Detailed Information on the
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness Assessment

Helping key Federal agencies identify policy and program areas for federal collaboration and partnership and more rapidly devise individual plans to end chronic homelessness.

Reporting data more consistently on progress made towards reaching annual and long-term measures annually on the USICH website and in the newsletter.

Measure: Number of cities and counties that have committed to or have created 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness.

Explanation:USICH staff, including the 10 regional coordinators, are working with city and county officials across the country to secure their commitments to end chronic homelessness and to establish plans that lay out the actions that will be taken in their communities to achieve that goal.

Measure: Number of cities and counties that have implemented 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness.

Explanation:

Measure: Of cities and counties that have implemented 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness, the number that are reporting prevention and/or a decrease in the number of chronically homeless individuals in their communities.

Explanation:This measure shows the positive outcomes of the activities undertaken by localities outlined in their 10-year plans to prevent and end chronic homelessness.

Measure: Number of key Federal agencies that have endorsed a federal plan to end chronic homelessness and have implemented internal working groups to forward their agency's participation.

Explanation:Active participation by key Federal agencies through commitment of resources and staff involvement is vital to the success of the goal to end chronic homelessness.

Measure: Of the cities and counties that are implementing 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness, the percentage that are leveraging additional non-Federal investment resources to decrease the number of chronically homeless individuals in the their communities as a result of the Council's efforts.

Explanation:Investment of state, local, and private dollars is vital to the success of the goal to end chronic homelessness.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: USICH's program purpose is to coordinate the Federal response to homelessness and to create partnerships between the Federal agencies addressing homelessness and every level of government and every element of the private sector.

Evidence: Title II of the McKinney Act states that the Council is to review all Federal activities and programs to assist homeless individuals; take such actions as may be necessary to reduce duplication among programs and activities by Federal agencies to assist homeless individuals; monitor, evaluate, and recommend improvements in programs and activities to assist homeless individuals conducted by Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private voluntary organizations; provide professional and technical assistance to States, local governments, and other public and private nonprofit organizations, in order to enable such governments and organizations to collect and disseminate information relating to homeless individuals; prepare annual reports; prepare and distribute to States, local governments, and other public and private nonprofit organizations, a bimonthly bulletin that describes the Federal resources available.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Council fulfills a unique role in highlighting the basis in research of federal initiatives to reduce and end homelessness, communicating increases in targeted federal homelessness resources, and identifying homelessness strategies that are innovative and produce results.

Evidence: While only 10 percent of the adult population that becomes homeless and has disabilities experiences very long shelter stays, this group - those chronically homeless - constitutes half of the daily emergency shelter population, and therefore consumes approximately 50 percent of the emergency shelter system resources (Culhane). To end chronic homelessness or to reduce it to as near to zero as possible, research indicates that targeted housing opportunities for 150,000 chronically homeless people need to be provided with appropriate services. Analysis of the NSHAPC survey data from 1996 concluded that one percent of the United States population experiences homelessness each year, or an estimated 2.8 million people. An analysis of administrative data that track emergency shelter utilization in nine jurisdictions estimated that 3.6 - 6 percent of the population in poverty used emergency shelters in 1999. Extrapolated nationally, this would suggest that as many as two million people are homeless annually. Better data being identified.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Council is the only federal agency that coordinates the federal response to homelessness. The 20 member agencies meet regularly to coordinate programmatic and funding efforts, share information, reduce duplication, and assure that their agencies' resources are available and accessible to persons who are homeless. This unique role is defined in statute. The Council also recommends policy changes to improve such assistance; and monitors and evaluates assistance to homeless persons provided by all levels of government and the private sector.

Evidence: TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 119--HOMELESS ASSISTANCE SUBCHAPTER II--INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON THE HOMELESS Sec. 11313 (a)(2) states that the Council shall "take such actions as may be necessary to reduce duplication among programs and activities by Federal agencies to assist homeless individuals;" (3)"Monitor, evaluate, and recommend improvements in programs and activities to assist homeless individuals; and (4)(B)"Provide assistance on the ways in which Federal programs, other than those authorized under this Act, may best be coordinated to complement the objectives of this Act."

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: One of the Council's statutory roles is to "assist in the application process for Federal assistance, including grants." Federal agencies that provide grant funding for programs related to homelessness maintain funding calendars and grant application development processes on an agency by agency basis. The Council's ability to coordinate timing and requirements of funding notices, review drafts of notices of funding availability, and recommend changes is limited and circumscribed by both statutory authority and agency practices that could potentially be addressed in reauthorization language.

Evidence: Most notably, HUD is restricted from sharing information about the process for grant determination with non-HUD staff through the HUD Reform Act. Thus, USICH staff is unable to preview the Notification of Funding Availability for the Homeless Assistance Grants. In addition, as was evidenced during the Chronic Homeless Initiative in 2002, a grant process coordinated by USICH staff with funds from HUD, HHS, and VA, it is a huge challenge to streamline these three application processes.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The activities of the Council are effectively targeted through outreach efforts to its Federal partners as well as to State, local, and private sector partners. With the work of the Council's Regional Coordinators in all geographic areas of the country and the outreach role of the Council staff, State and local efforts to create jurisdictional business plans are better coordinated and are more successful in producing results. Most challenging has been building a comprehensive Federal plan to end chronic homelessness. Efforts to solidify this plan are on-going.

Evidence: The Council's efforts in furthering the Administration's goal to end chronic homelessness are targeted through the creation of now 53 state interagency councils on homelessness by Governors, the development and implementation of over 222 jurisdictional 10-year plans as well as targeted technical assistance activities that support the agency's mission. The number of jurisdictions with 10-year plans has increased from a FY 2006 level of 152 to the current 222, with state councils increasing in the same period from 49 to 53.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: USICH has two long-term performance measures that directly relate to the Administration's goal of ending chronic homelessness and USICH's statutory role in coordinating Federal agencies, States and localities in their response to homelessness. The first long-term goal is intended to demonstrate that the Council's initiatives with cities and counties in developing and implementing 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness are showing results. The second goal identifies and charges the key Federal agencies working on homelessness to establish internal agency plans and working groups to forward the goal of ending chronic homelessness. In addition, these agency specific plans will integrate into an overall federal plan to address this goal.

Evidence: Per goal 1, USICH website tracks the status of city and county 10-year plans regarding plan development and implementation. Some plans are available on the site. www.usich.gov Per goal 2, through both the development of the Operation CHESS document (working draft), agency specific plans such as the HHS Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, and agency working groups, such as those at HHS and SSA, steps are underway to create strategies that align with the overall federal initiative. See measures section as well.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Working to end chronic homelessness in communities is a challenging process requiring extensive coordination of resources at the Federal and local levels. While work to coordinate the Federal agencies has been ongoing by USICH since its revitalization, it has been a slow process with much intra-agency and interagency discussion and debate. Through the PART process, the goal was set to have the 11 key agencies involved in homelessness endorse a Federal plan and establish their own agency processes for ending chronic homelessness.

Evidence: Per long-term goal 1, an interagency plan to end chronic homelessness has been developed but not completed (Operation CHESS document--working draft). This goal sets a timeframe for agencies to endorse a plan by 2008. Agency specific plans such as the HHS Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, and agency working groups, such as those at HUD, HHS and SSA already exist. Per long-term goal 2, USICH has set an ambitious long-term efficiency target to increase leveraging of Federal funds at the local level for the goal of ending chronic homelessness.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The three annual measures all coordinate with the Administration goal of ending chronic homelessness and work towards the two long-term goals identified. The first two measures are output goals that 1. track the number of cities and counties that, having worked with USICH, are committed to creating 10-year plans and then 2. track the plans that are being implemented. The third goal looks at the success of select communities that are implemented their plans in reducing the number of individuals who are chronically homeless through prevention and ending the homelessness of those on the streets and in shelters.

Evidence: USICH website tracks status of city and county 10-year plans that are in development or implementation. Some plans are available on the site www.usich.gov and through US ICH electronic newsletters. The Council has compiled reports from cities that show a trend in reporting reductions in their census.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: All three annual measures have two years of baseline data. USICH has been tracking the development and implementation of jurisdictional 10-year plans since 2003. All federal regions have been encouraged to create regional councils of federal officials and senior staff who meet regularly and mirror the DC Council's efforts. Through the Council's state initiatives and strategies, and the actions of its leadership, the number of State Interagency Councils formed by Governors has risen from 10 in 2002 to the current 53 states and territories. The number of jurisdictional 10-Year Plans has risen from 3 to 222 at the end of 2005.

Evidence: USICH website tracks status of state interagency councils and city and county 10-year plans in development or implementation. Some plans are available on the site. www.usich.gov and US ICH electronic newsletters.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Council members support the goal of ending chronic homelessness. In partnership with state government, the Council and federal agencies have encouraged the development of state interagency councils and plans (through the federal Policy Academy process). City and county government leaders and their national representatives have supported the goal of ending chronic homelessness and developing 10-year plans.

Evidence: Council members participate in regular Council meetings and leadership rotations, attend senior policy discussions, and collaborate in federal policy and funding initiatives, including the development of a federal strategy. Governors of 53 states and territories have established state interagency councils, all have participated in federal Policy Academies and Council technical assistance events. Over 220 cities and counties have committed to develop 10-year plans with a focus on chronically homeless persons, and over 90 are in implementation with support from public and private sector partners.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Council is a small independent agency with a limited budget. They would be unable to complete such an evaluation.

Evidence: Absent a rigorous independent evaluation, the Council provides weekly public reporting on the creation of State Councils, development of jurisdictional 10-Year Plans and their results, and the creation of additional housing and investment targeted to persons experiencing chronic homelessness. Reports are published in the Council's weekly e-news circulated to federal agencies and decisionmakers and @ 10,000 public and private sector decisionmakers, and posted on the usich.gov web site.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: While costs are clearly identified in USICH's budget submission to OMB, USICH budget requests are not explicitly tied to the successful achievement of annual and long-term performance goals.

Evidence: Excerpt from 07 budget request: "Needed Resources. To achieve the proposed goals, USICH requests $2,347,216 million in the FY '07 budget year, an increase of $543,282 or 30% over its FY '06 request. Requested resources will support the Council's expenses of a fully staffed, operational and independent federal entity, as mandated by Congress. For the Council's stakeholders, especially its customers, the homeless population, requested resources will support federal, state, and local intergovernmental partnerships and establish expanded forums on innovation to provide councils and community plans with documented best practices and evidence based resources from government and community partners. Additionally, with the additional resources requested, the Council will further this investment by offering in-depth technical assistance using federal partners and state and local innovators."

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation:

Evidence:

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Council collects funding and outcome data as available from the key federal agencies working on homelessness in preparation for Council meetings and the Council's annual report. The Council also collects program information from the federal agencies to comply with other reporting requirements from Congress on program objectives. The Council collects policy and budget information from state and local partners via its Regional Coordinators and other staff to report publicly on results, investments, and innovations through its technical assistance initiatives, weekly, newsletter, and website.

Evidence: See USICH 2004 Report to Congress. See www.usich.gov for information on Federal, state, and local data related to the Administration goal to end chronic homelessness. The website also provides outcome data on the Chronic Homeless Initiative coodinated by USICH.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Regular reporting of results from Federal investment has identified areas for problem-solving to improve performance, such as slow program start-up for some sites in the Federal collaborative initiative to help end chronic homelessness. Such reporting demonstrated the need for coordinated support of grantees through technical assistance and dissemination of best practices to achieve better outcomes for persons who are homeless. Interagency policy discussion identifies areas for collaborative federal initiatives to increase access to new areas of federal funding for providers and to set performance goals for programs.

Evidence: Council Regional Coordinators in the field are evaluated based on performance in achieving targeted results to convene and support federal councils, establish and support state councils and state government leaders, and development and implementation of jurisdictional 10-year plans with key elements. At the Federal level, interagency working groups have been able to change policy to better assist in finding housing for the homeless. An example of a successful interagency outcome was the change in policy to the Title V surplus property program administered by HUD, HHS, GSA and USICH. Through an interagency working group led by USICH, the group established a change in policy that now allows property to be used for housing programs.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are obligated according to federal financial management principles, policies and regulations using accrual accounting methods and within OMB approved SF-132 apportionments.

Evidence: Most recent clean audit opinion is for FY 2005.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: USICH uses competitive sourcing/cost comparisons in its work to achieve cost effectiveness in its program execution.

Evidence: USICH uses contracts for various activites such as research and data collection. This work has been determined suitable for competitive sourcing, and several contractors are in place performing this vital work on behalf of the agency. This method is more cost effecient that having full-time employees (paying both salary and benefits) to perform this work that's provided on an as needed basis by contractors.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: USICH has been effective in working with key Federal agencies, states, localities and nonprofits. There are an unprecedented number of collaborative budget and policy initiatives established at the federal, state, and city/county level, as well as with private and non-profit partners to forward the Council's mission. The Council's federal members meet regularly in both executive full Council meetings and senior staff policy deliberations to coordinate program activity and policy objectives. Council staff regularly participate in state interagency council meetings, provide technical assistance to state leaders, and co-convene planning and technical assistance events with federal and state government, including identifying experts to assist states. Council staff take part in the development of city leadership entities for 10-year planning, provides rapid dissemination of best practices from other jurisdictions, and convene collaborative events with city and private sector partners. National entities in partnership with the Council's initiatives include advocacy organizations, organizations of elected officials (including governors and mayors), and civic organizations (such as United Way and Chambers of Commerce).

Evidence: Over the past four years, there have been a number of cross agency grant annoucements. In 2002, USICH coordinated the HHS, HUD, VA Collaborative Initiative to End Chronic Homelessness which awarded funds to 11 communities. In addition, HUD and DOL have offered joint grants. HHS, VA, HUD, DOL and USICH have sponsored Policy Academies for all 50 states teaching state administrators how to better access mainstream funding for homeless individuals and families.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: USICH administers its funds in accordance with applicable guidelines.

Evidence: USICH achieved a clean audit opinion with no material internal control weaknesses for its most recent federal financial audit in FY 2005. This evidenced that the agency followed federal financial principles, policies and regulations in its financial management practices.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation:

Evidence:

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Council has demonstrated some progress towards its long-term goals. They are tracking leveraging of state, local and nonprofit resources in communities that have implemented 10-year plans. They are also working with key Federal partners to establish plans to end chronic homelessness and to establish internal working groups. Data needs to be recorded more consistently in response to the two long term goals that have been established through the PART.

Evidence: HHS published a Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in 2002. HUD has integrated the goal in their Notification of Funding Availability in 2004, 2005 and 2006. VA and DOL have both been working closely with the Council on a range of issues related to homelessness. Some data about localities leveraging dollars is available on the USICH website.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Council staff, including regional coordinators have worked extremely hard to achieve the annual output and outcome goals related to ending chronic homelessness. To that end, the annual goal to establish 200 new communities with 10-year plans, was exceeded in 2005 by 22. In 2006, 72 communities implemented their plans which set the benchmark for this goal.

Evidence: The Council receives reports from regional coordinators on a regular basis regarding the establishment of 10-year plans, implementation and reductions in incidence of homelessness. Information on these two goals is regularly reported on the website www.usich.gov.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: USICH is working closely with counties, cities and states across the country to create plans to end chronic homelessness, to implement them and to create opportunities for local and private investment in housing and services. USICH just began reporting on the number of communities that were leveraging state, local and private dollars to end chronic homelessness in their communities. They have two years of data, but are just setting a target for the first time in 2007.

Evidence: Anecdotal evidence is available on the USICH website. Further reporting of data is needed.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation:

Evidence:

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: As USICH is a small independent agency with a limited budget, it would be unable to commission an independent evaluation for this purpose. However, there are several studies that have been done that highlight the important role of bringing together key areas of goverment to create a comprehensive response to homelessness and chronic homelessness in particular.

Evidence: The New York/New York Agreement Cost Study: The Impact of Supportive Housing on Services Use for Homeless Mentally Ill Individuals, Dennis P. Culhane, Stephen Metraux, Trevor Hadley, May 2001. Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homelessness, Martha R. Burt, John Hedderson, Janine M. Zweig, Mary Jo Ortiz, Laudan Y. Aron, Sabrina M. Johnson, January 15, 2004.