Issue Date August 31 , 1998 Audit Case Number 98-AT-202-1007 TO: Judy Wojciechowski, Director, Troubled Agency Recovery Center, Memphis Area Office, PB2 FROM: Nancy H. Cooper District Inspector General for Audit-Southeast/Caribbean, 4AGA SUBJECT: Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Sarasota, Florida We conducted an audit of the Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota’s (SHA) Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) for fiscal years 1994 through 1996. The audit was part of a nationwide audit of the PHDEP. The purpose of our review was to determine whether the SHA administered and implemented its programs in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. The report contains two findings requiring follow up action by your office. We will provide a copy of this report to the SHA. Within 60 days, please give us a status report for each recommendation on (1) the corrective action taken, (2) the proposed corrective action and the date to be completed, or (3) why action is considered unnecessary. Also, please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit. If you have any questions, please contact James D. McKay, Assistant District Inspector General for Audit, at (404) 331-3369 or Sam Daugherty, Senior Auditor, at (904) 232-1226. Management Memorandum (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 98-AT-202-1007 Page ii Executive Summary We conducted an audit of the Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota’s (SHA) Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) for fiscal years 1994 through 1996. The audit was part of a nationwide audit of the PHDEP. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the SHA (1) implemented a system for evaluating, monitoring, and reporting program outcomes/benefits; (2) prepared and submitted timely and accurate semi-annual performance reports to HUD; (3) established controls over its PHDEP planned expenditures, including assurances that only eligible costs were charged to grants; and (4) executed and monitored contracts with private providers. The SHA lacked the necessary controls to properly monitor, evaluate, and report program results. Specifically, SHA did not: (1) establish a system to measure and monitor its grants to ensure that it met program objectives, (2) adequately report to HUD program results, (3) maintain proper control over its grants, and (4) execute and monitor contracts with private providers. The agency spent $377,976 without proper assurance the funds were of intended benefit to the community. Of the $377,976, $37,891 was ineligible because SHA charged its grants for costs incurred prior to grant award and after grant expiration. The SHA needs to substantially improve its control over the program, reimburse the program or HUD for ineligible costs, and resolve unsupported costs of $174,820. Also, HUD needs to recapture unused grant funds of $80,732. We discussed the findings with SHA officials during the course of the audit and at an exit conference on July 28, 1998. The SHA provided written comments to our findings and has taken initial steps to correct some deficiencies. We considered the responses in preparing our final report. We have summarized the SHA’s responses for each finding and included the complete response as Appendix B. Page iii 98-AT-202-1007 Executive Summary (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 98-AT-202-1007 Page iv Table of Contents Management Memorandum i Executive Summary iii Introduction 1 Findings 1 SHA Lacked Control Over Its PHDEP Grants 3 2 SHA Spent $37,891 on Ineligible Activities and Allowed Grant Funds to Expire 9 Management Controls 11 Follow-Up On Prior Audits 13 Appendices A Schedule of Ineligible and Unsupported Costs and Cost Efficiencies 15 B Auditee Comments 17 C Distribution 23 Page v 98-AT-202-1007 Table of Contents Abbreviations: CFR Code of Federal Regulations HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development NOFA Notice of Funding Availability PHDEP Public Housing Drug Elimination Program SHA Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota, Florida 98-AT-202-1007 Page vi Introduction The Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota, Florida (SHA) is a public body organized under Chapter 421 of the laws of the State of Florida. Its mission is to provide low rent housing for qualified individuals in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by HUD and other Federal agencies. The SHA operates 561 low income housing units, 75 Section 8 new construction units, 526 Section 8 certificates, and 27 Section 8 vouchers. During the audit period, the SHA employed five executive directors. At the time of our audit, Victoria Main was the Executive Director and Gary Hoyt was the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners. A seven member Board of Commissioners governs the SHA. The goal of the PHDEP is to eliminate drug related crimes and problems associated with them. The program encourages housing authorities and resident management corporations to develop a plan to address drugs and other related problems that includes prevention and intervention initiatives that can be sustained over a period of several years. HUD approved the grants for law enforcement, drug prevention, physical improvements, and other program activities. Specific Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) for the grant and Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 761 define HUD requirements for PHDEP. The following table shows SHA’s fund activity for fiscal years 1994 through 1997 as of March 31, 1998: PHDEP Funds Costs Funds Fund Year Awarded Incurred Drawn Balance 1994 $168,300 $161,081 $160,981 $ 7,319 1995 246,270 174,820 172,857 73,413 1996 250,000 42,075 -0- 250,000 1997 168,300 -0- -0- 168,300 Total $832,870 $377,976 $333,838 $499,032 The authority’s records, except for maintenance, were located at 1300 Sixth Street, Sarasota, Florida. The maintenance records were located at 1912 Orange Avenue, Sarasota, Florida. The overall audit objective was to determine if the SHA Audit objectives administered and implemented its Drug Elimination Program in accordance with HUD requirements. Specific audit objectives were to determine whether the SHA: 1. Implemented a system for evaluating, monitoring, and reporting program outcomes/ benefits. 2. Prepared and submitted timely and accurate semi- annual performance reports to HUD. Page 1 98-AT-202-1007 Introduction 3. Established controls over its PHDEP planned expenditures, including assurances that only eligible costs were charged to grants. 4. Executed and monitored contracts with service providers. We reviewed the SHA’s controls and procedures over its Audit scope and implementation and administration of PHDEP grants methodology awarded for fiscal years 1994 through 1996. We reviewed PHDEP grant applications, grant agreements, and financial records. Audit tests included comparison of program objectives to accomplishments and comparison of SHA financial records to the HUD approved PHDEP grant budgets to determine whether costs were in accordance with agreements. We also tested eligibility and support for costs. We randomly selected 22 transactions representing costs of $243,244. We interviewed Jacksonville Office of Public Housing program staff and current and former SHA staff. We performed our audit from February 11 through June 30, 1998. The audit covered the period April 1, 1994, through March 31, 1998. We extended the audit period as necessary. We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 98-AT-202-1007 Page 2 Finding 1 SHA Lacked Control Over Its PHDEP Grants SHA lacked the necessary controls to achieve or evaluate program results. Specifically, SHA did not (1) properly execute contracts for services, and (2) did not establish a system to measure and monitor its grants. As a result, the SHA did not have adequate information to support eligibility of costs, evaluate the effectiveness of the PHDEP, or determine whether the SHA met program objectives. HUD has no assurance the SHA spent its $377,976 of PHDEP funds for services necessary to accomplish program objectives. Under 24 CFR 761.35 grantees are responsible for Program requirements monitoring the day-to-day operations of grant activities to ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and accomplishment of performance goals. HUD’s Notice 94- 83 issued in November 1994 required submission of an Outcome Monitoring Report along with the semiannual report. This required reporting of crime statistics, resident participation, and performance indicators to allow grantees to measure and report the progress of their drug elimination efforts. Also, the annual NOFA required the grantee to describe in its application how the program would be evaluated. Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-87 and A- 122 provide cost principles to ensure costs are reasonable and necessary. These circulars point out, for example, that personnel costs must be supported by payroll documentation approved by a responsible official. Where an employee works multiple activities, the salary distribution must be supported by personnel activity reports signed by the employee. Title 24 CFR part 85 defines required procurement procedures. Part 85.36 requires grantees to: (1) maintain records to detail the significant history of the procurement, (2) assure procurements provide free and open competition, (3) use time and material contracts only after a determination that no other contract is suitable, (4) have written selection procedures with a clear and accurate description of all requirements for the service to be procured, and (5) perform a cost or price analysis for each procurement action. Page 3 98-AT-202-1007 Finding 1 SHA’s 1994 PHDEP application stated the SHA would Inadequate 1994 and 1996 provide $168,300 to hire two police officers for 2 years. law enforcement contracts The 1996 application provided for $84,150 to hire the two officers for an additional year. Both applications indicated the officers would conduct foot and bike patrols exclusively for SHA public housing properties during peak periods of suspected drug activities. The SHA executed two $168,300 contracts with the local law enforcement agency, one for the 1994 grant and one for the 1996 grant period. The 1996 contract was for a 2 year period instead of 1 year. Contrary to its applications, the contracts simply stated that the local law enforcement agency would provide four full time officers to the police substations already located in public housing facilities, and that SHA’s payments would be used to defray the costs for the officers. The contracts did not include a detailed scope of services or require the agency to provide information needed to evaluate the program. Specifically, the contracts failed to: • describe the duties and responsibilities of the officers, • provide that services were exclusively for public housing properties, • provide that officers would conduct foot and bike patrols, • state the hours during which services would be provided, or • require the law enforcement agency to provide progress reports and evaluations. These omissions were inexcusable considering HUD had provided a model law enforcement contract in the NOFA application kits. HUD included the model to help public housing officials develop and administer fair and productive contracts with local law enforcement agencies. The model included a detailed scope of services that identified specific police duties and responsibilities, reporting procedures, and evaluation methods. The model identified the type and time frames for specialized patrols and the type of workload data to be collected. The model provided for the law enforcement agency to prepare quarterly progress reports and evaluations of requests for services, and included examples of daily logs to accumulate 98-AT-202-1007 Page 4 Finding 1 data on hours worked, requests for service, referrals to the housing authority or other appropriate agencies, suspicious persons, drug paraphernalia confiscated, arrests, and other related activities. The model also provided methods to evaluate response times and compare crime and workload for prior years. Without proper agreements, the SHA lacked assurance that the law enforcement agency would provide the intended services, and accumulate and provide the information necessary to evaluate program performance. Furthermore, the SHA did not obtain necessary information to determine what services were provided, and whether law enforcement expenditures of $203,156 accomplished any benefit. The SHA’s 1995 application stated it would use $246,270 1995 drug prevention for drug prevention activities to targeted adolescents. SHA activities were planned to use grant funds to pay salaries and other unsupported expenses for SHA staff, Sarasota Family YMCA, Boys & Girls Club of Sarasota County, Inc., Sarasota Day Nursery, Girls Incorporated of Sarasota County, and other providers. During the audit period, SHA paid a total of $174,820 to several providers without executing any contracts or written agreements with any of them. SHA’s files also did not contain documentation to: (1) demonstrate the SHA solicited for the services in a free and open manner, (2) justify payment based on time and materials in lieu of a fixed fee per participant, (3) evidence selection based on clear and accurate description of the services to be provided, and (4) show a cost or price analysis was prepared. SHA did not require any of the providers to accumulate and submit information to evaluate the programs. SHA’s payments to these providers were not supported by payroll and employee activity records, activity rosters, or participant sign-in sheets. For example, SHA paid $3,250 to sponsor a little league baseball team, but had no documentation to show whether any residents actually participated or how this constituted drug prevention. Four semiannual financial and progress reports and four Reports to HUD were Outcome Monitoring Reports were required for the 1994 meaningless and late and 1995 grants. Because SHA did not develop a system to gather, evaluate, and monitor outcomes or benefits, it did Page 5 98-AT-202-1007 Finding 1 not have adequate information needed to provide the required reports to HUD. The progress reports, one of which was over 6 months late, did not disclose the program’s performance or effect, if any, related to reducing crime in the targeted developments. The SHA did not submit any of the required Outcome Monitoring Reports to HUD. Furthermore the 1994 and 1995 grant periods had expired, and the SHA had not prepared final financial and performance reports. Accordingly, neither HUD, the SHA, nor the taxpayer had any assurance that these funds provided intended benefit to this community. Auditee comments The SHA generally agreed with our finding and has implemented corrective action to improve control over the program. The SHA recently hired a Resident Services Coordinator who is responsible for oversight of the grants, analyses of program related data, and approving invoices for payment. The Resident Service Coordinator has established a reporting procedure to ensure timely submission of reports and that documentation exists to support them. The SHA is in the process of negotiating contracts with the Sarasota Police Department and drug prevention providers for the use of 1996 and 1997 PHDEP funds. These contracts, based on HUD’s models, specify the services to be provided, records maintained and reports to be provided, and goals which will be evaluated. The Sarasota Police Department provided supporting data for the 1994 grant and has begun providing data on a daily basis and summary support data for its current invoice. Also, the SHA has implemented a system for tracking and reporting crime information. We believe the SHA’s actions will strengthen control over its OIG evaluation of program. The additional supporting data was adequate to auditee comments support 1994 law enforcement activities. Recommendations We recommend your office require the SHA to: 1A. Submit proposed contracts for your review and approval. Your office should assure the contracts include a detailed scope of services and prescribe 98-AT-202-1007 Page 6 Finding 1 submission of information needed to evaluate program results. 1B. Reimburse its PHDEP grants, repay HUD from non- federal funds, or provide adequate support for the unsupported costs. 1C. Prepare and submit final financial and performance reports for the 1994 and 1995 PHDEP grants which evaluate the SHA’s performance against its plans. 1D. Submit semi-annual reports for the 1996, 1997, and future PHDEP grants which are timely and include the necessary information to monitor outcomes. 1E. Improve its contract administration to ensure proper procurement, contract execution, and effective monitoring. Page 7 98-AT-202-1007 Finding 1 (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 98-AT-202-1007 Page 8 Finding 2 SHA Spent $37,891 on Ineligible Activities and Allowed Grant Funds to Expire The SHA improperly charged the PHDEP for costs incurred prior to the grant award and for costs incurred after the grant expiration date. Also, the SHA did not carry out all planned activities and did not use all 1994 and 1995 funds within the grant period. As a result, costs totaling $37,891 were ineligible and must be repaid. Unused grant funds totaling $80,732 must be recaptured. Title 24 CFR 761.15(d) states that costs may not be Program requirements incurred before the grant agreement’s effective date. Title 24 CFR 761.30 (b) states the grant period may not exceed 24 months from the date of execution unless HUD approves an extension. HUD will not consider requests for retroactive extensions and will permit only one extension for a maximum 6 month period. Grantees must remit any funds remaining at the end of the grant term to HUD. The 1994 grant agreement was effective January 27, 1995. Costs incurred before On August 14, 1995, the SHA executed a contract with the grant award local law enforcement agency. The contract stated the effective date was retroactive to November 1, 1994. In August 1995, the law enforcement agency submitted its first invoice in the amount of $80,513, covering an 11 month period from November 1, 1994, through September 30, 1995. The SHA paid for the services and charged the costs to the 1994 grant. The invoice included costs of $21,958 incurred prior to the grant agreement, which were ineligible under HUD rules. The SHA’s 1995 grant expired on August 25, 1997. Costs incurred after grant However, the SHA continued to charge costs to the 1995 award grant through March 31, 1998. Costs of $14,863 were ineligible because the SHA incurred them after the grant expiration date of August 25, 1997. The SHA did not carry out all activities promised in its Expired grant funds PHDEP applications. At March 31, 1998, the SHA had $1,070 of grant funds on hand and had not drawn down or spent $7,319 from the 1994 grant and $73,413 from the 1995 grant. The SHA had not requested or obtained HUD approval to extend the expiration dates. Since both grant Page 9 98-AT-202-1007 Finding 2 agreements had expired and the SHA can no longer incur expenditures for the grants, the SHA should reimburse HUD $1,070 for the funds on hand and relinquish $80,732 which it was unable to target for drug elimination activities within the grant period. Auditee comments The SHA generally agreed with the finding. SHA officials said they would request a HUD waiver for costs incurred before and after the grant period. Recommendations We recommend your office: 2A. Disallow the ineligible costs of $37,891 and instruct the SHA to reimburse the PHDEP Program or HUD from non-federal funds. 2B. Recapture unspent grant funds of $80,732. 98-AT-202-1007 Page 10 Management Controls In planning and performing our audit, we obtained an understanding of the management controls that were relevant to our audit. Management is responsible for establishing effective management controls. Management controls include the organization plan, methods and procedures adopted to ensure that goals are met. Management controls include the processes for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. They include the systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance. We determined the following management controls were Significant controls relevant to our audit objectives: Eligibility of grant activities Measurement of program results Disbursement of funds We evaluated all the relevant control categories identified above by determining the risk exposure and assessing control design and implementation. It is a significant weakness if management controls do not give Significant weaknesses reasonable assurance that resource use is consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; that resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse; and that reliable data is obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports. Our review identified weaknesses in the SHA’s administration of its programs. These weaknesses included poor contracting, and an inadequate system for determining eligibility of program expenditures, and evaluating, monitoring and reporting program outcomes. These weaknesses are discussed in the Findings section of this report. Page 11 98-AT-202-1007 Management Controls (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 98-AT-202-1007 Page 12 Follow-Up On Prior Audits We reviewed the SHA’s audited financial statements for the period covering April 1, 1996, through March 31, 1997. A public accounting firm conducted the audit. Finding Number 2 related to failed ratings on certain management assessment program indicators. The failed ratings included issues related to the drug grant programs as follows: • The board had not adopted policies and implemented procedures to track crime and crime related problems. • The SHA could not document that it had a cooperative system for tracking and reporting crime to local police authorities. • The SHA could not document that the drug grant program goals were related to drug and crime rates. Similar issues are reported in the Findings section of this report. Page 13 98-AT-202-1007 Follow-Up On Prior Audits (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 98-AT-202-1007 Page 14 Appendix A Schedule Of Ineligible and Unsupported Costs and Cost Efficiencies Recommendation Ineligible1 Unsupported2 Cost Efficiency3 1B $ 174,820 2A $37,891 2B $80,732 1 Costs clearly not allowed by law, contract, HUD, or local agency policies or regulations. 2 Costs not clearly eligible or ineligible but which warrant being contested (e.g., lack of satisfactory documentation to support the eligibility of the cost, etc.). 3 Efficiencies are an estimate of future savings from recommendations which prevent improper obligations, avoid more unneeded expenditures, or increase revenues. Page 15 98-AT-202-1007 Schedule Of Ineligible and Unsupported Costs and Cost Efficiencies (THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY) 98-AT-202-1007 Page 16 Appendix B Auditee Comments Page 17 98-AT-202-1007 Appendix B received approval from the HUD field office for a reprogramming and extension to allow us to effectively use the funds. As a result, we are in the process of negotiating contracts with the Sarasota Police Department and the drug prevention providers. These contracts, based on HUD models, specify the services to be provided, records to be maintained and reports to be provided, and goals which will be evaluated. The Sarasota Police Department has already begun providing data on a daily basis and summary support data for its invoice. Weekly meetings are held between the Property Managers and assigned police officers to discuss common issues. The Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota continues to demonstrate its understanding and commitment to solid grant management and achievement of a successful Public Housing Management Assessment Program score. The Board has passed resolutions containing policies relating to implementation of the PHDEP grants and its support for resident organizations. SHA has implemented a cooperative system for tracking and reporting crime to local police authorities and clearly can demonstrate that current goals are related to drug and crime rates. One of the first positions I created and filled was a Resident Services Coordinator. The incumbent of this position is responsible for oversight of the grants and analyses of program related data on a monthly basis, prior to approving payment of invoices. The Resident Services Coordinator has established a reporting procedure to ensure that reports are submitted to HUD on a timely basis and that substantive documentation exists to serve as backup material to the reports. Evaluation is a monthly occurrence to ensure that required modifications to programs are being made in a timely fashion. I believe that we are now in an excellent position to move forward with the PHDEP grants and see a reduction in drug related criminal activity in public housing. In the meantime, we have analyzed data for the FY 1994 and FY 1995 PHDEP grants and a Performance Summary Report is attached. The liaison between the Resident Services Coordinator and the Accounting Department is very strong. Questions regarding how program charges should be made are discussed and the incorrect charges outlined in your report have been rectified. Due to SHA's inability to administratively manage its grants in the past, SHA did not account for some of its activities appropriately. Eligible activities were performed outside the period of the grant. However, requests to waive 24 CFR 761.15(d) and 761.30(b) were not submitted to HUD in a timely fashion. A waiver request is being prepared now for consideration by HUD. Documentation of the eligible activities performed will be provided. The recovery of SHA is well underway, with strong new staff members, significant training investments, implementation of internal controls, and written procedures. We believe that we are beginning to see significant improvements in the management of our very limited resources and can assure HUD that the lack of management controls will NOT occur again at SHA. 98-AT-202-1007 Page 18 Appendix B We are confident that the additional documentation available, along with favorable consideration of our waiver request will ensure that funds do not have to be recaptured by the Department. Such a recapture would be devastating to SHA and would slow recovery significantly. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sam Daugherty and the other members of the Inspector General's staff who have been so supportive in our recovery efforts. His suggestions regarding internal controls has been greatly welcomed. I hope this information is useful to you. I look forward to working with you to resolve these issues. I am available on (941) 361-6210 to discuss the report further. Page 19 98-AT-202-1007 Appendix B Performance Summary Report Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Grant FY 1994 and FY 1995 Crime Statistics % Calls 1995 1996 Change Homicide 1 0 -100 Rape 2 6 67 Robbery 47 28 -68 Agg. Assault/Battery 32 33 3 Burglary 64 55 -16 Narcotics Violations 137 218 37 Narcotics Arrests 209 291 28 Total Calls for Service 5098 4797 -6 Totals 7585 7424 -2 % Calls 1994 1995 Change Homicide 1 1 0 Rape 2 2 0 Robbery 41 47 13 Agg. Assault/Battery 64 32 -100 Burglary 63 64 1 Narcotics Violations 128 137 7 Narcotics Arrests 772 20.9 -270 Total Calls for Service 4335 5098 15 Totals 5406 7585 29 During 1994, 18 special drug operations were conducted in and around targeted public housing developments with Tactical Narcotics, Street Level Narcotics Unit, State Beverage Agents, Uniform Services, and Street Crimes Unit resulting in 78 arrests were conducted. During 1995, 13 special operations were conducted in and around public housing developments. This resulted in 96 drug arrests. Since 1994, the Trespass Enforcement activities have resulted in 90 arrests. Due to under-staffing and for efficiency of operations, officers sometimes did perform other duties, overflow calls for service outside of their assigned public 98-AT-202-1007 Page 20 Appendix B housing areas. This was required of all officers. However, primary duties and calls responded to were in and around SHA public housing developments. This is evident from reports now on file at SHA. Above baseline services have been defined as sponsored neighborhood cleanups, parties, vigils, walks, and other related activities, Trespass Enforcement Program, and high visibility signs. Activities available to the SHA residents during the years 1994, 1995, and 1996 also included truancy program, Boy Scouts, cultural field trips, Girl Scouts, affiliation with Girls, Inc., recreational baseball, racquetball trips, Tampa Bay Bucs Games, Offshore Grand Prix activities, local wrestling events, after-school tutoring program, HIPPY, and the bicycle registration program. Though monthly reports were not maintain, we now have this information on file at SHA. This information is specific to all SHA public housing development areas. We currently have all time sheets and calls for service for each officer assigned to SHA properties during the FY 1994, 1995, and 1996. Monthly reports, including time sheets, have been received on time, are required before reimbursement, and are maintained on file. A contract for services rendered and to be rendered under the 1996 and 1997 grant, is being negotiated and will be completed and signed by July 31, 1997. The inter-local agreement, though not a contract, did outline the services that would be rendered to SHA. These services, according to reports now on file, were rendered. Duties and responsibilities of the CRT were outlined in 1990: these are the services that SHA contracted for. The reports on file now, indicate that SPD did provide services, not exclusively, but primarily to SHA. Hours of service were not outlined in the Inter-local agreement, but the time sheets and service call logs, do indicate that SHA did receive primary services from the assigned officers. Evaluation of Progress Evaluations were not conducted on previous grants. However, periodic evaluations are required under PHDEP FY 1996 and FY 1997 grants. This evaluation will include surveys from the Drug Elimination Task Force and residents. SHA evaluation will combine these surveys with actual data from monthly reporting. Therefore, the evaluation process will compare actual effectiveness and outcomes with perception and utilization. Resident Participation Residents were not aware of and taking advantage of prevention services offered. The contracts for FY 1996 and FY 1997 have included requirements for recruitment of adult resident program volunteers as a programs outcome and Page 21 98-AT-202-1007 Appendix B part of the scope of services. We have established active resident associations in three developments. These associations have been involved in the development of recent grant applications. We are in the process of formally organizing the other developments. The Courts and Orange Avenue developments will be combined, with resident approval, into one resident association because of their close proximity and similarities. Bertha Mitchell will have its own association. Both of these associations will be in the 30-day election period by the end of July. In addition, PHDEP FY 1996 and FY 1997 grants have been revised to include resident surveys to evaluate our progress and make recommendations. These surveys will be conducted every six (6) months. 1995 Drug Prevention Activities Contracts are now in place for all providers of prevention services under the 1996 and 1997 grants. The 1994 and 1995 grants did not request reports for services rendered. However, this information is now on file. Not only are contracts established, but firm reporting monthly is established. Outcomes and measurements have been established. HUD Reports Project management tools have been established to insure that all reporting and all activities are done on time (attached) for the 1996 and 1997 grants. 98-AT-202-1007 Page 22 Appendix C Distribution Secretary's Representative, 4AS State Coordinator, Florida State Office, 4DS Area Coordinator, Jacksonville Area Office, 4HS Director , Office of Public Housing, 4DPH Director , Office of Public Housing, 4HPH Audit Liaison Officer, 3AFI Director, Administrative Service Center, 4AA Acquisitions Librarian, Library, AS (Room 8141) General Counsel, C (Room 10214) Associate General Counsel, Office of Assisted Housing and Community Development, CD (Room 8162) Counsel to the IG, GC Public Affairs Officer, G HUD OIG Webmaster-Electronic format via Electronic mail- Morris_F._Grissom@Hud.Gov Director, HUD Enforcement Center, 1240 Maryland Avenue, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20024 Chief Financial Officer, F (Room 10166) (2) Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Finance, FF (Room 10164) (2) Director, Office of Budget, FO (Room 3270) Director, Housing and Community Development Issue Area, U.S. GAO, 441 G Street N.W., Room 2474, Washington DC 20548 Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, P (Room 4100) Comptroller/Audit Liaison Officer for Public and Indian Housing, PF (Room 5156) (3) Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for Field Management, SDF (Room 7106) Assistant to the Secretary for Labor Relations, SLD (Room 7118) The Honorable John Glenn, Ranking Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Washington DC 20515-4305 The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Washington DC 20515-4305 The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, United States House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515-6143 Mr. Pete Sessions, Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20510-6250 Ms. Cindy Sprunger, Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations, Room 212, O'Neil Office Building, Washington DC 20515 Executive Director, Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota Gary Hoyt, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota Page 23 98-AT-202-1007
Housing Authority of the City of Sarasota Public Housing Drug Elimination Program Sarasota, Florida
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 1998-08-31.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)