About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

CED-78-157 1 (1978-08-31)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaaxzt0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DOCUMENT RESUME 07147 - [B24474921 The Cormunity Development Block Grani .Logram: Eiscretionary Grant Funds Not Always Given to the Most Prcoising Small City Procrams. CED-78-157; E-171630. Augulst 31, 1978. 17 pp. + appendix (2 pp.). Report to Secretary, Department of Hcusing and Urban Development; by Henry Eschwege, Director, Community and Economic Development Div. Issue Area: Domestic Hcusing and Community Develc2ment (2100); Domestic Housing and Community Development: Assisting Urtan Communities to Prevent and Eliminate Blight and Deterioration (2102). Contact: Commuity and Economic Development Div. Budget Function: Coimunity and Regional Development: Corwu. ity Develorment (451). Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; Senate Committee on Banking, Sousing and Urtan Affairs. Authority: Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, title I (42 U.S.C. 5301). Housing and Community Development Act of 1977. Under the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD'f) Community Development Block Grant prcgraa, nonmetropolitan communities receive discretionary grants in accordance with an application rating and approval procedure. Two primary rating factors are: (1) the extent that the project supports the expansion or conservation ot lcw- and mwderate-income :,cusing, and (2) the extent that the project is designed to benefit low- and moderate-income families. Findings/Conclusions: HUD's review of applications by two area office- in Ohio and Kentucky was not totally adaquate, and as a result, funds were given to some communities which did not have the mcst prcmising programs. If 31 of 67 grant applications reviewed by GAO had been adequately reviewed and rated by HUD, sce approved applications would not have been funded and some disapproved applications would have been funded. Reviewers scmetimes reached conclusions about project benefits which were not consistent with information in the applicaticn or without adequately resolving conflicting statements in the application. Communities sometimes cverstated benefits, and officials often failed to identity overstated claims. Tfhe shortccmings in the rating system could be perpetuated in the new Soall Cities Program unless HUD includes in its implementing instrtctions requirements for validation and documentaticn of project benefits. Fecommeidations: HUD should include in its implementing procedures to area offices criteria for determining when site visits would be required to Nalidate estimated project benefit claims and should establish a minimum number of communities that should be visited annually. The validation

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most