HUD Management
Impact Measurement Needed for Technical Assistance Gao ID: GAO-02-1109T September 17, 2002This testimony discusses the results of GAO's review of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) technical assistance and capacity-building programs. Technical assistance programs can be defined as training designed to improve the performance or management of program recipients, such as teaching one-on-one procurement regulations to housing authority staff. Capacity building can be generally defined as funding to strengthen the capacity or capability of program recipients or providers--typically housing or community development organizations--thereby building the institutional knowledge within those organizations. The overall goal of both technical assistance and capacity building is to enhance the delivery of HUD's housing and community development programs. HUD administers 21 technical assistance programs through five program offices. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002, the annual funding for HUD technical assistance ranged between $128 million and $201 million, accounting for less than 1 percent of HUD's overall budget each year. Although the general purpose of HUD's technical assistance is to help program participants carry out HUD program goals, each program office designs technical assistance specifically related to its programs. Recipients could be states and units of local government, public or Indian housing agencies, private and nonprofit organizations, or individuals. Providers could be HUD officials or, more commonly, state or local governments, profit and nonprofit organizations, or public housing agencies. HUD awards funding for 17 of the 21 technical assistance programs competitively. The funding for the remaining programs is awarded noncompetitively. HUD uses three types of funding instruments and determines which type to use on the basis of its relationship with the awardee and the level of federal involvement anticipated. All five HUD program offices perform basic oversight of the technical assistance they administer, such as visually observing the technical assistance or reviewing reports submitted by the providers to ensure that the technical assistance was provided. In addition, some program offices also have impact measures in place. HUD does not measure the impact or outcome of technical assistance and does not offer any central guidance on how the program offices should measure its impact.
GAO-02-1109T, HUD Management: Impact Measurement Needed for Technical Assistance
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1109t
entitled 'HUD Management: Impact Measurement Needed for Technical
Assistance' which was released on September 17, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee
on Financial Services
House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m., EST Tuesday
September 17, 2002:
Hud Management:
Impact Measurement Needed for Technical Assistance:
GAO-02-1109T:
Statement of Thomas J. McCool, Managing Director, Financial Markets and
Community Investment:
GAO-02-1109T:
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are here today to discuss the results of our review of U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development‘s (HUD) technical
assistance and capacity-building programs. HUD‘s fiscal year 2002
budget is over $34 billion, most of which is passed on to state and
local governments and other agencies and organizations that carry out
HUD‘s programs. Providing these entities with technical assistance and
capacity building is an important means for HUD to influence how its
program funds are spent.
The Congress and HUD sometimes use the terms technical assistance and
capacity building interchangeably and the definitions overlap.
Technical assistance programs can be generally defined as training
designed to improve the performance or management of program
recipients, such as teaching one-on-one procurement regulations to
housing authority staff. Capacity building can be generally defined as
funding to strengthen the capacity or capability of program recipients
or providers--typically housing or community development
organizations--thereby building the institutional knowledge within
those organizations. Some of the programs have both technical
assistance and capacity building aspects. The overall goal of both
technical assistance and capacity building is to enhance the delivery
of HUD‘s housing and community development programs. While HUD staff
whose costs are covered by HUD‘s salary and expenses budgets routinely
provide a wide range of technical assistance as part of their day-to-
day activities, our work focused on funding specifically authorized by
Congress to be used for technical assistance or capacity building. To
simplify matters today, except when citing specific examples, I will
use the term technical assistance to refer to both.
You asked us to examine the universe of technical assistance programs
in HUD so that you could better understand the scope and purpose of the
programs. Our statement focuses on (1) the number of HUD technical
assistance programs Congress has authorized and how much they cost, (2)
why HUD offers technical assistance programs and who provides and
receives the services, (3) how HUD selects technical assistance
providers, and (4) whether HUD program offices are overseeing the
technical assistance programs as required and measuring their impact.
In summary:
* HUD administers 21 technical assistance programs through five program
offices. From fiscal year1998 through fiscal year 2002, the annual
funding for HUD technical assistance ranged between $128 million and
$201 million, accounting for less than 1 percent of HUD‘s overall
budget each year.
* While the general purpose of HUD‘s technical assistance is to help
program participants carry out HUD program goals, each program office
designs technical assistance specifically related to its programs. For
example, an Office of Healthy Homes-Lead Hazard Control technical
assistance program might consist of classes to teach a group of
property owners and maintenance workers how to evaluate and control
lead-based paint hazards. Similarly, an Office of Community Planning
and Development capacity building program might involve funding for a
community-based organization to help that organization improve its
administrative capabilities. Recipients could be states and units of
local government, public or Indian housing agencies, private and
nonprofit organizations, or individuals. Providers could be HUD
officials or, more commonly, state or local governments, profit and
nonprofit organizations, or public housing agencies.
* HUD awards funding for 17 of the 21 technical assistance programs
competitively. The funding for the remaining programs is awarded
noncompetitively. HUD uses three types of funding instruments
(contracts, grant agreements, and cooperative agreements) and
determines which type to use on the basis of its relationship with the
awardee and the level of federal involvement anticipated. Depending on
the complexity of the individual program office‘s funding instrument
requirements, this process can take from 3 months to over a year to
complete. Noncompetitive funding is either specified by statute or
based on a formula set by HUD.
* All five HUD program offices perform basic oversight of the technical
assistance they administer, such as visually observing the technical
assistance or reviewing reports submitted by the providers to ensure
that the technical assistance was provided. In addition, some program
offices also have impact measures in place. In line with the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, HUD program officials are required
to develop measures and track performance relative to the goals in the
agencies strategic and annual performance plans. However, HUD does not
measure the impact or outcomes of technical assistance and does not
offer any central guidance on how the program offices should measure
its impact. Although some headquarters and field officials said that it
was difficult to measure the impact of technical assistance, other
officials said that they had developed and were using impact measures
in some locations. Because HUD spends substantial sums for technical
assistance and uses it to meet program goals and influence far greater
expenditures of program funds, we are recommending that HUD, where
possible, measure the impact of the technical assistance and develop
consistent guidance for program offices to use.
While we have yet to receive the official written comments, we received
oral confirmation that the Department generally agrees with our report,
that it will require HUD offices to develop impact measures, and that
it will develop guidance for the five program offices.
HUD Administers 21 Technical Assistance Programs at an Annual Total
Cost of between $128 Million and $201 Million:
Between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, HUD administered a total of 21
technical assistance programs, most of which are associated with
programs in its offices of Community Planning and Development and
Public and Indian Housing. The other three offices that administer
technical assistance programs are the offices of Housing, Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity, and Healthy Homes-Lead Hazard Control.
Table 1 lists the 21 technical assistance programs, by program office,
and their budgets.
Table 1: HUD‘s Technical Assistance Programs by Program Office, Fiscal
Years 1998-2002:
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: I.-Office of Community
Planning and Development; FY 1998 (actual): [Empty]; FY 1999 (actual):
[Empty]; FY 2000 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2001 (actual): [Empty];
FY 2002 (estimate): [Empty].
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 1-HOME Investment
Partnership Program -Technical Assistance; FY 1998 (actual): 22.0;
FY 1999 (actual): 22.0; FY 2000 (actual): 22.0; FY 2001 (actual):
22.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 12.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 2-Section 4-Capacity
Building *; FY 1998 (actual): 18.0; FY 1999 (actual): 25.0;
FY 2000 (actual): 26.3; FY 2001 (actual): 32.4; FY 2002 (estimate):
31.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 3-Section 107 - Technical
Assistance *; FY 1998 (actual): 4.0; FY 1999 (actual): 7.5;
FY 2000 (actual): 0.0; FY 2001 (actual): 0.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 0.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 4-Youthbuild Program-
Technical Assistance *; FY 1998 (actual): 1.8; FY 1999 (actual): 2.1;
FY 2000 (actual): 2.1; FY 2001 (actual): 3.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 3.3.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 5-Housing Assistance
Council (HAC) *; FY 1998 (actual): 2.1; FY 1999 (actual): 3.0;
FY 2000 (actual): 3.0; FY 2001 (actual): 3.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 3.3.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 6-Homeless Assistance
Grants - Technical Assistance; FY 1998 (actual): 0.0; FY 1999
(actual):
9.8; FY 2000 (actual): 10.2; FY 2001 (actual): 7.7; FY 2002 (estimate):
6.6.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 7-Rural Housing-Capacity
Building; FY 1998 (actual): 0.0; FY 1999 (actual): 4.0; FY 2000
(actual):
2.8; FY 2001 (actual): 12.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 12.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 8-HOPWA-Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS-; FY 1998 (actual): 0.0;
FY 1999 (actual): 2.3; FY 2000 (actual): 1.7; FY 2001 (actual): 2.6;
FY 2002 (estimate): 2.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: II-Office of Public and
Indian Housing; FY 1998 (actual): [Empty]; FY 1999 (actual): [Empty];
FY 2000 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2001 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2002
(estimate):
[Empty].
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 9-Office of Troubled Agency
Recovery (OTAR); FY 1998 (actual): 8.9; FY 1999 (actual): 17.3;
FY 2000 (actual): 15.4; FY 2001 (actual): 11.0; FY 2002 (estimate):
11.5.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 10-HOPE VI Urban
Revitalization; FY 1998 (actual): 10.0; FY 1999 (actual): 15.0;
FY 2000 (actual): 10.0; FY 2001 (actual): 10.0; FY 2002 (estimate):
6.3.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 11-Resident Opportunities
and Self Sufficiency (ROSS); FY 1998 (actual): 0.0; FY 1999 (actual):
11.0; FY 2000 (actual): 11.0; FY 2001 (actual): 11.0;
FY 2002 (estimate): 11.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 12-Drug Elimination; FY
1998 (actual): 10.0; FY 1999 (actual): 10.0; FY 2000 (actual): 5.0; FY
2001
(actual): 3.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 0.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 13-Native American (Indian)
Housing Block Grant Technical Assistance; FY 1998 (actual): 5.0; FY
1999
(actual): 6.0; FY 2000 (actual): 4.0; FY 2001 (actual): 6.0;
FY 2002 (estimate): 5.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 14-National American Indian
Housing Council (NAIHC) * ^; FY 1998 (actual): 1.5; FY 1999 (actual):
1.8; FY 2000 (actual): 4.2; FY 2001
(actual): 2.6; FY 2002 (estimate): 4.8.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 15-Capital Fund Program; FY
1998 (actual): 2.5; FY 1999 (actual): 2.5; FY 2000 (actual): 2.5; FY
2001
(actual): 4.8; FY 2002 (estimate): 2.5.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 16-Housing Choice Voucher
Program (Section 8); FY 1998 (actual): 0.0; FY 1999 (actual): 0.0;
FY 2000 (actual): 0.0; FY 2001 (actual): 0.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 10.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: III-Office of Housing--
Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring; FY 1998
(actual): [Empty]; FY 1999 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2000 (actual):
[Empty]; FY 2001 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2002 (estimate): [Empty].
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 17-Housing Counseling; FY
1998 (actual): 20.0; FY 1999 (actual): 17.5; FY 2000 (actual): 15.0; FY
2001 (actual): 20.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 20.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 18-Mark-2-Market Program-
Technical Assistance Grants; FY 1998 (actual): 10.0; FY 1999 (actual):
10.0; FY 2000 (actual): 10.0; FY 2001 (actual): 10.0;
FY 2002 (estimate): 11.3.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: IV-Office of Fair Housing
and Equal Opportunity; FY 1998 (actual): [Empty]; FY 1999 (actual):
[Empty];
FY 2000 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2001 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2002
(estimate): [Empty].
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 19-Fair Housing Assistance
Program (FHAP); FY 1998 (actual): 7.5; FY 1999 (actual): 8.3;
FY 2000 (actual): 11.0; FY 2001 (actual): 12.1; FY 2002 (estimate):
15.4.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 20-Fair Housing Initiative
Program (FHIP); FY 1998 (actual): 3.4; FY 1999 (actual): 4.8;
FY 2000 (actual): 6.1; FY 2001 (actual): 5.4; FY 2002 (estimate): 6.7.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: V-Office of Healthy Homes
and Lead Hazard Control; FY 1998 (actual): [Empty]; FY 1999 (actual):
[Empty]; FY 2000 (actual): [Empty]; FY 2001 (actual): [Empty];
FY 2002 (estimate): [Empty].
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: 21-Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction; FY 1998 (actual): 1.0; FY 1999 (actual): 3.0; FY 2000
(actual):
5.0; FY 2001 (actual): 22.0; FY 2002 (estimate): 5.0.
In millions of dollars: Program/Initiative: Total funding; FY 1998
(actual): 127.7; FY 1999 (actual): 182.9; FY 2000 (actual): 167.3; FY
2001 (actual): 200.6; FY 2002 (estimate): 179.7.
* Technical Assistance/Capacity Building funds set aside within the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG):
^ Technical Assistance funds set aside within the Indian Housing Block
Grant (IHBG):
Source: GAO‘s analysis of HUD data.
[End of table]
As shown in Figure 1, from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002,
the annual funding for all of HUD‘s technical assistance programs
ranged from $128 million to $201 million. These sums accounted for less
than 1 percent of HUD‘s overall budget, which averaged about $28
billion in each of those years.
Figure 1: Funding for Technical Assistance, Fiscal Years 1998-2002:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO Analysis of HUD Data
Technical assistance funds fluctuated each year because the funds for
specific technical assistance programs increased or decreased or
because technical assistance programs were introduced or discontinued
in any given year. For example, technical assistance funding increased
by 43 percent from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 1999. During this
time, the technical assistance funds (1) increased from $9 million to
$17 million for the Office of Troubled Agency Recovery, (2) were
initiated in 1999 with $11 million for Resident Opportunities and Self-
Sufficiency, and (3) increased from $18 million to $25 million for
section 4 capacity building under the Community Development Block Grant
program. From fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002, estimated,
technical assistance funding fell by about 10 percent, primarily
because the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction funds were reduced from
$22 million to $5 million, the HOME funds were reduced from $22 million
to $12 million, the HOPE VI funds were reduced from $10 million to $6.3
million, and the Drug Elimination Grant Program and its technical
assistance funds were abolished.
Figure 2 illustrates the breakdown of the cumulative technical
assistance funding from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2002 by
program office. Not surprisingly, the two offices that administer the
largest number of programs have the largest share of the overall
technical assistance budget.
Figure 2: Five Year Average Percentage of Total Technical Assistance
Funds by Program Office, Fiscal Years 1998 - 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO‘s analysis of HUD data.
Technical Assistance Programs Vary by Program, Provider, and Recipient:
While the overriding purpose of technical assistance is to improve the
ability of program participants to administer HUD‘s programs more
effectively, each HUD program office determines its own approach and
administers technical assistance according to its program needs. Table
2 describes the purpose of the technical assistance as defined by the
five HUD program offices.
Table 2: Technical Assistance Provided by Five HUD Program Offices:
HUD program office: Office of Community Planning and Development;
Purpose of technical assistance: Help grass roots organizations
successfully access and utilize HUD‘s programs and resources to help
them craft creative ways to accomplish local community development
goals.
HUD program office: Office of Public and Indian Housing; Purpose of
technical assistance: Help public and Indian housing agencies and
residents improve their management, planning, and monitoring practices
and resident services.
HUD program office: Office of Housing-Office of Multifamily Housing
Assistance Restructuring; Purpose of technical assistance: Help educate
and assist tenants who are living in buildings that are undergoing
financial restructuring to make meaningful decisions about their
housing.
HUD program office: Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity;
Purpose of technical assistance: Help organizations reduce housing
discrimination and provide an open and free housing market.
HUD program office: Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control;
Purpose of technical assistance: Improve methods to detect and control
residential lead-based paint hazards.
Source: HUD.
[End of table]
HUD provides appropriated funds both for its primary programs and for
related technical assistance programs. It distributes the program funds
to program participants such as state and local governments and other
participating organizations, and it awards the technical assistance
funds to providers, which use the money to deliver technical assistance
to recipients. Figure 3 illustrates this process.
Figure 3: How HUD Delivers Technical Assistance:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO …s analysis of HUD data.
[End of figure]
The recipients of HUD‘s technical assistance are generally those
entities or organizations that administer HUD‘s programs. They also
vary by program and include state and local governments, public and
Indian housing agencies, tenants of federally subsidized housing, and
property owners receiving federal housing subsidies.
The providers of technical assistance can be HUD officials but
typically are entities or organizations that receive funding from HUD
to deliver such assistance. Providers, which also vary by program,
include community-based, for-profit, and nonprofit organizations;
public and Indian housing agencies; housing finance agencies; and
resident service organizations.
We visited with technical assistance providers in selected locations
across the country to observe the various methods used by each of the
five program offices to deliver technical assistance to recipients. In
the following examples, each case details the recipients, providers,
and purpose of the technical assistance provided.
* The recipients of the Office of Community Planning and Development‘s
technical assistance are local nonprofit organizations, state and local
governments, and other organizations participating in and receiving
funds through HUD‘s community development programs. The providers of
these technical assistance programs are for-profit and nonprofit
organizations and government agencies that have demonstrated expertise
in providing the guidance and training that program participants can
use. For 2 days, we observed a technical assistance provider for the
HOME program work with two community housing development organizations
in Arkansas. The purpose of the technical assistance was to help the
organizations plan for and improve their procedures for developing low-
income rural housing. Over the 2 days, the technical assistance
provider evaluated the housing built by the community development
organizations with HOME program funds and advised them on HUD-mandated
procedures for counseling prospective low-income home buyers.
* The recipients of technical assistance provided through the Office of
Public and Indian Housing‘s Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency
Program‘s capacity building funds are associations of public housing
residents that HUD has determined lack the capacity to administer
welfare-to-work programs or conduct management activities. The
providers of the technical assistance are resident and other nonprofit
organizations. We observed a 1-day conference conducted by a
Massachusetts statewide public housing tenant organization in
conjunction with several other organizations. The training was designed
to increase the knowledge and build the capacity of public housing
agencies, their residents, and state and local officials involved in
planning and rulemaking. Topics included income recertification,
methods of influencing housing legislation, public housing safety and
security, and private-market housing initiatives. A Boston HUD employee
served as a panel member during one of the training sessions.
* The recipients of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity‘s
technical assistance include state and local fair housing enforcement
agencies, public and private nonprofit fair housing agencies, and other
groups that are working to prevent and eliminate discriminatory housing
practices. According to an official from the Office of Fair Housing and
Equal Opportunity, providers of technical assistance are HUD staff and
qualified, established fair housing enforcement agencies. We observed a
Fair Housing employee in HUD‘s San Francisco regional office provide
technical assistance training to 10 employees of California‘s
Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The objective was to help
the state agency process fair housing complaints more effectively, and
the topics included tips on investigating fair housing complaints,
theories of discrimination, and case conciliation and evidence.
* The recipients of technical assistance provided through the Office of
Housing‘s Outreach and Technical Assistance Grants are tenants living
in federally subsidized properties affected by mortgage restructuring
through the Mark-to-Market program. The providers of technical
assistance are small or large community-based organizations that focus
on improving tenant‘s ability to understand the restructuring of their
Section 8 property. In Columbus, Ohio, we observed a meeting between
the potential new owners of a HUD property scheduled to undergo
financial restructuring and two organizations representing the tenants
who live there. The purpose of the meeting, coordinated by a technical
assistance provider, was to give tenants a role in the restructuring
process and to keep them apprised of potential changes to their
building. Topics discussed included rent stabilization, building
renovations, security systems, and modifications for handicapped
accessibility.
* The recipients of technical assistance provided through the Office of
Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control‘s Technical Studies Programs
include state, local, and tribal governments; private property owners;
and individuals who are maintenance and renovation workers. The
providers of technical assistance include academic and nonprofit
organizations, state and local governments, and federally recognized
Indian tribes. We observed a technical assistance provider conduct
mandatory classroom training for about 50 owners and workers of
federally subsidized properties at a Philadelphia housing authority
maintenance facility. The recipients hoped to become certified to
remove lead-based paint hazards from their properties by learning safe
work practices at the training. The course covered such topics as lead
exposure and maintenance work, lead safety, and quality assurance.
HUD Selects Most Technical Assistance Providers through a Competitive
Process:
HUD selects technical assistance providers both competitively and
noncompetitively.[Footnote 1] Seventeen of the 21 technical assistance
programs used a competitive selection process. Because Congress
specifies the organizations to provide the technical assistance under
three of Community Planning and Development‘s Block Grant Programs, HUD
distributes the funds for those programs noncompetitively. The fourth
noncompetitive program, the Fair Housing Assistance program, is
noncompetitive because the funds are distributed through a formula
grant to all eligible state and local fair housing enforcement
agencies. The process for obtaining an award also varies by funding
instrument. HUD has a set policy explaining the procedures and
protocols for using the various funding instruments (contracts, grants,
and cooperative agreements).
Funding for Technical Assistance May Be Awarded Competitively or
Noncompetitively:
When HUD selects technical assistance providers competitively, it
awards funding through contracts, grant agreements, and cooperative
agreements. HUD refers to all three award mechanisms as funding
instruments.
* A contract is used when the principal purpose of the award is the
acquisition by purchase, lease, or barter of property or services for
the direct benefit of the government. According to the Director of the
Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, contracts are
the award instrument that gives HUD the most control because HUD simply
directs the contractor to do a specific task. For example, a program
official in the Office of Native American Programs told us that her
office retains decision-making authority by issuing contracts that
enable her to control the technical assistance providers‘ use of funds
and outreach to recipients.
* A grant agreement is used when the principal purpose of the
relationship between the awardee and HUD is the transfer of money or
property for a public purpose and substantial federal involvement is
not anticipated.
* A cooperative agreement‘s[Footnote 2] purpose is similar to a grant
agreement‘s purpose, but is generally used when the awarding agency
anticipates the need for close federal involvement over the life of the
award. The cooperative agreement stipulates the nature, character, and
extent of the anticipated involvement. A HUD official told us that a
cooperative agreement generally gives HUD less control than a contract,
but more control than a grant agreement.
HUD‘s Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight provides
basic guidelines on when to use a contract, grant, or cooperative
agreement. According to HUD, a program office, when selecting the
appropriate funding instrument to be used, should first look to the
program‘s authorizing legislation for authority to enter into a
contract or other type of arrangement.
Noncompetitive awards are specified by statute or based on a formula.
Specifically, Congress appropriates technical assistance funds
noncompetitively for the Local Initiative Support Corporation, the
Enterprise Foundation, Habitat for Humanity, Youthbuild USA, and the
Housing Assistance Council under the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program, administered by HUD‘s Office of Community Planning and
Development.[Footnote 3] Congress also appropriates noncompetitive
funding for National American Indian Housing Council technical
assistance programs, administered by the Office of Pubic and Indian
Housing. In addition, HUD‘s Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity uses a formula to distribute Fair Housing and Assistance
technical assistance funds. These noncompetitive, technical assistance
programs comprised $50.1 million in fiscal year 2001, about 25 percent
of the technical assistance funding for that year and about $54.5
million, or 30 percent of the fiscal year 2002 technical assistance
funding.
Processes for Obtaining Competitive and Noncompetitive Funding Vary:
Prospective technical assistance providers respond either to a HUD
request for a proposal for a contract or to a Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA) for a grant or cooperative agreement. In practice,
HUD has issued the funding notices for the majority of its grants and
cooperative agreements, including its technical assistance funding, in
a single notice called the SuperNOFA (Super Notice of Funding
Availability).
Applicants submit contract proposals or funding applications to HUD
staff who make recommendations to each program office‘s selecting
officials. These officials then make the final selections and announce
the awards. Contract proposals are managed through HUD headquarters or
designated contracting offices, while applications for grants or
cooperative agreements for some technical assistance programs are
submitted to both headquarters and the field office in which the
applicant is seeking to provide services.
Any award, regardless of the type of funding instrument, has a fixed
performance period. The contract request for proposal or NOFA will
stipulate the proposed period of performance and indicate whether
additional funding can be provided beyond the period of performance
without further competition.
Program Offices Have Oversight Procedures in Place, and Some Have
Technical Assistance Impact Measures, Although Such Measures Are Not
Required:
The five offices that administer technical assistance have basic
oversight procedures in place. Such procedures usually include
monitoring the technical assistance provider‘s performance by reviewing
payment requests and financial reports, and providing a written
evaluation of the technical assistance provider‘s performance. Most
program offices require technical assistance providers to submit
quarterly, annual, or close-out reports, or a combination of these
reports, on the status of their technical assistance programs, which
are to be reviewed by HUD program staff. Headquarters or field office
staff may be directly responsible for oversight, depending on which
office administers the technical assistance, though headquarters
offices are ultimately responsible for ensuring that appropriate
oversight is conducted.
HUD does not offer any central guidance on, or require its program
offices to directly measure, the impact or outcomes of the technical
assistance programs they administer. The Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires that program officials develop
performance measures and track performance relative to the goals in
their strategic and annual plans. However, according to the Director of
HUD‘s Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination, this
requirement does not apply to the related technical assistance
programs.[Footnote 4] In his view, if the technical assistance supports
the program and the program is doing well, then the technical
assistance is having a positive impact. However, GPRA emphasizes the
importance of establishing objective and quantifiable measures at each
organizational level that can be linked to the overall agency program
goals. Without specific measures on the impact of its technical
assistance, HUD cannot demonstrate the incremental value of the
assistance.
The Director of the Office of Departmental Grants Management and
Compliance told us that HUD is not planning any initiatives to
coordinate how program offices are measuring the impact of their
technical assistance programs. An official from the Massachusetts State
Office of Community Planning and Development told us that without this
guidance, it is unclear how the impact of these services should be
measured. We found a wide range of HUD processes for measuring the
impact of technical assistance, ranging from CPD‘s section 4 capacity
building organizations, which document detailed evaluations of their
accomplishments; to CPD‘s Rural Housing and Economic Development
program, which collects annual outcome data; to Public and Indian
Housing‘s Resident Opportunity Self Sufficiency Program, which has no
established process and measures performance on a grant-by-grant basis.
While some program officials have said that it is difficult or not even
possible to measure the impact of technical assistance, other program
offices have impact measures in place.
* A Public and Indian Housing (PIH) field official from the Office of
Native American Programs told us that he has seen nationwide training
courses that he believes are inefficient and expensive. While he
believes that local one-on-one training would be more productive, he
does not believe he could measure whether attendees are retaining the
information received or whether one-on-one training would be more
effective. By contrast, a PIH official said that the office conducts
evaluations after the technical assistance for drug elimination is
provided and then follows-up with another evaluation in 6 months to
measure recipients‘ retention of information. We also spoke with a
technical assistance provider who administers multiple questionnaires
to measure recipients‘ retention of material taught at homeless
training programs.
* Similarly, Chicago CPD staff reported that they measure the success
of technical assistance programs aimed at teaching local groups how to
apply for federal grants by the number of grantees that submit proper
paperwork.
Even though some officials maintain that they cannot measure the impact
of technical assistance, other officials have developed and are using
measures that seem to be reasonable indicators of the impact of their
technical assistance programs. While such measures may not be
practicable for every program, HUD cannot demonstrate the effectiveness
of its technical assistance without some indication of its impact.
Furthermore, without such measures, HUD cannot ensure accountability
for the $100 million to $200 million that Congress sets asides each
year for technical assistance or demonstrate the incremental value of
its technical assistance--that is, how much more its programs are
achieving with the technical assistance than they would have achieved
without it. Finally, since technical assistance is an important means
through which HUD oversees and influences expenditures of program
funds--which are about 100 times greater than expenditures of technical
assistance funds--it would seem logical for each of its program offices
to develop guidance to ensure that the technical assistance programs
are producing the intended results.
Madam Chairwoman, HUD spends millions of dollars each year on technical
assistance, distributing the funding through several types of
instruments to a wide variety of providers and recipients for a wide
variety of purposes. HUD does not require its program offices to
measure the impact of this technical assistance and, to date, has not
developed guidance for its program offices to measure the impact of the
assistance. While we have yet to receive the official written comments,
we received oral confirmation that the Department generally agrees with
our findings, that it will require HUD offices to develop impact
measures, and that it will develop guidance for the five program
offices.
Our report, which we plan to issue next month, will have a
recommendation to address these shortcomings.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Although some of HUD‘s major programs, such as the Housing
Opportunities for Persons With AIDS and the Community Development Block
Grant, are noncompetitive, the technical assistance components of these
programs are competitive.
[2] Cooperative agreements for the Office of Community Planning and
Development are usually for 3 years and may be extended for an
additional year.
[3] The Local Initiative Support Corporation and the Enterprise
Foundation administer the funding for, among other purposes, the
National Community Development Initiative under Section 4 of the HUD
Demonstration Act of 1993, as amended.
[4] CPD, through the SuperNOFA, does require that its technical
assistance providers develop methodologies to be used for measuring the
success of their programs. However, according to the director in CPD‘s
Office of Technical Assistance and Management, CPD is collecting the
data needed to measure program impact but does not have the capacity to
do anything with the information.
