WASHINGTON -- President Clinton is considering radically "streamlining" the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a move that housing advocates say could cripple programs important to cities and people dependent on low-income housing.
The changes under consideration could turn parts of that Cabinet department into several independent entities, while eliminating some programs outright.
The proposals are designed to reduce the size of the government as President Clinton prepares his 1996 budget proposal.
Hundreds of programs
The changes reportedly include trimming the Cabinet and drastic cuts in hundreds of programs.
The president appears to be trying to seize the initiative from the new Republican majority in Congress which is bent on shrinking the government.
Published reports yesterday said the administration was considering the elimination of the housing department, but an administration official denied that yesterday.
"The president has asked staff to provide him with bold proposals for reforming and streamlining government," a senior White House official said.
"There are a number of proposals that are to go before him. But he has not received any proposal to totally eliminate any departments."
JTC But while the agency would remain, the streamlining is likely to mean significant reductions for some of its programs.
Millions of Americans
HUD oversees programs that provide millions of Americans with housing services ranging from subsidized apartments to low-cost mortgages. The agency makes an appealing target for cuts because it has been criticized across the ideological spectrum.
Conservatives blame HUD for fostering dependency through its low-income housing programs.
"For 30 years, this agency has delegated to the federal government a set of functions it should not be involved in," said Carl Horowitz, a former policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank.
A quagmire
Meanwhile, many liberals who embrace the agency's mission nevertheless have called HUD a regulatory quagmire.
"I strongly favor some sort of streamlining of HUD," said Daniel P. Henson III, Baltimore's housing commissioner. "It is too big. Too often, one side of HUD doesn't know what the other side is doing."
But Mr. Henson said that if the change meant deep cuts in HUD's programs, it could devastate big cities like Baltimore.
"If you scale back or get rid of HUD, what are you going to do to replace it?" Mr. Henson asked. "There is significant need for federal help to assist housing and community development in this country."
Reduced to 10 programs
Last summer, a report ordered by Congress recommended consolidating 150 to 200 HUD programs into no more than 10 broad programs.
The goal of the recommendation was to limit the often bewilderingHUD bureaucracy and to give local communities more flexibility in deciding how to spend money they receive from the agency.
"The current overload of programs . . . saps HUD's resources, muddles priorities, fragments the department's work force, creates unmeetable expectations and confuses communities," said the report, compiled by the National Academy of Public Administration.
Agency dismantled
The report went on to recommend that the agency be dismantled, and its core programs be moved to other Cabinet agencies, if it the agency cannot streamline its operations within five years.
One idea for trimming HUD involves moving the Federal Housing Administration programs into a more independent body that would be free of many federal purchasing rules. Among other things, the change allow the FHA, which insures low-cost mortgages, to more easily sell about 80,000 foreclosed properties.
Bart Harvey, chairman of the Enterprise Foundation, an affordable-housing organization based in Columbia, said he was confident that Mr. Clinton's streamlining would not cripple HUD's programs.
"I think the death of HUD is greatly exaggerated," Mr. Harvey said. "It is not the intent of the administration to do away with the agency. However, there are important, dramatic steps to be made to create a HUD that is viable."
Funds decline 30%
Since 1980, HUD funds have declined by 30 percent. At the same time, the agency has absorbed new functions and increased the number of regulations governing how the programs should be run.
"There are some Republicans and even some Democrats who certainly would like to get rid of HUD and get government out of the housing business," said Julio Barreto, director of legislative services for the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
"But there are many others who believe in the mission of HUD, but would like to see the agency handle its programs in a different way."