U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D.C. 20410-4500
Office of the Inspector General for Audit
Northwest/Alaska
909 First Avenue, Suite 125
Seattle, WA 98104-1000
Phone 206-220-5360
Fax 206-220-5159
Audit Memorandum
98-SE-204-1003
July 2, 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR: Lynn Martin, Director, Office of Public Housing,
Washington State Office, OAPH
FROM: David J. Niemiec, Acting District Inspector General for Audit,
Northwest/Alaska District, 0AGA
SUBJECT: King County Housing Authority
Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
Seattle, Washington
As part of a multi-district review of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program
(Drug Elimination Program), we conducted an audit of the King County Housing
Authority’s (Housing Authority) Drug Elimination Program for Fiscal Years 1994 through
1996. We were to select two public housing authorities - one designated as “troubled”,
the other “non-troubled” - for the review. However, there were no “troubled” public
housing authorities in the Northwest/Alaska Office’s jurisdiction, so we did not include a
“troubled” public housing authority in our review. We selected King County Housing
Authority, “non-troubled”, because HUD had given this entity the highest rating in the
Northwest/Alaska Office jurisdiction for its capacity to carry out the program. In
addition, the Housing Authority received the second highest amount of program funding
in the jurisdiction. The purpose of our review was to determine whether the Housing
Authority:
1. Implemented its Drug Elimination Program awards for Fiscal Years 1994 through
1996 with satisfactory outcomes/benefits in accordance with its plans;
2. Submitted required Drug Elimination Program reports in a timely manner; and
3. Expended Drug Elimination Program funds for only eligible activities in
accordance with applicable Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal
Years 1995 and 1996.
Attachment 1
We found that the Housing Authority implemented Drug Elimination Program
awards for Fiscal Years 1994 through 1996 with satisfactory outcomes/benefits in
accordance with its plans. Specifically, the Housing Authority identified and analyzed
drug-related crime problems at its targeted developments (Attachment II); planned
activities to address identified problems; implemented planned activities; and
developed a process to measure performance and demonstrate program outcomes in
accordance with its plans. Although we found that crime statistics were inconclusive,
residents told us that they feel safer in their communities as a result of drug elimination
efforts. In addition, the Housing Authority submitted required semi-annual and final
performance and financial reports in a timely manner, and only expended funds on
eligible activities. Accordingly, we are not making any recommendations. The results
of our review are detailed in Attachment I.
We provided a draft copy of this memorandum to the Executive Director of the
Housing Authority in May 1998, and received comments on the draft memorandum on
June 5, 1998. The Executive Director agreed with the audit results and stated that he
believes the memorandum accurately reflects the Housing Authority’s program. His
comments are included as Attachment III. On June 9, 1998 we met with you to discuss
the results of this audit, and an exit conference was held at the Housing Authority’s
central offices on June 9, 1998.
If you have any questions, please contact Robert Woodard or Ron Jilg at
(206) 220-5360.
4 Attachments
Attachment I Results of Review
Attachment II Targeted Developments
Attachment III Auditee’s Comments
Attachment IV Distribution
ii
Attachment I
Page 1 of 14
RESULTS OF REVIEW
Background
The Drug Elimination Program has three purposes:
1. To eliminate drug-related crime and problems associated with it;
2. To encourage public housing agencies and resident management corporations
to develop long-term plans for addressing these issues; and
3. To make Federal grants available to these organizations to carry out these
plans.
To receive Drug Elimination Program funding, housing authorities submit a grant
application to HUD in response to a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). HUD
evaluates the applications received and awards available funding to the housing
authorities with the highest ratings. HUD develops the ratings by assigning points to
the applications based on the criteria in the NOFA. HUD evaluates applications on the
basis of four selection criteria:
1. The extent of drug-related crime in or around the developments targeted for
funding;
2. The quality of the housing authority’s long-term plan to address the crime
problem at these developments;
3. The applicant’s capability to carry out its plan; and
4. The extent to which tenants, the local government, and the local community
support and participate in the design and implementation of proposed Drug
Elimination Program activities.
The Housing Authority began receiving Drug Elimination Program grants in 1991. The
Housing Authority’s 1994 and 1995 drug elimination programs included 11 housing
development projects (1,669 units). In 1996, one project was dropped from the
application. To implement its Drug Elimination Program activities, the Housing
Authority developed a “Working Together” concept. Under this concept, resident
organizations, management, law enforcement, and human services teams would have a
forum to develop action plans to make healthier and safer neighborhoods. Under
program rules, the Housing Authority has staffed a Drug Elimination Coordinator
position for the past six and a half years.
Attachment I
Page 2 of 14
For the years reviewed, the Housing Authority received Drug Elimination Program
funding as follows:
Fiscal Drug Elimination Disbursed Remaining
Year Program award (as of 5/6/98) Balance
1994 $ 777,750 $ 777,750 $0
1995 $ 784,250 $ 784,250 $0
1996 $ 791,250 $ 791,250 $0
Totals $ 2,353,250 $ 2,353,250 $0
Of the total $2,353,250 awarded, the Housing Authority spent the following:
• $981,165 (42 percent) for law enforcement services;
• $1,114,912 (47 percent) for drug prevention activities;
• $97,571 (4 percent) for drug intervention activities;
• $106,200 (5 percent) for drug treatment activities; and
• $53,402 (2 percent) for other program activities.
Audit Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
We reviewed the Housing Authority’s planning and implementation of its Drug
Elimination Program grants for Fiscal Years 1994 through 1996 to determine if the
Housing Authority obtained satisfactory outcomes/benefits in accordance with its plans.
To achieve our objectives, we performed the following audit procedures:
◊ We identified and reviewed applicable NOFAs, regulations, and other criteria to
identify eligibility requirements for the Drug Elimination Program.
◊ We obtained the Housing Authority’s Drug Elimination Program
applications/plans for Fiscal Years 1994 through 1996 to determine whether (a)
the Housing Authority properly identified, analyzed, and reported drug-related
crime problems at the targeted developments, and (b) the plans adequately
addressed reported crime problems. To ensure that crime data reported to
HUD were reliable, we obtained police-generated data, which we compared on
a sample basis to Outcome Monitoring Reports submitted to HUD.
Attachment I
Page 3 of 14
◊ We interviewed Housing Authority staff and reviewed appropriate documents
and Drug Elimination Program plans to gain an understanding of the Housing
Authority’s system for collecting and analyzing data, and for monitoring program
effectiveness.
◊ Using Semi-Annual Outcome Monitoring Reports, we tracked changes in crime
statistics for each development under the Drug Elimination Program. For those
developments having a downward crime trend, we reviewed available evidence
to determine whether this trend was attributable to the Housing Authority’s Drug
Elimination Program activities. To help analyze crime trends, we also
interviewed statisticians at three local police departments providing community
policing services at the Housing Authority’s targeted developments.
◊ We selected and interviewed 23 residents (including 3 resident council
members) at 8 of the Housing Authority’s 11 targeted developments to
determine whether these residents saw a reduction in crime at their
developments, and whether they attributed such changes to a particular
component of the Housing Authority’s Drug Elimination Program.
◊ We interviewed appropriate Housing Authority staff and reviewed plans,
performance reports, contracts, and billings to determine whether the Housing
Authority:
• implemented the activities it initially planned;
• reached the intended target population;
• developed collaborative relationships; and
• achieved desired program objectives, as described in its plan.
◊ We interviewed staff at HUD’s Office of Public Housing in Seattle to identify
controls for confirming the receipt of the required performance and financial
reports, and to restrict drawdown requests if required reports were not
submitted in a timely manner.
◊ We reviewed required Drug Elimination Program reports to determine whether
they were received on time by the HUD Office of Public Housing in Seattle.
◊ We selected and reviewed a judgmental sample of about 10 percent of the
Housing Authority’s Drug Elimination Program expenditures to determine
whether they were properly supported and eligible. This sample included at
least one transaction for each of the major service providers for two fiscal years.
We reviewed invoices and 23 service provider contracts (representing over 50
percent of the funds for Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996). Attached to invoices were
Attachment I
Page 4 of 14
activity narratives and client data which demonstrated the performance of these
providers.
Audit work was performed from January through April 1998. The audit covered the
period October 1994 through December 1997, and was extended as appropriate. We
conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Attachment I
Page 5 of 14
CONCLUSIONS
The Housing Authority:
1. Implemented Drug Elimination Program awards for Fiscal Years 1994
through 1996 with satisfactory outcomes/benefits in accordance with its
plans,
2. Submitted required reports in a timely manner, and
3. 3. Expended funds on only eligible activities.
1. The Housing
Authority The Housing Authority implemented Drug Elimination
implemented Program awards for Fiscal Years 1994 through 1996 with
program awards… satisfactory outcomes/benefits in accordance with its plans.
with satisfactory Specifically, the Housing Authority:
outcomes and
benefits…. • Identified and analyzed drug-related crime problems
at its targeted developments;
• Planned activities to address identified problems;
• Implemented planned activities; and
• Developed a process to measure performance and
demonstrate program outcomes in accordance with
its plans.
Although we found that crime statistics were inconclusive,
residents told us that they feel safer as a result of drug
elimination efforts.
The Housing
Authority The NOFA requires the Housing Authority, in its application
identified and for Drug Elimination Program funds, to identify the extent
analyzed drug- and nature of drug-related crime at the developments
related crimes proposed for funding (targeted developments). The
at targeted application also must provide the best available objective
developments. crime data, such as statistics from local law enforcement
agencies. In addition, the Housing Authority may submit
other supporting data, including information from schools
and health service providers. To receive the maximum
Attachment I
Page 6 of 14
available points an application also should provide an
analysis of the reported crime data.
We reviewed the Housing Authority’s Drug Elimination
Program applications for Fiscal Years 1994 - 1996 and
found that the Housing Authority identified drug-related
crimes at its targeted developments, as required. The Drug
Elimination Coordinator (Coordinator) obtained crime
statistics—in the form of computer printouts, schedules, and
monthly reports—from local police departments having
substations at targeted developments. The Coordinator
then summarized these statistics for use in Drug Elimination
Program applications and performance reports.
We found that the applications identified high rates of drug-
related crime at targeted developments in Kent, Auburn, and
White Center. For example, the 1994 plan stated that from
October 1992 through February 1993, 29 percent of the
gang-related calls to the Southwest Precinct of the King
County Police Department were from the Park Lake
development in White Center. The plan also stated that in
1992 this project had the highest rate of reported crime in
King County (outside the City of Seattle).
As allowed by the NOFA, the Housing Authority also
reported the following supporting data:
• Drug-related emergency room admissions;
• US Census data showing social and health
indicators;
• Recent drug abuse trend data from the Washington
State Department of Social and Health Services;
• Overdose death data from the King County Medical
Examiner; and
• Statistics on dropout rates and levels of absenteeism
from local school districts.
In addition, we reviewed Drug Elimination Program
applications to determine whether the Housing Authority
analyzed its crime data. We found that the Housing
Authority’s application included an analysis of crime in
surrounding neighborhoods; causes for increases in drug-
Attachment I
Page 7 of 14
related crime; demographic changes affecting crime rates;
and the effects of community policing substations and active
resident councils on drug-related crime. The Housing
Authority also explained the link between drug-related
crimes and associated problems (including violence against
persons, crimes against property, and crimes to get money
for drug purchases).
The NOFA requires the Housing Authority to develop and
include in its application a plan for addressing drug-related
crime at targeted developments. The plan must also
describe resources available to sustain planned activities
The Housing
over a period of years.
Authority
planned
To address identified crime problems, the Housing
activities to
Authority planned to place community policing substations
address
at targeted developments in three areas: Kent, Auburn, and
identified
White Center These substations were expected to address
problems.
both drug-related crimes and associated problems, such as
emergency medical calls and youth gang involvement. In
addition, the Housing Authority planned to contract with
service agencies who would provide drug-related
prevention, intervention, and treatment programs to
complement law enforcement services at these
developments.
The Housing Authority planned to fund a computer training
center as a drug prevention activity at two Bellevue projects
because they had already used other HUD program funds
to provide enhanced law enforcement through a police
substation at a nearby assisted housing project. This
computer center was expected to offer the following
benefits to public housing residents:
• Healthy alternative activities for youth and adults;
• Employment training and job readiness preparation;
• Opportunities for children and their parents to share
in positive learning; and
• The chance for youth to share their center with
neighboring youth, reducing the stigma attached to
public housing.
Attachment I
Page 8 of 14
We also found that the Housing Authority established
initiatives that can be sustained over several years, given
continued Drug Elimination Program funding. Our review
showed that the same entities continue to provide services
from year to year, and plans state that several entities have
The Housing made Drug Elimination Program activities a strong priority.
Authority For example, the Housing Authority’s plans note that
measured Auburn’s new police chief is committed to community
program policing and is currently considering how that concept can
performance be integrated into police services throughout Auburn. In
and addition, the Housing Authority’s plans that the King County
demonstrated Executive and Metropolitan King County Council are very
outcomes. supportive of community policing, and the Springwood
substation contract represents the beginning of community
policing efforts for the Kent Police Department. Further, the
King County Sheriff’s Office has published its commitment to
community policing at all department levels.
In its Grant Agreements with HUD, the Housing Authority
agreed to perform planned services in accordance with its
approved Drug Elimination Program application.
We found that the Housing Authority implemented the
activities described in its 1994 - 1996 Drug Elimination
The Housing Program applications. As noted above, the Drug Elimination
Authority Program applications stated that community policing
implemented substations would be set up in three areas (Kent, Auburn,
planned and White Center). We found that these substations were
activities. established.
The Housing Authority also planned to contract with service
agencies who would provide prevention, intervention, and
treatment programs at targeted developments. We found
that these programs were in place during the periods
reviewed. For example, billings from the Ruth Dykeman
Center contained narratives about drug prevention activities
conducted at the developments. Several residents told us
that they were involved in or aware of tutoring programs
provided by Neighborhood House, a service provider
specified in the Housing Authority’s plan. Further, for one of
the Bellevue projects we found that the residents we
interviewed were aware of the computer center, and billings
showed that the center was in operation.
The Fiscal Year 1996 NOFA states that an applicant’s plan
must show that an evaluation process has been developed
Attachment I
Page 9 of 14
to measure performance and demonstrate results. (The
Fiscal Year 1994 and 1995 NOFAs state, more generally,
that the success of the applicant’s plan should be
measured.)
We interviewed Housing Authority staff, and reviewed
billing and reporting documents to determine whether the
Housing Authority developed a process for measuring
performance and demonstrating outcomes in accordance
with its plans. We found that the Housing Authority
established such an evaluative process. To measure
program performance, the Housing Authority requires each
service agency to provide a report with its monthly billing
that addresses how performance requirements have been
met. These reports include a data sheet with objective data
on how many individuals were served, the number of
businesses contacted, and other appropriate data per the
agency contract.
In addition, the Housing Authority’s contracts with police
departments require police to provide monthly data sheets
(based on HUD’s model data sheet) along with invoices for
payment. These data sheets include the number of foot
patrols, car patrols, resident contacts, and other data
showing community policing activities. Our interviews of
Housing Authority staff and our review of 21 billing
documents showed that service agencies and police
departments are performing in accordance with their
contracts.
To demonstrate program outcomes, we found that the
Coordinator summarizes the above performance data, and
works with data collection staff at local police departments
to get data on calls for service and overall crime levels.
The police also provide printouts which the Coordinator
uses to identify and analyze crimes pertaining to targeted
projects. During the period under review, these program
outcomes were reported to HUD in Outcome Monitoring
Reports, as well as Semi-Annual and Final Performance
reports.
In addition, the Housing Authority conducted resident
surveys to help evaluate the performance of the Drug
Elimination Program at targeted projects. According to
survey summaries and supporting evaluation forms, the
results were in general very positive. Residents see
Attachment I
Page 10 of 14
reduced crime and drugs, are supportive of police efforts
and social service programs, and feel safer in their
communities as a result of drug elimination efforts.
The Coordinator also told us that she obtains more
subjective information to assess the success of the
program. For example, resident managers have told her
that there is less overt drug activity at the targeted
developments. She said that five years ago at the
Springwood development businesses would not deliver
pizza or newspapers because of fear of crime; police would
not go into the property without two cars; and the fire
departments would not go into the project without a police
escort. The Coordinator noted that all of this has changed
since a police substation was placed in the development.
She also said that onsite police consider the Park Lake
development an island of quiet in a higher-crime
neighborhood.
To verify the reliability of crime statistics reported to HUD,
we traced a sample of crime frequency data from five
Outcome Monitoring Reports to police department source
documents. We found that crime statistics reported to HUD
agreed with these source documents.
To independently review program outcomes, we performed
a trend analysis using the 1994 to 1996 Outcome
Monitoring Reports. We found that the crime data was
Crime generally inconclusive. Our analysis showed a meaningful
statistics were downward crime trend for only the Southwest area (Park
inconclusive, Lake). For that area, robbery, calls for service, vandalism-
but residents related repairs, and Part I and II crimes all showed a
feel safer. declining trend. For the South, Southeast, and East areas,
either data was insufficient to make analysis meaningful;
crime data was not consistent and, therefore, not
comparable from year to year; or no clear trend was
determinable. For all geographic areas, a clear cause-and-
effect relationship between crime data and Drug Elimination
Program activities could not be established.
The Coordinator told us that several factors tended to
reduce the usefulness of reported crime data:
• For smaller projects, a few problem families can have
a large impact on crime statistics.
Attachment I
Page 11 of 14
• Crime increases may result from a change in police
jurisdictions.
• Crime data for Housing Authority sites are often
mixed with the surrounding neighborhoods.
A statistician for the King County Police Department agreed
2. The Housing with this assessment. He told us that many “confounding
Authority factors” make it difficult to tie a reduction in crime levels to
submitted reports specific crime prevention activities. For example,
timely. nationwide crime rates have been dropping recently and
some statisticians believe this decline results from the
aging of the teenage population. In addition, some
indicators such as calls for service may actually increase
when a community policing substation is introduced in a
development. Incorporation of cities and annexations also
affect crime statistics because a change in police
jurisdictions can affect how crimes are reported. Further,
changes in personnel at the substations (for example,
strong personalities with “gung ho” attitudes) may result in
positive changes in crime rates. Finally, the statistician told
us that demographic changes in resident populations can
affect the level of crime.
To further assess program outcomes, we judgmentally
selected and interviewed a sample of 23 residents at 8 of
the targeted developments. On average, these residents
had lived at the developments for over nine years. All 23
residents told us that their developments are good places
to live, and various residents reported that the
developments are clean, quiet, well maintained, and/or
good for raising children. No one told us that crime is a
problem at his or her development. Of the 23 residents
interviewed, 15 (out of 20 who live in developments with
police substations) said that they feel safer because of on-
site police.
In accordance with 24 CFR 85.40-41 and 85.50, grantees
are required to provide the local HUD Field Office with
semi-annual and final performance and financial reports.
Semi-annual reports (for periods ending June 30 and Dec
31) must be submitted by July 30 and January 31 of each
Attachment I
Page 12 of 14
year, and final reports must be submitted within 90 days
after the termination of the grant agreement.
For the period of our review, we found that the Housing
Authority was required to submit a total of nine performance
and financial reports for the Drug Elimination Grants. Our
review found that eight of the reports were submitted to
HUD timely. Based on the receipt date stamp, one set of
reports due January 31, 1995, was submitted seven
calendar days late. We did not consider this a significant
issue because the set of reports was only seven days late,
and the Housing Authority drew down funds only after
required reports were submitted.
The Housing
Authority
provided
baseline data
for law The NOFAs list both eligible and ineligible activities under
enforcement the program. Eligible activities include employment of
services at the security personnel, reimbursement of local law enforcement
completion of agencies for additional security and protective services,
field work. physical improvements to enhance security, and drug
prevention, intervention, and treatment programs.
Examples of ineligible activities are costs incurred before
the effective date of the grant agreement, organized fund
raising, and indirect costs as defined in OMB Circular A-87.
For certain activities listed as eligible, the NOFAs also
require grantees to meet additional requirements.
We selected a judgmental sample of about ten percent of
grant fund expenditures for Fiscal Years 1995 and 1996,
3. The Housing and found that the Housing Authority expended funds on
Authority eligible items. We reviewed invoices from service
expended funds providers, narratives describing activities, and client data to
on only eligible determine whether funds were expended for any of the
activities. ineligible items listed in the NOFAs. We found that funds
were expended for only eligible activities. In addition, we
selected and reviewed 23 contracts for both police
departments and service agencies, and compared the
scope of work in these contracts with applicable criteria.
For these contracts we also found that the Housing
Authority contracted for only eligible activities.
To be reimbursed for law enforcement services under the
Drug Elimination Program, the NOFAs require applicants to
provide detailed data on the kinds of services provided to
Attachment I
Page 13 of 14
targeted developments, including the number of officers
and equipment furnished, and the actual percent of time
officers are assigned to these developments. Once this
baseline is established, applicants must then demonstrate
to what extent the funded activity will represent an increase
over the baseline. Applicable NOFAs define “baseline
services” as those law enforcement services the locality is
contractually obligated to provide under its Cooperation
Agreement with the applying housing authority. (24 CFR
761.15 and 24 CFR 961.10 reiterate this NOFA
requirement.)
We reviewed the Housing Authority’s applications for Fiscal
Years 1995 and 1996, and found that the applications did
not contain the detailed baseline data required by
applicable NOFAs and regulations. The applications did,
however, provide narratives of baseline services. The
Housing Authority’s Resident Initiatives Coordinator (who
prepared the grant applications) told us that the police
departments, when they were interviewed for the Drug
Elimination Program grants, only provided narrative
baseline information.
At the conclusion of our field work we discussed this issue
with the Housing Authority’s Director of Housing
Management and Director of Resident Support Services.
The Director of Resident Support Services provided
schedules of baseline services which were confirmed and
signed by officials at the police departments. This Director
told us that the local police departments held focus
groups—in 1991 and again in 1996—to develop estimates
of baseline services on a per-project basis. These focus
groups reached a consensus. As a result, the estimates of
baseline hours for patrols, investigations, dispatch support
and other services were identical for all three departments.
Regarding detailed baseline information, an official at the
Kent Police Department wrote: “We have no statistical data
showing our services to this area without the existence of
officers assigned to the development ... the figures we are
using are our best estimation as to what services would be
without the advent of this program.”
We did not attempt to verify the reliability of these
estimates because, according to a local police official and
the Housing Authority’s Resident Support Services
Director, statistical data supporting the estimates was not
Attachment I
Page 14 of 14
available. However, based on a) our determination that the
substations were established as a direct result of funding
provided under the Drug Elimination Program (see above)
and b) our review of the estimates baseline services
confirmed and signed by officials at the police departments,
we concluded that the Housing Authority’s expenditures for
law enforcement services represented an increase over the
baseline and were, therefore, eligible under program
requirements.
For the three police departments providing community
policing services at the Housing Authority’s targeted
developments, expenditures for the substations were as
follows:
FY 95 FY 96
King County Police $ 138,442 $ 94,139
Kent Police $ 148,228 $ 152,481
Auburn Police $ 52,002 $ 55,824
Total $ 338,672 $ 302,444
Law Enforcement
Reimbursement (Budget Line $ 338,672 $ 302,444
Item 9110)
Grant Amount $ 784,250 $ 791,250
Percent of Grant 43 % 38%
Attachment II
Page 1 of 1
Targeted Developments
Targeted projects for the Housing Authority’s Drug Elimination Program
Total residents
Project name Location Units as of Feb 1998
Ballinger Homes Unincorporated North King County (Seattle)
(1994 and 1995 only) 111 409
Eastside Terrace Bellevue 50 141
College Place Bellevue 51 142
Unincorporated Southwest King County
Park Lake Homes I (White Center area of Seattle) 568 1,652
Unincorporated Southwest King County
Park Lake Homes II (White Center area of Seattle) 165 536
Valli Kee Homes Kent 114 436
Springwood Apartments Kent 342 1,310
Unincorporated Southeast King County
Cascade Apartments (Kent) 108 344
Green River Homes Auburn 60 178
Firwood Circle Auburn 50 197
Burndale Homes Auburn 50 191
Totals 1,669 5,536
Attachment III
Page 1 of 1
Auditee Comments
Attachment IV
Page 1 of 2
DISTRIBUTION
Secretary’s Representative, 0AS (2)
Office of Controller, 8AFF
Director, Office of Public Housing, 0APH (2)
Director, Administrative Services Center, ASC3, 8AA
Director, Field Accounting Division, 0AFF
Director, ASC Contracting Division, ASC3, 0AAC
Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for Field Management, SDF (Rm.7106)
Office of Public & Indian Housing, Audit Liaison Officer, PF, (Rm. P8202)
Acquisition Librarian, Library, AS (Rm. 8141)
Chief Financial Officer, F (Rm. 10164) (2)
Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Finance, FF (Rm.10166) (2)
Director, Office of Press Relations, WR (Rm. 10138)
Director, Office of Policy Support, WS (Rm.10130)
Assistant to the Secretary for Labor Relations, SL (Rm. 7118)
Director, Office of Budget, ARB (Rm. 3270)
Director, Housing and Community Development Issue Area
U. S. GAO
441 G. Street, NW, Room 2474
Washington, DC 20548
Attn: Judy England-Joseph
Stephen J. Norman, Executive Director
King County Housing Authority
15455 - 65th Avenue South
Seattle, WA 98188-2583
The Honorable Pete Sessions
Government Reform and Oversight Committee
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515-4305
The Honorable Fred Thompson
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6250
Attachment IV
Page 2 of 2
The Honorable John Glenn
Ranking Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6250
Ms. Cindy Sprunger
Committee on General Oversight and Investigations
O’Neill House Office Building, Room 212
Washington DC 20515
King County HA,Public Housing Drug Elimination Program, Seattle, WA
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 1998-07-02.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)