HUD Program Evaluation Policy-Policy Statement, 87949-87951 [2016-29215]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Notices
paragraph H. to be H.1. and by adding
paragraph H.2. to read as follows:
‘‘2. Bedroom size must be determined
based on the number of family members
living in the household, not on the
number of bedrooms in the unit to be
rented. Guidelines for determining unit
size are one bedroom for each two
persons within the household, except:
a. Persons of the opposite sex (other
than spouses, and children under age 5)
are not required to share a bedroom;
b. Persons of different generations are
not required to share a bedroom;
c. Live-in aides must be allocated a
separate bedroom. No additional
bedrooms will be provided for the livein aide’s family; and
d. Single person families must be
allocated zero or one bedroom.
Therefore, in situations where the
available housing has more bedrooms
than necessary for the family size and
composition, the rental assistance
payment must be limited to the number
of bedrooms based on the guidelines
listed above. If a grantee chooses to
‘‘over house’’ a Veteran family by
placing the family in a larger unit than
the family requires under the above
guidelines, the maximum amount of
Tribal HUD–VASH funds that can be
used to house the Veteran family is the
rent for a unit sized in accordance with
the guidelines, and in accordance with
Section VI., subsection H of this notice.
Any additional rental costs due to over
housing cannot be funded with Tribal
HUD–VASH or regular Indian Housing
Block Grant (IHBG) funds, but can be
funded by other resources. In addition,
Tribes/TDHEs may want to consider
shared housing arrangements in
situations where appropriate-sized
housing is limited, but where individual
Veterans could have a separate bedroom
and share common areas.’’
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
D. Section VI. Subsection L
(Affordability Periods and Binding
Commitments)
HUD has determined that this
subsection is too restrictive when
project-based housing is being used to
house eligible homeless Native
American Veterans. As a result, HUD is
removing this requirement and deleting
Section VI.L of the October 21, 2015,
Notice.
Dated: November 28, 2016.
´
Lourdes Castro Ramırez,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2016–29211 Filed 12–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Dec 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Chapter V
[Docket No. FR–5976–C–04]
Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act of 2016: Initial
Guidance; Correction
AGENCY:
Office of General Counsel,
HUD.
Initial implementation
guidance; correction.
ACTION:
On October 24, 2016, HUD
published implementation guidance for
the Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act. In that document,
HUD inadvertently published the
incorrect implementation information
for changes regarding the Self-Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program
(SHOP). This notice corrects that
information.
SUMMARY:
Effective Date: The effective date
for the implementation guidance of
October 24, 2016 is unchanged.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
With respect to this supplementary
document, contact Ariel Pereira,
Associate General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulations, Department
of Housing and Urban Development,
451 7th Street SW., Room 10238,
Washington, DC 20410; telephone
number 202–708–1793 (this is not a tollfree number). Persons with hearing or
speech impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Relay Service at 800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
I. Introduction
On October 24, 2016, HUD published
a document advising the public on
HUD’s implementation plans for the
Housing Opportunity Through
Modernization Act (HOTMA) (Pub. L.
114–201). That document inadvertently
contained inaccurate implementation
information for changes relating to
SHOP. This correction replaces that
inaccurate information with the
corrected information.
II. Correction
In document FR–5897–N–01,
published October 24, 2016 (81 FR
73030), make the following correction:
On page 73032, in the first column,
replace the implementation action for
section 502 with the following
paragraph:
Implementation action: This
provision was effective upon enactment
of HOTMA. The Fiscal Year 2016 SHOP
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87949
Notice of Funding Availability states
that due to this provision, all applicants
are strongly encouraged, but not
required, to use ENERGY STAR-labeled
appliances and products. Applicants are
also strongly encouraged, but not
required, to meet the standard for
ENERGY STAR Certified New Homes
(single-family homes and low-rise
multifamily properties up to three
stories), or for ENERGY STAR
Multifamily High Rise (four or more
stories).
Dated: December 1, 2016.
Ariel Pereira,
Associate General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2016–29208 Filed 12–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5985–N–01]
HUD Program Evaluation Policy—
Policy Statement
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Policy Development and
Research, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This policy statement of
HUD’s Office of Policy Development
and Research articulates the core
principles and practices of the office’s
evaluation and research activities. This
policy reconfirms the Department’s
commitment to conducting rigorous,
relevant evaluations and to using
evidence from evaluations to inform
policy and practice.
DATES: December 6, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark D. Shroder, Associate Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Research,
Evaluation, and Monitoring, Office of
Policy Development and Research, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202)
402–5922. The listed telephone number
is not a toll-free number. Persons with
hearing- or speech-impairments may
access this number through TTY by
calling Federal Relay Service at 1–800–
877–8339 (this is a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
The mission of HUD’s Office of Policy
Development and Research (PD&R) is to
inform HUD policy development and
implementation to improve life in
American communities through
conducting, supporting, and sharing
research, surveys, demonstrations,
E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM
06DEN1
87950
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Notices
program evaluations, and best practices.
Within HUD, PD&R is responsible for
nearly all program evaluations. The
office provides reliable and objective
data and analysis to help inform policy
decisions. Program evaluation has been
a core activity of PD&R since its
formation in 1974.
In July 2016, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) issued a
report entitled ‘‘Department of Housing
and Urban Development: Actions
Needed to Incorporate Key Practices
into Management Functions and
Program Oversight,’’ (GAO 16–497) in
which GAO presented a broad
assessment of HUD’s management of its
operations and programs.1 In the report,
GAO examined HUD efforts to: (1) Meet
Federal requirements and implement
key practices for management functions,
including performance planning and
reporting, human capital, financial,
acquisition, and information technology
(IT) management; and (2) oversee and
evaluate programs.
PD&R is the primary office within
HUD responsible for data analysis,
research, program evaluations, and
policy studies that inform the
development and implementation of
programs and policies across HUD
offices. PD&R undertakes program
evaluations, often by using a process
that includes convening expert panels.
However, GAO found that PD&R had
not developed agency-wide, written
policies for its program evaluations, nor
documented the criteria used to select
the expert panels and review the quality
of program evaluations.
This policy statement responds to the
GAO report by setting out the core
principles and practices of PD&R’s
evaluation and research activities. This
statement incorporates some language
from a policy statement by the Office of
Policy, Research, and Evaluation of the
Administration for Children and
Families of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
II. HUD Program Evaluation Policy
PD&R has identified the following
core principles and practices as
fundamental to ensuring high-quality
and consistent evaluation results: rigor,
relevance, transparency, independence,
ethics, and technical innovation. This
policy applies to all PD&R-sponsored
evaluations and economic analyses of
regulations; they apply as well to the
selection of projects, contractors, and
PD&R staff that is involved in
evaluations.
1 See
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678551.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Dec 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
Rigor
Transparency
PD&R is committed to using the most
rigorous methods that are appropriate to
the evaluation questions and feasible
within budget and other constraints.
Rigor is not restricted to impact
evaluations, but is also necessary in
implementation or process evaluations,
descriptive studies, outcome
evaluations, and formative evaluations;
and in both qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Rigor requires ensuring that
inferences about cause and effect are
well founded (internal validity);
requires clarity about the populations,
settings, or circumstances to which
results can be generalized (external
validity); and requires the use of
measures that accurately capture the
intended information (measurement
reliability and validity).
In assessing the effects of programs or
services, PD&R evaluations use methods
that isolate to the greatest extent
possible the impacts of the programs or
services from other influences such as
trends over time, geographic variation,
or pre-existing differences between
participants and non-participants. For
such causal questions, experimental
approaches are preferred. When
experimental approaches are not
feasible, PD&R uses the most rigorous
approach that is feasible. PD&R ensures
that contractors and grantees conducting
evaluations have appropriate expertise
through emphasizing the capacity for
rigor in requests for proposal and
funding opportunity announcements.
PD&R also employs a strategic human
capital development plan to hire, train,
and retain a workforce that ensures the
staff has the tools and resources to
accomplish the mission.
PD&R will release methodologically
valid evaluations without regard to the
findings. Evaluation reports must
describe the methods used, including
strengths and weaknesses, and discuss
the generalizability of the findings.
Evaluation reports must present
comprehensive results, including
favorable, unfavorable, and null
findings.
PD&R publishes a 5-year Research
Roadmap that outlines the research and
evaluation that we believe would be of
greatest value to public policy. PD&R
lists all ongoing evaluation projects at
the HUDUSER.gov Web site, and
updates it monthly. PD&R will release
evaluation results timely, usually within
4 months of receiving the final report.
PD&R will, where possible, archive
evaluation data for secondary use by
interested researchers. PD&R typically
builds requirements into contracts to
prepare data sets for secondary use.
Relevance
The PD&R evaluation agenda reflects
the legislative requirements and policy
issues related to HUD’s mission. PD&R
solicits input from stakeholders, both
internal and external, on the selection of
programs to be evaluated, initiatives,
demonstrations, and research questions.
For new initiatives and demonstrations
in particular, evaluations will be more
feasible and useful when planned in
advance, in concert with the
development of the initiative or
demonstration, rather than as an
afterthought.
PD&R disseminates findings in ways
that are accessible and useful to policymakers and practitioners. PD&R partners
with other HUD program offices to
inform internal and external
stakeholders through disseminating
evidence from PD&R-sponsored
evaluations.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Independence
Independence and objectivity are core
principles of evaluation. Agency and
program leadership, program staff,
service providers, and others participate
actively in setting evaluation priorities,
identifying evaluation questions, and
assessing the implications of findings.
However, it is important to insulate
evaluation functions from undue
influence and from both the appearance
and the reality of bias. To promote
objectivity, PD&R protects
independence in the design, conduct,
and analysis of evaluations. To this end:
• PD&R conducts evaluations through
the competitive award of grants and
contracts to external experts who are
free from conflicts of interest.
• PD&R also conducts evaluations inhouse and supports unsolicited external
evaluation proposals with funding, data,
or both.
• The Assistant Secretary for PD&R
has authority to approve the design of
evaluation projects and analysis plans;
and has authority to approve, release,
and disseminate evaluation reports. The
Assistant Secretary does so, in
consultation with career staff.
Ethics
PD&R-sponsored evaluations must be
conducted in an ethical manner and
safeguard the dignity, rights, safety, and
privacy of participants. PD&R-sponsored
evaluations must comply with both the
spirit and the letter of relevant
requirements such as regulations
governing research involving human
subjects. In particular, PD&R protects
the privacy of HUD-assisted households
E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM
06DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 6, 2016 / Notices
and HUD-insured borrowers through the
Rule of Eleven; that is, PD&R allows no
disclosure of information about the
characteristics of any group of
individuals or households numbering
less than eleven by PD&R staff,
contractors, grantees, or licensees.
Technical Innovation
PD&R supports and employs new
methods of data collection and analysis
that more reliably and efficiently answer
research questions than old methods do.
Application of These Principles to
Economic Analysis of Regulations
Economic analysis of regulations,
properly conducted, is a critical tool in
improving public policy. In any PD&R
Regulatory Impact Analysis:
• PD&R analyzes whether the issues
addressed by the regulation stem from a
market failure, government failure, or
other systemic problem, and whether
the regulation addresses the root causes
of those problems.
• PD&R uses and as necessary
produces the best objective estimates of
the benefits, costs, and transfers
resulting from the regulation, taking into
account gaps and uncertainties in the
available data.
• Where clear alternatives to the
regulatory actions exist, PD&R
objectively estimates the benefits, costs,
and transfers of those alternatives as
well.
Dated: November 30, 2016.
Katherine O’Regan,
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development
and Research.
[FR Doc. 2016–29215 Filed 12–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–ES–2016–N127; FF08EVEN00–
FXFR1337088SSO0]
Marine Mammal Protection Act; Stock
Assessment Report for the Southern
Sea Otter in California
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
as amended, and its implementing
regulations, we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), have
developed a draft revised marine
mammal stock assessment report (SAR)
for the southern sea otter stock in the
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:39 Dec 05, 2016
Jkt 241001
State of California. We now make the
draft SAR available for public review
and comment.
DATES: We will consider comments that
are received or postmarked on or before
March 6, 2017.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to review the
draft revised SAR for southern sea otter,
you may obtain a copy from our Web
site at https://www.fws.gov/ventura.
Alternatively, you may contact the
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493
Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA
93003 (telephone: 805–644–1766). If
you wish to comment on the SAR, you
may submit your comments in writing
by any one of the following methods:
• U.S. mail: Field Supervisor, at the
above address;
• Hand delivery: Ventura Fish and
Wildlife Office at the above address;
• Fax: 805–644–3958; or
• Email: fw8ssostock@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lilian Carswell, at the above street
address, by telephone (805–612–2793),
or by email (Lilian_Carswell@fws.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We
announce the availability for review and
comment of a draft revised marine
mammal stock assessment report (SAR)
for the southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris
nereis) stock in the State of California.
Background
Under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and its
implementing regulations in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR
part 18, we regulate the taking; import;
and, under certain conditions,
possession; transportation; purchasing;
selling; and offering for sale, purchase,
or export, of marine mammals. One of
the MMPA’s goals is to ensure that
stocks of marine mammals occurring in
waters under U.S. jurisdiction do not
experience a level of human-caused
mortality and serious injury that is
likely to cause the stock to be reduced
below its optimum sustainable
population level (OSP). OSP is defined
under the MMPA as ‘‘the number of
animals which will result in the
maximum productivity of the
population or the species, keeping in
mind the carrying capacity of the habitat
and the health of the ecosystem of
which they form a constituent element’’
(16 U.S.C. 1362(9)).
To help accomplish the goal of
maintaining marine mammal stocks at
their OSPs, section 117 of the MMPA
requires the Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
prepare a SAR for each marine mammal
stock that occurs in waters under U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
87951
jurisdiction. A SAR must be based on
the best scientific information available;
therefore, we prepare it in consultation
with established regional scientific
review groups. Each SAR must include:
1. A description of the stock and its
geographic range;
2. A minimum population estimate,
current and maximum net productivity
rate, and current population trend;
3. An estimate of the annual humancaused mortality and serious injury by
source and, for a strategic stock, other
factors that may be causing a decline or
impeding recovery;
4. A description of commercial fishery
interactions;
5. A categorization of the status of the
stock; and
6. An estimate of the potential
biological removal (PBR) level.
The MMPA defines the PBR as ‘‘the
maximum number of animals, not
including natural mortalities, that may
be removed from a marine mammal
stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its OSP’’ (16 U.S.C.
1362(20)). The PBR is the product of the
minimum population estimate of the
stock (Nmin); one-half the maximum
theoretical or estimated net productivity
rate of the stock at a small population
size (Rmax); and a recovery factor (Fr) of
between 0.1 and 1.0, which is intended
to compensate for uncertainty and
unknown estimation errors. This can be
written as:
PBR = (Nmin)(1⁄2 of the Rmax)(Fr)
Section 117 of the MMPA also
requires the Service and NMFS to
review the SARs (a) at least annually for
stocks that are specified as strategic
stocks, (b) at least annually for stocks for
which significant new information is
available, and (c) at least once every 3
years for all other stocks. If our review
of the status of a stock indicates that it
has changed or may be more accurately
determined, then the SAR must be
revised accordingly.
A strategic stock is defined in the
MMPA as a marine mammal stock ‘‘(a)
for which the level of direct humancaused mortality exceeds the PBR level;
(b) which, based on the best available
scientific information, is declining and
is likely to be listed as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) [the ‘‘ESA’’], within the
foreseeable future; or (c) which is listed
as a threatened or endangered species
under the ESA, or is designated as
depleted under [the MMPA].’’ 16 U.S.C.
1362(19).
E:\FR\FM\06DEN1.SGM
06DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87949-87951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29215]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR-5985-N-01]
HUD Program Evaluation Policy--Policy Statement
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and
Research, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This policy statement of HUD's Office of Policy Development
and Research articulates the core principles and practices of the
office's evaluation and research activities. This policy reconfirms the
Department's commitment to conducting rigorous, relevant evaluations
and to using evidence from evaluations to inform policy and practice.
DATES: December 6, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark D. Shroder, Associate Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Monitoring,
Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410,
telephone (202) 402-5922. The listed telephone number is not a toll-
free number. Persons with hearing- or speech-impairments may access
this number through TTY by calling Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-
8339 (this is a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The mission of HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research
(PD&R) is to inform HUD policy development and implementation to
improve life in American communities through conducting, supporting,
and sharing research, surveys, demonstrations,
[[Page 87950]]
program evaluations, and best practices. Within HUD, PD&R is
responsible for nearly all program evaluations. The office provides
reliable and objective data and analysis to help inform policy
decisions. Program evaluation has been a core activity of PD&R since
its formation in 1974.
In July 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a
report entitled ``Department of Housing and Urban Development: Actions
Needed to Incorporate Key Practices into Management Functions and
Program Oversight,'' (GAO 16-497) in which GAO presented a broad
assessment of HUD's management of its operations and programs.\1\ In
the report, GAO examined HUD efforts to: (1) Meet Federal requirements
and implement key practices for management functions, including
performance planning and reporting, human capital, financial,
acquisition, and information technology (IT) management; and (2)
oversee and evaluate programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678551.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PD&R is the primary office within HUD responsible for data
analysis, research, program evaluations, and policy studies that inform
the development and implementation of programs and policies across HUD
offices. PD&R undertakes program evaluations, often by using a process
that includes convening expert panels. However, GAO found that PD&R had
not developed agency-wide, written policies for its program
evaluations, nor documented the criteria used to select the expert
panels and review the quality of program evaluations.
This policy statement responds to the GAO report by setting out the
core principles and practices of PD&R's evaluation and research
activities. This statement incorporates some language from a policy
statement by the Office of Policy, Research, and Evaluation of the
Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
II. HUD Program Evaluation Policy
PD&R has identified the following core principles and practices as
fundamental to ensuring high-quality and consistent evaluation results:
rigor, relevance, transparency, independence, ethics, and technical
innovation. This policy applies to all PD&R-sponsored evaluations and
economic analyses of regulations; they apply as well to the selection
of projects, contractors, and PD&R staff that is involved in
evaluations.
Rigor
PD&R is committed to using the most rigorous methods that are
appropriate to the evaluation questions and feasible within budget and
other constraints. Rigor is not restricted to impact evaluations, but
is also necessary in implementation or process evaluations, descriptive
studies, outcome evaluations, and formative evaluations; and in both
qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rigor requires ensuring that
inferences about cause and effect are well founded (internal validity);
requires clarity about the populations, settings, or circumstances to
which results can be generalized (external validity); and requires the
use of measures that accurately capture the intended information
(measurement reliability and validity).
In assessing the effects of programs or services, PD&R evaluations
use methods that isolate to the greatest extent possible the impacts of
the programs or services from other influences such as trends over
time, geographic variation, or pre-existing differences between
participants and non-participants. For such causal questions,
experimental approaches are preferred. When experimental approaches are
not feasible, PD&R uses the most rigorous approach that is feasible.
PD&R ensures that contractors and grantees conducting evaluations have
appropriate expertise through emphasizing the capacity for rigor in
requests for proposal and funding opportunity announcements.
PD&R also employs a strategic human capital development plan to
hire, train, and retain a workforce that ensures the staff has the
tools and resources to accomplish the mission.
Relevance
The PD&R evaluation agenda reflects the legislative requirements
and policy issues related to HUD's mission. PD&R solicits input from
stakeholders, both internal and external, on the selection of programs
to be evaluated, initiatives, demonstrations, and research questions.
For new initiatives and demonstrations in particular, evaluations will
be more feasible and useful when planned in advance, in concert with
the development of the initiative or demonstration, rather than as an
afterthought.
PD&R disseminates findings in ways that are accessible and useful
to policy-makers and practitioners. PD&R partners with other HUD
program offices to inform internal and external stakeholders through
disseminating evidence from PD&R-sponsored evaluations.
Transparency
PD&R will release methodologically valid evaluations without regard
to the findings. Evaluation reports must describe the methods used,
including strengths and weaknesses, and discuss the generalizability of
the findings. Evaluation reports must present comprehensive results,
including favorable, unfavorable, and null findings.
PD&R publishes a 5-year Research Roadmap that outlines the research
and evaluation that we believe would be of greatest value to public
policy. PD&R lists all ongoing evaluation projects at the HUDUSER.gov
Web site, and updates it monthly. PD&R will release evaluation results
timely, usually within 4 months of receiving the final report.
PD&R will, where possible, archive evaluation data for secondary
use by interested researchers. PD&R typically builds requirements into
contracts to prepare data sets for secondary use.
Independence
Independence and objectivity are core principles of evaluation.
Agency and program leadership, program staff, service providers, and
others participate actively in setting evaluation priorities,
identifying evaluation questions, and assessing the implications of
findings. However, it is important to insulate evaluation functions
from undue influence and from both the appearance and the reality of
bias. To promote objectivity, PD&R protects independence in the design,
conduct, and analysis of evaluations. To this end:
PD&R conducts evaluations through the competitive award of
grants and contracts to external experts who are free from conflicts of
interest.
PD&R also conducts evaluations in-house and supports
unsolicited external evaluation proposals with funding, data, or both.
The Assistant Secretary for PD&R has authority to approve
the design of evaluation projects and analysis plans; and has authority
to approve, release, and disseminate evaluation reports. The Assistant
Secretary does so, in consultation with career staff.
Ethics
PD&R-sponsored evaluations must be conducted in an ethical manner
and safeguard the dignity, rights, safety, and privacy of participants.
PD&R-sponsored evaluations must comply with both the spirit and the
letter of relevant requirements such as regulations governing research
involving human subjects. In particular, PD&R protects the privacy of
HUD-assisted households
[[Page 87951]]
and HUD-insured borrowers through the Rule of Eleven; that is, PD&R
allows no disclosure of information about the characteristics of any
group of individuals or households numbering less than eleven by PD&R
staff, contractors, grantees, or licensees.
Technical Innovation
PD&R supports and employs new methods of data collection and
analysis that more reliably and efficiently answer research questions
than old methods do.
Application of These Principles to Economic Analysis of Regulations
Economic analysis of regulations, properly conducted, is a critical
tool in improving public policy. In any PD&R Regulatory Impact
Analysis:
PD&R analyzes whether the issues addressed by the
regulation stem from a market failure, government failure, or other
systemic problem, and whether the regulation addresses the root causes
of those problems.
PD&R uses and as necessary produces the best objective
estimates of the benefits, costs, and transfers resulting from the
regulation, taking into account gaps and uncertainties in the available
data.
Where clear alternatives to the regulatory actions exist,
PD&R objectively estimates the benefits, costs, and transfers of those
alternatives as well.
Dated: November 30, 2016.
Katherine O'Regan,
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
[FR Doc. 2016-29215 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P