Partner Satisfaction

WITH HUD’s Performance

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Visit PD&R’s websites, www.hud.gov/policy or www.huduser.org, to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s Research and Information Service, include listservs, special interest and bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (1–800–245–2691) for help with accessing the information you need.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

PARTNER SATISFACTION WITH HUD’S PERFORMANCE

2010 SURVEY RESULTS AND TRENDS SINCE 2005

PREPARED FOR

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

BY

Martin D. Abravanel

The Urban Institute

AND

Bohne G. Silber

Silber & Associates

May 2011

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are indebted to the many HUD program implementation

partners who took the time to respond to the 2010 HUD Partner Surveys—

providing their feedback and assessments regarding their relationship with HUD. We are also indebted to the HUD staff representing the offices whose programs are the subject of the partner surveys; each provided valuable input, information, and partner contact lists at the design stage.

We also thank staff in HUD’s Office of Field Policy and Management and Office of Strategic Planning and Management for their assistance.

At Silber & Associates we acknowledge the support of research associate Ms. Alexandra Thomas who led the survey followup effort, which contributed to its high response rate. At the Urban Institute we acknowledge the support of Mr. Chris Hayes, Dr. Elaine Morley, and Mr. Tim Triplett who assisted with the project’s interim progress reporting, survey development, sampling and methodology, and sample frame construction.

For essential and much appreciated support, guidance, and advice at all stages of the 2010 HUD Partner project, the authors thank Dr.

Cheryl Levine, the initial Government Technical Representative (GTR); Dr. Jon Sperling, her successor as GTR; Mr. Kevin Neary, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, Office of Research Evaluation and Monitoring; and Ms. Carol Star, Director of the Division of Program Evaluation.

The contents of this report are the authors’ views and do not

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders; Silber & Associates; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; or the U.S. government.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

FOREWORD

• a modest decline in satisfaction on the part of community

development directors and mayors/CEOs;

Achieving the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s

• a modest improvement in satisfaction on the

(HUD’s) mission to provide quality, affordable homes located in strong, part of multifamily owners, and a

sustainable, inclusive communities requires a strong partner network.

HUD works through various partner groups such as local governments,

• more substantial improvement in satisfaction on the

public housing agencies, and owners of multifamily housing to deliver part of FHAP agency and PHA directors.

housing and community-related services to the American people.

The PHA change is noteworthy and reflects a consistent decade-

This 2010 partner satisfaction survey replicates surveys conducted in 2001

long trend: in 2001, PHAs stood out as being one of the most

and 2005 for the purposes of evaluating HUD’s performance. Spokespersons dissatisfied groups. While housing agencies still tend to be relatively from the following ten partner groups were surveyed to assess their less satisfied than community development, mayoral/CEO and

satisfaction with HUD in connection with the programs they operate: FHAP partners, the gap among partner groups has narrowed.

• Community Development Departments

In addition to asking about general levels of satisfaction, the surveys covered partners’ views of specific management issues and initiatives – feedback

• Mayors/local Chief Elected Officials (CEOs)

that will help “transform the way HUD does business.” HUD’s FY 2010

•

2015 Strategic Plan pledges that the Department will be “a flexible, reliable Public Housing Agencies (PHAs)

problem solver and source of innovation for our partners.” The results

• Fair Housing Assistance Programs (FHAPs)

of these surveys will undoubtedly energize the Department’s thinking about how to strengthen the delivery of our programs and how to assist

• Fair Housing Initiatives Programs (FHIPs)

the American public in a timely, caring, and cost-effective manner.

• FHA-Approved Single Family Mortgage Lenders

• Owners of Sections 202/811 Multifamily Properties

• Owners of HUD-insured Multifamily Properties

• Owners of HUD-assisted Multifamily Properties

• Housing Partnership Network (HPN)-Affiliated Non-Profit Organizations Raphael W. Bostic, Ph.D.

Overall partner satisfaction with HUD is reasonably high but there Assistant Secretary for Policy

are distinct partner-relationship issues and trends that suggest Development and Research

there remains room for improvement. Considering a range of

aspects of HUD-partner relationships, there has been:

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

CONTENTS

Satisfaction with the responsiveness of HUD people (exhibit 21)

49

Satisfaction with the competence of HUD people (exhibit 22)

51

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

Satisfaction with the extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skil s, and ability to do their work (exhibit 23)

52

PART 1: MEASUREMENT AND TRACKING OF PARTNER

SATISFACTION WITH HUD

9

Satisfaction with the ability to reach people at HUD (exhibit 24) 54

PART 2: BASIC PARTNER SATISFACTION WITH HUD

17

PART 4: PARTNER PERSPECTIVES REGARDING HUD’S

Bar Chart Exhibits:

TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MECHANISMS AND

Satisfaction with HUD programs (exhibit 3)

19

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

57

Bar Chart Exhibits:

Satisfaction with how HUD runs its programs (exhibit 5)

22

Usefulness of HUD’s training and technical assistance through HUD-Satisfaction with HUD’s overall performance (exhibit 7)

25

sponsored conferences (exhibit 33)

63

Perceptions of HUD’s role: mainly providing support, mainly regulating, or Usefulness of HUD’s training and technical assistance through HUD-providing support and regulating about equally (exhibit 11)

32

sponsored satellite broadcasts (exhibit 34)

64

Perceptions of HUD’s role by overall satisfaction with HUD (exhibit 12) 33

Usefulness of HUD’s training and technical assistance through HUD

participation in non-HUD discussions and training (exhibit 35)

65

PART 3: PARTNERS’ PERSPECTIVES REGARDING INDIVIDUAL

ASPECTS OF THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH HUD

35

Usefulness of HUD’s training and technical assistance through HUD-sponsored training conducted by contractors (exhibit 36)

66

Bar Chart Exhibits:

Usefulness of HUD’s training and technical assistance through HUD’s web Satisfaction with the quality of information received from HUD (exhibit 14) 37

page (exhibit 37)

67

Satisfaction with the timeliness of information received from HUD (exhibit 15) 38

Usefulness of HUD’s training and technical assistance through HUD’s webcast Satisfaction with the quality of guidance from HUD (exhibit 16)

41

training (exhibit 38)

68

Satisfaction with the consistency of guidance from HUD (exhibit 17) 42

Effectiveness of HUD’s listservs (exhibit 43)

73

Satisfaction with the timeliness of decision-making by HUD (exhibit 18) 45

Effectiveness of HUD’s website postings (exhibit 44)

74

Satisfaction with the clarity of HUD rules and requirements (exhibit 19) 46

Effectiveness of email (exhibit 45)

75

Satisfaction with the time commitments required to comply with HUD

reporting requirements (exhibit 20)

47

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

79

Multifamily Housing Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s

Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES

85

Housing Partnerships Network (HPN)-Affiliated Non-Profit Housing Organization Community Development Departments

Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder Mayors/Chief Elected Officials (CEOs)

Public Housing Agencies (PHAs)

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) Agencies

Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) Organizations

FHA-Approved Single Family Mortgage Lenders

Multifamily Housing Owners

HPN-Affiliated Non-Profit Housing Organizations

COMPANION REPORTS:

Community Development Department Partners’ Satisfaction

with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder

Mayors’ And Other Chief Elected Officials’ Satisfaction with

HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder

Public Housing Agency (PHA) Partners’ Satisfaction with

HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAPs) Partners’ Satisfaction

with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder

Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) Partners’ Satisfaction

with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder

FHA-Approved Single Family Mortgage Lending Partners’

Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

REPORT CONTENTS

The surveys inquired about partner satisfaction with important aspects of Consistent with the outcome measurement requirements of the Government HUD-partner relationships and interactions, the usefulness of various HUD

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, the U.S. Department of training and technical assistance mechanisms, and the effectiveness of different Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has sponsored several waves

electronic communications media. Separate surveys were done for each partner of third-party confidential surveys of its key program implementation group but many of the same core questions were asked of all groups. Many partners—intermediaries that deliver HUD’s programs to end customers.

questions were replicas of those asked in previous HUD Partner Surveys to The surveys assessed partner satisfaction with HUD’s performance, enable comparisons over time. This report presents the results of responses considered integral to enhancing agency accountability, improving program to the core common questions. Separate reports and data binders highlight delivery, and ensuring quality customer service. Conducted in 2001, 2005, partner responses to questions that were relevant and unique to each group.

and 2010, the surveys covered many different aspects of HUD-partner relationships. Complete results of the 2001 and 2005 surveys are posted SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS

on HUD’s HUDUSER website. This report covers the 2010 surveys.

Key observations to emerge from the 2010 surveys involve

THE 2010 SURVEYS

variations in partner satisfaction levels, inter-group comparisons, distinctive perspectives, and changes over time.

The most recent wave of HUD Partner Surveys consists of samples

and, in some instances, the entire universe of the following groups: Satisfaction levels.

local community development departments; Public Housing Agencies (PHAs); Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies; Fair Housing While partner satisfaction with HUD was reasonably high with respect to Initiatives Program (FHIP) organizations; non-profit housing organizations many aspects of HUD-partner relationships, it was relatively lower for some affiliated with the Housing Partnership Network (HPN); mayors or other aspects than for others. As examples, there were higher rates of partner local chief elected officials (CEOs); owners of Section 202/811, HUD-satisfaction with HUD’s programs than with the way HUD administered insured (unsubsidized), and HUD-assisted (subsidized) multifamily rental those programs, and, there tended to be lower rates of satisfaction with properties; and FHA-approved single family mortgage lenders.

the timeliness of HUD information and decision-making, the clarity of HUD

rules, and the time commitment needed to comply with HUD reporting A random sample of 10,770 HUD partners was drawn from a universe of requirements than with the quality of information received from HUD or the 22,348 entities (Exhibit 1). From that sample, 7,202 respondents completed extent to which HUD employees were judged to have the knowledge, skills, surveys administered in partner group clusters that began in late 2009 and and ability to do their work. Finally, partners who perceived HUD’s role as ended in late 2010. The high overall response rate (67 percent) and the fact primarily supportive, or equally supportive and regulatory, tended to be more that it exceeded 80 percent for six of the partner groups lend confidence that satisfied than those who perceived HUD’s role as primarily regulatory.

respondents are representative of the universe of surveyed HUD partners.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

7

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Inter-group comparisons.

modest decline in satisfaction on the part of community development directors Some partner groups tended to be comparatively more satisfied than others and mayors/CEOs, a modest improvement in multifamily owner satisfaction with HUD. In general, satisfaction levels were relatively higher for community (more often HUD-insured owners but, in some cases, HUD-assisted or Section development directors, mayors/CEOs, and FHAP directors than for HUD-insured 202/811 owners), and a more substantial improvement in FHAP agency and PHA and HUD-assisted multifamily owners and HPN-affiliated non-profit housing director satisfaction. The PHA change is noteworthy and reflects a consistent, organizations. FHIP and PHA directors, Section 202/811 owners, and single decade-long trend: in 2001, when partner surveys were first conducted, PHAs family lenders often fell between these two clusters, but that varied by issue.

stood out as being one of the most dissatisfied groups. While they still tend to be relatively less satisfied than community development, mayoral/CEO, Distinctive perspectives.

and FHAP partners, the gap among partner groups has narrowed—given the improvement in satisfaction among PHA directors and the decline in Depending on their situations and experiences, particular partner satisfaction among community development directors and mayors/CEOs.

groups stood out in some instances as being relatively more or

less satisfied than most other groups with respect to specific

aspects of their relationship with HUD. For example:

• Most groups perceived HUD’s relationship with them to be equally supporting and regulating, or mainly regulating. While only a small fraction perceived HUD as primarily supporting them, a relatively large proportion of FHIP directors saw HUD in this role.

• Most partner groups were relatively dissatisfied with the time commitment needed to comply with HUD reporting requirements,

yet FHAP agency directors and single family lenders were relatively satisfied with this aspect of their relationship with HUD.

• Most partner groups were only modestly satisfied with the clarity of the HUD rules and requirements applying to them, yet FHAP agency directors were relatively satisfied with this aspect of their HUD relationship.

• Most partner groups were relatively satisfied with their ability to reach the people at HUD whom they needed to contact, yet single family lenders were quite dissatisfied with this aspect of their interactions with HUD.

Changes over time.

Some changes in partner satisfaction with HUD have occurred since 2005.

Considering a range of aspects of HUD-partner relationships, there has been a 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

8

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

PART 1: MEASUREMENT AND TRACKING

groups include non-profit organizations, for-profit businesses, state and local OF PARTNER SATISFACTION WITH HUD

government officials and agencies, tribes, lenders, brokers, and developers.4

Each group has its own perspective, point of reference, and experiences.

The connections among such groups, and with HUD, are multifaceted.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) wants its key implementation partners—intermediaries that deliver the Department’s As intermediaries between HUD and its end-customers, HUD’s partners programs to its end customers—to be satisfied with HUD’s performance, share an interest with HUD in providing services and benefits to them. HUD

operations, and programs. Indeed, HUD strives to improve partner satisfaction generally provides funds to its partners for their use or redistribution, and aids in order to enhance agency accountability, program delivery, and customer and supports them in other ways such as capacity building and technical

service.1 The idea is that when those who deliver HUD’s programs receive assistance provision. HUD’s partners may also have different or independent quality service from HUD, end-customers in turn receive better service.

interests from HUD’s end-customers (or at least from some of them), however, Inasmuch as HUD’s partners are its link to most of its end customers, the and HUD’s various partners may have interests that differ one from another.

nature and quality of the relationships between HUD and its partners can have considerable consequence for achievement of the Department’s mission.

We have an excellent partnership relationship with field staff. They are knowledgeable and competent and consistently make every effort to respond to our concerns.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) calls on federal

—FHAP Director, 2005

agencies to set government performance standards and measure progress toward meeting them.2 As part of HUD’s performance assessment, partner A lot of time could be saved if HUD would stop pretending there is a partnership. The fact is that HUD dictates and FHAPs and FHIPs carry out the orders. Partners consult, satisfaction is measured and tracked through a series of surveys. This report deliberate, and agree jointly. HUD does not do this.

summarizes the most recent HUD partner-satisfaction survey results.

—FHAP Director, 2005

HUD Works With and Through Multiple Partner Groups to

Because HUD is the “senior” partner responsible for serving multiple end-Serve its End Customers

customer groups with differing and conflicting needs and perspectives, HUD is often in the position of balancing interests. And, as steward of federal resources HUD is a large, complex federal agency that operates in multiple policy and administrator of federal programs, HUD is also responsible for regulating, arenas. It administers an array of programs extending across the housing, fair monitoring, evaluating, and sometimes taking adverse actions against its housing, and community and economic development spectrum. Consequently, partners. It has previously been shown that such potentially contradictory the Department has numerous types of end-customers—that is, clients, roles in which HUD is both “helper” and “enforcer” can spawn complex, recipients, or program beneficiaries.3 To serve them, it generally works through conflicted relationships and inconsistent perspectives—as illustrated in the intermediaries, referred to as partners, to carry out its mission. Partner quotations on this page from two HUD partners who were surveyed in 2005

1 Annual Performance Plan: Fiscal Year 2009, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, February 2008, (described and cited above). It follows, therefore, that partners’ assessments pp.103–104.

of the quality of their partnerships with HUD may reflect such contradictions.

2 P.L. 103-62.

3 Ultimate or end customers are provided assistance, services, or benefits of various kinds. They include a wide range of people such as those who have Federal Housing Administration (FHA) home mortgage insurance, file housing discrimination complaints, reside in public housing or housing for people with disabilities, are recipients of business 4 Examples of intermediaries are private owners of HUD-insured or HUD-assisted housing units, public agencies that loans using Community Development Block Grants, receive homeless assistance services, rent private-market own and manage public housing developments or administer housing vouchers, fair housing agencies that provide housing using Housing Choice Vouchers, and so on.

educational and adjudication services, and state and local government agencies and officials involved in community improvement.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

9

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

HUD’s FY 2010–2015 Strategic Plan Calls for Transforming

The decision by HUD to sponsor confidential surveys conducted at arms-the Way HUD Does Business

length from HUD was intended to ensure that the results would be honest, valid, and credible. HUD published the survey reports in 2001 and 2006.9

HUD’s Strategic Plan: FY 2010–2015 recognizes that HUD’s success can be achieved only through strengthened partnerships among federal, state, and local

• Baseline surveys—2001. The 2001 survey asked eight key HUD

entities across the public, non-profit, and private sectors. According to the Plan: partner groups to assess the Department’s performance from

their respective vantage points. Partners were randomly selected These relationships must be based on mutual respect and recognition of to provide feedback through formal surveys, and 2,244 of them

the skills, knowledge, and perspective that each brings to the table. From participated. Survey responses were collected and analyzed

this foundation, we envision a relationship that fosters collaboration and

independently.10 The responses provided a snapshot of partner innovation in meeting the housing and community development needs assessments at that point in time and a baseline against which to of this country. For HUD, this means striking the right balance between evaluate changes in partner satisfaction in subsequent years.

our role as a policymaker and our roles as funder, capacity builder, and regulator. In short, we must know when and how to engage, and when to

• Followup surveys—2005. To initially measure change in partner

get out of the way.5

satisfaction after 2001, the 2005 surveys covered the same eight partner groups surveyed in 2001 and used a similar methodology to The Plan emphasizes five goals, one of which is to “transform the way HUD does ensure comparability.11 In all, 2,278 partners provided feedback.

business.” Included among outcome measures for this goal are several that 9 Martin D. Abravanel, Harry P. Hatry, and Christopher Hayes, How’s HUD Doing? Agency Performance as Judged involve the perceptions of HUD’s partners—such as increasing the percentage by Its Partners, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, December 2001, pp. 3–4; and Martin D. Abravanel and Bohne G. Silber, Partner Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: of those who are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the timeliness of decision-2005 Survey Results and Trends Since 2001, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, March 2006, pp. 2–3.

making at HUD and with the knowledge, skills, and ability of HUD employees.6

10 Abravanel, Hatry, and Hayes, 2001.

11 Abravanel and Silber, 2006.

HUD Periodically Measures and Tracks Levels of Partner

Satisfaction

Measuring the achievement of performance outcomes, such as the above, requires having a baseline and, if available, over-time trends against which to judge success. With respect to partner relationships, this capability exists because HUD previously sought feedback from its partners through two rounds of third-party surveys—conducted in both 20017 and 2005.8

5 http://www.hud.gov/strategicplan, May 2010, p. 4.

6 Ibid, p. 41.

7 The Urban Institute (a non-partisan research organization located in Washington, D.C.) designed and analyzed the surveys administered by Aspen Systems Corporation (of Rockville, Maryland).

8 Silber & Associates (an independent survey research firm located in Clarksville, Maryland), conducted the surveys with design, analytic, and report writing support from the Urban Institute.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

10

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

The partner groups included in the 2001 and 2005 surveys, selected by the Partner Group

Definition

Department to reflect a range of significant constituencies, consisted of the Owners of HUD-assisted (subsidized)

Properties that are either insured under a HUD/

following groups:

multifamily housing properties

FHA mortgage insurance program that includes a

mortgage interest subsidy or provided with some

Partner Group

Definition

form of HUD rental assistance. Owners may be

Directors of Community Development

Local* government agencies that engage in

for-profit businesses or non-profit organizations.

Departments in cities and urban counties

a wide variety of community and economic

with an entitlement to Community

development activities, often in conjunction

PHAs = Public Housing Agencies. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds

with HUD’s CDBG and other programs.

To assess change in partner satisfaction since 2005 and to examine current

*Directors of state Community Development

Departments were not surveyed.

partner relationship issues, HUD sponsored a third round of surveys in 2010. Briefly reviewed below are key findings from the 2005 surveys, which Mayors or other local Chief Elected

Mayors, town supervisors, council presidents,

serve as the most proximate comparison for the 2010 results. This review Officials (CEOs) of communities

board of trustee presidents, boards of

with populations of 50,000 or more

trustee chairpersons, boards of selectmen

is followed by a discussion of the approach used for the 2010 surveys.

chairpersons, first selectmen, township

commission presidents, and so on.

The 2005 Partner Surveys Revealed Considerable Partner

Satisfaction With HUD but Also Significant Exceptions

Directors of PHAs that own/manage 100

Local public entities created through state-

or more units of conventional public housing

enabling legislation to administer HUD’s

public housing and Section 8 programs.

The 2005 surveys covered partners’ overall satisfaction with HUD as well as perceptions of their working and interpersonal relationships Directors of FHAP agencies

State and local government agencies that

with HUD and its management and technological environment.

administer laws and ordinances consistent

with federal fair housing laws.

Overall partner satisfaction with HUD in 2005.

Directors of non-profit housing

Independent non-profit organizations located

organizations affiliated with the

across the nation that engage in a wide variety of

Core partner satisfaction with HUD in 2005, as well as with its programs and the Housing Partnerships Network (HPN)

housing-related activities such as development,

way it administered them, was relatively high but varied by group. For example, lending, and housing provision; previously, the

88 percent of community development department directors were satisfied National Association of Housing Partnerships.

compared with 62 percent of HUD-insured (unsubsidized) multifamily property Owners of Section 202 or Section

Housing with supportive services for

owners. For all partner groups, the extent of satisfaction with HUD’s programs 811 multifamily housing properties

elderly persons (Section 202) or persons

somewhat exceeded partner evaluations of how well HUD ran the programs.

with disabilities (Section 811).

Owners of HUD-insured (unsubsidized)

Properties with mortgages insured by HUD/

In a few instances, satisfaction levels in 2005 had improved since the baseline multifamily housing properties

FHA that have neither rental assistance

survey done in 2001. Especially noteworthy were PHA directors, because nor mortgage interest subsidies. Owners

most were dissatisfied with HUD in 2001. In this partner group, the proportion represent a range of entities, including

reporting satisfaction rose from 44 to 65 percent between the two surveys.

public agencies; non-profit, limited dividend,

or cooperative organizations; and private

developers and profit-motivated businesses.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

11

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Across all partner groups and in both 2001 and 2005, those who viewed Partner perceptions of HUD’s management and

HUD as mainly regulating them were more likely to be dissatisfied with technological environment in 2005.

the Department than were those who viewed HUD’s role as providing HUD’s management objectives in 2005 included striving to be more primarily support or an equal combination of support and regulation.

market-based and customer friendly, instilling an ethic of competence and excellence in its employees, and emphasizing performance more than Partner perceptions of their working and

process. Very few HUD partners believed these objectives had been fully interpersonal relationships with HUD in 2005.

achieved, however, with community development department directors Compared with other groups, community development department

and mayors more likely to rate them as being accomplished and non-profit directors and mayors tended to be the most satisfied with day-to-day housing organization directors and HUD-insured owners less likely.

relationships between HUD and its partners, including interactions with Of those expressing an opinion in 2005, most partners believed HUD’s HUD staff, information exchanges related to the implementation of statutory management controls and monitoring systems for decreasing fraud, waste requirements and HUD rules, and partner involvement in HUD monitoring and abuse had been effective—although many more said they were somewhat and compliance activities. In contrast, multifamily owners, non-profit housing effective as opposed to very effective. Community development department organization directors, and PHA directors tended to be the least satisfied.

directors and mayors were more likely than the other groups to describe In general, most partners expressed satisfaction with HUD staff

HUD’s management controls and monitoring systems as effective.

responsiveness, capabilities, and ability to be reached. Multifamily Although a sizable proportion of partners had not received training or housing owners were the least satisfied in these respects.

technical assistance from HUD in 2005, those who had generally found it Partner groups differed, sometimes widely, with respect to their satisfaction to be at least somewhat helpful. Electronic communications, particularly with the quality and timeliness of information they received from HUD and email, were rated by most partners as being effective tools, although with the quality and consistency of guidance that HUD delivered—with multifamily (particularly HUD-insured) owners were less likely than others mayors and community development department directors tending to be the to have used electronic communications in their dealings with HUD.

most satisfied, and non-profit housing organization directors, PHA directors, and HUD-insured multifamily owners tending to be the least. Consistently, The 2010 Round of Partner Surveys Expanded Partner

however, the time commitment required for reporting to HUD and the Group Coverage, Assessed Changes Since 2005, and

clarity of HUD’s rules and requirements were issues that generated very Examined Issues of Current Interest

high levels of partner dissatisfaction across all groups—with almost one-In addition to surveying the same partner groups as surveyed in 2001 and 2005, half or more of partners in most groups expressing displeasure. For these the 2010 surveys expanded coverage to two additional groups and employed issues, in particular, and for some others that differed from group to group, a methodology identical to the earlier surveys. Discussed below are the partner dissatisfaction levels were high in both a relative and absolute sense.

groups and topics that were covered, the instruments and procedures that were used, the survey response rates, and the types of people who responded to the surveys. (See also appendix A, Methodology.) Subsequent parts of this report present the findings of the 2010 surveys, including the following topics: 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

12

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

• Part 2: Basic partner satisfaction with HUD.

2010 survey topics.

The 2010 surveys were designed to assess trends since 2005 with

• Part 3: Partner perspectives regarding individual

respect to selected indicators of partner satisfaction with HUD, aspects of their interactions with HUD.

trends since 2001 with respect to a smaller sub-set of indicators,

• Part 4: Partner perspectives regarding HUD’s training,

and partner perspectives regarding issues of current interest.

technical assistance, and communications mechanisms.

• With respect to trends, key indicators of partner satisfaction that had been collected for the 2005 surveys were replicated in 2010.

Partner groups surveyed in 2010.

In addition to the eight partner groups surveyed in 2005 (mentioned

• To develop questions regarding issues of current interest, the Urban previously), the 2010 surveys added two new groups—surveying 10

Institute and Silber & Associates consulted with HUD program staff.

partner groups in total.12 The additional groups are as follows: The survey items that ultimately constituted the questionnaires for the 2010

Partner Group

Definition

surveys (see appendix B) divide into four topic clusters—the first three of which are reported in this document. The fourth cluster consists of issues unique to Directors of FHIP organizations

Fair housing and other non-profit organizations

receiving funding from HUD to assist people

each program area and is reported separately.13 The four clusters are as follows: believing they have been victims of housing

discrimination—for processing housing

1. Partner satisfaction with the HUD programs they deal with, the way discrimination complaints, conducting

HUD administers those programs, and overall performance.

preliminary complaint investigations, and

engaging in education and outreach activities

2. Partner satisfaction with individual aspects of their interactions involving housing discrimination.

with HUD (including quality of guidance, information, decision-

making, and rules) and HUD relationships (including their ratings Spokespersons for FHA-Entities (such as mortgage companies, banks,

of HUD personnel responsiveness, competence, and abilities).

approved single family mortgage

savings banks, savings and loan associations,

lending institutions

credit unions, state or local government

3. Partner perspectives regarding HUD’s training, technical

agencies, or public or state housing agencies)

that are authorized, based on their approval

assistance, and communications mechanisms.

type, to originate, underwrite, hold and/or service

forward or reverse mortgages, manufactured

4. Partner appraisals of selected program requirements, service home loans, or property improvement loans

provision, or organizational and management changes,

for which FHA insurance is provided.

which vary by program area and partner group.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. FHA = Federal Housing Administration.

13 See Community Development Department Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder; Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAPs) Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder; Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder; Mayors’

And Other Chief Elected Officials’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder; Multifamily Housing 12 Independent random samples were drawn of each partner group for each survey round (2001, 2005, and 2010); Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder; Housing Partnerships Network (HPN)-Affiliated however, in 2010, the full universe of community development directors, mayors, and Public Housing Agency Non-Profit Housing Organization Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder; Public directors (as previously defined) was surveyed such that the results could be analyzed at the field office level. Such Housing Agency (PHA) Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder; and FHA-Approved analysis is not a part of this report. In addition, given the small sizes of the FHAP, FHIP, and HPN-affiliated non-profit Single Family Mortgage Lending Partners’ Satisfaction with HUD’s Performance: 2010 Survey Data Binder—U.S.

housing partner groups, the full universe was also surveyed in each instance.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, May 2011.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

13

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Questionnaire development.

Potential respondents were then sent questionnaires in the mail and The survey instruments, reprinted in appendix B, contain a series of questions asked to reply by return mail. Those not responding to the mailing or common to all partner groups and additional questions unique to each followup reminder notices were contacted by telephone and asked if they group’s programmatic experiences with HUD. Common questions cover would prefer to respond to the paper-and-pencil survey by mail or fax, partners’ evaluations of HUD’s programs, program administration, and overall respond electronically and email the instrument back, or be surveyed over performance; the quality of service they received along a number of dimensions; the telephone. After the surveys were completed and returned, Silber & and training mechanisms and communications media. Both the common and Associates tabulated the results and the Urban Institute, in conjunction unique questions were closed-ended—with pre-established response categories with Silber & Associates, analyzed the data and prepared this report.

such as “very satisfied,” “somewhat satisfied, “somewhat dissatisfied,” or

“very dissatisfied.” In addition, the survey permitted respondents to provide Matched pairs of respondents: 2005 and 2010.

additional comments about HUD, in their own words, at the conclusion.14

Although random samples of partners were drawn independently for the 2005 and 2010 surveys, in some instances the samples were large 2010 survey procedures.

enough to result in a significant number of instances of the same entities The Urban Institute and Silber & Associates developed the survey procedures, being surveyed and responding in both years. This situation enabled the selected the samples, and administered the surveys. As previously indicated, to authors to match responses of such entities for the two time periods and ensure comparability the 2010 surveys replicated the methodology used for the examine, on an exploratory basis, organizational-level changes in partner 2001 and 2005 surveys. For most partner groups, HUD provided lists from which satisfaction. Where such comparisons appear useful as an adjunct to samples were randomly drawn or for surveying the entire partner universe.

the more standard presentation, they are presented in this report.

The Urban Institute and Silber & Associates prepared the questionnaires with 2010 survey response rates.

input from HUD program office staff. Silber & Associates administered the From a universe of 22,348 HUD partners across all ten surveyed groups, questionnaires in partner-group clusters beginning in late 2009 and ending 10,770 were sent questionnaires and 7,203 were completed and returned.16

December 2010.

Response rates varied across the groups, as shown in exhibit 1. For six Potential respondents were notified by advance letter that a questionnaire groups, more than 80 percent of sampled partners responded. For the three would be sent to them soliciting feedback regarding their experiences in multifamily owner groups, response rates ranged from 58 to 68 percent.17

working with HUD. The letter informed respondents that participation was For FHA-approved single family lenders, the response rate was 51 percent.

voluntary and confidential—that is, that neither HUD nor others aside from the survey administration and analysis team would be able to associate by Silber & Associates, refused to participate under any circumstances out of concern for disclosure and several removed survey quality control numbers from the questionnaires to further protect their anonymity.

their names, organizations, or communities with survey responses.15

16 For quality control and duplicate-prevention purposes, identifying numbers were printed on each questionnaire.

A small number of questionnaires were returned with the identification numbers removed by respondents. These 14 The proportion of respondents who chose to provide additional comments varied by group and ranged from 16

were excluded from the dataset to ensure that, inadvertently, duplicate surveys from the same people, agencies, or percent for Mayors/CEOs to 40 percent for FHIP organization directors. Comments often consisted of two or three organizations were not included. The numbers of such questionnaires are as follows: 1 for community development sentences but some were considerably longer. Along with the high rate of response to the surveys, the large number directors, 1 for mayors/CEOs, 5 for PHA directors, 10 for multifamily housing owners, and 1 for single family lenders.

of comments is also indicative of partner interest in being able to provide feedback to HUD, as was the case for the previous waves of HUD Partner Surveys.

17 In many instances, survey correspondence sent to multifamily owners was returned, “addressee unknown,” and missing or inaccurate telephone numbers in HUD’s database made contact with such entities not possible. If such 15 Even so, some potential respondents were extremely wary of participating in the survey, contacting Silber & Associates cases are removed from the sampling frame for purposes of calculating a response rate for all multifamily housing for reassurance regarding confidentiality before agreeing to respond or provide candid answers; they expressed fear of partners, the multifamily owner adjusted response rate would be 71 percent.

retribution from HUD should they be identified and their responses disclosed. Some non-respondents, when contacted 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

14

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 1. Universe size, sample size, number of respondents, and response or Section 202/811 properties, a supplemental sample of 50 entities that owned rate, by partner group

more than one property type was drawn to allow for representation of all multifamily owners should there be a future need for consolidated analysis of multifamily owners.

Data from these entities, however, are not analyzed or presented in this report.

Partner Group

Universe Sample Number of

Response

Size

Size

Respondents

Rate

***The original sample size consisted of 2,083 lending companies. Follow-on contact efforts determined that at least 112 of them had gone out of business between Community

1,206

1,206

985

82%

the date at which the sample frame was compiled and the end of the survey Development

Departments

period. This situation reduced the sample size to, at most, 1,971 companies.

Mayoral/CEO Offices

664

664

550

83%

Achieving a high rate of response from the partner surveys is

important. In conjunction with the sampling methods used, a high PHAs

1,649

1,649

1,367

83%

response rate provides confidence that respondents constitute a good FHAP Agencies

107

107

92

86%

representation of the various partner groups included in the surveys.

FHIP Organizations

114

114

97

85%

Types of survey respondents.

HPN-Affiliated

95

95

86

91%

Non-profit Housing

Questionnaires were sent to directors of local community development Organizations

departments, PHAs, FHAP agencies, FHIP organizations, non-profit housing organizations, mayors or other local chief elected officials (CEOs),18 owners Multifamily Ownership

8,929*

4,852**

3,017

62%

Entities: Total

of multifamily properties,19 and FHA-approved single family lenders.

Section 202/811

2,523

1,726

1,166

68%

In survey correspondence and phone conversations with potential respondents, it was emphasized that the director, mayor, owner, or official spokesperson HUD-insured

1,163

1,163

693

60%

(unsubsidized)

was the intended respondent. If, however, it was not possible for that person to respond, recipients were asked to direct the survey instrument (or phone HUD-assisted

4,419

1,913

1,117

58%

interview) to someone who could speak authoritatively on behalf of that person.

(subsidized)

FHA-Approved

9,584

2,083/

1,008

51%

In many instances the individuals to whom the survey was sent personally Single Family

1,971***

responded, as requested. But, in some cases, others responded

Mortgage Lenders

on their behalf. The proportion of respondents who were directors, mayors or owners is shown in exhibit 2. At the high end, 9 of every CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. HPN = Housing Partnerships Network.

10 PHA directors personally responded to the surveys and, at the low PHAs = Public Housing Agencies. FHA = Federal Housing Administration.

end, only 15 percent of mayors/CEOs personally responded.

18 CEOs included town supervisors, council presidents, presidents of boards of trustees, chairpersons of boards of trustees,

*Includes 824 owners of more than one property type.

chairpersons of boards of selectmen, first selectmen, and township commission presidents. Many mayors/CEOs delegated responsibility for responding to the survey to others, including senior local government officials or employees.

**In addition to the 4,802 sampled owners of exclusively HUD-insured, HUD-assisted, 19 Multifamily property owners included CEOs, managing general partners, presidents, chairpersons, principals, or organization directors—whoever could speak authoritatively for the entity. Some owners delegated responsibility for responding to the survey to others, including property managers and managing agents.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

15

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 2. Types of survey respondents

Partner Group

Director/CEO/Owner/

Other

Total

Senior Officer

Persons

Community Development

36%

64%

100%

Departments

Mayors Offices

15%

85%

100%

PHAs

90%

10%

100%

FHAP Agencies

61%

39%

100%

FHIP Organizations

67%

33%

100%

HPN-Affiliated Non-profit

51%

49%

100%

Housing Organizations

Multifamily Ownership Entities

N/A

N/A

N/A

Section 202/811

33%

67%

100%

HUD-insured (unsubsidized)

50%

50%

100%

HUD-assisted (subsidized)

47%

53%

100%

FHA-Approved Single

58%

42%

100%

Family Mortgage Lenders

FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. HPN = Housing Partnerships Network. PHAs = Public

Housing Agencies. FHA = Federal Housing Administration.

Persons other than the director/mayor/owner who responded to the survey held a variety of positions. For example, speaking on behalf of agency and organization directors were sometimes deputy directors, senior officials, or agency/organization employees. Speaking on behalf of mayors were sometimes deputy mayors, chiefs of staff, senior assistants, members of mayors’ immediate offices, departmental senior officials, or local government employees. And, speaking on behalf of multifamily property owners were sometimes company/

organization senior officials and property managers, among others.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

16

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

PART 2: BASIC PARTNER SATISFACTION

Satisfaction with HUD’s programs.

WITH HUD

Exhibit 3 shows that a majority within each partner group expressed satisfaction with the HUD programs with which they dealt, although wide disparity exists across the groups.22 The following observations derive from the exhibit.

Part 2 presents the results of the general satisfaction portion of the 2010

surveys. It covers partners’ ratings of the HUD programs with which they

• The percentage of partners satisfied with HUD’s programs ranges from deal, the way HUD runs those programs, and HUD’s overall performance.20

the high 80s (for community development and FHAP directors, mayors, Responses are compared across 10 partner groups as well as to earlier data and single family lenders) to the low 80s/high 70s (for Section 202/811

derived from the 2005 surveys where they are available. Also presented owners and PHA and FHIP directors), to the low 70s (for HUD-insured and are partners’ characterizations of the nature of their relationship with HUD-assisted owners and HPN-affiliated non-profit housing partners).

HUD—whether primarily supportive or regulatory—and the extent to which these characterizations are associated with overall partner satisfaction.

• In general, partners were more likely to be somewhat, as

opposed to very, satisfied with HUD’s programs. On the other

As indicated in Part 1, the survey instruments sent to partners contained hand, a relatively large proportion of FHAP Directors (43 percent) primarily closed-ended questions, but also welcomed respondents’ comments said they were very satisfied with HUD’s programs.

about HUD in their own words. A selection of such comments is provided in text boxes scattered throughout the report. Their purpose is to add detail, tone,

• Since 2005, there has been a statistically significant23

and flavor to the frequency distributions and cross-tabulations of answers to 13-percentage-point improvement in PHA directors’ satisfaction

the standardized, closed-ended questions.

with HUD’s programs, and a modest 4-percentage-point

21 The latter, however, must be relied upon to show the full range and distribution of opinion on any particular topic.

decline in community development directors’ satisfaction.

The most noteworthy change from 2005 to 2010 involved improvement As in 2005, Most Partners Are Satisfied With HUD’s

in PHA directors’ satisfaction with HUD’s programs. In fact, this reflects a Programs, Administration, and Performance; However,

consistent, decade-long trend. In 2001, 59 percent of PHA directors were There Have Been Some Changes Since 2005

satisfied with HUD’s programs compared with 65 percent in 2005 and Early in the survey, HUD’s partners were asked to rate the level of their 78 percent in 2010 (see exhibit 4). Although the 78-percent satisfaction satisfaction with both the HUD programs with which they dealt and the way level for PHA directors is still below FHAP and community development HUD administered them. Near the conclusion of the survey, after being asked directors, mayors, and Section 202/811 owners, it represents the largest a series of questions about specific aspects of the Department’s service to increase observed among partner groups for the 10-year time span.

them, partners were asked to rate the Department’s overall performance, “at present, taking everything into consideration.” Answers to these questions 22 Percentage distributions involving small-sized partner groups (such as FHAP agencies, FHIP organizations, and HPN-affiliated non-profit organizations) can be greatly swayed by only a few cases. Given the widely divergent sample are meant to provide core indications of partners’ satisfaction with HUD.

sizes across the HUD partner groups, caution is suggested when comparing partner-group percentages with one another.

20 In the bar charts presented throughout this report, those who answered “don’t know” are not shown in the bars, 23 T-tests of proportions in independent samples were calculated to identify statistically significant differences between although they are included in the denominator for calculating percentages (similar to previous HUD Partner survey the 2005 and 2010 survey results. Only statistically significant differences (p results in 2001 and 2005). Hence, the values on the bars may not add to 100 percent—the difference being the

≤ .05) are highlighted in this report and

also noted in the bar charts. Differences that are not statistically significant are likely to have occurred by chance.

proportion of such respondents. In contrast, those who skipped a question or answered “not applicable” are excluded from the denominators and the bar charts.

21 Complete verbatim responses for all respondents to the 2010 Partner surveys are presented in partner-specific data binders associated with this report.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

17

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Focusing on the sub-set of PHAs that were surveyed in both 2005 and 2010, organizational-level comparisons reveal that medium-sized agencies were more likely to change from being dissatisfied with HUD’s programs in 2005 to becoming satisfied in 2010; 27 percent of medium-sized PHAs made this shift compared with 15 percent of large agencies and 10 percent of small ones (n

= 331). The explanation for this finding is not apparent from the 2010 survey.

Finally, there was a statistically significant, decade-long improvement in satisfaction with HUD’s programs on the part of HUD-assisted multifamily owners (albeit to a lesser degree than for PHAs), and a statistically significant decade-long decline in satisfaction on the part of Section 202/811 owners.

Our most vital interactions with HUD deal with our implementation of new programs and the quest to refinance our properties. Unfortunately, many of our problems go unsolved and our paperwork gets hung up somewhere. Some of the regulations for the new programs contradict other HUD rules. If these programs were developed by the managers who deal daily with the properties, tenants, and paperwork, they could be much more effective and user friendly.

—Section 202/811 Owner

HUD has implemented too many programs in a short period of time. All have different rules, regs, and information systems.

—Community Development Department

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

18

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 3. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the HUD programs you currently deal with?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=404)

(n=975)

(n=501)

(n=533)

(n=396)

(n=1353)

(n=85)

(n=92)

(n=97)

(n=982)

(n=225)

(n=663)

(n=241)

(n=1092)

(n=257)

(n=1138)

(n=68)

(n=80)

100%

• ×

×

• ×

14%

13%

80%

31%

43%

32%

39%

32%

15%

22%

43%

34%

32%

60%

36%

34%

11%

23%

ed

17%

26%

23%

23%

16%

40%

Satisfi

56%

56%

56%

58%

59%

49%

52%

48%

50%

20%

48%

48%

46%

47%

50%

46%

44%

44%

44%

0%

4%

9%

5%

9%

10%

6%

2%

1%

16%

10%

11%

15%

15%

13%

14%

13%

13%

20%

19%

1%

1%

7%

3%

25%

9%

1%

20%

8%

4%

2%

10%

4%

14%

12%

10%

4%

40%

×

• ×

• ×

•

fi ed

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

19

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 4. Trends in satisfaction with HUD’s programs: 2001, 2005, and 2010

100%

95%

90%

FHAP

Mayor

Community Dev

*202/811

Mayor

Community Dev

85%

FHAP

202/811

80%

PHA

75%

cent Satisfied

Assisted

Per

Insured

70%

Non-Profit

Insured

65%

*Assisted

Non-Profit

60%

*PHA

55%

50%

2001

2005

2010

*Statistically significant difference between 2001 and 2010 results.

FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency

.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

20

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Satisfaction with HUD’s program administration.

HUD used to be an excellent agency. With all the computer-based programs, they have lost all contact with the local PHAs. They no longer have a housing mission. They just fill Majorities of HUD partners expressed satisfaction with the way HUD

out reports which we provide them with; no contact. They just respond to us if they receive administers its programs. However, compared to satisfaction with the a complaint. What happened to the partnership we were supposed to have had with HUD?

programs themselves, a somewhat smaller percentage of each partner group

—Public Housing Agency

expressed satisfaction with the way they are administered. Across all 10

HUD employees are outstanding. They have been for the 30 plus years I’ve worked partner groups, satisfaction with program administration is, on average, 13

with these programs.… However, the performance on CDBG-R (the Stimulus) has been percentage points lower than satisfaction with the programs (see exhibit 5).

atrocious. Whoever was in charge of writing the regulations and the delay of getting the “stimulus” money out there must be released or reassigned. …Does the leadership Other observations with respect to HUD program administration are as follows: in HUD have a clue as to why these programs exist? It is not to have regulations ad infinitum but to have impact assistance now!

• The percentage of HUD partners who expressed satisfaction with HUD

—Community Development Department

program administration ranged from 78 to 83 percent (for FHAP and community development directors, mayors, and single family lenders) Changes in partners’ assessments of HUD program administration over to 51 percent (for HPN-affiliated non-profit housing partners).

the last decade (2001 to 2010) are shown in exhibit 6. There has been a statistically significant decline in satisfaction among Section 202/811

• Within each group, partners were more likely to be somewhat, as owners and a statistically significant improvement in satisfaction among opposed to very, satisfied with the way HUD runs its programs.

HUD-assisted owners, FHAP directors, community development directors,

•

and PHA directors. Of these changes, the largest involves PHA directors, Since 2005 there has been a statistically significant improvement in satisfaction with the way HUD runs its programs on the part of FHAP

whose satisfaction level improved by 22 percentage points since 2001.

directors (by 16 percentage points), PHA directors (by 10 percentage points), and HUD-assisted multifamily owners (by 9 percentage

points). In contrast, a small but statistically significant decline in satisfaction occurred on the part of Section 202/811 multifamily owners (by 4 percentage points) among the very dissatisfied group.

My biggest complaint is that for those of us who have multifamily properties, Public Housing, and the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program … the rules should be more uniform. The forms should also be more uniform…. The 2 offices—Multifamily and Public and Indian Housing are in the same building,one floor apart, but they act like they don’t know the other exists.

—Multifamily Owner

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

21

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 5. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the way HUD currently runs those programs you deal with?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=403)

(n=972)

(n=497)

(n=528)

(n=396)

(n=1341)

(n=82)

(n=92)

(n=96)

(n=972)

(n=225)

(n=646)

(n=237)

(n=1067)

(n=249)

(n=1110)

(n=66)

(n=80)

100%

×

•

14% •

×

•

13%

80%

28%

22%

27%

24%

34%

21%

15%

60%

ed

25%

21%

25%

25%

13%

17%

8%

14%

21%

14%

11%

11%

Satisfi

40%

54%

56%

58%

52%

54%

47%

49%

50%

20%

44%

39%

46%

47%

45%

40%

45%

44%

40%

38%

0%

12%

14%

13%

13%

13%

15%

15%

19%

18%

20%

22%

21%

27%

26%

27%

28%

6%

29%

29%

4%

2%

2%

9%

20%

3%

4%

8%

14%

5%

17%

13%

4%

10%

20%

17%

11%

14%

fi ed

40%

• ×

•

•

×

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

22

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 6. Trends in satisfaction with how HUD runs its programs: 2001, 2005, and 2010

100%

90%

FHAP

Mayor

80%

*202/811

Community Dev

Mayor

Community Dev

70%

FHAP

202/811

Assisted

cent Satisfied

Insured

60%

PHA, Insured

Per

*Assisted

Non-Profit

Non-Profit

50%

40%

*PHA

30%

2001

2005

2010

*Statistically significant difference between 2001 and 2010 results.

FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency

.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

23

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Satisfaction with HUD’s overall performance.

Working with HUD is a test in endurance in the face of stupidity and insanity and is not a pleasant experience for anyone who appreciates an efficient and reasonable work ethic.

Exhibit 7 shows the level of overall partner satisfaction with HUD.24 Put

—Multifamily Owner

near the end of the survey, after respondents had considered a variety of aspects of their interactions with HUD, the question read, “At present, taking I appreciate the friendliness and expertise of the HUD personnel I deal with. I wish everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with decisions could be handled quicker.

—Multifamily Owner

HUD’s overall performance? ” It allowed partners to weigh and balance their range of interactions and experiences with HUD and to summarize them Over the past decade there has been consistent, statistically significant into a single, bottom-line rating. In doing so, a majority of HUD’s partners improvement in evaluations of HUD’s overall performance on the part expressed satisfaction with HUD’s overall performance, as follows: of HUD-assisted multifamily owners and PHA directors (see exhibit

•

825). Of these changes, by far the largest involves PHA directors, who Among partner groups, levels of overall satisfaction ranged from a high in the mid-80s (for FHAP directors, single family lenders, and mayors) went from having the lowest level of satisfaction among partner groups to a low of 60 percent (for HPN-affiliated non-profit housing partners).

in 2001 to a position that is only below FHAP directors, community development directors, and Section 202/811 multifamily owners in

• Within all but one group, partners were more likely to be

2010. The change constitutes a 30-percentage-point improvement.

somewhat, as opposed to very, satisfied with HUD’s overall performance. FHAP directors were the exception; 46 percent of

25 An apparent linear decline in satisfaction on the part of HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organization satisfaction is not statistically significant (p ≤ .05).

them said they were very satisfied with HUD’s overall performance compared with 40 percent who were somewhat satisfied.

• Since 2005 there has been a statistically significant improvement in satisfaction with HUD’s overall performance on the part of PHA directors (by 9 percentage points) and HUD-assisted multifamily

owners (by 7 percentage points), and a decline in satisfaction on the part of community development directors (by 9 percentage points).

I have been interacting with HUD for 27 years. I am well pleased with HUD. All government departments could take lessons from HUD.

—Multifamily Owner

24 In 2005 mayors were not asked about HUD’s overall performance but, instead, other questions, including: “At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall performance of the HUD field office with which your community generally deals? ” and, if they or their staff had dealt directly with an office or person at HUD headquarters in Washington, DC over the past 12 months. Those who responded in the affirmative were asked, “How satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with your direct interactions with HUD headquarters in Washington, DC, over the past 12 months? ” Mayors were not asked these questions in 2010 but were asked about HUD’s overall performance. For responses to the 2005 survey, see Abravanel and Silber, op cit., p. 19 (footnote 24).

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

24

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 7. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with HUD’s overall performance?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=402)

(n=964)

(n=531)

(n=400)

(n=)

(n=84)

(n=91)

(n=95)

(n=977)

(n=224)

(n=661)

(n=236)

(n=)

(n=258)

(n=)

(n=67)

(n=81)

100%

• ×

×

• ×

×

80%

30%

25%

30%

23%

29%

19%

18%

60%

46%

28%

19%

15%

35%

10%

ed

11%

15%

23%

9%

11%

40%

Satisfi

59%

57%

55%

61%

55%

50%

57%

54%

52%

53%

52%

48%

51%

20%

47%

45%

42%

40%

0%

10%

8%

15%

12%

13%

12%

18%

16%

16%

23%

20%

21%

2%

21%

9%

24%

18%

22%

2%

28%

1%

2%

20%

3%

7%

6%

6%

9%

2%

12%

12%

14%

14%

12%

12%

40%

fi ed

•

• ×

•

• ×

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

*The wording of this question was different for mayors in 2005, precluding a comparison to 2010 results.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

25

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 8. Trends in satisfaction with HUD’s overall performance: 2001, 2005, and 2010 (Mayors/CEOs were not asked this question in 2005 and are not included.)

100%

90%

FHAP

FHAP

80%

Community Dev

Community Dev

202/811

202/811

PHA

70%

Assisted

Non-Profit

cent Satisfied

Insured

Per

Insured

60%

Non-Profit

*Assisted

50%

*PHA

40%

2001

2005

2010

*Statistically significant difference between 2001 and 2010 results.

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

26

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

I’ve enjoyed working with HUD for over 22 years now—through good times and bad. I Exhibit 9. Groups where 80 percent or more of partners indicate satisfaction with wouldn’t want to work anywhere else, so that has to say something good about HUD. I HUD programs, administration, or overall

even enjoy the challenge of all the changes over the years. I have griped a little at times, but overall I think HUD is doing a great job for my agency.

Partner Group

Satisfaction With

Percent Satisfied

—Public Housing Agency

Community Development

HUD’s programs

88%

I am sure there are other inept bureaucracies in Washington, but it would be difficult to Directors

believe there is one worse than HUD. ... Abolish HUD!!

Overall performance

80%

—Public Housing Agency

Mayors/CEOs*

HUD’s programs

88%

Summary: Some Partners Express Notably Higher Levels

FHAP Directors

HUD’s programs

89%

of Basic Satisfaction With HUD, Particularly Its Programs,

HUD program administration

93%

Than Others

Overall performance

86%

In prior HUD Partner Surveys, several groups stood out from the others in Single Family Lenders

HUD’s programs

89%

terms of high levels of basic satisfaction with HUD’s programs, program administration, or overall performance. In 2005, for example, community Overall performance

86%

development directors expressed high levels of satisfaction with each of Section 202/811 Owners

HUD’s programs

80%

these indicators; mayors/CEOs, FHAP directors, and Section 202/811

owners expressed high levels of satisfaction with HUD’s programs.

*Also, 89 percent of mayors were satisfied with the overall performance of the HUD field offices with which their communities dealt; and, of the 37

By 2010, a small decline in satisfaction among community development percent of mayors who indicated they had contact with HUD Headquarters, directors and mayors/CEOs and improvements in satisfaction by other 82 percent indicated satisfaction with those interactions.

groups served to lessen the gap between groups that were most satisfied and CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

least satisfied. The largest change involved improvement in PHA directors’

satisfaction with HUD’s programs, program administration, and overall Beyond questions put to all partner groups, mayors/CEOs and PHA directors performance. Even so, the same groups that were most satisfied with HUD

were also asked about the quality of their current relationship with HUD. The in 2005 were also most satisfied in 2010—using an 80-percent standard for vast majority of mayors/CEOs (95 percent) and PHA directors (95 percent) designating high levels of satisfaction (see exhibit 9). In addition, in 2010, described their communities’ and agencies’ relations with HUD as being FHAP agencies and single family lenders26 were added to the ‘most satisfied’

either “very good” or “good.” And, 59 percent of PHA directors believed their cluster with respect to one or more of the basic satisfaction indicators.

relations with HUD had changed for the better “over the last several years,” 9

percent thought relations had changed for the worse, and 29 percent observed no change. In particular, the observations of PHA directors are noteworthy in the context of the decade-long improvement in PHA satisfaction with HUD

26 Single family lenders had not been surveyed in 2005.

programs, satisfaction with program administration, and overall satisfaction.27

27 When asked in 2005 if relations between their housing agencies and HUD had changed over the last several years, 49 percent of PHA directors said they had improved, 13 percent said they had worsened, 35 percent said they had not changed, and 3 percent did not know. When asked the same question in 2010, 59 percent said that they had improved, 9 percent said they had worsened, 29 percent said they had not changed, and 3 percent did not know—a 10-percentage-point improvement in the proportion responding that relations had improved.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

27

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

While Most Partners Are Satisfied With HUD’s Programs,

to apply reasonable, common-sense rules of thumb when considering, Administration, and Overall Performance, Some

for example, if dissatisfaction levels are unacceptably high.

Dissatisfaction Is Evident

Although assessment criteria vary, the underlying expectation appears to As with previous HUD Partner Surveys, the question of whether HUD partner be that customer or employee satisfaction levels should be reasonably satisfaction ratings are good or bad, in an absolute sense, is important. And, high, and dissatisfaction thresholds, therefore, quite low. This case is apart from how ratings of particular items compare with one another and over especially true in situations involving social service beneficiaries dealing time, how do they measure up to those observed in analogous situations—that with non-profit organizations, customers choosing to do business with is, where federal agencies work with partners to implement their programs certain establishments, or employees with a stake in relationships with or, for that matter, where any type of public or private entity operates with their employers. Relatively high dissatisfaction levels are, therefore, likely others to accomplish common business or organizational objectives?

to be indicative of problems requiring attention by senior management.

Hence, those who assess customer or employee satisfaction often

As noted in the 2005 HUD Partner surveys report,28 at least two factors highlight dissatisfaction ratings that are above, say, 10, 15, or 20 percent—

should be considered in assessing whether HUD partner ratings are depending on the expectations and particular context involved.

good or bad. The first involves understanding the meaning behind the ratings—that is, what underlies respondents’ summary satisfaction or Extrapolating from this practice, exhibit 10 identifies all instances in which dissatisfaction judgments. That is important because partners’ ratings 20 percent or more of the members of HUD’s partner groups expressed may reflect a deeper, broader, or more complex picture than might be dissatisfaction on one or more of the basic measures. Five of the 10 groups apparent from a simple satisfaction measure. Some might conclude, for surveyed are in this category. Indeed, in the case of HPN-affiliated noninstance, “I am satisfied with ‘service x’ considering the meager resources profit housing organizations, dissatisfaction levels regarding HUD program the provider had to work with,” while others might say, “the resources that administration and overall performance were at least 40 percent. Applying went into ‘service x’ are so meager I am very dissatisfied with them.” reasonable criteria, then, all of the cases shown in the exhibit are noteworthy.

As also discussed in the 2005 HUD Partners survey report, a second consideration involves the application of a set of guidelines for judging the acceptability of satisfaction or dissatisfaction ratings. Unfortunately, there appear to be no standard partner service criteria to provide a point of reference. HUD has not established such criteria nor is there a broader literature covering partner satisfaction ratings in other agencies or similar settings to use as a benchmark.29 Indeed, even the literature on customer service or employee satisfaction suggests no uniform criteria.

Instead, those who study customer service or employee satisfaction tend 28 Abravanel and Silber, op. cit., pp. 22–23.

29 In compliance with a 1993 Executive Order (Number 12862), HUD in 1994 outlined its customer and partner service standards but did not establish criteria for assessing service ratings. Report on Customer Service Plans, U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, September 1994.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

28

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

MANY PARTNERS CHARACTERIZED THEIR RELATIONS

Over the past few years, HUD has transformed from an agency primarily interested in WITH HUD POSITIVELY…

performance to one entirely dedicated to regulatory enforcement.

—Community Development Department

We also acknowledge the improved willingness to partner with lenders and to understand the impact of changes. As evidenced by this survey, HUD/FHA is demonstrating their openness to solicit feedback from lenders.

Exhibit 10. Groups where 20 percent or more of partners indicate dissatisfaction

—Single Family Lender

with HUD programs, administration, or overall

Partner Group

Dissatisfied With

Percent Dissatisfied

We have a great working relationship with HUD staff in the regional office. I feel that they are very responsive to our questions and appreciate the partnership we’ve developed.

PHA Directors

HUD programs

20%

—FHAP Agency

HUD program administration

36%

…HOWEVER, SOME SAW THEIR “PARTNERSHIP”

Overall performance

26%

OTHERWISE:

HUD-insured Owners

HUD programs

22%

In the past, HUD and I were partners in providing affordable housing to those individuals HUD program administration

33%

least able to afford it. Now-a-days, HUD is more like a dictator telling me how to run my properties and what I have to do to please them.

Overall performance

30%

—Multifamily Owner

HUD-assisted Owners

HUD’s programs

22%

HUD program administration

35%

HUD needs to treat FHIP-funded agencies as partners and not as the enemy.

—FHIP Organization

Overall performance

27%

Section 202/811 Owners

HUD’s programs

26%

HUD area office personnel need training in customer service. They do not respect PHA Overall performance

22%

partners. They are vindictive. They only want to “catch” a PHA doing something wrong.

They offer “little” or “no” technical assistance.

HPN-affiliated Non-profit

HUD programs

23%

—Public Housing Agency

Housing Organization

Directors

HUD program administration

43%

Overall performance

40%

No sense of partnership with HUD field office. Relationship from the HUD field office is an “I gotcha” mentality. Absolutely no spirit of cooperation/partnership. The HUD field office is understaffed with new people—they do not know the community. Have a good HPN = Housing Partnerships Network. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

responsive relationship with the DC office; would like to report directly to the DC office.

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

There has been a historic paternalistic treatment of non-profits at Headquarters.

—Non-Profit Organization

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

29

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Brain drain at HUD Central is evident. Work load is too much for area offices when staff the extent of support versus regulation from program area to program area, is not replaced after retirement, etc. Most HUD staff are highly dedicated but stretched and possibly from partner to partner within a program area.32 Differences may too thin. Too many rules—complication; too much bureaucracy.

also exist in partners’ sense of the balance between support and regulation:

—Public Housing Agency

two partners with an equivalent support-regulation mix may see their situations differently. Whether based on reality or perception, the extent to which partners Because HUD Not Only Supports Its Partners in

consider themselves to be mainly regulated or mainly supported by HUD can Accomplishing Program Objectives but Also Regulates

have a powerful affect on the way they relate to and assess their relationship.33

Them, the Relationship Can Be Complicated

HUD is way too focused on regulating rather than innovating. HUD should be a proactive As discussed in reports on previous HUD Partner Surveys, a contextual factor force for new principles and community development rather than a place that clings to serving both to frame partners’ relationships with HUD and explain some of regulatory power.

the variation in satisfaction with the agency is the perceived nature of HUD’s

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

role.30 Indeed, many partners have a paradoxical relationship with HUD given that the agency simultaneously supports and regulates their programs. Support The director … in our field office … has been very hard to work with. He is very consists of HUD providing funding, technical assistance, and information.

regulatory and does not help find resolution. Most of the answers I get are “I don’t Regulation involves HUD establishing and promulgating rules, issuing know” or “look it up.” When we turn in any documentation or report we usually get a ...

10-page response with things that need to be corrected. Some of those things are in the guidance, assuring compliance, and doing assessments. This dual role can document just not the order he wants it in.

lead to contradictory expectations on the part of both HUD and its partners.

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

The fact that relationships between HUD and its partners may include both Exhibit 11 displays partners’ responses to the question of HUD’s role in support and regulation is not unusual, but variation in the way these are

their relationship.34 It shows substantial cross-group and within-group blended across HUD’s programs and partners (that is, which role is, or is differences. Except FHIP organizations (where 46 percent of directors perceived to be, dominant in any situation) makes a difference. Consistent believe HUD mainly supports them), a relatively small proportion within with previous HUD Partner Surveys, the 2010 survey sought to understand how HUD’s role with respect to its partners varies. Hence, survey respondents 32 For example, community development departments receive annual grants and some multifamily owners receive monthly rental assistance payments from HUD and, in exchange, comply with HUD regulations pertaining to the use were asked if they mainly received support from HUD, were mainly regulated of, and reporting on, this support. In contrast, other multifamily owners receive a benefit (such as a lower interest rate, a higher loan-to-value ratio, or a non-recourse mortgage) only initially, at the time of loan closing. While such benefits

by HUD, or about equally experienced support and regulation.31

carry on for the life of a mortgage, they may be perceived as one-time, front-end benefits in exchange for regulatory obligations (such as HUD monitoring and compliance reviews, building inspections, reporting requirements, and limitations on ownership options because of housing preservation requirements) that last for the duration of the As would be expected, their answers reflect some mixture of objective reality mortgage—sometimes 40 years. HUD would consider those regulatory requirements integral to performance of its fiduciary responsibilities whereas, from the owners’ perspective, they may be seen as adding further complexity to and subjective perception. With respect to the former, real differences exist in already complicated multifamily financing arrangements and operations in exchange for a benefit ‘received’ long ago.

33 Likewise, the federal agencies government-wide customer satisfaction survey, using the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), reported that “…satisfaction is highest among customer segments that receive a direct 30 The relationship between variations in HUD’s role and partners’ satisfaction with HUD was first observed in the 2001

benefit from an agency and lowest for customer segments subject to regulation by agencies… .” University of HUD Partners surveys. See Abravanel et al.

Michigan Business School, American Customer Satisfaction Index: Federal Agencies Government-wide Customer Satisfaction Report for the General Services Administration. Washington, DC: December 1999.

31 Respondents were asked the following question: HUD has several different responsibilities. On the one hand, it provides various forms of support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the other hand, it 34 For ease of comparison, partner groups are arrayed based on the frequency with which they see themselves as being has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance with those rules, does assessments). In your

“mainly regulated.” In subsequent exhibits, however, partner groups are consistently arrayed, from left to right, as agency’s/ business’/organization’s/community’s relationship with HUD, would you say HUD is (a) mainly providing follows: community development departments, mayors/CEOs, PHAs, FHAP agencies, FHIP organizations, single support to you, (b) mainly regulating you, (c) about equally providing support and regulating you, (d) neither/something family lenders, HUD-insured multifamily owners, HUD-assisted multifamily owners, Section 202/811 multifamily other, or (e) don’t know?

owners, and HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

30

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

each partner group (ranging from 7 percent for HUD-insured owners to This grouping is contrasted with those who considered HUD’s role to be 20 percent for FHAP agencies and FHA single family lenders) considered mainly one of regulation. It shows that, within each partner group, those who HUD’s role to be primarily one of support. From one-third to two-thirds of perceived HUD’s role as primarily involving regulation were also more likely the partners in each group considered HUD’s role to be a mixture of support to be dissatisfied with HUD’s overall performance compared with those who and regulation. And, the remainder in each group considered HUD’s role saw HUD as either mainly supporting or equally regulating and supporting.

to be mainly one of regulation. The latter ranges from 12 percent of FHAP

In a few cases such differences in satisfaction are relatively small—that is, 7

agency partners to 50 percent of HUD-insured multifamily housing partners.

percentage points in the case of FHAP agency partners and 10 percentage points in the case of HPN non-profit housing organization partners. But, for We refer to HUD as our Overlords; that should tell you how helpful versus regulatory they are.

the eight other partner groups, the differences average 29 percentage points.

—Public Housing Agency

These differences resonate throughout the 2010 HUD Partners surveys. As a group, those who considered HUD’s role to be mainly that of regulator were I used to view HUD staff as helpful partners. Now I view them as adversarial watchdogs consistently more dissatisfied with HUD than were other HUD partners.36

who want to micromanage my operation. Level of regulations, reporting requirements, and red tape are not helpful.

—Public Housing Agency

The responsiveness, competence, and quality of information received from our field office depends entirely on the rep. assigned to our community. We currently have a very responsive, helpful rep., but that hasn’t always been the case. The good reps are much I think that our HUD field office ... does an excellent job with us. I have nothing but better at providing support and helping figure out ways to get projects done, while the wonderful things to say about the help and support we receive from our revitalization poor reps tend to be more concerned with regulating, and producing monitoring findings.

specialist, facilities manager, financial analyst, HUD director and acting director, as well

—Community Development Department

as the computer person. They have helped our agency tremendously.

—Public Housing Agency

The field offices are not as helpful as they could be. They are overbearing when it comes to regulations. They could provide more guidance if they weren’t trying to be auditors all the time.

HUD has dual and perhaps conflicting duties of helping PHAs succeed and monitoring/

—Community Development Department

punishing; cannot be both friend and judge. Maybe these functions must be split; field office always a friend and IG, REAC always a monitor + inspector. The field office should be told that they will be rewarded if PHAs succeed, not if they ferret out waste and 36 Such findings are reported in a series of separate, partner-specific data binders prepared in conjunction with this report.

abuse. OIG should recognize this as field staff responsibility and not attack them for failing to find errors.

—Public Housing Agency

As also observed in both the 2001 and 2005 HUD Partner surveys, these differences are associated with partners’ assessments of HUD’s performance.35

Exhibit 12 combines those who considered HUD’s role (with respect to their agency, business, community, or organization) to be mainly one of support with those who considered it to involve support and regulation in equal amounts.

35 Abravanel et al., p. 19.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

31

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 11. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms of support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the other, it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance with those rules, makes assessments). In your agency’s relationship with HUD, would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or doing both about equally?

FHAP Agency

Partners

12%

67%

20%

(n=92)

FHIP

13%

39%

46%

(n=96)

Community Dev

19%

65%

15%

Department Partners

(n=971)

Mayoral Partners

19%

64%

15%

(n=535)

Public Housing

25%

61%

14%

Agency Partners

(n=1350)

Non-Profit

26%

58%

14%

Housing Partners

(n=81)

FHA SF Lenders

26%

52%

20%

(n=976)

Section 202/811 MF

32%

55%

9%

Housing Partners

(n=1144)

HUD-Assisted MF

Housing Partners

41%

47%

9%

(n=1083)

HUD-Insured MF

50%

37%

7%

Housing Partners

(n=659)

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. SF = Single Family. MF = Multifamily.

Mainly regulating

About equally providing support and regulating

Mainly providing support

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

32

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 12. Satisfaction with HUD’s overall performance by whether the partner group perceives itself as mainly regulated by HUD, or as either mainly supported by HUD or receiving equal measures of support and regulation.

FHAP Agency

Mainly support or combination (n=79)

1%

11%

37%

51%

Partners

Mainly regulation (n=11)

18%

64%

18%

Mainly support or combination (n=80)

9% 5%

51%

34%

FHIP

Mainly regulation (n=11)

18%

18%

55%

9%

Community Dev

Mainly support or combination (n=762)

1%

10%

61%

29%

Department Partners

Mainly regulation (n=183)

12%

38%

49%

2%

Mainly support or combination (n=414)

1%

7%

57%

36%

Mayoral Partners

Mainly regulation (n=104)

9%

32%

52%

6%

Public Housing

Mainly support or combination (n=983)

2%

13%

60%

24%

Agency Partners

Mainly regulation (n=328)

15%

41%

40%

3%

Non-Profit

Mainly support or combination (n=58)

9%

31%

50%

10%

Housing Partners

Mainly regulation (n=20)

25%

25%

45%

5%

Mainly support or combination (n=696)

1%

9%

61%

30%

FHA SF Lenders

Mainly regulation (n=239)

7%

20%

62%

11%

Section 202/811 MF

Mainly support or combination (n=725)

4%

11%

49%

37%

Housing Partners

Mainly regulation (n=364)

11%

28%

48%

12%

HUD-Assisted MF

Mainly support or combination (n=594)

4%

10%

55%

30%

Housing Partners

Mainly regulation (n=443)

16%

28%

50%

5%

HUD-Insured MF

Mainly support or combination (n=283)

6%

11%

51%

31%

Housing Partners

Mainly regulation (n=325)

17%

25%

40%

16%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

FHA = Federal Housing Administration. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

SF = Single Family. MF = Multifamily.

Very

Somewhat

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

33

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

An interesting question is whether there have been changes over time in performance also tended to increase at a higher rate than for others, as follows: the way HUD’s partners view the Department’s role and, if so, whether such

•

changes are associated with changes in satisfaction with HUD. Consider, as Of the PHAs that perceived HUD’s role as changing from mainly regulatory in 2005 to mainly supportive (or a combination of supportive and regulatory) an example, PHA partners. Exhibit 13, which compares PHA directors’ views in 2010, 37 percent changed their assessments from being dissatisfied of HUD’s role over the three survey waves, shows a noticeable reduction in with HUD’s overall performance in 2005 to being satisfied in 2010.

the proportion of directors perceiving HUD mainly as a regulator from 2001

to 2010: in 2001, 43 percent said HUD primarily regulated them; in 2005,

• By comparison, only 14 percent of all other PHA partners

this figure dropped to 28 percent; and, in 2010, the proportion fell to 25

changed their assessment from being dissatisfied with HUD’s

percent. Over this same time period, as shown above, the proportion of PHA overall performance in 2005 to being satisfied in 2010.

directors who were satisfied with HUD’s overall performance increased—

with the largest improvement occurring between 2001 and 2005.

In sum, while many factors are likely to be associated with shifting levels of partner satisfaction with HUD, it seems reasonable to consider HUD’s perceived role—however that perception is acquired and modified—as Exhibit 13. PHA directors’ views of HUD’s role, by survey year

being important. As is clear from the above as well as other survey results presented in companion reports (see Contents), partners who viewed PHA Directors Views

Survey

Survey

Survey

of HUD’s Role

Year 2001

Year 2005

Year 2010

HUD as at least somewhat supportive of their activities, and not simply as a regulator, tended to assess HUD’s performance as more positive.

Mainly Regulatory

43%

28%

25%

About Equally Regulatory

42

59

61

and Supportive

Mainly Supportive

11

12

14

Other/Don’t Know

4

1

—

TOTAL

100%

100%

100%

PHA = Public Housing Agency.

Because the 2010 survey allowed for matched pair comparisons in cases where the same PHAs responded to both the 2005 and 2010 surveys, it is possible to empirically assess whether changes in partners’ perceived relationship with HUD (supportive vs. regulatory) are associated with changes in their satisfaction with HUD’s performance. Indeed, the matched-cases data provide some support for the posited association. As some PHA partners’ perceptions of their relationship with HUD shifted from 2005 to 2010 such that HUD was seen as being less regulatory and more supportive, satisfaction with HUD’s 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

34

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

PART 3: PARTNERS’ PERSPECTIVES

As Observed in Previous Surveys, More Partners Are

REGARDING INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS OF

Satisfied With the Quality of Information Received From

HUD Than With the Timeliness of That Information

THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH HUD

Partners assessed both the quality and the timeliness of the information that Part 3 presents the ratings of HUD partners regarding important

HUD provides.

aspects of their working and interpersonal relationships with

HUD. Part 3 also compares 2010 and 2005 ratings. HUD partners

Quality of HUD information.

were asked about their satisfaction with the following:

Partners were asked whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality of the information they currently receive from HUD. At least 70

• Quality of HUD information.

percent of each partner group reported being satisfied. The high end of the

• Timeliness of HUD information.

range involved FHAP agency directors, 88 percent of whom were satisfied with the quality of information they received from HUD (see exhibit 14).

• Quality of HUD guidance.

Some changes have occurred between 2005 and 2010 with respect

• Consistency of HUD guidance.

to satisfaction with the quality of information HUD provides:

• Timeliness of HUD decision-making.

• There was a statistically significant 7-percentage-point decline in

•

the satisfaction levels of both community development directors

Clarity of HUD rules and requirements.

and mayors/CEOs, and a 10-percentage-point improvement in

• Time commitment needed to comply with HUD reporting requirements.

the satisfaction levels of HUD-assisted multifamily owners.

• Responsiveness of HUD staff.

• There were also statistically significant declines in the proportion of community development directors and mayors/CEOs who were very

• Capabilities of HUD staff.

satisfied and statistically significant increases in the proportion of HUD-

• Knowledge, skills, and abilities of HUD staff.

insured and HUD-assisted multifamily partners who were very satisfied.

• Ability to reach HUD staff.

It is frustrating when I ask a question and am given wrong info. Also, sometimes you As will be apparent, a majority of partners were generally satisfied get conflicting answers to the same question depending on who you talk to. I was at a training about the ARRA money and we were told that we did not have to amend our with many aspects of their working relationship with HUD but there procurement policy unless we were changing our purchasing methods for the grant.

is also notable dissatisfaction. Some changes in satisfaction have HUD staff was at this training and yet I received a finding on my remote HUD audit for occurred since 2005, some for the better and some for the worse.

not amending the policy. GRRRRRR!!

—Public Housing Agency

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

35

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

We routinely receive information and guidance on HUD programs from sources aside The IDIS helpline is not efficient—if you are lucky enough to get through to a real person.

from HUD prior to getting it from HUD. We need the info quickly from HUD as the source.

Issues with IDIS reports cause delays and make it difficult to meet statutory deadlines.

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

Homeownership center is difficult to reach since their direct phone # is not listed. The The local office leadership and staff are accessible and try very hard to respond quickly resource center only gives you general textbook answers. These explanations I can find and thoroughly to every request. The challenge is the volume of demands placed on them.

on my own. When asked specifics, they have no answers.

—Non-Profit Organization

—Single Family Lender

HUD penalizes grantees for untimeliness but does not perform in a timely manner.

—Community Development Department

Timeliness of HUD information.

Majorities within all partner groups were satisfied with the timeliness of information received from HUD (see exhibit 15). HPN-affiliated nonprofit housing partners were least satisfied (53 percent) and FHAP

agency partners were most satisfied (78 percent). The following

changes have occurred since 2005 in partners’ assessments of

the timeliness of information provided to them by HUD:

• There was a statistically significant 8-to-10-percentage-point decline in the satisfaction levels of community development directors and mayors/

CEOs, and a statistically significant improvement in the satisfaction levels of FHAP agency directors and HUD-insured multifamily owners—the

former by 10 percentage points and the latter by 8 percentage points.

• There was also a statistically significant decline in the proportions of community development directors and mayors/CEOs who

were very satisfied, and a statistically significant 10-to-11percentage-point increase in the proportions of HUD-insured and HUD-assisted multifamily partners who were very satisfied.

It is difficult to reach individuals at the local HOCs [Homeownership Centers] and get timely responses. Many times responses can be up to 10 days for simple questions.

—Single Family Lender

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

36

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 14. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you at the present point in time with the quality of the information you currently receive from HUD?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=404)

(n=972)

(n=502)

(n=532)

(n=398)

(n=1354)

(n=83)

(n=92)

(n=97)

(n=960)

(n=207)

(n=601)

(n=228)

(n=1077)

(n=251)

(n=1114)

(n=67)

(n=80)

100%

• ×

• ×

•

×

• ×

14%

13%

80%

40%

40%

42%

30%

26%

35%

35%

25%

60%

26%

31%

30%

11%

24%

13%

35%

29%

ed

21%

19%

40%

Satisfi

59%

54%

50%

48%

52%

48%

20%

48%

51%

47%

47%

47%

43%

46%

45%

50%

50%

57%

48%

0%

10%

9%

10%

15%

14%

15%

20%

15%

13%

17%

16%

21%

17%

20%

16%

15%

24%

2%

1%

2%

25%

5%

20%

5%

7%

5%

5%

8%

7%

4%

3%

7%

9%

10%

4%

3%

5%

•

• ×

•

40%

fi ed

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Offi cial. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically signifi cant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically signifi cant change in very satisfi ed or very dissatisfi ed 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

37

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 15. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you at the present point in time with the timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=403)

(n=974)

(n=504)

(n=533)

(n=400)

(n=1355)

(n=84)

(n=91)

(n=97)

(n=961)

(n=206)

(n=598)

(n=232)

(n=1070)

(n=253)

(n=1110)

(n=67)

(n=79)

100%

• ×

• ×

14% •

• ×

13%

80%

60%

33%

35%

35%

ed

25%

28%

26%

25%

19%

25%

28%

21%

27%

14%

16%

13%

18%

25%

14%

40%

Satisfi

46%

46%

20%

45%

45%

45%

43%

44%

44%

45%

46%

42%

43%

41%

38%

41%

40%

37%

39%

0%

17%

21%

15%

16%

18%

23%

19%

22%

25%

21%

22%

27%

21%

24%

25%

30%

30%

31%

20%

3%

9%

5%

4%

9%

8%

13%

10%

10%

11%

10%

18%

13%

13%

6%

11%

40%

16%

fi ed

6%

• ×

• ×

•

•

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

38

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Partner Groups Vary in Their Assessments of the Quality of

• There was a statistically significant 7-to-12-percentage-point Guidance HUD Provides to Them and the Consistency of

decline in the satisfaction levels of mayors/CEOs and community That Guidance

development directors, respectively, and a statistically significant improvement in FHAP agency directors and HUD-insured

HUD partners were asked to assess separately the quality

multifamily owners satisfaction levels—the former improved by

and consistency of guidance they received from HUD.

15 percentage points and the latter by 12 percentage points.

My greatest frustration is asking for clarification or interpretation of the guides. When you

• There was also a statistically significant decline in the proportions ask a question, they will reply with the section of the manual. I have already researched of community development directors and mayors/CEOs who were

the manual before asking the question, and it is not addressed.

very satisfied (the former by 8 percentage points and the latter

—Single Family Lender

by 5 percentage points) and a statistically significant percentage-point increase in the proportions of HUD-insured and HUD-assisted My field office for the most part tries to be helpful. They respond when I call and provide multifamily partners who were very satisfied (the former by 18

information. Sometimes the response from field and DC is to read me the regulation.

percentage points and the latter by 12 percentage points).

When I call I have done that. I want to know what HUD has decided the regulation requires. I believe HUD staff are like HA staff—we are afflicted with change and Some of the same community development departments surveyed in

information overload. Too much, too fast. Most recent example: on December 31 e-mail 2010 were also surveyed in 2005, permitting matched pair, organization-with guidance for Core Activity Report in RAMPS, which is due between January 1 and 10. Instructions are 27 pages; requires data we didn’t know we should be collecting, level comparisons of responses to the two surveys.37 Analysis of the

so we have to backtrack and get data; then after weekend of working to try to comply, kinds of agencies that changed from being satisfied with the quality e-mail 1-04 changes date due to a problem in the system.

of HUD’s guidance in 2005 to becoming dissatisfied in 2010 revealed

—Public Housing Agency

that 29 percent of community development departments in large

communities did so, compared with 20 percent of those in medium-

We have discovered HUD is good at identifying what you are doing incorrectly, but fails sized communities and 18 percent of those in small communities.

at offering solutions to correct the situation.

—Community Development Department

The consistency of HUD guidance.

Partner satisfaction with the consistency of guidance received from The quality of HUD guidance.

HUD varied widely, from a low of 43 percent for HPN-affiliated non

Majorities within each partner group were satisfied with the quality of profit housing partners to a high of 72 percent for mayors/CEOs (see guidance HUD provided—with satisfaction levels ranging from a low 53

exhibit 17). The following changes occurred since 2005 with respect percent for HPN-affiliated non-profit housing partners to 84 percent for to partners’ assessments of the consistency of guidance:

FHAP agency partners (see exhibit 16). Also noteworthy is the fact that a relatively high proportion (45 percent) of FHAP partners was very satisfied.

• There was a statistically significant 7-to-10-percentage-point decline in the satisfaction levels of community development directors and mayors/CEOs.

The following changes have occurred since 2005 in partners’

There was also a statistically significant 7-percentage-point decline in the assessments of the quality of guidance that HUD provides:

proportion of community development directors who were very satisfied.

37 n=331.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

39

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

• There was also a statistically significant increase in the proportion of The competency of HUD staff and consistency of guidance varies dramatically from FHAP agency partners, HUD-insured multifamily owners, and HUD-region to region. … Much of our dissatisfaction has come from the seemingly total lack of knowledge between other HUD programs and FHEO (Office of Fair Housing and Equal assisted multifamily owners who were very satisfied—by 18 percentage Opportunity). Other areas of HUD answer questions about fair housing for PHAs, other points, 8 percentage points, and 7 percentage points, respectively.

multiunit housing and are usually providing erroneous information. …also, the glaring differences on how regional FHEO offices interpret fair housing is a very real problem.

—FHIP Organization

The HOCs can’t always be on the same page, but on major issues or guideline interpretations, they should have to come to the same conclusion. The lender shouldn’t be required to make an underwriting decision based on which HOC the file is going to because of the inconsistencies between them.

—Single Family Lender

Consistency from HUD HQ down to the field reps [has] never been good and causes problems.

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

I have found when you contact the field office and speak with two or more persons, you will receive a completely different answer. It’s hard to determine which answer is correct.

—Public Housing Agency

The concept of Remote Monitoring may work for HUD but certainly does not work for local governments. It results in a significant drain on local resources without a commensurate level of benefit. Onsite monitorings are superior in effectiveness and much more beneficial to both HUD and local government staff. HUD staff must visit the communities they monitor to gain insight and understand and pick up early distress signals.

—Community Development Department

The region ... Field office contradicts guidance provided by DC and ... Offices. The office also does not provide confirmation of verbal guidance in writing and then generates a finding during an audit.

—Non-Profit Organization

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

40

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 16. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you at the present point in time with the quality of guidance you currently receive from HUD?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=404)

(n=971)

(n=505)

(n=530)

(n=401)

(n=1355)

(n=83)

(n=92)

(n=96)

(n=965)

(n=213)

(n=609)

(n=231)

(n=1065)

(n=260)

(n=1120)

(n=67)

(n=80)

100%

• ×

•

• ×

• ×

14%

13%

80%

39%

60%

37%

45%

30%

ed

31%

32%

25%

25%

27%

22%

27%

29%

6%

15%

28%

17%

15%

16%

40%

Satisfi

52%

20%

46%

44%

42%

42%

45%

42%

42%

46%

42%

39%

40%

42%

40%

40%

38%

36%

36%

0%

9%

13%

13%

20%

17%

6%

21%

17%

23%

19%

19%

19%

22%

25%

23%

5%

29%

26%

28%

33%

20%

7%

3%

7%

7%

9%

10%

10%

8%

14%

14%

9%

13%

12%

19%

17%

40%

fi ed

14%

•

•

•

•

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

41

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 17. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you at the present point in time with the consistency of guidance you currently receive from HUD?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=404)

(n=964)

(n=501)

(n=527)

(n=403)

(n=1344)

(n=82)

(n=92)

(n=96)

(n=952)

(n=208)

(n=594)

(n=230)

(n=1061)

(n=258)

(n=1103)

(n=66)

(n=77)

100%

• ×

•

14% ×

×

•

13%

×

80%

31%

60%

35%

ed

29%

28%

22%

21%

35%

17%

33%

21%

24%

26%

14%

23%

14%

8%

40%

15%

Satisfi

16%

48%

20%

45%

42%

43%

43%

37%

42%

41%

41%

39%

42%

36%

40%

38%

35%

31%

35%

27%

0%

13%

16%

23%

20%

21%

25%

23%

21%

24%

25%

26%

7%

30%

28%

26%

26%

20%

32%

35%

38%

4%

6%

7%

5%

12%

11%

10%

17%

15%

10%

11%

14%

20%

40%

11%

20%

•

fi ed

•

14%

16%

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

42

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Another issue is timeliness of requests. We are frequently asked to respond within 24

• The largest improvement in satisfaction involved FHAP agency partners hours or less on certain items. On the other hand, when we request information, it can (by 18 percentage points). Other observed improvements involved HUD-take up to several weeks before it is addressed.

insured multifamily owners (12 percentage points), HUD-assisted owners

—Public Housing Agency

(10 percentage points), and Section 202/811 owners (9 percentage points); also, the proportion of HUD-insured partners who were very My principle dissatisfactions with HUD have to do with its cumbersome qualities—

satisfied improved by 7 percentage points from 2005 to 2010.

generally so weighed down by their own regulations that they’re slow to respond on nearly everything. My other dissatisfaction is less with HUD and how they operate and more with the shortage of critical resources needed—the things they don’t do, or don’t HUD is the most poorly run government entity I’ve ever worked with. Staffing is do enough of.

insufficient. Training is insufficient, and HUD personnel, particularly the front line staff,

—Non-Profit Organization

appear afraid to make a decision on anything slightly out of the ordinary. If you are fortunate enough to have someone good as your primary contact, you may be able to get things done. If not, your organization will have a difficult time addressing issues.

While Satisfaction Ratings Were Generally Modest

If HUD does nothing else over the next period, they should concentrate on improving Regarding Decision-making Timeliness and Clarity of

organizational management and becoming much more user friendly.

—Non-Profit Organization

Rules, FHIP Partners Were Mostly Satisfied With Both

The clarity of HUD rules and requirements.

The timeliness of HUD decision-making.

HUD partners were asked to assess the clarity of HUD’s rules and HUD partners were asked to consider such things as requests for waivers, requirements that applied to their agencies, businesses, or organizations—

rulings, and approvals when assessing their satisfaction with the timeliness that is, how easy such rules were to understand. Compared with other of HUD decision-making (see exhibit 18). Satisfaction levels ranged from aspects of HUD-partner relationships, satisfaction with the clarity of HUD’s a high of 78 percent for FHAP agency partners to a low of 33 percent rules was relatively low except for FHAP agencies (see exhibit 19).

for HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organization partners. In between were community development directors, mayors/CEOs, and Section

Satisfaction levels ranged from a high of 81 percent for FHAP directors to 202/811 owners (where about 6 out of every 10 partners were satisfied) a low of 39 percent for HPN-affiliated non-profit organization directors. In to bare majorities of PHA directors, FHIP organization directors, HUD-between were FHIP organization partners (62 percent) and all others (where insured multifamily owners, and HUD-assisted multifamily owners.

the levels are between 44 and 50 percent). Only FHAP directors improved their satisfaction levels since 2005 (by 15 percentage points overall—and The following changes have occurred since 2005 with respect

by 17 percentage points in the extent to which they were very satisfied).

to the extent to which partner groups expressed satisfaction

with the timeliness of decision-making at HUD:

HUD is a maze, which is near impossible to navigate, layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

• There was a statistically significant 9-percentage-point decline in the One cannot get a straight answer from anyone. They refer you to the manual, which is satisfaction levels of community development directors and mayors/

over 900 pages long.

—Multifamily Owner

CEOs, and a statistically significant decline in the proportion of community development directors who were very satisfied (by 6 percentage points).

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

43

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Satisfaction With the Time Commitment Needed To

Comply With HUD Reporting Requirements Varies

Considerably Across Partner Groups

Partners were asked about their satisfaction with the time commitment needed to comply with HUD reporting requirements. Depending on the program, such reporting generally involves use of one or another HUD system—

such as the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS) for community development departments, Title VIII Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS) for FHAP agencies, Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) and the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) for non-profit housing organizations and multifamily housing ownership entities, and REAC and the PIH Information Center (PIC) for PHAs.38

38 This question was not asked of mayors.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

44

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 18. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the timeliness of decision-making by HUD?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=390)

(n=934)

(n=484)

(n=513)

(n=380)

(n=1273)

(n=84)

(n=88)

(n=96)

(n=874)

(n=214)

(n=611)

(n=225)

(n=1018)

(n=246)

(n=1089)

(n=64)

(n=76)

100%

14%

• ×

•

•

• ×

13%•

•

80%

60%

31%

ed

23%

22%

17%

17%

18%

13%

25%

10%

23%

20%

15%

40%

18%

Satisfi

14%

13%

12%

5%

8%

48%

47%

20%

46%

42%

43%

44%

38%

41%

37%

33%

34%

35%

32%

29%

33%

33%

30%

25%

0%

13%

21%

26%

20%

20%

26%

26%

29%

25%

24%

29%

26%

28%

25%

27%

29%

30%

20%

9%

37%

9%

7%

11%

9%

9%

22%

13%

19%

18%

19%

40%

25%

18%

fi ed

15%

29%

31%

30%

29%

60%

Dissatis

×

•

•

•

• ×

• ×

• ×

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

45

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 19. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your business or organization; in other words, how easy they are to understand?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=404)

(n=969)

(n=503)

(n=530)

(n=397)

(n=1352)

(n=82)

(n=91)

(n=94)

(n=971)

(n=221)

(n=651)

(n=233)

(n=1076)

(n=257)

(n=1134)

(n=68)

(n=80)

100%

• ×

14%

13%

80%

35%

60%

ed

12%

13%

18%

12%

19%

13%

12%

17%

14%

40%

10%

Satisfi

14%

8%

8%

10%

10%

7%

6%

49%

50%

48%

20%

46%

43%

42%

45%

37%

34%

38%

38%

32%

34%

33%

36%

36%

31%

33%

0%

13%

30%

26%

32%

27%

29%

28%

29%

33%

5%

30%

34%

32%

32%

20%

34%

35%

36%

40%

41%

8%

5%

10%

9%

22%

17%

40%

13%

19%

fi ed

9%

17%

16%

24%

22%

24%

22%

21%

19%

60%

Dissatis

•

×

•

•

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHA = Federal Housing Administration. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. HPN = Housing Partnerships Network.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

46

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 20. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the time commitment needed to comply with HUD reporting requirements?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=403)

(n=957)

(n=403)

(n=1345)

(n=84)

(n=91)

(n=96)

(n=965)

(n=209)

(n=629)

(n=230)

(n=1076)

(n=259)

(n=1121)

(n=63)

(n=68)

100%

•

• ×

80%

20%

22%

60%

ed

19%

19%

11%

16%

10%

12%

19%

11%

14%

9%

Satisfi

40%

10%

10%

4%

56%

51%

20%

39%

11%

39%

39%

40%

42%

38%

38%

39%

34%

34%

35%

37%

32%

14%

0%

13%

16%

21%

21%

21%

30%

27%

23%

29%

31%

26%

27%

26%

29%

33%

11%

20%

9%

40%

17%

15%

20%

23%

19%

25%

24%

20%

fi ed

40%

19%

18%

29%

26%

26%

25%

60%

Dissatis

•

•

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

47

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

HUD needs a good database. We report the same information in three different formats.

with HUD staff responsiveness. Community development directors and mayors/

—FHIP Organization

CEOs registered declines of 10 and 7 percentage points, respectively.

Except for the FHAP agency directors and single family lenders, satisfaction The problem we have with HUD field office (especially capital fund programs) is that they levels were relatively low with respect to assessing the time commitment do not return phone calls, ever. You talk to voice mail but never a live person.

—Public Housing Agency

required for reporting to HUD. Of the remaining groups, the high end of the satisfaction range was 61 percent for Section 202/811 owners, and the low end was 36 percent for HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations (see exhibit 20). Among FHAP agency directors, 79 percent reported being satisfied with reporting time requirements—a statistically significant 29-percentage-point improvement from the group’s 2005

rating. Single family lenders reported a 73-percent satisfaction rating.39

Partners Were Generally Satisfied With Their Interactions

With HUD Personnel, but Some Dissatisfaction Is Apparent

HUD partners were asked to assess aspects of their interactions with HUD

personnel. Questions covered HUD staff responsiveness, competence, knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as partners’ ability to reach such people.

The responsiveness of HUD staff.

A majority, and, in some cases, a sizeable majority, of HUD partners were satisfied with the responsiveness of the HUD personnel with whom they dealt.

Satisfaction levels ranged from a high of 88 percent (for FHAP agency directors) to a low of 65 percent (for single family lenders). Presumably, the personnel referred to were mainly in HUD’s field and regional offices, Hubs, and HOCs (see exhibit 21).40 Equally noteworthy is the large proportion of some partner groups indicating they were very satisfied with HUD staff responsiveness—59

percent of FHAP agencies, 50 percent of community development directors and mayors/CEOs, and 49 percent of FHIP organizations. The only statistically significant changes between 2005 and 2010 involved declines in the extent to which community development and mayoral/CEO partners were very satisfied 39 Since lenders were not surveyed in 2005, no comparative data exist against which to judge change.

40 Indeed, some respondents commented at the end of the survey that they were referring to field office staff when answering questions about the people at HUD with whom they dealt.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

48

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 21. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you at the present point in time with the responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=403)

(n=971)

(n=503)

(n=529)

(n=403)

(n=)

(n=84)

(n=92)

(n=97)

(n=963)

(n=192)

(n=223)

(n=246)

(n=231)

(n=290)

(n=259)

(n=50)

(n=81)

100%

×

×

14%

13%

80%

60%

41%

43%

27%

22%

57%

50%

ed

60%

50%

49%

46%

59%

20%

32%

39%

27%

36%

25%

32%

40%

Satisfi

50%

52%

20%

45%

39%

37%

41%

41%

41%

37%

37%

38%

38%

28%

35%

32%

33%

33%

29%

0%

10%

10%

8%

8%

11%

13%

11%

17%

11%

16%

13%

22%

16%

16%

17%

19%

21%

19%

2%

2%

4%

7%

6%

5%

1%

20%

9%

4%

6%

4%

10%

9%

13%

7%

12%

10%

18%

40%

fi ed

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

49

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Field office staff—especially direct line—are generally very helpful. Staff at HQ or in Several changes have occurred since 2005 in partner ratings of HUD

specialty offices much less so.

staff knowledge, skills, and abilities. There was a statistically significant

—Public Housing Agency

5-percentage-point decline in community development directors’ satisfaction ratings, and a 9-percentage-point decline in the extent to which they were Headquarters staff are true partners and will serve as your advocate if it is deserved. If very satisfied. On the other hand, a 5-percentage-point improvement you could just get the field staff to operate like HQ staff it would be great!

in the extent to which PHA directors were satisfied with HUD staff

—Public Housing Agency

knowledge, skills and abilities, and an 8-percentage-point improvement in the satisfaction levels of HUD-assisted multifamily partners.

The competence of HUD staff.

Asked about the competence of the HUD people with whom partners currently deal, 91 percent of FHAP agency directors, 84 percent of mayors/CEOs, and 82

percent of community development agency directors said they were satisfied.

Indeed, more than one-half of FHAP partners said they were very satisfied.

Large numbers of other partner groups were also very satisfied with the competence of HUD staff; for example, 45 percent of community development and mayoral/CEO partners. However, there was a 7-percentage-point decline in the extent to which community development directors were very satisfied with HUD staff competence since 2005—the only statistically significant change in satisfaction across all partner groups (see exhibit 22). Finally, at the low end, 65 percent of HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organization directors indicated they were satisfied with the competence of HUD staff.

Relying upon one field office for information and questions has been in vain. The rep assigned to our project isn’t aware of her job duties nor is she capable of answering most of the questions or inquiries forwarded to her. Until recently, reaching her was nearly impossible. She was very non-responsive until her supervisor was contacted.

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

HUD staff’s knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Most partners were satisfied with the extent to which HUD employees had the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work (see exhibit 23). Groups expressing the highest levels of satisfaction were FHAP agencies, mayors/

CEOs, and community development departments; the group with the lowest level of satisfaction was HUD-insured multifamily owners, at 68 percent.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

50

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 22. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you at the present point in time with the competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=405)

(n=966)

(n=504)

(n=524)

(n=402)

(n=1351)

(n=84)

(n=90)

(n=95)

(n=955)

(n=220)

(n=643)

(n=232)

(n=1062)

(n=259)

(n=1129)

(n=68)

(n=82)

100%

×

14%

13%

80%

51%

48%

38%

60%

45%

52%

45%

34%

38%

20%

25%

31%

ed

42%

34%

25%

31%

38%

24%

26%

40%

Satisfi

49%

47%

46%

20%

44%

44%

44%

41%

34%

40%

40%

41%

37%

39%

42%

39%

41%

37%

38%

0%

11%

8%

9%

13%

9%

11%

13%

15%

12%

14%

18%

13%

16%

18%

17%

22%

21%

1%

26%

2%

12%

3%

6%

9%

7%

20%

3%

7%

4%

4%

10%

5%

10%

8%

16%

4%

9%

40%

fi ed

• ×

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

51

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit 23. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with the extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=403)

(n=970)

(n=503)

(n=529)

(n=401)

(n=1348)

(n=83)

(n=91)

(n=95)

(n=959)

(n=222)

(n=647)

(n=232)

(n=1070)

(n=256)

(n=1132)

(n=68)

(n=81)

100%

• ×

•

•

14%

13%

80%

43%

40%

43%

21%

20%

60%

40%

34%

48%

39%

33%

34%

19%

37%

ed

29%

29%

28%

23%

23%

40%

Satisfi

50%

52%

53%

20%

42%

44%

45%

43%

43%

44%

42%

44%

46%

40%

38%

40%

42%

43%

45%

0%

11%

14%

8%

9%

12%

16%

12%

19%

13%

12%

15%

21%

15%

21%

18%

22%

18%

17%

2%

6%

20%

3%

3%

2%

4%

6%

11%

8%

8%

4%

7%

9%

9%

14%

4%

10%

40%

fi ed

•

• ×

•

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

52

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

The ability to reach people at HUD.

As is also apparent in exhibit 25, one or more partner groups expressed A final indication of the extent of partner satisfaction with HUD working especially low levels of satisfaction with several aspects of their working relationships involves their ability to reach HUD staff (see exhibit 24). At the relations with HUD—including consistency of guidance, clarity of rules and high end, 91 percent of FHAP partners, 87 percent of mayors/CEOs, and regulations, time commitments needed to comply with reporting requirements, 84 percent of community development partners expressed satisfaction.

and timeliness of decision-making. Four such groups reported low levels At the low end, only 42 percent of single family lenders were satisfied with of satisfaction with the clarity of HUD rules and requirements. Single family their ability to reach HUD/FHA personnel. That is a 49-percentage-point lenders expressed particularly low levels of satisfaction with their ability to difference between the FHAP and single family partners satisfaction levels, reach HUD staff. And, finally, HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations and a 25-percentage-point difference between them and HUD-insured showed the lowest levels of satisfaction with the relationship issues indicated.

multifamily partners (the group that is least satisfied with their ability to reach HUD personnel). As such, the single family lender ratings on this indicator are among the more dramatic differences observed in the 2010 partner surveys.

This year there was one instance when I called about problems related to a HUD-owned property and I was never able to get an answer. I was transferred numerous times.

No names or extensions were given to me each time I was transferred. I was finally transferred to a number that was not answered after 30 rings.

—Single Family Lender

Highlights of partners’ perspectives regarding

interactions with HUD.

Exhibit 25 summarizes 2010 survey results regarding partners’ working and interpersonal relationships with HUD. Groups with 80 percent or more members who express satisfaction with one or another

indicator are highlighted in green, and those with less than 50 percent of their members expressing satisfaction are highlighted in red.

Community development directors, mayors, PHA directors, FHAP

agency directors, and FHIP organization directors expressed high rates of satisfaction with respect to at least three, and up to seven, indicators, with FHAP partners expressing satisfaction with seven. Conversely, single family lenders, HUD-insured multifamily owners, HUD-assisted multifamily owners, Section 202/811 owners, and HPN-affiliated non-profit groups did not exhibit satisfaction levels higher than 80 percent with respect to any aspect of their working and interpersonal relations with HUD.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

53

Exhibit 24. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact?

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profi t

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=405)

(n=971)

(n=501)

(n=526)

(n=401)

(n=1356)

(n=84)

(n=92)

(n=97)

(n=964)

(n=224)

(n=648)

(n=233)

(n=1068)

(n=259)

(n=1120)

(n=66)

(n=82)

100%

×

• ×

80%

50%

46%

52%

27%

60%

47%

55%

29%

37%

46%

49%

27%

34%

ed

24%

34%

30%

28%

27%

40%

Satisfi

12%

46%

49%

20%

45%

41%

42%

39%

43%

41%

42%

40%

33%

37%

39%

35%

37%

38%

36%

30%

0%

10%

8%

3%

12%

9%

12%

20%

14%

13%

16%

18%

16%

19%

18%

15%

17%

2%

4%

2%

4%

5%

32%

30%

20%

7%

4%

3%

7%

5%

10%

7%

17%

12%

12%

11%

×

3%

40%

•

•

fi ed

25%

60%

Dissatis

80%

100%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

•

Statistically significant change in overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction Very

Somewhat

×

Statistically significant change in very satisfied or very dissatisfied 54

Exhibit 25. Especially high and low levels of satisfaction expressed by HUD partner groups, by indicator HUD-Nonprofit

Community

FHAP

FHIP

Single

HUD-Insured Assisted

Section Housing

Development Mayors PHA

Agency

Organization Family

Multifamily

Multifamily 202/811 Organization

Indicator

Directors

CEOs

Directors Directors Directors

Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Directors

Responsiveness of HUD People

86%

87%

82%

Ability to Reach HUD People

84%

87%

80%

91%

84%

42%

Competence of HUD People

82%

84%

91%

Responsiveness of HUD People

88%

82%

Extent of Employee Knowledge,

81%

83%

89%

Skills, and Abilities

Quality of Information from HUD

81%

81%

80%

88%

81%

Timeliness of Information from HUD

Quality of Guidance from HUD

84%

Consistency of Guidance from HUD

43%

Clarity of HUD Rules

47%

81%

48%

44%

39%

and Requirements

Time Commitments to Comply

49%

44%

36%

with Reporting Requirements

Timeliness of Decision-making by HUD

33%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

Low Levels of Satisfaction

High Levels of Satisfaction

55

ASSESSMENTS OF HUD IN SELECTED PARTNERS’

OWN WORDS

Clarity and especially timeliness to queries is not very good at field office level. Any issue to matter that has to go to Headquarters is a joke in terms of getting a timely response.

Biggest problem is absence of real and thorough delegation of authority to the field office. Regional directors should be decision makers, not figureheads. HUD is classic discredited top-down management. Washington does not trust the decision-making of field office, despite the fact that most decisions in the housing field are not rocket science. Empowering the field offices will make the department more focused on its fundamental mission rather than obsession with regulatory enforcement.

—Public Housing Agency

1. From an underwriting standpoint, the Resource Center is little or no help as they merely send guidelines we already can access. We need explanation or interpretation of guidelines from time to time and staff at Resource Center cannot provide. Also, answers often do not answer questions and differ from answers provided by HOC. 2. HOC

personnel are inconsistent on answers or will not honor at insuring what (was) relayed in discussing loan particulars. 3. HOC personnel most difficult to contact and with one or two exceptions, we have come to realize their answers cannot be trusted.

—Single Family Lender

Staff are excellent people to deal with. But program regulations are cumbersome and subject to broad interpretation. Monitoring and recording requirements are excessive, overburdening, and expensive with admin costs. Administration caps are unrealistic and need to be raised dramatically to allow staff to run programs effectively.

—Community Development Department

The survey is difficult to complete in that some HUD personnel are exceptional while others are miserable—the survey is general and therefore the good is tainted by the not so good.

— Public Housing Agency

I love serving the low-income elderly, but I am disgusted with the regulations and will not be continuing in housing management. Every year the regulations and requirements get more and more absurd.

—Multifamily Owner

56

PART 4: PARTNER PERSPECTIVES

and HUD officials and staff participating in panel discussions or training sessions organized by non-HUD groups. Partners were asked if they had used REGARDING HUD’S TRAINING

such training or technical assistance and, if so, whether they had found it useful.

AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

MECHANISMS AND ELECTRONIC

HUD has changed its relationship from technical support, training, and auditing to exclusively auditing.

COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA

—Public Housing Agency

HUD connects to its partners in many ways, including through the provision of HUD staff needs to be much better about answering questions instead of pointing us training and technical assistance, and uses various communications media—

back to regulations or steering us to other sources. HUD technical assistance tools and increasingly including electronic transmissions. Such interactions are important instructions also need to use “plain English” in order to be less confusing. Furthermore, to the quality of partner relationships with HUD. Part 4 reports on partners’

HUD instructions and technical assistance tools should not assume that all its clients have thorough knowledge of its programs.

assessments of the usefulness of various HUD training and technical assistance

—Community Development Department

methods and on the effectiveness of different electronic communications media.

Use of training and technical assistance varies by type of approach and Data are presented here in two forms. Bar charts are used to display the partner group (see exhibit 26). For example, most partners had used full range of responses to questions about training and technical assistance HUD’s web page although HUD-insured multifamily owners had used it mechanisms and electronic communications media. The charts include the least. Indeed, HUD-insured owners were the least likely to use any the percentage of partners who indicated they had not used the various of the training and technical assistance mechanisms provided by HUD.

mechanisms or media. In addition, data regarding the usefulness of Other multifamily owners, single family lenders, FHAP agencies, and training and technical assistance mechanisms and the effectiveness of HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations had also tended to use electronic communications media are presented in tabular form for just these mechanisms at more modest levels than community development those partners who had used the various mechanisms and media.

developments, mayors/CEO offices, PHAs, and FHIP organizations.

Groups Used and Valued Various Kinds of Training

Of those partners who used one or another training or technical assistance and Technical Assistance Mechanisms and Electronic

mechanism, some variation exists in the extent to which each criterion was Communications Media, but to Different Degrees

considered useful. And, while very few partners considered such training or technical assistance “not at all” or “not too” useful, variation was evident in the Satisfaction with HUD training and

extent to which they were rated as either “somewhat” or “very” useful. Tabular technical assistance mechanisms.

exhibits 27 through 32 show these variations for partners who used them, and HUD provides its partners with various forms of training and technical bar chart exhibits 33 through 38 show the full distributions (including those who assistance, using a range of approaches and media. Included are HUD-did not use each mechanism) in 2010 and, for comparison purposes, in 2005.

sponsored conferences and satellite broadcasts, HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors, HUD’s web page, HUD’s webcast training, 57

Exhibit 26. Proportion of partner groups that have not used HUD-related training and technical assistance HUD-Nonprofit

Community

FHAP

FHIP

Single

HUD-Insured Assisted

Section Housing

Training and Technical

Development Mayors PHA

Agency

Organization Family

Multifamily

Multifamily 202/811 Organization

Assistance Mechanisms

Directors

CEOs

Directors Directors Directors

Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Directors

HUD-sponsored conferences

13%

15%

11%

2%

5%

48%

68%

37%

40%

40%

HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

26%

26%

13%

34%

11%

53%

75%

47%

52%

44%

HUD-sponsored training

10%

13%

19%

42%

41%

51%

67%

28%

37%

33%

conducted by contractors

HUD’s web page

2%

4%

1%

1%

3%

6%

31%

10%

12%

7%

HUD’s webcast training

23%

23%

7%

50%

15%

40%

73%

40%

45%

49%

HUD participation non-HUD

27%

30%

16%

26%

32%

NA

68%

39%

45%

28%

panel discussions and training

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

Lower Non-Usage Rate (

Medium Non-Usage Rate (34% to 66%)

Higher Non-Usage Rate (67%+)

≤ 33%)

Usefulness of HUD-sponsored conferences.

Usefulness of HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts. HUD partners also Most of the HUD partner entities that attended HUD-sponsored conferences varied in the degree to which they judged HUD-sponsored satellite found them to be useful. Although the smallest proportion considering the broadcasts to be useful, ranging from a low of 33 percent (HUD-insured conferences to be useful was 58 percent (HUD-insured owners), more than 7 out owners) to a high of 80 percent (PHAs). The proportion considering of every 10 partners across the other groups came to this conclusion, including satellite broadcasts to be very useful ranged from 5 percent—HUD93 percent of FHAP agencies. The proportion of partners who considered insured owners, to 27 percent—PHAs (see exhibits 28 and 34).

HUD-sponsored conferences to be very (as opposed to somewhat) useful varies widely, however, from a low of 10 percent—HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations, to a high of 50 percent—FHAP agencies (see exhibits 27 and 33).

58

Exhibit 27. Partners’ assessment of the usefulness of HUD-sponsored conferences, by those who used them Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

HUD-Sponsored

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

Conferences

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Useful

46%

49%

39%

59%

34%

28%

24%

32%

36%

10%

Somewhat Useful

43

40

49

34

41

44

34

42

43

67

Not too Useful

7

6

8

6

19

11

13

10

9

6

Not Useful at All

1

1

1

3

4

5

3

1

2

Don’t Know

3

4

2

1

3

14

25

13

11

14

Total

100%

100%

99%

100%

100%

101%

101%

100%

100%

99%

Number of Respondents

848

452

1,195

90

92

532

214

683

686

49

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHAs = Public Housing Agencies.

Exhibit 28. Partners’ assessment of the usefulness of HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts, by those who used them Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

HUD-Sponsored

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

Satellite Broadcasts

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Useful

18%

18%

27%

20%

19%

18%

5%

15%

18%

7%

Somewhat Useful

50

50

53

46

40

46

28

39

42

48

Not too Useful

22

21

15

17

24

13

16

20

15

17

Not Useful at All

3

2

2

3

10

6

8

7

5

2

Don’t Know

7

8

3

14

7

17

43

19

20

26

Total

100%

99%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Number of Respondents

720

394

1,185

59

86

479

169

573

541

46

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHAs = Public Housing Agencies.

59

Usefulness of HUD participation in panel discussions

Usefulness of HUD-sponsored training

and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups.

programs conducted by contractors.

HUD officials and staff participate in panel discussions and training sessions Among partner groups that used contractor conducted, HUD-sponsored training set up by non-HUD groups as a means of discussing and conveying

programs, most considered the training useful. The low end of the range is information about HUD policies and programs. Most HUD partners in a 56 percent (HUD-insured owners) and the high end is 93 percent (community position to evaluate HUD participation in such discussions and sessions development departments). An especially wide range exists with respect to the found them to be useful. The proportions, however, varies from a low proportion of partners judging training conducted by contractors to have been of 49 percent (HUD-insured owners) to a high of 84 percent high (FHIP

very useful; 14 percent of single family lenders are in this category compared organization directors). And, the proportion judging HUD participation in with 53 percent of community development directors (see exhibits 30 and 36).

panel discussions and training sessions to be very (as opposed to somewhat) useful also varies, from a low of 14 percent—HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations) to a high of 32 percent—PHAs (see exhibits 29 and 35).

Exhibit 29. Partners’ assessment of the usefulness of HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups, by those who used them HUD Participation in

Panel Discussions

and Training

Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

Sessions Set Up by

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

Non-HUD Groups

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Useful

23%

26%

32%

31%

29%

NA

17%

24%

25%

14%

Somewhat Useful

42

42

42

43

55

NA

32

39

36

50

Not too Useful

13

12

13

6

4

NA

10

12

10

19

Not Useful at All

2

3

2

—

1

NA

6

4

3

5

Don’t Know

19

17

11

21

11

NA

35

20

25

12

Total

99%

100%

100%

101%

100%

NA

100%

99%

99%

100%

Number of Respondents

704

372

1,138

68

76

NA

211

664

632

58

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHAs = Public Housing Agencies.

60

Exhibit 30. Partners’ assessment of the usefulness of training programs conducted by contractors, by those who used them Training Programs

Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

Conducted by

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

Contractors

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Useful

53%

49%

25%

26%

23%

14%

16%

30%

33%

18%

Somewhat Useful

40

41

55

36

47

45

40

48

44

56

Not too Useful

4

4

9

4

5

14

10

8

6

7

Not Useful at All

1

1

2

2

5

5

5

2

2

2

Don’t Know

2

5

10

32

19

22

30

12

15

17

Total

100%

100%

101%

100%

99%

99%

101%

100%

100%

100%

Number of Respondents

871

458

1,088

53

56

488

218

783

713

54

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHAs = Public Housing Agencies.

Usefulness of HUD’s Internet web page.

Usefulness of HUD’s webcast training.

Of those who had used HUD’s web page on the Internet, a large majority Most partners who used HUD’s webcast training rated it as useful, considered it to be useful (see exhibits 31 and 37). Within every group, although somewhat more variation exists across groups with respect to this however, more partners said it was somewhat, as opposed to very, useful.

mechanism (see exhibits 32 and 38). In particular, HUD-insured owners, Very few partners believed the web page not to have been useful at all.

FHAP agencies, and HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations were somewhat less likely to have rated webcast training as useful compared with HUD is no better or worse (than) any other federal agency I have dealt with except as other groups. Note, however, that for reasons that are not clear, between with regard to information technology. HUD is awful. The worst website, inability to 21 percent and 39 percent of such partners responded “don’t know” to implement EIV in efficient manner, poor recordkeeping, etc.

this question despite having the option of responding they had not used

—Multifamily Owner

webcast training. Also note that most of those who had used webcast training considered it to have been somewhat as opposed to very useful.

HUD’s technology systems need major help. Too much “rule-making” by FAQs and new items.

—Public Housing Agency

The HUD website is confusing and sections are way out of date.

—Community Development Department

61

Exhibit 31. Partners’ assessment of the usefulness of HUD’s web page, by those who used it Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

HUD’s Web Page

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Useful

26%

32%

35%

30%

31%

31%

22%

24%

26%

20%

Somewhat Useful

56

51

51

60

54

55

50

52

55

60

Not too Useful

15

13

11

7

15

10

15

15

12

13

Not Useful at All

3

2

2

2

—

2

5

4

3

3

Don’t Know

—

2

1

1

—

2

9

5

4

4

Total

100%

100%

101%

100%

100%

101%

101%

100%

100%

100%

Number of Respondents

960

510

1,345

90

94

924

456

978

1,006

76

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHAs = Public Housing Agencies.

Exhibit 32. Partners’ assessment of the usefulness of HUD’s webcast training, by those who used it Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

HUD’s Webcast

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

Training

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Useful

18%

23%

29%

13%

21%

23%

8%

19%

18%

14%

Somewhat Useful

54

52

55

44

43

51

33

39

49

43

Not too Useful

19

15

12

11

26

10

14

18

15

17

Not Useful at All

4

3

2

4

5

3

6

7

3

5

Don’t Know

5

7

2

27

6

13

39

16

15

21

Total

100%

100%

100%

99%

101%

100%

100%

99%

100%

100%

Number of Respondents

749

408

1,254

45

89

612

182

649

620

42

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHAs = Public Housing Agencies.

62

Exhibit 33. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. Please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found HUD-sponsored conferences.

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

n=973

n=530

n=1348

n=92

n=97

n=979

n=667

n=1075

n=1132

n=81

100%

6%

90%

8%

15%

22%

21%

80%

32%

35%

40%

11%

42%

4%

70%

58%

2%

41%

23%

26%

60%

27%

6%

50%

2%

5%

4%

39%

1%

1%

7%

40%

44%

38%

35%

2%

68%

30%

34%

48%

40%

40%

20%

5%

6%

37%

18%

1%

7%

1%

1%

10%

15%

13%

11%

3%

5%

5%

0%

2%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not too useful

Not useful at all

Have not used

63

Exhibit 34. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. Please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts.

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

n=972

n=534

n=1357

n=90

n=97

n=977

n=669

n=1079

n=1130

n=82

100%

90%

1%

13%

8%

13%

24%

8%

9%

13%

16%

7%

4%

80%

4%

2%

22%

21%

70%

20%

27%

37%

60%

30%

37%

35%

6%

3%

10%

50%

46%

7%

10%

4%

1%

40%

11%

2%

16%

75%

16%

2%

30%

22%

2%

1%

53%

47%

20%

13%

44%

52%

34%

2%

9%

26%

26%

10%

13%

11%

0%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not too useful

Not useful at all

Have not used

64

Exhibit 35. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. Please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups. (This question was not asked of Single Family Lender Partners.) Community

Public

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=407)

(n=970)

(n=503)

(n=533)

(n=404)

(n=1355)

(n=83)

(n=92)

(n=97)

(n=224)

(n=668)

(n=235)

(n=1085)

(n=253)

(n=1140)

(n=68)

(n=81)

100%

90%

7%

5%

10%

18%

17%

80%

22%

22%

18%

23%

15%

14%

17%

10%

18%

27%

10%

23%

19%

3%

3%

70%

2%

22%

4%

36%

23%

60%

29%

20%

24%

30%

30%

31%

50%

34%

40%

6%

43%

5%

35%

8%

2%

34%

32%

1%

11%

32%

40%

3%

14%

9%

8%

66%

4%

9%

68%

30%

2%

2%

8%

%

2%

4%

1%

13%

6%

3%

11%

6%

1%

1%

44%

20%

45%

39%

2%

2%

32%

28%

30%

27%

28%

25%

26%

10%

22%

21%

21%

15%

16%

0%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not too useful

Not useful at all

Have not used

65

Exhibit 36. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. Please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors.

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=403)

(n=970)

(n=504)

(n=528)

(n=405)

(n=1349)

(n=83)

(n=92)

(n=96)

(n=974)

(n=225)

(n=667)

(n=237)

(n=1083)

(n=254)

(n=1132)

(n=68)

(n=81)

100%

90%

5%

19%

7%

22%

7%

18%

18%

14%

12%

80%

20%

22%

21%

21%

13%

13%

48%

43%

14%

55%

15%

70%

22%

3%

2%

3%

3%

60%

28%

7%

32%

32%

21%

38%

37%

28%

3%

34%

50%

43%

52%

44%

2%

3%

1%

3%

40%

51%

7%

3%

7%

1%

5%

36%

6%

2%

1%

67%

6%

30%

36%

3%

33%

1%

61%

9%

51%

7%

20%

6%

42%

41%

1%

1%

37%

3%

2%

35%

33%

33%

3%

1%

10%

29%

28%

10%

5%

1%

19%

19%

16%

1%

10%

13%

6%

8%

0%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not too useful

Not useful at all

Have not used

66

Exhibit 37. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. Please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found HUD’s web page.

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=403)

(n=975)

(n=502)

(n=533)

(n=404)

(n=1357)

(n=83)

(n=91)

(n=97)

(n=982)

(n=222)

(n=664)

(n=237)

(n=1082)

(n=254)

(n=1142)

(n=68)

(n=82)

100%

90%

26%

15%

21%

30%

30%

30%

19%

23%

18%

31%

34%

29%

28%

27%

80%

35%

35%

38%

38%

70%

34%

60%

37%

50%

47%

55%

48%

56%

53%

52%

51%

49%

50%

40%

54%

44%

51%

59%

49%

10%

50%

47%

9%

4%

30%

2%

20%

13%

11%

8%

31%

7%

12%

10%

27%

9%

2%

4%

10%

14%

12%

8%

3%

7%

11%

11%

14%

5%

7%

7%

2%

2%

2%

3%

1%

12%

10%

9%

9%

2%

3%

2%

6%

7%

4%

4%

4%

2%

2%

7%

0%

2%

2%

3%

1%

1%

1%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not too useful

Not useful at all

Have not used

67

Exhibit 38. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. Please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found HUD’s webcast training.

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=404)

(n=970)

(n=501)

(n=531)

(n=404)

(n=1355)

(n=83)

(n=90)

(n=96)

(n=978)

(n=222)

(n=666)

(n=236)

(n=1082)

(n=252)

(n=1131)

(n=68)

(n=82)

100%

90%

14%

12%

15%

2%

13%

9%

5%

10%

18%

2%

18%

7%

7%

11%

11%

26%

9%

3%

80%

4%

11%

4%

17%

2%

3%

21%

18%

70%

1%

22%

22%

29%

27%

22%

24%

30%

27%

9%

42%

38%

60%

36%

9%

3%

10%

40%

6%

9%

5%

50%

2%

8%

4%

1%

6%

11%

2%

12%

6%

2%

12%

50%

4%

40%

2%

2%

1%

14%

73%

15%

70%

30%

11%

22%

3%

57%

3%

2%

49%

50%

48%

49%

49%

45%

20%

39%

40%

37%

40%

4%

11%

26%

10%

23%

23%

2%

15%

7%

0%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not too useful

Not useful at all

Have not used

68

Satisfaction with electronic communications media.

HUD has been increasingly relying on various means of electronic media to communicate with its partners, including listservs (automated mailing subscriber lists to which HUD sends email messages), website postings, and e-mail correspondence. Accordingly, HUD partners were asked to evaluate the effectiveness of each of these media as a means of HUD conveying important information (such as notices and guidance) and a means of HUD-partner correspondence.

Although electronic communications media usage varies somewhat across partner groups, most partners had used HUD’s listservs, website postings, and e-mail communications. Only HUD-insured multifamily partners had used listservs and website postings to a lesser extent (see exhibit 39).

Exhibit 39: Percentage of partner groups that have not used various electronic communications media HUD-Nonprofit

Community

FHAP

FHIP

Single

HUD-Insured Assisted

Section Housing

Electronic

Development Mayors PHA

Agency

Organization Family

Multifamily

Multifamily 202/811 Organization

Communications Media

Directors

CEOs

Directors Directors Directors

Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Directors

HUD listservs

15%

17%

7%

22%

26%

18%

50%

19%

25%

28%

HUD’s website

7%

8%

3%

16%

6%

14%

47%

21%

21%

18%

E-mail involving HUD

2%

5%

1%

2%

4%

11%

26%

15%

14%

12%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

Low Non-Usage Rate (

Medium Non-Usage Rate (34% to 66%)

High Non-Usage Rate (67%+)

≤ 33%)

69

Of those who had used HUD’s listservs, website postings, or e-mail, a large E-mail correspondence to and from HUD personnel.

majority believed them to be effective electronic communications tools. The E-mail use by partners and HUD to correspond with one another is quite exhibits below provide information for those who said they had used the extensive, and the large majority of all groups but one concluded it was various media and the bar chart exhibits that follow show the full distributions an effective means of communication (see exhibits 42 and 45). This (including those who had not used the media) in both 2010 and 2005.

judgment was held by more than 90 percent of the directors of community development departments, PHAs, FHAP agencies, and FHIP organizations, HUD’s listservs.

as well as mayors/CEOs and at least 80 percent of multifamily owners Except for HUD-insured multifamily owners, three-fourths or more of and HPN-affiliated non-profit organizations. Only single family lenders partner groups considered HUD’s listservs to be an effective means were somewhat less likely to view e-mail as effective, with 77 percent to convey important information, although variation exists across in this category. Variation regarding whether e-mail was considered the groups. For example, 49 percent of FHIP organization directors very (as opposed to somewhat) effective, however, ranged from 33 (for compared with 15 percent of HPN-affiliated organization directors lenders) to 60 percent (for community development departments).

considered listservs to be very effective (see exhibits 40 and 43).

Far too many e-mails come from HUD and then are immediately corrected/resent, HUD’s website postings.

corrected again and then resent. Also, use the subject line of the e-mail to help those of us that get 20 HUD e-mails a day. Tell us in the subject line the HUD Department which Notwithstanding the fact that at least two-thirds of partners in all groups, is sending, the sub-department, the subject and if there is a suspense. HUD puts out too other than HUD-insured owners, considered HUD’s website postings to much NOISE!

be an effective way for HUD to communicate, somewhat fewer partners

—Public Housing Agency

viewed website postings as effective in comparison with HUD’s listservs (see exhibits 41 and 44). Also, pluralities in each group viewed HUD’s Resource Center only seems to e-mail back chapter section from handbook. We have website postings as somewhat, as opposed to very, effective.

already read it and need further guidance and have to call again to be escalated.

—Single Family Lender

The HUD website is difficult to use. It is difficult to remember where to find the info you need. I bookmark, but it still doesn’t help. If you search for something, you often end up with papers instead of going directly to the related page.

—Community Development Department

I have better luck using Google to locate information on HUD’s website. HUD’s search engine is useless.

—Community Development Department

70

Exhibit 40. Assessment of the effectiveness of HUD’s listservs, by those who used them Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

HUD’s Listservs

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Effective

37%

38%

40%

42%

49%

41%

27%

39%

39%

15%

Somewhat Effective

47

42

48

48

31

43

40

41

42

63

Not too Effective

11

12

8

4

8

6

10

9

8

12

Not Effective at All

1

1

1

1

3

2

5

3

2

2

Don’t Know

4

7

3

4

10

8

18

8

9

8

Total

100%

100%

100%

99%

101%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Number of Respondents

831

444

1,254

71

72

806

331

881

856

59

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

Exhibit 41. Assessment of the effectiveness of HUD’s website postings, by those who used them Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

HUD’s Website

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

Postings

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Effective

19%

24%

28%

25%

27%

22%

16%

20%

23%

12%

Somewhat Effective

50

48

53

57

44

53

42

46

47

52

Not too Effective

25

21

16

14

20

16

18

21

18

21

Not Effective at All

3

2

2

4

2

3

8

4

4

5

Don’t Know

3

5

1

—

7

6

16

9

8

10

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Number of Respondents

908

490

1,315

77

91

847

349

860

901

67

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

71

Exhibit 42. Assessment of the effectiveness of e-mail correspondence, by those who used it Community

Single

HUD-

HUD-

Section Nonprofit

E-mail

Development Mayors/

FHAP

FHIP

Family

Insured

Assisted

202/811 Housing

Correspondence

Departments CEOs

PHAs

Agencies Organizations Lenders Owners

Owners

Owners Organizations

Very Effective

61%

59%

60%

61%

56%

33%

43%

44%

47%

42%

Somewhat Effective

33

35

36

37

35

44

38

41

39

43

Not too Effective

4

3

3

2

8

13

9

7

7

12

Not Effective at All

1

1

1

—

1

6

4

3

2

—

Don’t Know

1

2

—

—

—

4

6

5

5

3

Total

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Number of Respondents

959

509

1,351

90

93

863

489

922

983

72

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding error. CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

72

Exhibit 43. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how effective or ineffective HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages) have been as a tool for HUD to convey important information to you, such as notices and guidance.

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=407)

(n=972)

(n=497)

(n=533)

(n=403)

(n=1352)

(n=83)

(n=91)

(n=97)

(n=975)

(n=225)

(n=664)

(n=235)

(n=1091)

(n=254)

(n=1139)

(n=68)

(n=82)

100%

90%

11%

11%

13%

15%

31%

17%

32%

80%

15%

33%

44%

32%

37%

36%

29%

31%

33%

36%

34%

70%

20%

20%

24%

60%

45%

32%

7%

5%

38%

3%

50%

2%

7%

41%

28%

32%

35%

23%

1%

33%

37%

40%

36%

49%

35%

9%

35%

45%

3%

9%

4%

7%

30%

6%

1%

6%

2%

1%

3%

2%

8%

10%

50%

50%

1%

5%

46%

20%

10%

6%

2%

1%

7%

1%

1%

2%

32%

7%

1%

29%

28%

28%

26%

25%

10%

7%

1%

22%

18%

19%

15%

17%

1%

12%

15%

9%

7%

0%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Not too effective

Not effective at all

Have not used

73

Exhibit 44. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how effective or ineffective HUD’s website postings have been as a tool for HUD to convey important information to you, such as notices and guidance.

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=407)

(n=975)

(n=502)

(n=531)

(n=401)

(n=1354)

(n=83)

(n=92)

(n=97)

(n=977)

(n=224)

(n=658)

(n=236)

(n=1085)

(n=253)

(n=1136)

(n=67)

(n=82)

100%

90%

21%

17%

13%

8%

15%

28%

23%

10%

27%

22%

20%

16%

26%

18%

25%

80%

26%

16%

19%

22%

70%

27%

60%

40%

43%

36%

47%

10%

38%

33%

48%

39%

44%

50%

50%

39%

12%

4%

48%

41%

47%

51%

46%

4%

40%

11%

17%

12%

30%

14%

14%

2%

17%

10%

12%

14%

47%

3%

3%

23%

20%

20%

4%

4%

3%

39%

19%

14%

11%

16%

3%

16%

29%

28%

10%

2%

21%

21%

1%

21%

3%

2%

19%

4%

18%

16%

2%

14%

8%

10%

7%

8%

2%

5%

6%

3%

0%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Not too effective

Not effective at all

Have not used

74

Exhibit 45. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how effective or ineffective HUD’s e-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD

employee) has been as a tool for HUD to convey important information to you, such as notices and guidance.

Single

Community

Public

Family

HUD-Insured

HUD-Assisted

Non-Profit

Development

Mayoral/

Housing

FHAP

FHIP

Lender

Multifamily

Multifamily

Section 202/811

Housing

Partners

CEO Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

Partners

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2010

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

2005

2010

(n=406)

(n=975)

(n=497)

(n=535)

(n=403)

(n=1358)

(n=83)

(n=90)

(n=97)

(n=978)

(n=223)

(n=662)

(n=236)

(n=1090)

(n=255)

(n=1136)

(n=68)

(n=82)

100%

90%

23%

80%

29%

32%

35%

36%

37%

37%

41%

54%

70%

55%

29%

60%

57%

58%

60%

61%

68%

62%

60%

29%

50%

28%

39%

30%

38%

40%

8%

37%

35%

32%

34%

4%

7%

30%

34%

5%

3%

33%

39%

1%

33%

27%

36%

38%

4%

11%

20%

6%

2%

27%

37%

9%

6%

11%

2%

33%

5%

1%

2%

26%

25%

10%

19%

2%

3%

7%

15%

1%

14%

14%

12%

3%

4%

1%

11%

3%

2%

1%

1%

6%

1%

5%

3%

1%

2%

4%

2%

0%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

CEO = Chief Elected Official. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Inclusion of the ‘have not used’ category precluded conducting significance tests of differences over time.

Very effective

Somewhat effective

Not too effective

Not effective at all

Have not used

75

Summary: Ratings of HUD’s Training and Technical

Partner Group

Mechanisms and Media

Percent

Assistance Mechanisms and Electronic Communications

Saying

Media Are High, but Opportunity Exists for Improvement

Useful/

Effective

Exhibit 46 shows that 80 percent or more of partner groups considered training PHA Directors

T&TA through HUD-sponsored conferences

88

and technical assistance mechanisms to have been useful and electronic T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

80

communications media to have been effective. Large proportions of some groups like PHA directors rated many of the mechanisms as useful and T&TA conducted by contractors

80

effective compared with single family lenders, HUD-insured and HUD-assisted T&TA through HUD’s web page

86

multifamily owners, and HPN-affiliated non-profit housing organizations.

T&TA through HUD’s webcast training

84

HUD listservs

88

Exhibit 46. Groups where 80 percent or more of partners considered HUD’s T&TA to be useful or electronic communications to be effective HUD’s website postings

81

E-mail

96

Partner Group

Mechanisms and Media

Percent

Saying

FHAP Directors

T&TA through HUD-sponsored conferences

93

Useful/

Effective

T&TA through HUD’s web page

90

Community

T&TA through HUD-sponsored conferences

89

HUD listservs

90

Development

HUD’s website postings

82

Directors

T&TA conducted by contractors

93

82

T&TA through HUD’s web page

E-mail

98

94

HUD’s listservs

FHIP Directors

T&TA through HUD’s web page

85

Mayors

T&TA through HUD-sponsored conferences

89

T&TA through HUD participation in non-HUD sessions

84

T&TA conducted by contractors

90

HUD listservs

80

T&TA through HUD’s web page

83

E-mail

91

HUD-s listservs

80

Single Family Lenders

T&TA through HUD’s web page

86

E-mail

94

HUD’s listservs

84

HUD-insured Owners

E-mail

81

HUD-assisted Owners

HUD listservs

80

E-mail

85

76

Partner Group

Mechanisms and Media

Percent

Partner Group

Mechanisms and Media

Percent

Saying

Saying

Useful/

Useful/

Effective

Effective

Section 202/811

T&TA through HUD’s web page

81

Mayors

T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

23

Owners

HUD listservs

81

HUD’s website postings

23

E-mail

86

FHAP Directors

T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

20

HPN-affiliated

T&TA through HUD’s web page

80

FHIP Directors

T&TA through HUD-sponsored conferences

22

Non-profit Housing

E-mail

85

T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

34

PHA = Public Housing Agency. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance

T&TA through HUD’s webcast training

31

Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. HPN = Housing

HUD’s website postings

22

Partnerships Network. T&TA = Training and Technical Assistance.

HUD-insured Owners

T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

24

Exhibit 47, on the other hand, shows that more than 20 percent of most T&TA through HUD’s web page

20

partner groups did not consider certain training and technical mechanisms to have been useful or electronic communications media to have been effective.

T&TA through HUD’s webcast training

20

HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts, webcast training, and website postings HUD’s website postings

26

were the most frequently identified mechanisms and media to have been considered not useful or effective by more than one-fifth of HUD’s partners.

HUD-assisted Owners

T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

27

T&TA through HUD’s webcast training

25

Exhibit 47. Groups where 20 percent or more of partners considered aspects of HUD’s website postings

25

HUD’s technical assistance to be not useful or electronic communications to be Section 202/811

ineffective

T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

20

Owners

HUD’s website postings

22

Partner Group

Mechanisms and Media

Percent

HPN-affiliated

T&TA through HUD’s webcast training

22

Saying

Non-profit Housing

Useful/

T&TA through HUD participation in non-HUD sessions

24

Effective

HUD’s website postings

26

Community

T&TA through HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

25

Development

FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program.

Directors

T&TA through HUD webcast training

23

HPN = Housing Partnerships Network. T&TA = Training and Technical Assistance.

28

HUD’s website postings

77

HUD needs to improve/increase the availability of training. We all understand HUD is constrained by funding, but you cannot expect jurisdictions to comply with the massive amount of regulations otherwise. It does no good for the few opportunities available to have spaces limited; we are continually being turned away.

—Mayor’s/CEO’s Office

HUD has suffered a horrendous brain drain, its computer systems stink, and it seems stuck between old paper intrusive systems and newer electronic methods.

—Public Housing Agency

The HUD website is almost randomly organized. It takes too much time and energy to find almost anything, esp. for the somewhat sophisticated user of HUD programs. So far,

GRANTS.GOV and RECOVERY.GOV seem to be primarily outlets for public relations, not information. In general, these electronic tools seem to be the most important information methods available, and I hope HUD invests in them.

—Community Development Department

FHA connection website is hard to navigate. Sometimes people at the 800 CALL FHA would send us on the wrong path or not understand the problem. Also, it was very hard to get somebody on the phone that could do something besides sending you an e-mail on how to fix what they thought the problem was.

—Single Family Lender

78

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

Also, new survey instruments were developed for two additional partner groups:

• Directors of Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) organizations.

This appendix describes the methodology used for the 2010 HUD Partner Surveys. It discusses questionnaire design and pretest procedures,

• Spokespersons for FHA-approved single family

samples, data collection procedures, survey response rates, and sample mortgage lending institutions.

cleaning and weighting procedures. Because the 2010 surveys were The questionnaires in their final form ranged in length from 41 items for intended to be a followup to the 2001 and 2005 surveys, the methodology multifamily property owners to 61 items for HPN-affiliated non-profit for the previous surveys was replicated to the greatest extent possible.

organizations.

Questionnaire design41 and pretest.

Descriptions of the samples.

Many 2005 questions were retained in their original form in the 2010

Separate samples were drawn from lists or data files provided by HUD or others, questionnaire to enable longitudinal comparisons. Given policy and as indicated below:

other changes that have taken place since 2005, other questions were revised to make the language relevant in 2010. Still other questions

• HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development supplied

were altogether new, added after discussions with HUD personnel and a list of all city and county community development departments

officials of organizations that represent various HUD partners.

in the continental United States and Puerto Rico that are entitled to HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.

As was done in 2005, a separate survey instrument was designed for: All 1,206 such communities were selected for the sample.

• Directors of Community Development Departments.

• HUD’s Office of Community Planning and Development supplied a list

• Mayors/CEOs.

of Mayors/Chief Elected Officials (CEOs) for all communities having a population of 50,000 or more (including towns and townships but

• Directors of Public Housing Agencies (PHAs).

not counties); all 664 such places were selected for the sample.

• Directors of Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) Agencies.

• HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) supplied a list of

•

all Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). Those that only administered Owners of HUD-insured, HUD-assisted, and Section

202/811 multifamily housing properties.

Housing Choice Vouchers (and not conventional public housing)

were eliminated from the list, and only those that managed at least

• Directors of Non-profit Housing Organizations affiliated

100 units of conventional public housing were sampled.43 All 1,649

with the Housing Partnership Network (HPN).42

PHAs that met the above criteria were selected for the sample.

41 Copies of each survey questionnaire are in appendix B.

43 Multiple records for PHA directors who administered more than one PHA were also noted. To avoid the extra burden 42 The organization was known in 2001 as the National Association of Housing Partnerships (NAHP).

of having to complete multiple questionnaires, these directors were asked for permission to use their responses to a single questionnaire for each of the PHAs they directed (that is, if they directed two PHAs, their identical answers would count in the data file twice).

79

• HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity supplied a list of all addresses that were found to be not valid through a variety of other 107 Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies for inclusion in procedures (such as directory and web searches and other information the sample.

contained in the HUD listings). As discussed below, response rates were adversely affected by the considerable amount of ownership entity contact

• HUD’s Office of Multifamily Housing generated a list of multifamily information that was found to be missing, inaccurate, or out-of-date.

housing properties (including contact names, addresses, and phone numbers), categorized by the kinds of properties to be surveyed (that

• The Urban Institute obtained a member list totaling 95 non-profit is, Section 202/811, HUD-insured, and HUD-assisted). Addresses

organizations from the HPN website.

were standardized to USPS conventions using address standardization

•

software in HUD’s Geocode Service Center before transmittal to the FHA provided a list of FHA-approved single family mortgage lenders.

The Urban Institute divided the list into four strata based on the Urban Institute. The Institute then transformed the list from one of number of FHA originations made during the previous 12 months.

physical properties to one of ownership entities such that each ownership The first stratum consisted of lenders with 2,000 or more originations; entity (regardless of the number of properties it owned) would have an the second consisted of lenders with between 1,000 and 1,999

equal probability of being sampled. In essence, the list was filtered to originations; the third stratum consisted of lenders with between 100

eliminate duplicate owners and thereby to avoid burdening owners with and 999 originations; and the fourth stratum consisted of lenders multiple surveys. The list was also “cleaned” to eliminate clearly invalid with 99 or fewer FHA originations. The first two strata, consisting records; properties outside of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, of 144 lenders and 129 lenders, respectively, were sampled in their and Puerto Rico; owners lacking any contact information.44 It was then entirety. A sample of 1,610 lenders was drawn from the third stratum.

subdivided into four clusters: entities that exclusively owned Section 202

A smaller sample of 200 records was drawn from the fourth stratum.

or Section 811 properties, entities that exclusively owned HUD-insured (unsubsidized) properties, entities that exclusively owned HUD-assisted

• HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity supplied a (subsidized) properties, and entities that owned properties crossing list of all Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) organizations these three categories. A sample of 1,726 owners was drawn for the grantees. The sample included all 114 such organizations.

Section 202/811 cluster. A sample of 1,913 owners was drawn for the HUD-assisted (subsidized) cluster. And, because of its smaller size, the Data collection procedures and survey response rates.

full universe of 1,163 owners of HUD-insured (unsubsidized) properties Exhibit A-1 displays the time-in-field for each survey. Silber & Associates was drawn. An additional 50 entities that owned properties in multiple conducted data collection for all partner groups using a mail survey with clusters were also drawn.45 Silber & Associates then used a consulting telephone followup.

service to check the validity of the ownership entity addresses before sending out any correspondence, and also attempted to correct any For community development departments, mayors/CEOs, PHAs, FHAP

agencies, FHIP organizations, and HPN-affiliated organizations, questionnaires 44 The REMS database contains two separate fields that were used to identify owners or other appropriate contacts for the Multifamily Housing sample. One field specified the property owner; the other field specified the contact person were sent and returned using a mailout/mailback approach to be consistent (who may or may not have been the owner). To be included in the starting sample, a contact name had to be listed in at least one of the fields. In cases where a contact name was listed in both fields, information from the “owner” field with previous HUD Partners surveys. Indeed, prior experience indicated was used.

that high response rates could be expected for these groups using this 45 For reporting purposes, each of the first three clusters is presented and analyzed separately. The four clusters could, however, be combined into a single multifamily owners group.

80

approach. The process began on September 16, 2009, with a survey unknown”) correspondence. Likewise, efforts to contact prospective notification letter to the sample announcing the upcoming survey and respondents by telephone were hampered in many instances by missing or requesting voluntary participation. One week later, on September 23, survey inaccurate telephone numbers in HUD’s administrative files. Although efforts packets containing cover letters and questionnaires were mailed. After 2

were made by Silber & Associates to find more accurate contact information, weeks, on October 8, 2009, reminder postcards were sent to everyone. On such instances often resulted in failure to connect with potential respondents.

October 26, 2009, another survey questionnaire and cover letter were sent to those who had not responded to the first mailing. Telephone followup Exhibit A-1. Survey period for HUD Partner Surveys

with non-respondents was conducted through November 17, 2009, and data collection for this set of partner groups ended on January 31, 2010.

Partner Group

Begin Date

End Date

Community Development Directors

September 2009

January 2010

Data collection for multifamily partner groups also used a mailout/mailback Mayors/CEOs

approach with telephone followup. Data collection began on May 20, PHAs

2010, with an initial contact letter sent to all sampled owners. Survey FHAP Agencies

FHIP Organizations

packets followed 1 week later on May 27, 2010, and a reminder postcard HPN-affiliated Non-Profit Housing Organizations

was mailed about 2 weeks after that, on June 8, 2010. After 3 more weeks, on July 1, 2010, a second survey packet containing a cover letter, HUD-Insured Multifamily Owners

May 2010

December 2010

HUD-Assisted Multifamily Owners

questionnaire, and return envelope was mailed. Telephone followup to non-Section 202/811 Owners

respondents began on July 14, 2010, and ended on December 17, 2010.

Single Family Lenders

June 2010

December 2010

Consistent with previous HUD-partner surveys, the difficulty of surveying multifamily ownership entities required considerable effort to be expended on CEO = Chief Elected Official. PHA = Public Housing Agency.

telephone followup. HUD’s multifamily partners were more difficult to survey FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program. FHIP = Fair Housing

than most other partner groups for at least three reasons. First, there was Initiatives Program. HPN = Housing Partnerships Network.

the challenge of identifying appropriate representatives to survey from the Finally, a mailout/mailback approach was used to survey FHA-approved complex set of corporations, syndications, partnerships, and legal entities single family mortgage lenders. Data collection began on June 7, 2010, that own multifamily properties insured or assisted by HUD. These entities with an initial contact letter sent to all sampled owners. Survey packets had to be identified from HUD administrative files, which are on a property followed 1 week later on June 14, 2010, and reminder postcards were rather than ownership basis. Second, because some multifamily owners have mailed about 2 weeks later, on June 30, 2010. After 3 weeks, on July 21, relatively little ongoing contact with HUD under the terms of the programs 2010, a second survey packet was mailed. At about the same time and with which they deal, they have less interest in responding to a questionnaire because of a relatively low initial response rate, HUD’s FHA office sent out about HUD relations. Finally, HUD has a difficult challenge in maintaining a general e-mail notification to its single family partners encouraging them a complete, up-to-date list of names, addresses, and telephone contact to respond to the survey. Telephone followup to non-respondents began information for its portfolio of multifamily ownership entities. This is evident on August 2, 2010 and data collection closed on December 17, 2010.

by the fact that of all HUD partner groups surveyed, correspondence sent to HUD’s multifamily owners resulted in considerably more returned (“addressee 81

Single family lenders presented a particular data-collection challenge contact person was identified during followup efforts, and both the new resulting in the lowest response rate for any of the partner groups. The contact and the old contact ultimately responded on behalf of the same overall response rate was higher for larger lending companies and lower organization. All duplicate surveys were eliminated from the data set. If for smaller ones for reasons that seemed related to company capacity and different respondents completed the surveys (for example, “Agency Director” organizational structure. Because the sample included a greater number and “Agency Deputy Director”), the respondent who indicated the highest of smaller companies, the overall response rate was low. The primary level title (that is, “Agency Director”) was included in the data set. If duplicate survey response issue for single family lenders (especially the smaller questionnaires indicated the same title, the first one returned was included.

companies) was that questionnaires sent to FHA-liaison personnel, as listed in FHA’s administrative files, often did not reach the appropriate person within the organization, necessitating extensive telephone followup.

Particularly during the latter months of 2010, the period during which the survey was conducted, single family lender liaison personnel tended to be especially difficult to reach by telephone; most claimed to be extremely busy interacting with customers during that period. Telephone followup calls almost invariably went first to voice mail and typically required multiple efforts to reach even a person who could set up a telephone appointment with the liaison official. When such persons were later reached, they often did not have in their possession the survey correspondence or questionnaires that had previously been sent. This required re-sending (mailing, faxing, or e-mailing, at their option) the material.

Then, if the second mailed questionnaires were not completed or returned, the telephone followup process began again. This usually involved multiple calls (voice mails, appointment setups, and so on) to complete the process.

As with all of the partner surveys, participation was voluntary, so care was taken to inform potential respondents that they had the option of declining to respond either because they were too busy or for

any other reason.46 Exhibit A-2 displays survey response rates.

Sample cleaning and weighting procedures.47

In a small number of instances, organizations completed and returned multiple surveys. In many cases, this situation occurred because a new 46 Several HUD partners corresponded with the HUD Government Technical Representative responsible for the surveys to inquire as to their legitimacy and sponsorship.

47 The vast majority of respondents answered all the questions put to them such that item non-response was not an issue.

82

Partner Satisfaction WITH HUD’s Performance

Exhibit A-2. Response rates by partner group

* Includes 824 owners of more than one property type.

**In addition to 4,802 owners of exclusively HUD-insured, HUD-assisted, or Section Partner Group

Universe Sample

Number of

Response

202/811 properties who were sampled, a supplemental sample of 50 entities that owned Size

Size

Respondents

Rate

more than one type of property was drawn to allow for representation of all multifamily Community

1,206

1,206

985

82%

owners should there be a future need for consolidated analysis of all multifamily owners.

Development

Data from these entities, however, are not analyzed or presented in this report.

Departments

***The original sample size consisted of 2,083 lending companies. Follow-on contact Mayoral/CEO Offices

664

664

550

83%

efforts determined that at least 112 of them had gone out of business between the date at which the sample frame was compiled and the end of the survey PHAs

1,649

1,649

1,367

83%

period. This situation reduced the sample size to, at most, 1,971 companies.

FHAP Agencies

107

107

92

86%

Because the sample of FHA-approved single family mortgage lenders FHIP Organizations

114

114

97

85%

was selected with differential probabilities based on size strata (number HPN-Affiliated

95

95

86

91%

of originations), weights were assigned to account for the differential Non-profit Housing

probabilities. The weights were adjusted to account for a non-response Organizations

bias based on the servicer/originator type of the lender, and the type of Multifamily Ownership

8,929*

4,852**

3,017

62%

FHA approval they held.48 The selection strategy ensured that a sufficient Entities: Total

sized sub-sample of the largest lenders was included, as well as a high-proportion of the organizations making fewer loans, while allowing for some Section 202/811

2,523

1,726

1,166

68%

representation of lenders that did only a small number of FHA originations.

HUD-insured

1,163

1,163

693

60%

(unsubsidized)

Comparisons of the 2005 and 2010 surveys.

HUD-assisted

4,419

1,913

1,117

58%

Results from the 2010 survey were compared with 2005 data for selected (subsidized)

questions. For the surveys of mayors, FHAPs, and HPN-affiliated non

FHA-Approved

9,584

2,083/

1,008

51%

profit organizations, comparisons were based on the full populations in Single Family

1,971***

both years; as such, no special handling was required. For the surveys Mortgage Lenders

of directors of community development departments and PHAs, results CEO = Chief Elected Official. PHAs = Public Housing Agencies.

from the 2005 survey were based on a sample while results from the FHA = Federal Housing Administration. FHAP = Fair Housing Assistance Program.

2010 survey were based on the entire universe. In these cases, the 2005

FHIP = Fair Housing Initiatives Program. HPN = Housing Partnerships Network.

data were weighted to represent the universe based on the probability of selection, and tests of statistical significance were adjusted for the use of sampled data. Owners of multifamily properties were sampled in both 2005 and 2010, and data were weighted for any comparisons.

48 Weights were constructed by dividing the sample into categories based on strata/servicer type/approval type, then dividing the number of cases in each category by the number of actual responses for that category.

2 0 1 0 S u r v e y R e s u l t s a n d T r e n d s S i n c e 2 0 0 5

83

Since Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP) organizations and

single family mortgage lenders were not surveyed in 2005, no

over-time comparisons are possible for these partners.

In some cases, comparisons have been made between responses given by the same organizations to both the 2005 and 2010 surveys—referred to as matched-pair analysis in this report. When this type of analysis was done, if the 2005 surveys were weighted to account for differential stratified sampling proportions, the 2005 weights were applied to both the 2005 and 2010 matched-pair data. The matched-pair comparisons do not reflect changes for any population beyond the matched-pair panel.

84

APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRES

This appendix contains facsimiles of the questionnaires

sent to the following partner groups:

• Community Development Departments.

• Mayors/Chief Elected Officials (CEOs).

• Public Housing Agencies (PHAs).

• Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) Agencies.

• Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) Organizations.

• Single Family Lenders.

• Multifamily Housing Owners.

• HPN-Affiliated Non-Profit Housing Organizations.

85

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

Expires: 02/29/2012

HUD Survey of

Community

Development

Departments

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your agency—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Please answer the questions by placing an

“x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD program, office, or employee, please take al of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions.

Your responses wil remain strictly confidential. The information you provide wil be combined with al other answers and neither you nor your agency wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD or anyone else. The survey is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent, non-partisan research organization.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, you may telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your agency’s contacts been with HUD during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of

of yyour

our agency,, are you inn a p

position

on to

o assess a

and

nd comment on

on

on the

he

performance of

of

of HUD’s or

organization

on and

nd programs?

Don’t know

Yes ((CONTINUE))

No

No

PLEASE FFORWARD TTO A

APPROPRIATE PPERSON, O

OR RETURN

N

Don’t K

Know

ow

QUESTIONNAIREE IF TTHEREE IS N

NO SSUCH PERSON

N

2. During the past twelve months has your agency had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in a specialized HUD Center or Hub (such as the Real Estate Assessment Center, Section 8 Financial Management Center, Troubled Agency Recovery Center (TARC), Multifamily Property Disposition Center, HUD Homeownership Centers, FHA Resource Center, HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives)

d. A contractor working for HUD

the r

3. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms of

roviding

support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the other, it

l y p

thing o

has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance with those

roviding

qua nd regulating

e

rules, makes assessments). In your agency’s relationship with HUD, would you say HUD

ainly pport

ainly regulating port a

M

is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or doing both about equally?

sup

M

Aboutsup

Neither/some

Don’t know

issatisfied

4. Thinking first about HUD programs with which you currently deal and then about

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

how HUD runs those programs, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with:

epends

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

i t h

issatisfied

what satisfied

what d

issatisfied

xperience w

Very satisfied

Some

Some

Very d

Don’t know No e program

5. Now, more specifical y, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way HUD

runs the:

a. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program

b. HOME Investments Partnership program

c. Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) program

d. Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program 6. Listed below are different ways to think about your relationship with HUD.

For each item, indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point in time. Check “Not applicable” if the situation does not apply to your agency (for

issatisfied

example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your agency; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i. The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j. Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The time commitment required to comply with HUD reporting requirements (e.g., the Integrated Disbursement and Information System [IDIS])

eful

ll

ed

7. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. For

eful

t a

each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found

seful

ot us

what us

eful a

it. Check “Have not used” if that applies.

Very u Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors d. HUD’s Webpage

e. HUD’s Webcast training

f. HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups

8. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how

at a ll

effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

ed

e f ective

w

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

what e f ective

not us

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

Very e f ective

Some

Not too Not e f ective

Have

Don’t kno

a. HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee) 9. How important or unimportant is your community’s five-year Consolidated Plan

ut

when it comes to deciding which low-income housing or community

ortant ortant

development activities to pursue? Check “Have not developed” if

eveloped

ortant b

l imp

ot d

you haven’t developed a Con Plan.

ssential what imp

Essential Very imp

not e

Some

Not at a Don’t know Have nConsolidated Plan

10. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following as it relates to your agency. Check “Not applicable” if the situation does not apply to your agency.

issatisfied

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with...?

a. The overall quality of the Consolidated Plan Management Process (CPMP) tool, HUD’s computer tool for preparing your Consolidated Plan b. The ease of use of the CPMP

c. The technical support available from HUD for using the CPMP

d. The guidance provided by HUD for developing your Consolidated Annual Performance Report (CAPER)

e. The ability of HUD field office personnel to consistently and reliably interpret regulations that pertain to your community development grants and programs

f. The quality of HUD’s monitoring (including by phone) of your Agency’s program activities and performance

g. The overall quality of the Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS)—considering such things as clarity of instructions, ease of use, usefulness, etc.

h. The timeliness of HUD information & technical assistance for implementing provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008—such as those related to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, housing counseling, or the FHA mortgage insurance program

i. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to implementing provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (see h above) j. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to addressing local and regional foreclosure issues

k. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to improving the energy efficiency of housing supported by HUD programs

11. Grants.gov (formerly eGrants) is intended to be a simple, unified electronic storefront for interactions between grant applicants and Federal agencies—

providing information about grant opportunities and facilitating grant applications.

issatisfied

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with Grants.gov—considering such things as

ed

ease of use, usefulness etc.? Check “Have not used” if you haven’t used

ov

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

ot us

Grants.gov .

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Don’t know

Have n

Grants.g

e-snaps

ed

what satisfied

12. In 2008, HUD initiated e-snaps, an online application process for the Continuum of Care (CoC) grant competition. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with e-snaps—considering such things as clarity of instructions, ease of

what dissatisfied

not us

use, usefulness etc.? Check “Have not used” if you haven’t used e-snaps.

Very satisfied

Some Some Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

Have

logic

pplication

one aonjunction

rant a

13. If your agency put together a logic model in conjunction with a

efinitely

robably

UD g

on’t know

del in c

HUD NOFA application, have you found that the logic model

Yes, d

Yes, p

No

I D

Haven’t d

mo with H

helped you to. . .?

a. Better identify performance indicators

b. Better think through activities to achieve your desired objectives c. Better manage your HUD grant

ewhat satisfied

ewhat dissatisfied

you with HUD’s overall performance?

Som

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

14. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are

Very satisfied

Som

15. Please indicate the title/position of the person (or persons) who answered these questions: Agency Director

Agency Deputy Director

Other Agency Senior Official

Other Agency Employee

Other:____________________________________________

ore

r m

16. Taking into account all the jobs in your employment history, how many years, in total, have you interacted with HUD as part of your job?

ess than 1 year

- 3 years – 6 years – 9 years years o

L

1

4

7

10

17. With which field office or offices does your agency interact on a regular basis? Mark all that apply.

REGION I

Bangor

Boston

Burlington

Hartford

Manchester

Providence

REGION II

Albany

Buffalo

Camden

Newark

New York

Syracuse

REGION III

Baltimore

Charleston

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Richmond

Wash., D. C.

Wilmington

REGION IV

Atlanta

Birmingham

Columbia

Greensboro

Jackson

Jacksonvil e

Knoxville

Louisvil e

Memphis

Miami

Nashville

Orlando

San Juan

Tampa

REGION V

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Detroit

Flint

Grnd. Rapids

Indianapolis

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Springfield

REGION VI

Albuquerque

Dallas

Ft. Worth

Houston

Little Rock

Lubbock

New Orleans

Okla.City

San Antonio

Shreveport

Tulsa

REGION VII

Des Moines

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

REGION VIII

Casper

Denver

Fargo

Helena

Salt Lk. City

Sioux Falls

REGION IX

Fresno

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Reno

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Ana

Tucson

REGION X

Anchorage

Boise

Portland

Seattle

Spokane

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD. PLEASE PRINT. Use extra paper if needed.

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BY NAME

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of Community Development Departments.

Please return your completed questionnaire to:

HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, P.O. Box 651, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-0651. A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY?

CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1

FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SASurveys.COM

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

Expires: 02/29/2012

HUD Survey of Mayors

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your community—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Please answer the questions by placing an “x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD program, office, or employee, please take al of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions.

Your responses wil remain strictly confidential. The information you provide wil be combined with al other answers and neither you nor your community wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD or anyone else. The survey is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent, non-partisan research organization.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, you may telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your community‘s contacts been with HUD during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of your

y

co

our

mm

m un

m ity,

y a

, re y

r

ou i

e y

n

ou i a posi

os tion to

o ass

s es

s s

es and

s and comment

com

on

Don’t know

the perf

er orma

or

nce of

of HUD

H

’s or

s g

or aniz

ni a

z tion and pro

r gra

gr ms?

ms?

Ye

Y s

e (

s C

( ONTI

NT NU

I

E

NU ))

No

PLEAS

A E

S FO

F RWARD

A

TO

T APPRO

A

PRIAT

A E

T PER

E SO

S N,

N O

, R RETU

T R

U N

N

Don’t Kn

K ow

ow

QUE

U ST

S I

T ONNAI

NNA RE I

E F

I T

F HE

T RE I

E S N

S O

N SU

S C

U H PERSO

S N

2. During the past twelve months has your community had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in a specialized HUD Center or Hub (such as the Real Estate Assessment Center, Section 8 Financial Management Center, Troubled Agency Recovery Center (TARC), Multifamily Property Disposition Center, HUD Homeownership Centers, FHA Resource Center, HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives)

d. A contractor working for HUD

3. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms of support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the

ther

other, it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance

roviding

with those rules, makes assessments). In your community’s relationship with HUD,

l y p

thing o

nd regulating

would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or

roviding

qua

e

doing both about equally?

ainly pport

ainly regulating port a

M sup

M

Aboutsup

Neither/some

Don’t know

issatisfied

4. Thinking first about HUD programs with which you currently deal and then about

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

how HUD runs those programs, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with:

epends

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

5. Listed below are different ways to think about your relationship with HUD.

For each item, indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point in time. Check “Not Applicable” if the situation does not apply to your agency (for example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

issatisfied

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your agency; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i. The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j. Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The timeliness of HUD information & technical assistance for implementing provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008—such as those related to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, housing counseling, or the FHA mortgage insurance program

l. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to implementing provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (see k above) m. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to addressing local and regional foreclosure issues

n. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to improving the energy efficiency of housing supported by HUD programs

6. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. For

ll

each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found

eful

ed

eful

t a

it. Check “Have not used” if that applies.

ot us

what us

eful a

Very useful

Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors d. HUD’s Webpage

e. HUD’s Webcast training

f. HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups

7. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how

ll

effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

t a

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

f ective

ed

f ective

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

f ective what e

f ective a ot us

t too e

t e

Some

No

No

Don’t know

a.

Very e

Have n

HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee) 8. During the past 12 months, has your community received assistance from HUD to

Yes

No

Don’t know

help you reach out to faith-based and community organizations?

If yes to Question 8 above, answer Question 9. Otherwise, skip to Question 10.

9. How satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with HUD’s assistance in helping you reach out

ewhat satisfied

to faith-based and community organizations?

ewhat dissatisfied

Very satisfied

Som

Som

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

10. How important or unimportant is your community’s five-year Consolidated Plan

ut

when it comes to deciding which low-income housing or community

ortant ortant

development activities to pursue? Check “Have not developed” if

eveloped

ortant b

l imp

ot d

you haven’t developed a Con Plan.

ssential what imp

Essential Very imp

not e

Some

Not at a Don’t know Have nConsolidated Plan

11. Grants.gov (formerly eGrants) is intended to be a simple, unified electronic storefront for interactions between grant applicants and Federal agencies—providing information about grant opportunities and facilitating grant applications. How

issatisfied

ed

satisfied or dissatisfied are you with Grants.gov—considering such things as ease of

ov

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

ot us

use, usefulness etc.? Check “Have not used” if you haven’t used Grants.gov.

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Don’t know

Have n

Grants.g

12. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall performance of the HUD field office with which your community general y deals?

ewhat satisfied

ewhat dissatisfied

Very satisfied

Som

Som

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

13. How satisfied or dissatisfied have you been with your direct interactions with

issatisfied

HUD Headquarters in Washington, DC, over the past 12 months? Mark “No contact” if you haven’t had contact.

what satisfied

what d

issatisfied

ontact

Very satisfied

Some

Some

Very d

Don’t know No c

14. In general, would you describe your community’s current relations with HUD as being

Very good Good

Poor

Very poor Don’t know

very good, good, poor, or very poor?

15. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with HUD’s overall performance?

ewhat satisfied

ewhat dissatisfied

Very satisfied

Som

Som

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

16. Please indicate the title/position of the person (or persons) who answered these questions: Mayor/Town Supervisor/Chief Elected Official

Deputy Mayor/Chief of Staff/Senior Assistant to the Mayor

Other City/Departmental Senior Official

Other City/Departmental Employee

Other Member of Mayor’s/Supervisor’s Immediate Office

Other:_______________________________________________

ore

r m

17. Taking into account all the jobs and positions in your employment history, how many years, in total, have you interacted with HUD as part of your job?

Less than 1 year

- 3 years – 6 years – 9 years 0 years o

1

4

7

1

18. With which field office or offices does your community interact on a regular basis? Mark all that apply.

REGION I

Bangor

Boston

Burlington

Hartford

Manchester

Providence

REGION II

Albany

Buffalo

Camden

Newark

New York

Syracuse

REGION III

Baltimore

Charleston

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Richmond

Wash., D. C.

Wilmington

REGION IV

Atlanta

Birmingham

Columbia

Greensboro

Jackson

Jacksonvil e

Knoxville

Louisvil e

Memphis

Miami

Nashville

Orlando

San Juan

Tampa

REGION V

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Detroit

Flint

Grnd. Rapids

Indianapolis

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Springfield

REGION VI

Albuquerque

Dallas

Ft. Worth

Houston

Little Rock

Lubbock

New Orleans

Okla.City

San Antonio

Shreveport

Tulsa

REGION VII

Des Moines

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

REGION VIII

Casper

Denver

Fargo

Helena

Salt Lk. City

Sioux Falls

REGION IX

Fresno

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Reno

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Ana

Tucson

REGION X

Anchorage

Boise

Portland

Seattle

Spokane

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD. PLEASE PRINT. Use extra paper if needed.

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BY NAME.

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of Mayors.

Please return your completed questionnaire to:

HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, P.O. Box 651, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-0651.

A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY?

CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1 FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SASurveys.COM

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

HUD Survey of

Expires: 02/29/2012

Public Housing

Agencies

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your agency—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Please answer the questions by placing an

“x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD program, office, or employee, please take al of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions.

Your responses wil remain strictly confidential. The information you provide wil be combined with al other answers and neither you nor your agency wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD or anyone else. The survey is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent, non-partisan research organization.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, you may telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your agency’s contacts been with HUD during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of

of yyour

our agency,, are you inn a p

position

on to

o assess a

and

nd comment on

on

on the

he

performance of

of

of HUD’s or

organization

on and

nd programs?

Don’t know

Yes ((CONTINUE)

No

No

PLEASE FFORWARD TTO A

APPROPRIATE PPERSON, O

OR RETURN

N

Don’t K

Know

ow

QUESTIONNAIREE IF TTHEREE IS N

NO SSUCH PERSON

N

2. During the past twelve months has your agency had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in a specialized HUD Center or Hub (such as Real Estate Assessment Center, Section 8 Financial Management Center, Troubled Agency Recovery Center (TARC), Multifamily Property Disposition Center, HUD Homeownership Centers, FHA Resource Center, HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives)

d. A contractor working for HUD (such as a Section 8 Performance Based Contract Administrator)

3. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms

you

of support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the

you

other

other, it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance with those rules, makes assessments). In your agency’s relationship with HUD,

ly providing

regulating

you

ething

would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or

equa

doing both about equally?

ainly providing

port to ainly regulating port and

M sup

M

About

sup

Neither/somDon’t know

i ssatisfied

what satisfied

what d i ssatisfied

epends

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

4. Thinking first about HUD programs with which you currently deal and then about how HUD runs those programs, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with: a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

5. Listed below are different ways to think about your relationship with HUD.

For each item, indicate your general level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point in time. Check “Not Applicable” if the situation does not apply to your

issatisfied

agency (for example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very satisfied

Some Some

Not a Don’t know

Very d

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your agency; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i.

The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j.

Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The time commitment needed to comply with HUD reporting requirements (such as those involving REAC or PIC)

ef ect

h changes/

6. Below are changes that occurred at HUD over the last decade. Have they made

h

uc

HUD better or worse, or have they not had much effect?

m

of suc

better

h

ewhat bet er

ewhat worse

h worse

a. Organizational changes, such as consolidation of previously

uc

M

uc

Som

Som

M

Not had Not aware

independent offices under other offices [like the Real Estate Assessment

Not applicable

Don’t know

Center (REAC) or establishment of the PIH Information Center (PIC)].

b. Outsourcing project-based Section 8 program monitoring through a third-party entity such as a Performance Based Contract Administrator.

ll

7. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. For

eful

ed

eful

t a

each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found

seful

ot us

it. Check “Have not used” if that applies.

what us

eful a

Very u Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors d. HUD’s Webpage

e. HUD’s Webcast training

f. HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups

8. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how

at a ll ed

effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

e f ective

w

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

what e f ective

not us

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

Very e f ective

Some

Not too Not e f ective

Have

Don’t kno

a. HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee)

Very good Good

Bad

Very bad Don’t know

9. How would you characterize relations between your agency and HUD today?

w

better

h

what bet er

what worse worse

h

not changed

uc

M

uc

Some

Some

M

Have

Don’t kno

10.

Over the last several years have relations between your agency and HUD gotten: 11. Indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each of the following as it

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

relates to your agency. Check “Not Applicable” if the situation does not apply.

Very satisfied

Some Some Very dissatisfied

Not applicable

Don’t know

a. HUD’s ability to accurately monitor income and rent policies through the Rental Housing Integrity Improvement Project (RHIIP)

b. The ability of HUD field office personnel to consistently and reliably interpret policies and regulations that pertain to your agency’s grants and programs c. HUD's current capacity to collect and make available tenant (HUD-50058) data and reports in the PIH Information Center (PIC) system ( Consider such things as ease of use of the system, usefulness of reports, appropriateness of data col ected, etc.) d. HUD’s current capacity to monitor and provide oversight of your agency’s activities

e. The timeliness of financial information you receive from HUD

f. The timeliness of funds disbursed by HUD for your agency g. The quality of technical assistance and guidance you receive about PIC and from REAC related to electronic transmission of information to HUD

h. The physical inspections performed by REAC

i. Electronic financial reporting to REAC

j. The Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS)

k. The Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP)

l. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to improving the energy efficiency of housing supported by HUD programs

m. The Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system

n. The amount of support & technical assistance for implementing asset management

o. The quality of support & technical assistance for implementing asset management

12. What, if anything, can HUD do to improve the process for converting to asset management? (Please print.) Check this box if you are not converting to asset management. ____________________________________________________

13. What, if anything, can HUD do to improve the Enterprise Income Verification (EIV) system? (Please print.) Check this box if EIV is not applicable. ______________________________________________________________________

clear

14. Housing agencies may work with several HUD offices, hubs and centers for

clear

what clear what un

various purposes. Are the different functions and responsibilities of these offices, hubs and centers:

Very clear Some

Some

Very un

Don’t know

15. Grants.gov (formerly eGrants) is intended to be a simple, unified electronic storefront for interactions between grant applicants and Federal agencies—providing information about grant opportunities and facilitating

issatisfied

ed

grant applications. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with Grants.gov—

ot us

considering such things as ease of use, usefulness etc.? Check “Have not

what satisfied

what d

used” if you haven’t used Grants.gov .

Very satisfied

Some

Some

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know Have nGrants.gov

16. Consider HUD’s public communications, such as to Congress and the media,

w

about public housing agencies. Do those communications generally make it

h easier

h harder

uc

ewhat easier

ewhat harder

ef ect

much easier for you to accomplish your agency's objectives, somewhat easier,

M

uc

Som

Som

M

No

Don’t kno

somewhat harder, or much harder, or do they generally have no effect?

what

what

17. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or

Very satisfied Somesatisfied

Somedissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know

dissatisfied are you with HUD’s overall performance?

18. Please indicate the title/position of the person (or persons) who answered these questions: Agency Director

Agency Deputy Director

Other Agency Senior Official

Other Agency Employee

Other:__________________________________________

ore

r m

19. Taking into account all the jobs in your employment history, how many years, in total, have you interacted with HUD as part of your job?

than 1 year

3 years years 9 years ears o

ess

-

– 6

–

0 y

L

1

4

7

1

20. With which field office or offices does your agency interact on a regular basis? Mark all that apply.

REGION I

Bangor

Boston

Burlington

Hartford

Manchester

Providence

REGION II

Albany

Buffalo

Camden

Newark

New York

Syracuse

REGION III

Baltimore

Charleston

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Richmond

Wash., D. C.

Wilmington

REGION IV

Atlanta

Birmingham

Columbia

Greensboro

Jackson

Jacksonvil e

Knoxville

Louisvil e

Memphis

Miami

Nashville

Orlando

San Juan

Tampa

REGION V

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Detroit

Flint

Grnd. Rapids

Indianapolis

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Springfield

REGION VI

Albuquerque

Dallas

Ft. Worth

Houston

Little Rock

Lubbock

New Orleans

Okla.City

San Antonio

Shreveport

Tulsa

REGION VII

Des Moines

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

REGION VIII

Casper

Denver

Fargo

Helena

Salt Lk. City

Sioux Falls

REGION IX

Fresno

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Reno

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Ana

Tucson

REGION X

Anchorage

Boise

Portland

Seattle

Spokane

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD. PLEASE PRINT. Use extra paper if needed.

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BY NAME.

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of Public Housing Agencies.

Please return your completed questionnaire to:

HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, P.O. Box 651, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-0651. A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY? CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1

FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SASurveys.COM

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

Expires: 02/29/2012

HUD Survey of Fair Housing

Assistance Program

Agencies

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your agency—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Please answer the questions by placing an

“x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD program, office, or employee, please take al of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions.

Your responses wil remain strictly confidential. The information you provide wil be combined with al other answers and neither you nor your agency wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD or anyone else. The survey is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent, non-partisan research organization.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, you may telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your agency’s contacts been with HUD during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of

of yyour

our agency,, are you inn a p

position

on to

o assess a

and

nd comment on

on

on the

he

performance of

of

of HUD’s or

organization

on and

nd programs?

Don’t know

Yes ((CONTINUE))

No

No

PLEASE FFORWARD TTO A

APPROPRIATE PPERSON, O

OR RETURN

N

Don’t K

Know

ow

QUESTIONNAIREE IF TTHEREE IS N

NO SSUCH PERSON

N

2. During the past twelve months has your agency had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in a specialized HUD Center or Hub (such as the Real Estate Assessment Center, Section 8 Financial Management Center, Troubled Agency Recovery Center (TARC), Multifamily Property Disposition Center, HUD Homeownership Centers, FHA Resource Center, HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives)

d. A contractor working for HUD

3. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms

ther

of support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the

roviding

other, it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance

l y p

thing o

with those rules, makes assessments). In your agency’s relationship with HUD,

roviding

qua nd regulating

would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or

e

doing both about equally?

ainly pport

ainly regulating port a

M sup

M

Aboutsup

Neither/some

Don’t know

issatisfied

4. Thinking first about HUD programs with which you currently deal and then about

what d issatisfied

how HUD runs those programs

what satisfied

, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with:

epends

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

5. Listed below are different ways to think about your relationship with HUD.

For each item, indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point

issatisfied

in time. Check “Not applicable” if the situation does not apply to your agency (for example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your agency; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i.

The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j.

Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The time commitment required to comply with HUD reporting requirements

eful

ll

6. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. For

ed

eful

t a

each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found

seful

ot us

what us

eful a

it. Check “Have not used” if that applies.

Very u Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. The National Fair Housing Training Academy

d. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors e. HUD’s Webpage

f. HUD’s Webcast training

g HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups

7. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how

ll

t a

effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

f ective

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

ed

f ective

f ective what e

f ective a ot us

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

t too e t e

Very e

Some

No

No

Have n Don’t know

a. HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee)

dequate

what a

what inadequate

8. How adequate is your reimbursement from HUD for covering the costs of:

Very adequate

Some

Some

Very inadequate

Don’t know

a. Investigating individual complaints?

b. Training and administration?

c. Capacity building?

dequate

9. How adequate is the level of technical assistance currently provided to you by HUD

in support of your agency’s responsibility for responding to fair housing complaints?

dequate

what a

what inadequate

Very a

Some

Some

Very inadequate

Don’t know

10. Some FHAP agency officials say they would like to see a closer partnership with HUD

in pursuing pattern and practice or Secretary-initiated cases. Others say this is not

artnership

necessary, as the U.S. Department of Justice or states' attorneys general have this

ecessary

duty. What do you say?

ould like to see

epends

W closer p Not n

It d

Don’t know

11. How often, if at all, do you work with local Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP)

s

organizations on cases they are investigating?

time

Very often Some

Not at all Don’t know

see

to

12. Some FHAP agency officials say they would like to build closer partnerships with FHIP

like

ould

W closer partnerships

Not necessary

or appropriate

It depends

organizations with respect to (a), (b), and/or (c) below. Others say this is not necessary or appropriate. What do you say?

Don’t know

a. Investigating cases

b. Testing

c. Education activities/outreach

13. What, if any, major new steps could HUD take that it is not now taking to help you with your fair housing and fair lending responsibilities?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

issatisfied

14. Please indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each of the following as it relates to your agency. Check “Not applicable” if the situation does not apply

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

to your agency.

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The recent upgrading of TEAPOTS (Title Eight Automated Paperless Office Tracking System)

b. The overall effectiveness of TEAPOTS in the investigation and tracking of complaints

c. HUD’s on-site performance assessment process for FHAP agencies d. The amount of support & technical assistance you receive from HUD related to addressing fair lending issues

e. The quality of support & technical assistance you receive from HUD related to addressing fair lending issues

logic

pplication

15. If your agency put together a logic model in conjunction with a

one aonjunction

rant a

HUD NOFA application, have you found that the logic model

efinitely

robably

UD g

helped you to. . .?

on’t know

del in c

Yes, d

Yes, p

No

I D

Haven’t d

mo with H

a. Better identify performance indicators

b. Better think through activities to achieve your desired objectives c. Better manage your HUD grant

Don’t know

Very good Good

Bad

Very bad

16. How would you characterize relations between your agency and HUD today?

better

h

what

what

worse

h

not

uc

M

Somebet er

Some

uc

worse

M

Have changed Don’t know

17. Over the last several years have relations between your agency and HUD gotten much better, somewhat better, somewhat worse, much worse, or have they not changed?

18. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or

what

what

dissatisfied are you with HUD’s overall performance?

Very satisfied Somesatisfied

Somedi ssatisfied Very di ssatisfied Don’t know

19. Please indicate the title/position of the person (or persons) who answered these questions: Agency Director

Agency Deputy Director

Other Agency Senior Official

Other Agency Employee

Other:____________________________ ___________

ore

r m

20. Taking into account all the jobs in your employment history, how many years, in total, have you interacted with HUD as part of your job?

Less than 1 year

1 - 3 years 4 – 6 years 7 – 9 years 10 years o

21. With which field office or offices does your agency interact on a regular basis? Mark all that apply.

REGION I

Bangor

Boston

Burlington

Hartford

Manchester

Providence

REGION II

Albany

Buffalo

Camden

Newark

New York

Syracuse

REGION III

Baltimore

Charleston

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Richmond

Wash., D. C.

Wilmington

REGION IV

Atlanta

Birmingham

Columbia

Greensboro

Jackson

Jacksonvil e

Knoxville

Louisvil e

Memphis

Miami

Nashville

Orlando

San Juan

Tampa

REGION V

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Detroit

Flint

Grnd. Rapids

Indianapolis

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Springfield

REGION VI

Albuquerque

Dallas

Ft. Worth

Houston

Little Rock

Lubbock

New Orleans

Okla.City

San Antonio

Shreveport

Tulsa

REGION VII

Des Moines

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

REGION VIII

Casper

Denver

Fargo

Helena

Salt Lk. City

Sioux Falls

REGION IX

Fresno

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Reno

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Ana

Tucson

REGION X

Anchorage

Boise

Portland

Seattle

Spokane

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD. PLEASE PRINT. Use extra paper if needed.

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BY NAME.

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of Fair Housing Assistance Program Agencies. Please return your completed questionnaire to: HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, P.O. Box 651, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-0651. A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY?

CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1

FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SASurveys.COM

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

Expires: 02/29/2012

HUD Survey of Fair Housing

Initiatives Program

Organizations

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your organization—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Please answer the questions by placing an “x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD program, office, or employee, please take all of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions.

Your responses will remain strictly confidential. The information you provide wil be combined with al other answers and neither you nor your organization wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD or anyone else. The survey is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent, non-partisan research organization.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, you may telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your organization’s contacts been with HUD during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of

of yyour

our organization, a

are you in a p

position

on to a

assesss and

nd comment o

onn

the p

performance of

nce of HUD’s or

organizationn and p

programs?

Don’t know

Yes (C

(CONTINUE))

No

PLEAS

A E

S FORW

F

ARD

A

TO

T APPROPR

A

IAT

A E

T PERSO

RS N,

N OR RE

,

TU

T RN

RN

Don’t Kn

K ow

ow

QUESTI

S O

TI NNAI

NNA REE IF THE

I

REE IS N

S O

N SU

S CH PERSO

S N

2. During the past twelve months has your organization had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in a specialized HUD Center or Hub (such as the Real Estate Assessment Center, Section 8 Financial Management Center, Troubled Agency Recovery Center (TARC), Multifamily Property Disposition Center, HUD Homeownership Centers, FHA Resource Center, HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives)

d. A contractor working for HUD

3. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms of support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the

ther

other, it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance

roviding

l y p

thing o

with those rules, makes assessments). In your organization’s relationship with HUD,

qua nd regulating

would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or

e

doing both about equally?

ainly providing

port

ainly regulating port a

M sup

M

Aboutsup

Neither/some

Don’t know

issatisfied

4. Thinking first about HUD programs with which you currently deal and then about

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

how HUD runs those programs, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with:

epends

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

5. Listed below are different ways to think about your relationship with HUD.

For each item, indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point

issatisfied

in time. Check “Not applicable” if the situation does not apply to your organization (for example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your agency; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i.

The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j.

Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The time commitment required to comply with HUD reporting requirements

eful

ll

6. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. For

ed

eful

t a

each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found

seful

ot us

what us

eful a

it. Check “Have not used” if that applies.

Very u Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. The National Fair Housing Training Academy

d. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors e. HUD’s Webpage

f. HUD’s Webcast training

g HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups

7. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how

ll

effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

t a

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

f ective

ed

f ective

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

f ective what e

f ective a ot us

t too e

t e

Some

No

No

Don’t know

a. HUD listservs

Very e

Have n

(automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee)

see

8. Some FHIP organization officials say they would like to build closer partnerships with

to

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agencies with respect to (a), (b), and/or (c)

like

below. Others say this is not necessary or appropriate. What do you say?

ould

W closer partnerships

Not necessary

or appropriate

It depends Don’t know

a. Enforcement

b. Testing

c. Education activities/outreach

issatisfie

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

Very satisfied

9. Please indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each of the following as it relates to your organization. Check “Not applicable” if the situation does not apply.

Some Very d Not a Don’t know

Some

a. The amount of support & technical assistance you receive related to addressing predatory lending

b. The quality of support & technical assistance you receive related to addressing predatory lending

c. The monitoring of your FHIP grant

d. How complaints are handled when you file them with HUD

logic

pplication

10.

rant a

If your organization put together a logic model in conjunction

one aonjunction

with a HUD NOFA application, have you found that the logic

efinitely

robably

UD g

del in c

model helped you to. . .?

on’t know

Yes, d

Yes, p

No

I D

Haven’t d

mo with H

a. Better identify performance indicators

b. Better think through activities to achieve your desired objectives c. Better manage your HUD grant

11. Discrimination complaints referred by FHIP agencies directly to HUD for processing sometimes take a long time to close. Here are some possible reasons why they might.

Based on your organization’s experience, please indicate whether you think each is a

reason

major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason at al that complaints sometimes take a

ajor reason inor reason

M

M

Not a

Don’t know

long time to close .

a. HUD requirements for complaint processing are too restrictive.

b. Lack of HUD staff knowledge and expertise.

c. Insufficient HUD staff to process cases.

d. Time lag between when a FHIP organization refers a case and HUD’s initial response.

e. Time lags in communications between HUD staff and FHIP staff after the initial communication.

f. Internal HUD processing delays (i.e. such as time for legal counsel review).

g. Lengthy investigation time by HUD.

h. No HUD “fast tracking” of “open and shut” cases.

i. Disagreements between FHIP and HUD staff.

j. FHIP cases are inherently complex.

k. Insufficient funding of FHIP organizations.

l. Lack of FHIP staff time or competing demands leads to delays in responding to HUD requests for information.

m. Other reason(s) (please specify): ______________________________________________

12. In order of importance, which of the above reasons would you say are most responsible for FHIP referrals sometimes taking a long time to close? (Please write in the letter preceding the reason.) _____ Most important reason

_____ Second most important reason

_____ Third most important reason

_____ I don’t know

13. Grants.gov (formerly eGrants) is intended to be a simple, unified electronic storefront for interactions between grant applicants and Federal agencies—

providing information about grant opportunities and facilitating grant applications. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with Grants.gov—

issatisfied

ed

considering such things as ease of use, usefulness etc.? Check “Have not

what satisfied

what d

issatisfied

ot us

used” if you haven’t used Grants.gov.

Very satisfied

Some

Some

Very d

Don’t know Have nGrants.gov

Very good Good

Bad

Very bad Don’t know

14. How would you characterize relations between your organization and HUD

today? Are they very good, good, bad or very bad?

15. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with HUD’s overall performance?

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

Very satisfied Some

Some

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

16. Please indicate the title/position of the person (or persons) who answered these questions: Organization Director

Organization Deputy Director

Other Organization Senior Official

Other Organization Employee

Other:____________________________ ___________

ore

r m

17. Taking into account all the jobs in your employment history, how many years, in total, have you interacted with HUD as part of your job?

ess than 1 year

- 3 years – 6 years – 9 years years o

L

1

4

7

10

18. With which field office or offices does your organization interact on a regular basis? Mark al that apply.

REGION I

Bangor

Boston

Burlington

Hartford

Manchester

Providence

REGION II

Albany

Buffalo

Camden

Newark

New York

Syracuse

REGION III

Baltimore

Charleston

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Richmond

Wash., D. C.

Wilmington

REGION IV

Atlanta

Birmingham

Columbia

Greensboro

Jackson

Jacksonvil e

Knoxville

Louisvil e

Memphis

Miami

Nashville

Orlando

San Juan

Tampa

REGION V

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Detroit

Flint

Grnd. Rapids

Indianapolis

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Springfield

REGION VI

Albuquerque

Dallas

Ft. Worth

Houston

Little Rock

Lubbock

New Orleans

Okla.City

San Antonio

Shreveport

Tulsa

REGION VII

Des Moines

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

REGION VIII

Casper

Denver

Fargo

Helena

Salt Lk. City

Sioux Falls

REGION IX

Fresno

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Reno

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Ana

Tucson

REGION X

Anchorage

Boise

Portland

Seattle

Spokane

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD. PLEASE PRINT. Use extra paper if needed.

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BY NAME.

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of Fair Housing Initiative Program Organizations.

Please return your completed questionnaire to:

HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, P.O. Box 651, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-0651. A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY?

CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1

FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SASurveys.COM

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

Expires: 2/29/2012

HUD Survey of FHA-

Approved Single Family

Mortgage Lenders

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your company—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Please answer the questions by placing an “x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD program, office, or employee, please take all of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions.

Your responses wil remain confidential. Neither you nor your company wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD/FHA or anyone else. The survey is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent and non-partisan research organization.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, please telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your company’s contacts been with HUD/FHA during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of

of yyour b

business or

or or

organization,, are you in a p

positionn to a

assess and

d

commentt on

on the performance of

of

of HUD’s o

organization and p

programs?

Don’t know

Yes ((CONTINUE)

No

No

PLEASE FFORWARD TTO A

APPROPRIATE PPERSON, O

OR RETURN

N

Don’t K

Know

ow

QUESTIONNAIREE IF TTHEREE IS N

NO SSUCH PERSON

N

2. During the past twelve months has your company had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in one or more HUD/FHA Homeownership Centers

d. HUD personnel in the National Servicing Center

3. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms of

you

support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the other,

you

other

it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance

ly providing

regulating

with those rules, makes assessments). In your company’s relationship with HUD,

you

ething

would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or

equa

doing both about equally?

ainly providing

port to ainly regulating port and

M sup

M

About

sup

Neither/somDon’t know

issatisfied

4. Thinking first about HUD/FHA programs with which you currently deal and then about how HUD runs those programs, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

epends

general, with:

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

5. Listed below are several different ways to think about your relationship with HUD/FHA.

For each item, indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point

i ssatisfied

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

in time. Check “Not Applicable” if the situation does not apply to your company

pplicable

(for example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your company; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i.

The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j.

Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The time commitment required to comply with HUD reporting requirements (e.g., annual renewal process, FHA Connection)

6. HUD/FHA provides training and technical assistance through different methods.

eful

ll

For each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve

ed

eful

t a

found it. Check “Have not used” if you haven’t used the method for HUD training

seful

ot us

what us

eful a

or technical assistance.

Very u Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors d. HUD’s/FHA’s Webpage

e. HUD’s Webcast training

7. HUD/FHA has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

at all

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

ed

ef ective

w

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

what ef ective

not us

Very ef ective

Some

Not too Not ef ective

Have

Don’t kno

a. HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee) 8. FHA’s Neighborhood Watch Early Warning System allows FHA-approved lenders to identify and analyze the performance of loans they originate, underwrite, or service. It is intended to highlight exceptions so that potential problems are readily

what satisfied

what di ssatisfied

identifiable. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the fol owing aspects of the Neighborhood Watch Early Warning System?

Very satisfied Some

Some

Very di ssatisfied

Don’t know

a. The basic information tools such as “Early Warnings,” “Servicing,”

“Analysis,” or “Details”

b. The “Lender Reporting” element

c. The “Help/Abort” menu

d. The “Feedback” feature

8a. If you are “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with any aspect of the Neighborhood Early Watch Warning System, please tell us the reason for your dissatisfaction.

9. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following HUD/FHA systems,

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

considering such things as ease of use, availability of technical assistance, etc.

Very satisfied Some

Some

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

a. The Neighborhood Watch Early Warning System

b. FHA Connection, which provides FHA-approved lenders and business partners with direct, secure, online access to HUD computer systems 10. FHA maintains a Resource Center allowing mortagees and loan correspondents to seek information or ask questions regarding loan products, processing issues, mortgage credit guidelines, property analysis guidelines, use of FHA Connection, etc. The Center can be contacted by telephone or e-mail or searched online (via the Internet).

Are you aware of the Resource Center?

Yes (please go to question 11)

No (please skip to question 12)

Don’t know (please skip to question 12)

11. [If yes to question 10]: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the Resource Center—taking into account such things as the quality of information you received, the responsiveness of staff, the ease or difficulty of reaching the Resource Center, etc.? If you have not used it in the last year or so, mark “Have not used.”

issatisfied

ed

ot us

what satisfied

issatisfied

what d

Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the assistance received via:

Very satisfied Some

Some

Very d

Don’t know Have n

a. Telephone “helpline” (1-800-CALL-FHA)

b. E-mail to the Resource Center (info@fhaoutreach.com) c. Internet (fhaoutreach.gov/FHAFAQ)

12. At both the HUD Headquarters and field office levels, FHA regularly conducts Quality Assurance Monitoring Reviews that include on-site loan-level examination of lender files as well as assessment of lenders’ compliance with

ll

FHA loan origination and servicing requirements. Please indicate how useful

eful

t a

eful

or not useful you have found the information you receive from such Quality

what us

eful a

Assurance Monitoring Reviews.

nitoring review

Very useful Some

Not too us Not us

Don’t know Not received

mo

12a. If you answered “not too useful” or “not useful at al ” to Question 10: Please tell us how Quality Assurance Monitoring Reviews could be made more useful to you.

13. In addition to the mortgage monitoring conducted by FHA’s Homeownership Centers and other Departmental reviews of insured mortgage operations, FHA conducts Post Endorsement Technical Reviews that are intended to provide useful

ll

feedback to lenders regarding compliance with FHA requirements. Please indicate

eful

t a

eful

how useful or not useful you have found the information you receive from Post

seful

what us

eful a

Endorsement Technical Reviews.

Very u

Some

Not too us Not us

Don’t know

13a. If you answered “not too useful” or “not useful at all” to Question 11: Please tell us how Post Endorsement Technical Reviews could be made more useful to you.

y

t

un

14. As compared to what it was like prior to 2008, has your

y a unt

y

unt

unt

by

mo

bout

mo

mo

FHA-insured loan volume since 2008 increased, decreased,

mo

l a

same

l a

or stayed about the same?

reased

Increased b

large a

Increased b

a sma

Stayed a

the

Decreased b

a sma

Dec a large a Don’t know

15. How long has your company been an FHA-approved

re than

etween

mortgagee or loan correspondent?

r mo

r b

r less than

Fo

10 years

Fo

5 and 10 years Fo

5 years

Don’t know

16. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with HUD’s/FHA’s overall performance?

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

Very satisfied Some

Some

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

17. Please indicate the title/position of the primary person who answered these questions: Owner or Senior Officer

Division or Branch Manager

Administrative Assistant/Secretary

Loan Officer/Underwriter/Quality Control Specialist

Other Lender Employee

Other:_______________________________________________

ore

r m

18. Taking into account all the jobs in your employment history, how many years, in

than 1 year

total, have you interacted with HUD/FHA as part of your job?

ess

- 3 years 6 years

–

– 9 years years o

L

0

1

4

7

1

19. Among your functions, are you involved in or responsible for any of the fol owing aspects of your company’s FHA operations? Please check al that apply.

Loan Origination

Underwriting

Processing

Quality Control

Servicing

Secondary Marketing

Office Administration

Other:________________________________________________________

20. What type of mortgagee or loan correspondent is your company?

Supervised Mortgagee/Ful Eagle

Non-Supervised Mortgagee/Full Eagle

Supervised Loan Correspondent/Mini-Eagle

Non-Supervised Loan Correspondent/Mini-Eagle

Government Mortgagee

Investing Mortgagee

Don’t Know

21. Which HUD/FHA Homeownership Center or Centers do you interact with on a regular basis? Mark all that apply.

Atlanta

Denver

Philadelphia

Santa Ana

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD/FHA. PLEASE PRINT. Add paper as needed.

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of FHA-Approved Single Family Mortgage Lenders.

A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please return your completed questionnaire to: HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, 13067 12 Hil s Road, Suite B, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-1144

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY? CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1

FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SASurveys.COM

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

Expires: 2/29/2012

HUD Survey of Multifamily

Housing Owners

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your business or organization—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent and non-partisan research organization. Please answer the questions by placing an “x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD

program, office, or employee, take al of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions. If you are not the property owner to whom the survey was sent by Silber and Associates, but are responding on behalf of the owner, please do your best to answer all questions as that owner would answer them.

Your responses wil remain confidential. Neither you nor your business or organization wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD or anyone else.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, please telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your business’ or organization’s contacts been with HUD during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of

of yyour b

business or

or or

organization,, are you in a p

positionn to a

assess and

commentt on

on the performance of

of

of HUD’s o

organization and p

programs?

Don’t know

Yes ((CONTINUE))

No

No

PLEASE FFORWARD TTO A

APPROPRIATE PPERSON, O

OR RETURN

N

Don’t K

Know

ow

QUESTIONNAIREE IF TTHEREE IS N

NO SSUCH PERSON

N

2. During the past twelve months has your business or organization had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in a specialized HUD Center or Hub (such as Real Estate Assessment Center, Section 8 Financial Management Center, Multifamily Property Disposition Center) d. A contractor working for HUD (such as a Section 8 Performance Based Contract Administrator)

UD’s

H

ontractors

qual y

UD’s

UD &

bout e

3. During the past twelve months, when you interacted with HUD, were your dealings

UD

UD’s c

with H

ors a

eal with H

ors

more with HUD, or were they more with HUD’s contractors/third-party contractors?

ith H

with H

ot d

ore w

ore

M

M

Interacted

contract

Did ncontract

Don’t know

Check “Did not deal with HUD’s contractors” if that applies.

4. Overall, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the service provided by HUD’s contractors/third-party contractors?

D’s contractors

ewhat satisfied

ewhat dissatisfied

not deal

Very satisfied

Som

Som

Very dissatisfied

Did with HU

Don’t know

Check “Did not deal with HUD’s contractors” if that applies.

Please answer the remainder of the questionnaire based on your experience with HUD,

including its contractors/third-party contactors.

5. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms of

you

support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the other,

you

other

it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance

ly providing

regulatingething

with those rules, makes assessments). In your business’ or organization’s relationship

you

with HUD, would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating

equa

ainly providing

port to ainly regulating port and

M

M

Aboutsup

Neither/somDon’t know

you, or doing both about equally?

sup

issatisfied

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

epends

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

6. Thinking first about HUD programs with which you currently deal and then about how HUD runs those programs, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with: a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

7. Listed below are several different ways to think about your relationship with HUD.

For each item, indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point in time. Check “Not Applicable” if the situation does not apply to your business or

issatisfied

organization (for example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

Very satisfied

Some Some

Not a Don’t know

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very d

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your business or organization; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i.

The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j.

Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The time commitment required to comply with HUD reporting requirements (e.g., Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System [TRACS] or HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC])

8. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. For

ll

each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found

eful

ed

eful

t a

it. Check “Have not used” if you haven’t used the method for HUD training or

seful

ot us

what us

eful a

technical assistance.

Very u Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors d. HUD’s Webpage

e. HUD’s Webcast training

f. HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups

9. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

at all

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

ed

ef ective

w

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

what ef ective

not us

Very ef ective

Some

Not too Not ef ective

Have

Don’t kno

a. HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee) 10. Property owners may work with multiple HUD offices, hubs, centers, and performance-

clear

based contractor administrators (PBCAs) for various purposes. How clear or unclear are the different functions and responsibilities of these offices, hubs, centers, and

clear

what clear what un

Some

Very un

Don’t know

PBCAs?

Very clear Some

11. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following as it relates to your business or organization. Check “Not Applicable” if the situation does not apply to your business or organization.

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with...?

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

a. The ability of HUD field office personnel—those in the multifamily hubs and program centers, and contractors working on behalf of HUD

Very satisfied

Some

(such as PBCAs)—

Some Very dissatisfied

Not applicable

Don’t know

to consistently interpret policies and regulations that pertain to your properties

b. The physical inspections by HUD’s Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) c. Electronic financial reporting to REAC

d. HUD’s capacity to monitor and provide oversight related to your property or properties

12. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with HUD’s overall performance?

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

Very satisfied Some

Some

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

Note: If you are a property manager or managing agent and not the owner to whom the survey was sent, please answer questions 13 and 14 based on that owner’s portfolio.

roperties

13. In total, how many multifamily FHA-insured, HUD-assisted (subsidized), or

roperties roperties roperties

Section 202/811 properties does the business or organization own?

roperties roperties

than 25 p

roperty

ore

1 p

2-5 p

6-10 p

11-15 p 16-20 p 21- 25 p M

Don’t know

its

its

its

ites

its

its

its

14. In total, how many multifamily FHA-insured, HUD-assisted (subsidized),

r fewer

its o

than 2,000 un

or Section 202/811 units does the business or organization own?

101-200 un201-300 un301-400 un401-500 un501-1,000 un

ore

100 un

1,001-2,000 un

M

Don’t know

15. Please indicate the title/position of the person (or persons) who answered these questions: Owner/CEO/managing general partner/president/chair/principal/director Other company/organization senior official

Other company/organization employee

Property manager/managing agent

Sponsor

Other:_______________________________________________

ore

r m

16. Taking into account all the jobs in your employment history, how many years, in total, have you interacted with HUD as part of your job?

Less than 1 year

- 3 years – 6 years

1

4

7 – 9 years 10 years o

17. Which HUD Hub(s) does your business or organization interact with on a regular basis? Mark all that apply.

Hub Location

Includes:

Hub Location

Includes:

Atlanta

GA, KY, TN, Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands

Greensboro

NC, SC

Baltimore

DC, MD, VA

Jacksonville

AL, FL, MS

Boston

CT, ME, NH, RI, VT

Kansas City

IA, KS, MO,NE, OK

Buffalo

Upstate NY, including Albany and Syracuse

Los Angeles

Southern CA

Chicago

IL, IN

Minneapolis

MN, WI

Columbus

OH

New York

NYC and areas not covered by Buffalo HUB

Denver

CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY

Philadelphia

DE, PA, NJ, WV

Detroit

MI

San Francisco

AZ, Central and Northern CA, HI, NV

Ft. Worth

AR, LA, NM, TX

NW/Alaska

AK, ID, OR, WA

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD. PLEASE PRINT. Use extra paper if needed.

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BY NAME.

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of Multifamily Housing Owners.

Please return your completed questionnaire to:

HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, 13067 Twelve Hil s Road, Suite B, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-1144

A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY?

CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1

FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SAsurveys.com

OMB Approval No.: 2535-0116

Expires: 02/29/2012

HUD Survey of

Non-Profit Organizations

This brief, confidential survey solicits your opinion—as a spokesperson for your organization—of the service being provided to you by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Please answer the questions by placing an “x” in the box of the response that comes closest to describing your experiences with HUD. If you deal with more than one HUD program, office, or employee, please take all of your experiences into consideration when answering the questions.

Your responses wil remain strictly confidential. The information you provide wil be combined with al other answers and neither you nor your organization wil be identified in reporting the survey findings to HUD or anyone else. The survey is being conducted by Silber & Associates, an independent, non-partisan research organization.

Please complete the questionnaire this week and return it in the enclosed envelope. If you need assistance, you may telephone Silber & Associates toll-free at 1-888-SILBER-1 (888-745-2371) or e-mail support@SAsurveys.com.

1. How frequent have your organization’s contacts been with HUD during the past twelve months?

Very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Somewhat frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

Not very frequent (PLEASE GO TO Question 2)

None at all

On behalf of your

y

or

our ga

or

niz

ni a

z tion, a

, re y

r

ou i

e y

n a

ou i

posi

os tion to ass

s es

s s

es a

s nd

nd commen

comm

t on

Don’t know

the perf

er orma

or

nce of

of HUD

H

’s or

s g

or aniz

ni a

z tion and pro

r gra

gr ms?

ms?

Ye

Y s

e (

s C

( ONTI

NT NU

I

E

NU ))

No

PLEAS

A E

S FO

F RWARD

A

TO

T APPRO

A

PRIAT

A E

T PER

E SO

S N,

N O

, R RETU

T R

U N

N

Don’t Kn

K ow

ow

QUE

U ST

S I

T ONNAI

NNA RE I

E F

I T

F HE

T RE I

E S N

S O

N SU

S C

U H PERSO

S N

2. During the past twelve months has your organization had contact with: Yes

No

Don’t Know

a. HUD personnel in HUD’s Washington DC Headquarters office

b. HUD personnel in one or more of HUD’s field offices

c. HUD personnel in a specialized HUD Center or Hub (such as the Real Estate Assessment Center, Section 8 Financial Management Center, Troubled Agency Recovery Center (TARC), Multifamily Property Disposition Center, HUD Homeownership Centers, FHA Resource Center, HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives)

d. A contractor working for HUD

3. HUD has several different responsibilities. On one hand, it provides various forms of support (for example, funding, technical assistance, information) and, on the

ther

other, it has a regulatory responsibility (that is, it makes rules, assures compliance

roviding

thing o

with those rules, makes assessments). In your organization’s relationship with HUD,

l y p

roviding

qua nd regulating

would you say HUD is mainly providing support to you, mainly regulating you, or

e

doing both about equally?

ainly pport

ainly regulating port a

M sup

M

Aboutsup

Neither/some

Don’t know

issatisfied

4. Thinking first about HUD programs with which you currently deal and then about how HUD runs those programs, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with:

what satisfied

what d issatisfied

epends

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d It d

Don’t know

a. The HUD programs you currently deal with

b. The way HUD currently runs those programs

5. Listed below are several different ways to think about your relationship with HUD.

For each item, indicate your level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction at the present point in time. Check “Not Applicable” if the situation does not apply to your agency (for

issatisfied

example, if you do not currently receive information from HUD).

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you, in general, with…?

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The quality of the information you currently receive from HUD

b. The timeliness of the information you currently receive from HUD

c. The timeliness of decision-making by HUD (such as requests for waivers, rulings, and approvals)

d. The quality of guidance you currently get from HUD

e. The consistency of guidance you currently get from HUD

f. The clarity of HUD rules and requirements that apply to your agency; in other words, how easy they are to understand

g. The responsiveness of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

h. The competence of the people with whom you currently deal at HUD

i.

The extent to which HUD employees have the knowledge, skills, and ability to do their work

j.

Your ability to reach the people at HUD whom you need to contact k. The time commitment required to comply with HUD reporting requirements (e.g., Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System [TRACS] or HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center [REAC])

6. HUD provides training and technical assistance through different methods. For

ll

each method listed below, please indicate how useful or not useful you’ve found

eful

ed

eful

t a

it. Check “Have not used” if you haven’t used the method for HUD training or

seful

ot us

what us

eful a

technical assistance.

Very u Some Not too us

Not us Have n Don’t know

a. HUD-sponsored conferences

b. HUD-sponsored satellite broadcasts

c. HUD-sponsored training programs conducted by contractors d. HUD’s Webpage

e. HUD’s Webcast training

f. HUD participation in panel discussions and training sessions set up by non-HUD groups

7. HUD has increasingly relied on electronic transmission to communicate with its partners. Based on your experience in the past 12 months, please indicate how

at all

effective or ineffective each of the following has been as a tool for HUD to convey

ed

w

important information to you, such as notices and guidance. Check “Have not used”

ef ective

what ef ective

not us

if HUD hasn’t communicated with you this way.

Very ef ective

Some

Not too Not ef ective

Have

Don’t kno

a. HUD listservs (automated mailing lists of subscribers to which HUD sends e-mail messages)

b. HUD’s Website postings

c. HUD’s E-mail (individual correspondence to or from a HUD employee)

asy

if icult

asy

what e

what d

if icult

pplicable

8.

In general, is the Real Estate Assessment Center’s (REAC’s) electronic

Very e

Some

Some

Very d

Don’t know Not a

system for submission of financial statements easy or difficult to use?

9. Grants.gov (formerly eGrants) is intended to be a simple, unified electronic storefront for interactions between grant applicants and Federal

issatisfied

ed

agencies—providing information about grant opportunities and facilitating

what satisfied

what d

ot us

grant applications. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with Grants.gov—

Very satisfied

Don’t know

Grants.gov

considering such things as ease of use, usefulness etc.? Check “Have not

Some

Some

Very dissatisfied

Have n

used” if you haven’t used Grants.gov .

10. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with each of the following as it relates to your organization. Check “Not applicable” if the situation does not apply to your

issatisfied

organization. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with...?

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. The timeliness of HUD information & technical assistance for implementing provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008—such as those related to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, housing counseling, or the FHA mortgage insurance program

b. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to implementing provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (see a above) c. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to addressing local and regional foreclosure issues

d. The quality of HUD support & technical assistance related to improving the energy efficiency of housing supported by HUD programs

11. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with HUD’s performance as it supports or regulates your organization’s activities in the following areas? Check “Not

issatisfied

Applicable” if your organization does not engage in a particular activity in conjunction with HUD’s programs.

what satisfied

what d issatisfied pplicable

ACTIVITIES RELATED TO HUD’S HOUSING/FHA OFFICE:

Very satisfied

Some Some Very d Not a Don’t know

a. Single-family development with FHA financing

b. Multifamily development

c. Ownership and operations/management

d. Acquisition/ disposition of HUD-owned properties

e. Housing counseling

f. Resident services

ACTIVITIES RELATED TO HUD’S COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE (CPD): g. Housing - homeownership

h. Housing - rental

i. Economic development activities like business development or job creation j. Resident services

k. Homeless assistance activities

l. Other community development activities

ACTIVITIES RELATED TO HUD’S PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING OFFICE (PIH): m. Housing development

n. Housing management

o. Rental voucher administration

p. Resident services

OTHER

q. Office of Fair Housing: statutes/regulations pertaining to fair housing, persons with disabilities, Section 3, senior exemption

r. Faith-based and community initiatives

12. With which HUD office/program do you have the most involvement? Check only one answer.

Office of Housing/FHA

Office of Community Planning and Development

Office of Public and Indian Housing

Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

logic

pplication

13.

one aonjunction

rant a

If your organization put together a logic model in conjunction with a HUD NOFA application, have you found that the logic model helped

efinitely

robably

UD g

on’t know

del in c

you to. . .?

Yes, d

Yes, p

No

I D

Haven’t d

mo with H

a. Better identify performance indicators

b. Better think through activities to achieve your desired objectives c. Better manage your HUD grant

e-snaps

ed

14. In 2008, HUD initiated e-snaps, an online application process for the Continuum of Care (CoC) grant competition. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with e-

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

not us

snaps—considering such things as clarity of instructions, ease of use, usefulness

Some Some Very dissatisfied

Very satisfied

Don’t know

Have

etc.? Check “Have not used” if you haven’t used e-snaps.

what satisfied

what dissatisfied

15. At present, taking everything into consideration, how satisfied or dissatisfied are

Very satisfied Some

Some

Very di ssatisfied

Don’t know

you with HUD’s overall performance?

16. Please indicate the title/position of the person (or persons) who answered these questions: Organization Director

Organization Deputy Director

Other Organization Senior Official

Other Organization Employee

Other:___ _______________________________________

ore

r m

17.

Taking into account all the jobs in your employment history, how many years, in

Less than 1 year

- 3 years – 6 years – 9 years 0 years o

1

4

7

1

total, have you interacted with HUD as part of your job?

18. With which field office or offices does your organization interact on a regular basis? Mark all that apply.

REGION I

Bangor

Boston

Burlington

Hartford

Manchester

Providence

REGION II

Albany

Buffalo

Camden

Newark

New York

Syracuse

REGION III

Baltimore

Charleston

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Richmond

Wash., D. C.

Wilmington

REGION IV

Atlanta

Birmingham

Columbia

Greensboro

Jackson

Jacksonville

Knoxville

Louisvil e

Memphis

Miami

Nashville

Orlando

San Juan

Tampa

REGION V

Chicago

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Detroit

Flint

Grnd. Rapids

Indianapolis

Milwaukee

Minneapolis

Springfield

REGION VI

Albuquerque

Dallas

Ft. Worth

Houston

Little Rock

Lubbock

New Orleans

Okla.City

San Antonio

Shreveport

Tulsa

REGION VII

Des Moines

Kansas City

Omaha

St. Louis

REGION VIII

Casper

Denver

Fargo

Helena

Salt Lk. City

Sioux Falls

REGION IX

Fresno

Honolulu

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Phoenix

Reno

Sacramento

San Diego

San Francisco

Santa Ana

Tucson

REGION X

Anchorage

Boise

Portland

Seattle

Spokane

We welcome and appreciate any comments you may have about HUD. PLEASE PRINT. Use extra paper if needed.

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE BY NAME.

Thank You for Completing the HUD Survey of Non-Profit Organizations.

Please return your completed questionnaire to:

HUD SURVEY, c/o Silber & Associates, P.O. Box 651, Clarksvil e, MD 21029-0651

A prepaid envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SURVEY? CALL: 1-888-SILBER-1

FAX: 1-410-531-3100

E-MAIL: SUPPORT@SAsurveys.COM

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

October 2011

Document Outline

Contents

Executive Summary

Part 1: Measurement and Tracking of Partner Satisfaction with HUD

Part 2: Basic Partner Satisfaction with HUD

Part 3: Partners' Perspectives Regarding Individual Aspects of Their Interactions with HUD

Part 4: Partner Perspectives Regarding HUD's Training and Technical Assistance Mechanisms and Electronic Communications Media

Appendix A: Methodology

Appendix B: Questionnaires