HousingHousing Accountability Research Center · Public research
Follow the questions behind housing funding and performance claims, the evidence already available, and the specific records needed for a reliable answer.
How to use this page: These 20 publicly indexed questions are not the full internal research backlog, allegations, or records requests known to have been sent. A question's research status is not an agency response.
This is a curated selection from published research, not the full internal workbook. Each entry links to a previously published finding or evidence question and identifies what remains unverified.
Showing 20 research records.
$349,468 program income is already part of the $5,418,132 resource subtotal.
Resolved scope: Resource arithmetic reproduced from the corrected PR-26; do not count program income twice. This does not resolve Q-007’s spending reconciliation or Q-006’s implementation questions.
Research status: Resolved: resource arithmetic reproduced
Rounded historical amounts cannot be interpreted as a live cash balance.
Still needed: Obligations, draws, eligible-use restrictions and comparable accounting periods.
Research status: Open interpretation
A narrative reports four households, while a program table shows 32 planned and zero actual.
Still needed: Matched reporting definitions, dates and beneficiary cohorts.
Research status: Open source comparison
The original PY2024 Annual Action Plan describes the rapid-rehousing target as 30 individuals in its project narrative but 30 households in its goal table; another entry gives 10 households for combined rapid rehousing and prevention. The comparison with 18 reported actual households therefore needs a clarified target definition.
Still needed: The CAPER’s PR-91 shows the entire $48,734 rapid-rehousing budget drawn by September 23, 2025. That later grant-draw checkpoint does not explain the outcome count or establish cost per household. Comparable outcome definitions and an agency explanation remain needed.
Research status: Open performance question
The City draft references schedules expected in the final report.
Still needed: Final document, HUD receipt or acceptance and supporting attachments.
Research status: Final records unconfirmed
The October 6 Council action report, Resolution 24188 and Exhibit A document adoption of the $1.5 million transfer between CDBG categories, with no increase in total resources. The action report records a 7–0 vote.
Still needed: HUD submission/receipt and IDIS implementation records, project commitments and actual draws.
Research status: Adopted amendment verified; implementation open
The corrected PR-26 reports $4,717,936.37 in formula-CDBG expenditures. The City’s narrative reports $3,433,346.66, leaving a $1,284,589.71 arithmetic difference requiring a transaction-level explanation.
Still needed: A transaction-level bridge matching formula-CDBG activities and dates. The public-service-cap adjustment does not change total expenditures. This is not a finding of missing funds, currently available assistance or a cost per housing outcome. CDBG-CV is reported separately.
Research status: Formula-CDBG reconciliation open; earlier mixed-program comparison withdrawn.
The draft’s 378-unit list includes 96 existing Casa del Pueblo apartments being rehabilitated. Current Lariat and Shasta permit records show continuing construction. The 378 figure is not a verified count of completed new homes; neither a revised completed-new-home total nor its relationship to 483 is verified.
Still needed: Project IDs, construction and completion dates, and nonduplicative aggregate unit and occupancy counts, with an explanation of how overlaps are removed.
Research status: Classification conflict documented; cohort and completion reconciliation open
39 proposed Amazon Flats and 82 allocated Craycroft/Lee Street PBVs do not establish open units.
Still needed: Public or appropriately redacted contract records, dated aggregate unit and occupancy counts, and published referral rules.
Research status: Contract and availability unverified
The October 20 PHA report records $49,539,339 in Tucson and $9,161,950 in Pima County payments to property owners or managers for FY2026 (July 1, 2025–June 30, 2026), totaling $58,701,289. It reports $614,215 plus $306,275, totaling $920,490, as unaudited unspent assistance or next-year reserves, while its narrative calls the amount an operating surplus. Those labels still need reconciliation.
Still needed: The FY2025 Single Audit separately reports $62,789,037 in Housing Choice Voucher federal expenditures for July 1, 2024–June 30, 2025. Its accrual or modified-accrual measure is not FY2026 cash receipts. The near-match to the draft’s approximately $62.8 million narrative is a source-year question, not proof of an error. Match FY2026 receipts, HAP, administration and restricted-reserve roll-forwards.
Research status: Open accounting/scope comparison
HUD’s HOME match workbook, FY2024 sheet row 24, lists a 50% fiscal-distress reduction for the Tucson Consortium, supporting a 12.5% required match rate. This does not validate accumulated match-credit eligibility or make credits available cash.
Still needed: Confirm credit eligibility, restrictions, commitments, activity IDs and actual balances.
Research status: Open funding classification
Documented: HUD and the City plan agree on CDBG $4,962,047, HOME $3,061,840.81 for the Tucson/Pima consortium, ESG $448,998 and HOPWA $1,140,597, totaling $9,613,482.81. Forecast program income is separate: CDBG $200,000 and HOME $500,000. These are allocations and forecasts, not verified receipts or spending.
Unknown: How much has been received, committed or spent is not established by these allocations and forecasts.
Next: Match receipts and spending to completed activities and aggregate household counts for the same reporting period.
Research status: Allocations verified; receipts and outcomes open
Documented: The Arizona Finance Authority’s $10 million volume-cap allocation and the City’s bond authorization concern the same financing and must not be added as separate funding. Posted Resolution 24206 states adoption on November 4 of authorization for up to $10 million in bonds. The IDA’s October 15 action report records its earlier final approval. The November 4 legal action report confirms a separate 6–0 vote adopting Resolution 24206 under Consent Agenda Item J, with Cunningham absent/excused. Council action report, reviewed November 9.
Unknown: Bond closing, proceeds received and signed assistance contracts remain unverified. Blank tracker closing fields do not prove that no closing occurred.
Next: Obtain closing documents and use-of-proceeds records.
Research status: Official resolution and IDA approval located; closing and proceeds unverified
Documented: TPCH submitted a $22,827,346 total FY2026 Continuum of Care request on September 29, 2026. It includes renewals and other categories, not just new funding. The submission is not a final HUD award. [12–13]
Next: Compare final awards with the request. HUD’s November 3 notice says awards are required by December 1, 2026. [14]
Research status: Request submitted; final award unverified
Documented: The plan is to rehabilitate 82 existing homes: 74 apartments and eight duplex units. El Pueblo Housing Development (EPHD) also describes a Rental Assistance Demonstration conversion, which changes their subsidy structure.
Federal records show an environmental milestone and a submitted financing plan for the 82-unit preservation project. The RAD tracker reviewed November 7 lists “Financing Plan Submitted” without a closing date. Closing, proceeds and signed assistance contracts remain unverified.
Unknown: Which budget and bedroom count govern? The November presentation lists 124 bedrooms in its summary and 85 in its detailed slide. The summary cost entry is $33.9, without a millions label; the detail gives $34.7 million.
Next: Confirm the governing budget and bedroom count, then document public contract status, aggregate occupancy totals and published application and referral rules.
Research status: Financing and environmental stages documented; budget and bedroom count unresolved
Citation correction: the previous link opened a different project’s review. The correct HUD document records 7015.16 certification on September 1, 2026. Read the citation correction and source limits.
Documented: The August 18 PHA packet supports the up-to-120 El Portal voucher plan; its attached amendment is a public-comment draft, and the local action was adopted as amended. The October 30 memo estimates 181 planned voucher units across two phases, not delivered new homes. Separately, the City’s October 1 newsletter reports 41 households placed in existing El Portal apartments over the summer with Housing First assistance. That report does not establish implementation of the planned voucher expansion.
Unknown: Final HUD approval, signed assistance contracts and dated totals of households receiving the new PBV assistance remain unverified. The October 20 PHA report anticipated related HUD approvals during October–December; that expectation is not approval. Final effective operating policies, completed inspections and rent determinations remain to be verified.
Next: Obtain aggregate counts of contracted units and households assisted, with reporting dates, inspection-completion totals and effective program policies. Do not request resident names, unit-level addresses or individual case records.
Research status: Local plan action and separate placements reported; new PBV implementation unverified
Documented: Housing First recorded 21 permanent-housing exits among 36 counted leavers (58.3%), after excluding eight of 44 leavers, and all 26 openings filled through Coordinated Entry for July 1, 2025–June 1, 2026. Separately, seven of 43 people in the June 1, 2024–June 1, 2025 permanent-housing exit cohort returned within 12 months (16.3%). These are different groups and periods; weighted scores are not housing-success percentages or evidence of underspending.
Unknown: The aggregate destination categories accounting for the eight excluded exits are not established. Later aggregate outcomes and costs for comparable groups and reporting periods also remain unverified.
Next: Obtain an agency-prepared aggregate breakdown by broad destination category and updated outcome totals, with inclusion rules, denominators and reporting periods. Combine or suppress small groups where individuals could be identified; do not request participant records.
Research status: Dated outcomes checked; exclusions and later outcomes open
Documented: The November EPHD presentation’s project-cost entries sum to 590.8; its printed total is 593.5. Several entries omit the millions label. Its 1,326-unit total includes projects at different stages and rehabilitation work.
Unknown: The cost unit and total need clarification. The unit total alone does not show how many new homes were completed.
Next: Obtain a corrected project table with explicit cost units and separate planned, existing, rehabilitated and completed homes.
Research status: Cost total and unit categories unresolved
Source date: EPHD presentation November 5, 2026, PDF p. 12. [6]
Documented: The submitted FY2026 priority listing names Housing First PSH for partial reallocation: $4,706,481 in annual renewal funding, $3,485,762 retained and $1,220,719 available for new projects. The Board cites the amount available for renewals in Tier 1 and says the applicant was notified June 25. This is a submitted funding decision, not a final HUD award. [12, p. 17]
Next: Verify the final award and resulting service capacity. The separate roughly 50% case is identified as SAAF AVP-RRH in Q-020, not Housing First.
Research status: Named partial reallocation submitted; award unverified
Documented: The submitted priority listing identifies SAAF AVP-RRH, grant AZ0268D9T012501, as the roughly 50% underspending-reallocation case: $792,695 from a $1,585,389 annual renewal amount, followed by reallocation of the balance because of limited Tier 1 renewal space. The separate payment-system-lockout case remains unidentified.
Unknown: The application passage itself names neither project; the priority listing supplies the AVP-RRH identification. It does not identify the retained-funding lockout case. Final HUD awards and implementation remain unverified.
Next: Obtain the underlying Board decisions and recipient notices, identify the retained-funding case, and verify final awards and implementation.
Research status: One project identified; other decision and final outcomes open
Source date: FY2026 CoC application September 28, 2026, PDF p. 44. [10]
No matching records. Try a different term or choose All topics.
Match voucher accounting periods and carryover labels; verify Tucson House certificate conditions and aggregate moves; obtain executed Amazon project records; and clarify ESG target definitions. County One Stop’s two outcome cohorts require separate follow-up. Read the additional November 7 records.
November 10 and 12 meeting questions: which draft measures will track lasting housing, and how would PIT methodology changes affect comparisons? The agendas do not establish adoption.
A reconciled table and an explanation of the counts and calculations would clarify the results. The discrepancies alone do not establish misuse of funds.
The report does not say whether households appear in more than one category.
Resident privacy: Reconciliation should use aggregate counts, not residents’ identities or individual records.
Read the Complete County Report Review.
Source: Pima County, One Pima Initiative: Fiscal Year 27 First Quarter Update, November 5, 2026, page 2; rapid-rehousing narrative, page 3.
Resident privacy: Questions about assistance and outcomes seek aggregate counts, not residents’ identities or individual records. See our privacy standard.
When housing funding is announced, what happens next? Each answer separates what the records show from what still needs checking. “Unknown” means not established by the records reviewed here. A project’s status may have changed since its source date.
The full entries for project-cost totals (Q-018), Housing First reallocation (Q-019) and CoC project identification (Q-020) are maintained in the register above, with their original source dates and historical anchors.
Documented: The corrected PR-26’s resources, spending and ending balance add up. Its $4,717,936.37 spending total exceeds the City’s $3,433,346.66 formula-CDBG narrative by $1,284,589.71. OMB’s reporting guidance separates formula CDBG from CDBG-CV; the $339,616.74 CV narrative amount belongs to a different report scope.
Unknown: The formula-CDBG difference remains unexplained. The earlier resource difference is resolved, and the separate public-service-limit correction does not reconcile these spending figures.
Next: Match formula-CDBG activities, funding categories and dates before drawing conclusions about spending or completed work. The companion CDBG review gives the detailed reconciliation.
Source date: City PY2024 CAPER; corrected PR-26 March 13, 2026, PDF pp. 13 and 148–150. OMB 2025 Compliance Supplement, PDF p. 61. [11, 15]
The project reports submitting a targeted request through HUD's FOIA portal for the final CAPER, official submission and review records, and associated missing financial and performance schedules.
Status: Submitted according to project records. No HUD acknowledgment, tracking number, production, or final determination is verified by this publication.
Privacy: No private mailing address, case information, portal credentials or personal records are displayed. This is independent public-interest research, not an individual complaint.
The County’s allocations and PRICE approvals do not establish spending or completed assistance. Obtain fully executed agreements and amendments, monthly expenditure and reimbursement records, and agency-prepared aggregate counts of repairs, households assisted, evictions avoided and housing retention for matching periods.
Keep program and geographic scopes distinct, and establish household overlap before combining targets or outcomes. Request appropriately redacted records and suppress identifiable small groups, not tenant rosters or individual case files. The City-award federal outlay cutoff remains August 2026; later reports are still needed.
Read the Documented Approvals and Limits · Agreement records · Federal reporting
Plans, awards, commitments, expenditures, restricted balances, completed housing, and actual vacancies are separate measures. Published figures have limited reporting periods and may rely on historical agency statements. Questions are not findings of fraud or noncompliance.
Detailed source records remain in the Public Evidence Index. Corrections and additional official records can be shared through Contact.
