scholarships from the following sources: Federal government A State (including U.S. territories), Tribe, or local government A private foundation registered as a non-profit under 26 USC 501(c)(3) A business entity (such as a corporation, general partnership, limited liability company, limited partnership, joint venture, business trust, public benefit corporation, or non-profit entity). An institution of higher education Military assistance (e.g., GI Bill) Other monetary contributions will generally not be excluded from income, and may include - Financial support provided to a student in the form of a fee for services performed (e.g., work-study or teaching fellowship) that is not excluded under Section 479B of the HEA. Gifts, including gifts from family or friends. Covered Costs Costs that may be considered educational expenses include: Tuition Books Supplies Room Board Fees required and charged to a student by an institution of higher education. Property managers operating properties subject to HOTMA need to be familiar with the various types of financial assistance students will likely receive and whether or not such assistance may be excluded from income. Bottom Line The Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act (HOTMA) streamlines the treatment of educational assistance as income for residents receiving housing support, such as Section 8. In general, most forms of educational assistance, including scholarships and grants, are excluded from income calculations for both the student and their household members. There are limited exceptions, which include amounts that exceed tuition costs and payments designated for living expenses. This rule applies to both dependent and independent students, with more extensive exclusions for Section 8 students over 23 who have dependents. HOTMA seeks to reduce administrative burdens and ensure that educational aid does not financially penalize low-income families.

Executive Order Establishes English as Official U.S. Language: Impact on HUD Programs

President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order on March 1, 2025, establishing English as the official language of the United States. This move has significant implications for federal agencies and their communication policies, especially for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Rural Development properties. Key Changes The Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13166, issued on August 11, 2000. That previous order mandated federal agencies, including HUD, to implement Limited English Proficiency (LEP) policies for their programs. Under the previous order, agencies were required to ensure that individuals with limited English proficiency could access their services. With the revocation, HUD will no longer mandate LEP policies for owners and Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) in HUD-assisted properties. Current Status and Recommendations It's important to note that the new Executive Order does not prohibit federal agencies from producing documents in languages besides English. However, they will no longer be legally obligated to do so. No immediate action is necessary for HUD and Rural Development property owners and managers who currently have LEP policies in place. I recommend maintaining current policies until formal guidance is issued. Both HUD and Rural Development are expected to provide official guidance on this change in the coming weeks or months. Project operators are advised to await this guidance before implementing any changes to their existing language access policies. Looking Ahead This policy shift signifies a substantial change in federal language requirements. Housing providers should remain informed about upcoming agency guidance that will clarify expectations and requirements going forward. Once formal guidance is released, property managers and owners should consult with their industry associations and legal advisors to ensure compliance. This article offers informational content based on current developments and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Property owners and managers should seek guidance from qualified legal professionals regarding specific compliance issues.

HUD Extends NSPIRE Affirmative Standards Compliance Deadline to October 2025

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development s (HUD) Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) has announced an extension of the compliance deadline for the National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate (NSPIRE) affirmative requirements. Initially planned for earlier implementation, the new deadline of October 1, 2025, gives property owners and managers in the Public Housing and Multifamily Housing programs extra time to align their properties with the updated standards. Background and Rationale for Extension The decision to extend the compliance period was influenced by the challenges property owners and managers encountered in meeting the new requirements. HUD recognizes the complexity of these updates and the operational adjustments needed, so it has opted to provide a grace period, allowing property stakeholders to address any deficiencies without immediate penalty. While property inspections conducted during this period will still identify deficiencies, they will not adversely affect inspection scores until the new deadline. Instead, flagged issues will be marked with a caret (^) symbol, indicating non-compliance that must be addressed before the final implementation date. It s important to note that the extension does not change HUD s existing policies regarding traditionally non-scored deficiencies. This means that requirements related to smoke detectors, carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, handrails, and call-for-aid devices remain unchanged and must continue to be addressed according to HUD s existing standards. Key Affirmative Requirements Under NSPIRE The NSPIRE affirmative requirements encompass a wide array of safety and habitability standards aimed at improving the quality of housing for tenants. These requirements pertain to various aspects of property maintenance, including site conditions, individual unit standards, building interiors, and exterior features. Below is a summary of the essential requirements: Site-Specific Requirements Installation of fire-labeled doors Electrical safety improvements, such as the installation of Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI) and Arc Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI) are essential. Guardrails for elevated surfaces HVAC system compliance with specified standards Adequate interior lighting levels Minimum electrical and lighting standards to ensure habitability Detailed Unit Requirements Provision of hot and cold running water in bathrooms and kitchens Private bathroom facilities with required fixtures Properly installed smoke detectors in designated locations Special accommodations for hearing-impaired residents, including visual alert devices CO alarms installed per safety regulations Designated living room and kitchen area standards Electrical outlet and lighting provisions for Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program units GFCI protection in areas near water sources Adequate heating sources to maintain comfortable indoor temperatures Guardrails for elevated surfaces within units Fixed lighting in kitchens and bathrooms for enhanced visibility Building Interior Requirements Smoke detectors installed on each level of the property CO alarms strategically placed to maximize safety GFCI protection in locations with potential water exposure Guardrails for all elevated walking areas Permanently mounted lighting fixtures to improve illumination Restrictions on the use of unvented space heaters to mitigate fire hazards Exterior Requirements GFCI protection for outdoor outlets near water sources Guardrails for elevated exterior walking paths to prevent accidents Preparing for Full Implementation While the extended deadline postpones the enforcement of compliance-related penalties, property owners and managers should take advantage of this time to proactively address deficiencies and make necessary upgrades. By acting now, property stakeholders can ensure a smoother transition when the standards fully take effect in October 2025. The primary goal of these affirmative requirements is to enhance property resilience and increase tenant safety. By following these updated standards, property owners help create a healthier and more secure living environment for residents. HUD strongly encourages proactive compliance measures to prevent last-minute challenges and potential non-compliance issues when the deadline arrives. With this extension, HUD acknowledges the challenges housing providers face while reinforcing its commitment to uphold high standards of housing quality and tenant protection. Property owners and managers should use the extra time to assess, plan, and implement necessary improvements to ensure full compliance by the October 2025 deadline.

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.