oversight

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)

                                                                    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