Series: Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness Program

California complied with PATH program requirements related to program costs, non-Federal contributions, and consumer eligibility for five selected providers. However, it did not fully comply with requirements to accurately report PATH program activities in its Annual Report to SAMHSA and to ensure providers adequately documented services provided.

• California included in its Annual Report: (1) an inaccurate number of consumers enrolled in the PATH program for one selected provider and (2) inaccurate total Federal and non-Federal contributions made for another selected provider to support its PATH program.
• California did not ensure that 1 selected provider documented the services provided to 10 of 20 selected consumers reviewed and contacts made with all 20 consumers.

Texas complied with PATH program requirements related to certain program costs and non-Federal contributions. However, it did not always comply with PATH program requirements when determining consumers' eligibility and reporting the number of consumers enrolled in its PATH program. For 7 of the 70 sampled consumers, case files maintained by PATH providers did not support that the consumers were eligible to enroll in the PATH program. Specifically, PATH providers did not maintain documentation in their case files that indicated the consumers met PATH eligibility requirements for being seriously mentally ill (4 consumers) or inappropriately enrolled consumers due to clerical errors (3 consumers). In addition, Texas overstated the number of consumers enrolled in its PATH program in its Annual PATH Reports.

These deficiencies occurred because Texas lacked adequate oversight to ensure that PATH providers maintained sufficient documentation to support that consumers met eligibility requirements to enroll in the PATH program. In addition, Texas did not ensure that PATH providers reported accurate enrollment data for the State agency's annual PATH reports to SAMHSA. On the basis of our sample results, we estimated that 1,001 consumers (10 percent) enrolled in Texas' PATH program were ineligible to enroll in the Texas' PATH program.

Florida complied with PATH program requirements related to certain program costs and non-Federal contributions. However, Florida did not comply with certain PATH program requirements when determining consumers' eligibility in its PATH program. Specifically, 6 of the 70 sampled consumers were inaccurately reported as enrolled in the PATH program or ineligible to enroll in the program.

These errors occurred because Florida lacked adequate oversight to ensure that PATH providers accurately reported PATH program enrollment and maintained sufficient documentation to support that enrolled consumers met PATH program eligibility requirements. On the basis of our sample results, we estimated that 254 of 2,963 consumers were inaccurately reported as enrolled in Florida's PATH program or were not eligible to enroll in the program.

New York did not always comply with PATH program requirements. Specifically, 7 of the 50 consumers we sampled lived in permanent housing settings and documentation in their case files did not indicate that they continued to need PATH services to prevent a recurrence of homelessness. In addition, New York did not meet its funding obligation for non-Federal contributions to its PATH program and did not have written agreements with PATH providers, as required. Also, New York inaccurately reported the number of consumers enrolled in its PATH program and did not timely file its financial report to SAMHSA. Finally, New York has not performed the financial closeout of its PATH program and did not verify that funds were appropriately used by providers or that unused funds were returned to the Federal Government.

On the basis of our sample results, we estimated that 578 consumers (14 percent) were ineligible to receive PATH program services. Also, New York did not meet its funding obligation for non-Federal contributions, which resulted in the entire grant amount of $4.2 million being unallowable.