Notice of Outcome Performance Measurement System for Community Planning and Development Formula Grant Programs, 11470-11481 [06-2174]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11470-11481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2174]



[[Page 11469]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Department of Housing and Urban Development





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Notice of Outcome Performance Measurement System for Community Planning 
and Development Formula Grant Programs; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 71 , No. 44 / Tuesday, March 7, 2006 / 
Notices

[[Page 11470]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4970-N-02]


Notice of Outcome Performance Measurement System for Community 
Planning and Development Formula Grant Programs

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On June 10, 2005, HUD's Office of Community Planning and 
Development (CPD) published a notice in the Federal Register titled, 
``Notice of Proposed Outcome Performance Measurement System for 
Community Planning and Development Formula Grant Programs; Request for 
Comments.'' The notice described an outcome performance measurement 
system that was developed for grantees that receive funding from the 
Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), HOME Investment 
Partnerships program (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grants program (ESG), 
and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS program (HOPWA).
    The system was developed by a joint working group made up of 
members of the Council of State Community Development Agencies 
(COSCDA), the National Community Development Association (NCDA), the 
National Association for County Community Economic Development 
(NACCED), the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment 
Officials (NAHRO), the National Council of State Housing Agencies 
(NCSHA), CPD, HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R), 
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The June 10, 2005, 
notice described the proposed system and solicited comments from the 
public, particularly from formula program grantees, on the proposed 
performance measurement system. This final notice discusses and 
addresses the comments received and incorporates appropriate changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margy Coccodrilli, CPD Specialist, 
Office of Block Grant Assistance, Room 7282, Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000, 
telephone (202) 708-1577, extension 4507 (this is not a toll-free 
number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may access this number 
through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service 
at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) mandates 
that federal programs improve their effectiveness and public 
accountability by focusing on results. The OMB developed the Program 
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to monitor compliance with the GPRA and 
to rate federal programs for their effectiveness and ability to show 
results.
    Many CPD grantees have been frustrated by the inability to ``tell 
their story'' to their citizens and other stakeholders about the 
outcomes of the investments they have made in their communities using 
federal, state, and local resources. The inability to clearly 
demonstrate program results at the national level, which is the 
standard required by OMB's program assessment process, can have serious 
consequences for program budgets. On June 10, 2005, HUD published (70 
FR 34044), a notice describing a proposed outcome performance 
measurement system and solicited comments. The system would enable HUD 
to collect information on the outcomes of activities funded with CPD 
formula grant assistance, and to aggregate that information at the 
national and local level. Reports would be made available to allow 
grantees to compare their performance to that of their peers. Based on 
the proposed system and taking into consideration the comments 
received, this notice establishes the outcome performance measurement 
system. This system is not intended to replace existing local 
performance measurement systems that are used to inform local planning 
and management decisions and increase public accountability.
    This performance measurement system will be incorporated into HUD's 
Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS), thus allowing 
for simplified data collection. The objectives and outcomes will appear 
on IDIS screens and grantees will select the objective and outcome that 
applies to each activity that the grantee undertakes. The indicators 
will be generated according to the matrix code, and for CDBG grantees, 
by the national objective. The possible indicators for each activity 
will also appear on an IDIS screen and the grantee will indicate which 
indicator(s) apply to that activity, as carried out by the grantee.
    The indicators in this framework represent most of the activities 
that are undertaken by grantees of the CPD formula grant programs, but 
HUD acknowledges that there may be some activities that may not fit 
well into any of the indicator categories. While such activities may be 
very important to local interests, their numbers would not make a 
significant impact on a national level and could create a burden for 
other grantees. Therefore, the joint working group that developed the 
system decided to include indicators that can encompass most of the 
activities undertaken by grantees.
    Separate from what the new performance measurement system can 
provide, the Department would like to be able to demonstrate potential 
outcomes such as higher homeownership rates and property valuations, 
lower unemployment rates and improved education levels, increased 
commercial and private investments, and additional assisted businesses 
that remain operational for at least three years. HUD will consult with 
the working group, grantees, and other interested parties to determine 
whether and how a set of particular community-level outcome measures 
can be established and uniformly applied. In the future, HUD may use 
the same or similar universal measures and standards to assess 
performance in other federal economic and community development 
programs. For example, HUD intends to obtain information on the 
development of brownfields and will consult with grantees on how best 
to collect such information. HUD will also undertake research to 
address such issues, and determine how frequently to assess progress, 
evaluate programs, perform analyses, and disseminate results based upon 
data that is comparable and generally available.
    The structure of the new performance measurement system is 
consistent with the goals and objectives contained in HUD's Strategic 
Plan for the years 2006 to 2011, including expanding access to 
affordable housing, fostering a suitable living environment, and 
expanding economic opportunities.
    The objectives, outcomes, and indicators described in this notice 
will appear this spring in the existing version of IDIS. Grantees will 
be requested to enter available data at that time. This fall, Phase I 
of the re-engineered IDIS will be released and grantees will be 
required to enter the performance data.
    When Phase II of the re-engineered IDIS is released, HUD expects 
the overall administrative burden for grantees to be reduced; HUD's 
intent is to have the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and 
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) 
integrated into one single performance measurement system. In the 
interim, elements of the system may

[[Page 11471]]

be incorporated into the Consolidated Plan Management Process (CPMP) 
Tool so that local objectives and outcomes can be entered at the 
beginning of the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan development 
process, and accomplishments under those objectives and outcomes can be 
reported on in the CAPER.

II. Discussion of Public Comments

General Comments

    The public comment period closed on September 8, 2005. In addition 
to the 56 comments submitted in writing to HUD headquarters, additional 
comments were received during an interactive satellite broadcast from 
HUD headquarters in Washington, DC, and five regional feedback sessions 
that were held in San Francisco, Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, and 
Austin. Each of those events provided opportunities for public comment.
    There were multiple requests for HUD to develop a performance 
measurement Web site that would contain all the information that has 
been made available. That request has been acknowledged and there is 
now a CPD Web site that hosts this information. The URL is: https://
www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/performance/index.cfm.
    A number of comments praised the outcome measurement system and 
thanked HUD and the working group for the simplicity of the system; 
also, many comments posed questions. These questions are addressed in a 
question and answer format that has been distributed to grantees and is 
available on the Performance Measurement Web site. Several comments 
requested clarification of terms and definitions. These have been 
provided to grantees and are available on CPD's Performance Measurement 
website.
    There were also many comments made about IDIS that were important 
to that system, but not necessarily relevant to the inclusion of the 
performance measurement indicators. Those comments have been forwarded 
to CPD's System Development and Evaluation Division. There were also 
comments on the Consolidated Plan Management Process and those comments 
have been forwarded to CPD's Office of Policy Development and 
Coordination.
    Many comments suggested that issues and terminology of local 
interest be added to the framework. Unfortunately, because the 
framework was developed to capture national indicators in a 
standardized format, unique local information cannot be included. 
However in CPD Notice 03-09, issued in September 2003, HUD encouraged 
grantees to develop local performance measurement systems that 
complement this new national system by capturing the results of 
activities of local importance.

Specific Comments

    Comment--There were several comments indicating that these 
performance measures should replace Consolidated Plans, Annual Action 
Plans, Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPER), 
and Performance Evaluation Reports (PER).
    Response--HUD anticipates that when Phase II of the IDIS re-
engineering is complete in 2007, Consolidated Plans, Annual Action 
Plans, CAPERs, and PERs will become one continuous document.
    Comment--There were several comments indicating the need for 
training on the performance measurement system and generally on IDIS, 
and specific training for entitlements, states, and urban counties, 
sub-recipients; training grantees to train their sub-recipients; and 
guidance/training on how the indicators apply to each program.
    Response--HUD expects to provide training on IDIS in 2006. This 
training will incorporate the performance measurement framework; also, 
HUD has prepared guidance, questions and answers, and definitions. 
This, along with other related information, are available on CPD's 
Performance Measurement website.
    Comment--Several commenters indicated that changes to 
administrative procedures, and possibly to grantee staffing, would have 
to be made at the local level and some asked that HUD provide 
assistance to tell grantees how this should be done.
    Response--HUD will provide training on what data will need to be 
collected, but grantees will determine within their own administrative 
procedures how to coordinate the front-end planning, implementation, 
and reporting of activities. Because grantee procedures vary 
significantly based on agency size and expertise, HUD is not the 
appropriate entity to develop local administrative procedures for 
grantees.
    Comment--Some comments referred to the difficulty that grantees 
would have in developing outcome statements.
    Response--HUD will use the data that are reported and aggregated in 
IDIS to develop the outcome statements. If a jurisdiction has an 
activity that does not fit into the framework, that grantee may create 
an outcome statement in the narrative of the CAPER or PER to provide 
information to their citizens about the results of the activity.
    Comment--Comments asked that HUD clarify the timing of when 
grantees will begin using the performance measurement system.
    Response--The elements of the outcome performance measurement 
system will appear in the existing version of IDIS in Spring 2006. 
Because of the need for HUD to show results, grantees will be requested 
to enter data as soon as the system is available. Later in 2006, Phase 
I of the re-engineered IDIS will be released. At that time, grantees 
will be required to enter the performance data into the system.
    Comment--There were comments suggesting that 40 percent be included 
in the breakout of numbers for area median income because this number 
would help show the percentage of ``working poor;'' that many projects 
exceed the HOME program minimum levels and assist persons between 30 
percent and 50 percent; and that breaking down those income levels 
would cause additional work for CDBG grantees.
    Response--Individual program requirements dictate the income 
percentages that are to be reported. Therefore, grantees need only 
provide the information that is currently required for each specific 
program. The area median income percentages published in this notice 
reflect the range of information required by all four CPD formula 
grants. When grantees enter data for activities into IDIS, only the 
income percentages applicable to those program activities will be 
populated for selection.
    Comment--Several commenters urged HUD to provide sufficient time 
for grantees to revise forms and other business practices, that data 
collection should not begin until the re-engineered IDIS is available, 
and that information pertinent to these changes should be made 
available to grantees as soon as possible.
    Response--On October 28, 2005, CPD issued a memo that provided the 
basic information needed to revise forms, such as applications from 
sub-recipients for funding, sub-recipient agreements, and client 
applications. Grantees could also use that memo to begin to plan for 
any administrative changes that might be required.
    Comment--Some commenters requested that an indicator for section 
504 compliance be included for owner-occupied housing units.
    Response--HUD agrees. Although section 504 does not apply to 
homeowners, the accessibility indicator has been added for owner-
occupied

[[Page 11472]]

units that are made accessible for persons with disabilities.
    Comment--One comment received stated that there was no way in the 
system to report female heads of household.
    Response--In IDIS, grantees are currently required to report the 
number of female heads of household for housing activities that meet 
the national objective of low-mod housing; therefore, no additional 
data is required.
    Comment--Several comments reflected the need for additional 
resources to cover the added costs of administrative workload, 
training, and technology development.
    Response--HUD is making every effort to minimize workload burden. 
HUD expects the increased administrative workload to be reduced as HUD 
streamlines the planning and reporting requirements. While plans for 
training are not yet complete, HUD will attempt to reduce grantee costs 
by conducting training using technology such as the Performance 
Measurements Web site, broadcasts, and Web casts, and possibly local 
training provided through field offices. Also, HUD expects to provide 
training at conferences of the national associations that were involved 
in the development of the system.
    Comment--Several commenters asked HUD to develop sample forms that 
can be used to collect the additional data.
    Response--Since grantees differ greatly in administrative 
procedures, based on agency size and expertise, HUD is not the 
appropriate entity to develop specific sample forms. However, HUD will 
provide guidance on data collection that will assist grantees in adding 
appropriate language to existing forms.
    Comment--There were several comments that suggested changes to the 
flow chart that was included in the proposed outcome performance 
measurement system.
    Response--The flow chart could not be designed to accommodate the 
various requests and the full scope of all activities. Because many 
commenters considered the flow chart to provide little value, it has 
been removed from the final notice of the outcome performance 
measurement system.
    Comment--Several comments stated that ESG and HOPWA indicators 
should include case management.
    Response--HOPWA case management activities will be reported in the 
HOPWA Annual Performance Reports and later in IDIS. ESG does not 
currently collect information on case management activities in IDIS.
    Comment--Several comments indicated that the system should provide 
the ability to capture more than one objective and more than one 
outcome for each activity.
    Response--The objectives closely mirror the statutory objectives of 
each program. Grantees will select the one objective that the activity 
is intended to meet. To prevent the dilution of data and capture the 
largest numbers possible for each outcome, grantees are encouraged to 
select the outcome that best describes the result of the activity. 
However, if a grantee feels strongly that an activity is best 
represented by two outcomes, it would indicate the primary outcome and 
the additional outcome.
    Comment--There were comments suggesting that only indicators 
required by each specific program should be required for reporting.
    Response--Both the proposed and final notices state that grantees 
will report these data only if the indicator is appropriate to the 
program.
    Comment--One comment stated that Community Housing Development 
Organization (CHDO) operating costs should not be included in the 
system.
    Response--Up to 5 percent of a participating jurisdiction's HOME 
allocation may be used to pay eligible CHDO operating costs. However, 
the use of HOME funds for this purpose, or for administrative costs 
generally, does not directly result in a measurable output in terms of 
affordable housing units produced or households assisted. In fact, the 
use of HOME funds to cover CHDO operating costs actually reduces that 
amount of funds that would otherwise be available for projects. 
Consequently, while CHDO operating support funds are necessary in many 
instances, HUD agrees with the commenter that it would not be 
appropriate to include the use of CHDO operating costs as an indicator 
in a system focused on measuring performance.
    Comment--One comment indicated that the list of indicators should 
not be increased without careful evaluation and input from the working 
group.
    Response--The working group has continued to provide evaluation and 
input on the development and implementation of the outcome performance 
measurement system.
    Comment--Many comments suggested possible changes to the indicators 
or additional indicators to be included to the proposed outcome 
performance measurement system.
    Response--HUD carefully considered each suggestion. Some of the 
suggestions were incorporated into the framework, while others 
reflected changes that were already planned for inclusion in the re-
engineering of IDIS. HUD believes that the indicators included in the 
outcome performance measurement system published herein reflect most of 
the activities undertaken by grantees. However, if it becomes apparent 
that additional data elements are necessary, other indicators can be 
added to the system at a later date.
    Comment--Several comments questioned the difference between 
International Building Code Energy (IBCE) Standards, and the 
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), and the inclusion of 
Energy Star Standards as a subset of a larger code.
    Response--Most states and local governments have adopted one or 
more International Code Council (ICC) building codes. The ICC codes 
have replaced other prior model codes, resulting in many different 
building codes. HUD has determined that identifying only IBCE or IECC 
and not identifying other possible codes would create incomplete data, 
as well as confusion over which codes to use. Therefore, the data 
elements for building energy codes have been deleted. In 2002, HUD 
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to promote 
the use of Energy Star in HUD's affordable housing programs. Therefore, 
Energy Star will remain as a data element for energy conservation 
activities for the housing indicator categories in the performance 
measurement system.
    Comment--There were comments about the use of the NAICS industry 
classification codes and whether the codes would be available in a 
drop-down format in IDIS.
    Response--HUD has concluded that the large number of NAICS 
classification codes will create a reporting burden for grantees and 
businesses and therefore has deleted that data element.

[[Page 11473]]

III. Environmental Impact

    This notice does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and 
mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property 
acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, 
demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise or provide for 
standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured 
housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this 
notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

    Dated: March 1, 2006.
Pamela H. Patenaude,
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

[[Page 11474]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.003


[[Page 11475]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.004


[[Page 11476]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.005


[[Page 11477]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.006


[[Page 11478]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.007


[[Page 11479]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.008


[[Page 11480]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.009


[[Page 11481]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07MR06.010

[FR Doc. 06-2174 Filed 3-3-06; 12:08 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-C