oversight

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)

                     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