HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaaxcl0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DCCUMENT OISUME
05708 - [(1246208] 4=tLtTVtw-
Pot,.ntial Impacts of the Department cf Housing and Urban
D-velopmeiat's Consolidation of Multifasily Functions. GGD-78-69;
B-191694. April 25, 1978. 4 pp. * enclosure (11 pp.).
Report to Sen- Warren G. Magnuson; Ssn. Henry M. Jackson; ty
William J. Anderson (for Victor L. Lcwe, Director, General
Government Div.).
Issue Area: Intergovernmental Policies and fiscal Relaticns:
Consolidation/Beorganization of Federal Programs and
Aqencies (405).
Contact., General Government Div.
Budget Function: General Government: Executive Direction and
fauaqement (802).
Orqanizaticn concerned: Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Conqressional Relevance: Sen. Warren G. Magnuson; Sen. Henry M.
Jackson.
An analysis of the impact of Federal agency
reorqanizations on the State of Washington and ctheL States in
Federal reqion X indicated that the Eepartment Cr Housing mn4
Urban Development's (.UD's) planned ccnsolidation of multifamily
functions was causing the most concer at the local level. The
HUD reorganization was designed to deal ith the following
problems: unclear assistant secretary authority and
accountability; lack of clear, consistent, and tisely
headquarters' statements of policies, cbjectives, and
intcrpretations to the field; processing delays from duplicative
regional oftice participation; inadequate technical assistance
at area offices; and the excessive overhead cost of the field
oftice structure. Consolidation was predicted ty lccal officials
to have an adverse imnact on the delivery cf services.
Developers added that increased distances between them and dUD
offices would increase their costs and could result in their
refusing to do business with HUD. hUD and State officials
foresaw a deterioration of HUD's project management capatilities
.ecause of increased distances and reduced Froject monitoring.
Developers and sponsors feared that consolidati-ns would result
in a loss of HUD familiarity with local housing needs and
conditions, poor project selection, ard construction inspection
delays. HUD central office officials indicated that increased
travel and staff stationed at outlying lccations were available
to prevent project nanagement deterioraticn and were critical ct
too much local fa~iiiarity. (RRS](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaaxcl0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)