Detailed Information on the
Family Self-Sufficiency Program Assessment

The NOFA (notification of funding availability) application process will be used to better measure outcomes of program participants by Housing Agency.

The 2006 Annual Performance Plan will re-establish the 2003 annual goal: "The number of public housing and Voucher households that have accumulated assets through the FSS program increases by 5 percent and the average escrow amount for FSS graduates increase." This measure should be maintained over time.

The Department's legislative proposal also includes performance measures that will encourage more PHA participation in FSS.

Measure: Increase the graduation rate for those exiting the FSS program 5% each year.

Explanation:Baseline is 2004 graduation rate.

Measure: Increase by 5% the percentage of FSS participants and graduates whose predominant source of income is earned income.

Explanation:Baseline is computed using data submitted by PHAs to PIC's data system using form HUD-50058. Because of funding constraints inposed by the recent Appropriations Acts, PHAs are reducing the numbers of new families admitted into the FSS program and not replacing FSS graduates. In order to accomplish this goal current funding levels must be adjusted for inflation and not decreased.

Measure: Maintain a graduation rate above 50% for those exiting the FSS program over the next ten years.

Explanation:Baseline is measure of the number of FSS program participants leaving the program in a given year, and the number of those that leave as graduates reported to HUD's PIC data system.

Measure: The combined earned income increase of all participating HCV FSS families will be greater than the HCV/FSS program coordinator funding awarded for coordinator salaries

Explanation:Metric calculated annually to compare increased earned income of HCV FSS program participants during a 12-month period to the amount of funding awarded for HCV/FSS program coordinator salaries during the same time period.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program purpose is "to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate use of public housing and assistance under the certificate and voucher programs under Section 8 with public and private resources to enable eligible families to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency."

Evidence: Purpose stated in Section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and 24 CFR 984.

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

Explanation: The program addresses problems of dependency on public assistance and low wage jobs.

Evidence: FSS helps families 1. obtain employment, 2. build assets, and 3. leave cash assistance.

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

Explanation: The program is specifically designed so that it addresses issues of housing, employment, and asset building which makes it a unique program. It is also necessary to coordinate activities with other federal and local programs (One-Stop Centers, TANF, etc)

Evidence: Section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and 24 CFR 984. Law requires PHAs to certify to coordination with local employment and service programs to avoid duplication of services and other activities.

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

Explanation: In terms of helping individual families, the FSS Program is designed well to provide incentives for families to commit to the program, become employed, and increase their incomes. Mandatory FSS programs receive points on SEMAP for successful programs. Voluntary programs have limited incentives to increase FSS participation. The Flexible Voucher proposal would create increased incentives for FSS participation through a sliding scale administrative fee.

Evidence: Families that complete the program may claim their escrow accounts. Credits to these acounts are based on increased earned income The voluntary nature of the program does limit the number of PHAs and families that can participate. In FY 2003, 778 PHAs and 1145 positions were funded. In FY 2004, 591 PHAs were funded for a total of 1,043 position. The decrease in the number of PHAs was due to the 2004 NOFA that rewarded homeownership counseling activities.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: A limited number of FSS coordinators are funded ithrough a competitve application process. The number of FSS coordianators funded each year is relatively low due to current funding constraints in FSS and Vouchers. The program is open to all eligible tenants, but family participation is voluntary so the families that elect to sign up may or may not be the families most in need of assistance in becoming self-sufficient.

Evidence: While the voluntary nature of the program could cause PHAs to select more able or motivated tenants, it also allows the program's limited resources to assist those who are most motivated to follow-through and become self-sufficient.

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: A new long-term goal for this program will be established in the 2006 APP that will tie to annual performance goals.

Evidence: Maintain a graduation rate above 50% for those exiting the FSS program over the next ten years.

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

Explanation: This new long-term measure will tie to annual goal increases to attempt to maintain an ambitious level of success.

Evidence: As noted in 2.6, PD&R has done an analysis of the program from 1996-2000 In 2000, the graduation rate for those exiting the program was 42%. The new long-term goal will push the programs to focus on completion rates above 50%.

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 2005 APP goals do not continue the 2003 and prior goal (listed to the right). The 2006 APP will revert back to that goal which ties to the long-term goal listed in 2.1.

Evidence: The percentage of FSS participants that have increased earned income and accumulated assets will increase by 5 percent from the previous year. FY '02 -15,296, FY'03 - 18,951, FY '04 - 27,015.

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

Explanation: For no apparent reason, the annual APP goals for the FSS program have been changed each year for the last three years. This makes it impossible to set baselines for the program.

Evidence: In 2003, one FSS goal was "The number of public housing and Voucher households that have accumulated assets through the FSS program increases by 5 percent and the avg escrow amount for FSS graduates increase." This measure had actual baseline data, but this measure was abandoned in 2004. The goals in 2004 and 2005 did not have baselines established. The 2003 measure is being retooled for the 2006 APP.

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: Public housing agencies that administer the program are working to help families obtain and retain employment and administer the escrow savings accounts that are established for families as the families earned income increases over their baseline amount. The 2004 NOFA's focus on homeownership decreased the number of PHAs in the program because not all PHAs were already actively involved in homeownership activities.

Evidence: Progress of families is tracked using FSS family data for each participating family that has been entered into HUD's PIC data system by the PHAs.

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 Retrospective Analysis, covering 1996-2000 was conducted, but other independent evaluations are lacking and have not been done on a regular or ongoing basis.

Evidence: Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Progrm, Retrospective Analysis, 1996-2000 dated August 2003. PD&R is starting an analysis of FSS programs.

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: Budget requests are for funding for HCV FSS program coordinators. However, funding levels are not directly tied to program performance from year-to-year.

Evidence: HCV FSS NOFA and data in PIC system and SEMAP rating factor for FSS.

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

Explanation: PIH plans to revamp the 2005 FSS NOFA to better assess the success of programs, and reward those that have been successful in achieving the newly established goals.

Evidence: OMB will review the NOFA to help accomplish this.

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: Data on participating families, services needed and received, employment, escrow accounts and completion of FSS contracts of participation is collected in HUD's PIC data system and used by HUD and PHAs to measure performance.

Evidence: Program staff regularly review FSS data and seek feedback on program effectiveness and problems imposed by program regulations. Input is sought from PHAs, service agencies, program participants and other interested parties at conferences and training sessions as well as in site visits. HUD also obtains information from research performed such as the retrospective analysis that has just been completed.

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: Continuing funding for HCV FSS program coordinators is available only to PHAs that have made progress in implementing their FSS programs and moving families to goals such as employment and homeownership.

Evidence: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for HCV FSS program which is published annually in the Federal Register. Priority is given to PHAs that have successfully helped program participants to obtain employment and homeownership.

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

Explanation: Funds for HCV FSS program coordinators are awarded and obligated in a timely manner. Expenditure of the funds is monitored by staff of HUD's Section 8 Financial Management Center (FMC).

Evidence: Applications for FSS coordinator funding are solicited through an annual NOFA. Award of funds is announced in the Federal Register. Draw down and accounting for expenditure of funds is reviewed by the FMC.

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: It is unclear from the information provided in this PART if it has measures to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness.

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Coordination required by statute. Since HUD does not fund services, implementation of program requires PHAs to coordinate with employment and service programs whether or not this is done successfully has yet to be shown.

Evidence: Section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and 24 CFR 984.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The FSS program is subject to the same financial management practices of the housing voucher program.

Evidence: Subject to Annual Contributions Contract accounting procedures and requirements for the housing voucher program.

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

Explanation: The SEMAP management performance system has helped HUD to identify which PHAs needed to improve, and helped to address management deficiencies that exisited in the past.

Evidence: 10 points are possible in the SEMAP for PHAs that run FSS programs.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Funding for HCV program coordinators is awarded through annual NOFAs based on performance of PHAs evidenced by increased earned income of program participants and movement of families toward goals such as homeownership.

Evidence: Annual HCV FSS NOFA.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Implementation of an FSS program requires HUD approval of a PHA's FSS action plan. On an on-going basis HUD collects and analyzes FSS program operation data through the form HUD-50058 enrollment, progress and exit reports that must be submitted by PHAs.

Evidence: HUD PIC data system and form HUD-50058.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Grantee performance is collected through the PIC system and through the SEMAP program.

Evidence: 10 points are possible in the SEMAP for PHAs that run FSS programs.

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

Explanation: As the program is establishing a long-term goal in the 2006 APP, it has not yet been able to work towards achieving this goal.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: It is unclear from the information provided in the 2005 APP if HUD is in fact achieving its annual peformance goals. Some data was reported in the 2004 Performance and Accountability report, but more consistency in maintaining baselines and consistent goals over time is needed.

Evidence: The percentage of FSS participants that have increased earned income and accumulated assets will increase by 5 percent from the previous year. FY '02 -15,296, FY'03 - 18,951, FY '04 - 27,015.

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

Explanation: Program goals have changed each year for the past three years, so it is impossible to measure.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: FSS works in tandem with other self-sufficiency efforts such as the One-Stop career centers and TANF work programs, but it operates on a much smaller scale. The escrow account provided to program participants provides an incentive that is not part of other government self-sufficiency efforts.

Evidence: A recently completed retrospective analysis of the FSS program (1996-2000) showed that participants that did complete the program demonstrated increased earned income.

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

Explanation: A recently completed retrospective analysis of the FSS program (1996-2000) showed that 42% of FSS participants actually complete the program (self-sufficiency contract). Those participants that did complete the program demonstrated increased earned income. The study did not show if the program helped families transition out of subsidized housing altogether.

Evidence: Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program, Retrospective Analysis, 1996-2000. Prepared for HUD by WESTAT.