Detailed Information on the
Fair Housing Assistance Program Assessment

HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity will develop independent evaluations of the performance of the Fair Housing Assistance Program. Performance measurements will be enhanced to improve tracking of program impact.

Two courses have recently been added to the National Fair Housing Training Academy core curriculum. A course, entitled Lending Discrimination and Predatory Lending, provides a hands-on approach to investigating complaints of residential mortgage discrimination and predatory lending. The second course added is entitled Accessibility for Investigators that provides a comprehensive overview of the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act and its applicability to accessible design.

HUD will develop a performance measurement system for the National Fair Housing Training Academy to include measures for efficiency, outputs, and outcomes as well as determine the best way to track these measures.

Fair Housing Assistance Program agencies will increase activities to ensure fair lending practices. FHAP funds were awarded to agencies to increase their capacity to enforce fair lending provisions of their substantially equivalent fair housing laws and develop processes that can be shared with FHAP agencies nationwide. Agencies will undertake comprehensive initiatives that include: 1) research on fair lending practices in their jurisdictions; 2) education and outreach on fair lending rights to consumers; and 3) enforcement of fair lending provisions of the state fair housing laws.

HUD will establish greater transparency and accountability from Fair Housing Assistance Program agencies. An improvement plan will be developed for the HUD website to incorporate activities of individual agencies. This plan will include links to partner agencies, goals achieved, and applicable performance improvement plans.

Measure: FHAP agencies will close or charge 95 percent of its aged fair housing complaints within the fiscal year

Explanation:The Fair Housing Act prescribes that investigations of complaints of housing discrimination be completed within 100 days, unless it is impracticable to do so. Recognizing that some cases are inherently more complex and require a longer period to investigate, the expectation is that FHAP agencies will close at least 95 percent of the cases that were aged at the beginning of the fiscal year. Ensuring that the aged case inventory is substantially reduced will increase public confidence in a fair and effective administrative process. Increasing public confidence will also increase the impact of the Act and will further the goal of eliminating housing discrimination in the United States

Measure: In order to increase the nation's capacity to provide coordinated enforcement of fair housing laws, HUD will certify two new substantially equivalent agencies under the Fair Housing Act

Explanation:HUD provides funding to "substantially equivalent" fair housing agencies to support fair housing enforcement. Agencies designated as substantially equivalent enforce state fair housing laws or local ordinances that are substantially equivalent to the Fair Housing Act. Increasing the number of substantially equivalent agencies means that enforcement of the Fair Housing Act can be increased

Measure: FHAP grantees will provide increased fair housing opportunities by completing fair housing conciliation agreements in at least 33 percent of fair housing complaints.

Explanation:The Fair Housing Act encourages conciliation efforts to last throughout the investigation of a complaint. When parties to a fair housing complaint are able to reach conciliation all parties have agreed to an appropriate resolution of the dispute. Because there is mutual agreement the conciliation process is both efficient and fair

Measure: FHAP agencies will close or charge 50 percent of its Fair Housing Act complaints filed during the fiscal year within 100 days

Explanation:The Fair Housing Act prescribes that investigations of complaints of housing discrimination be completed within 100 days, unless it is impracticable to do so. Recognizing that some cases are inherently more complex and require a longer period to investigate, the expectation is that FHAP agencies will close at least half of the cases received within the fiscal year. Increasing the efficiency of fair housing complaint processing will increase public confidence that victims will receive timely relief from discriminatory housing practices and put perpetrators on notice that discriminatory housing practices will be punished. Public confidence in the efficiency of complaint processing will increase the impact of the Act through enforcement and will further the goal of eliminating housing discrimination in the United States.

Measure: Increase the percentage of the general public who can correctly identify six or more of the eight scenarios describing illegal conduct as unlawful

Explanation:This measure supports all fair housing agencies' collective mission to promote public awareness of fair housing laws. The baseline for this measure comes from findings in HUD's 2001 study, "How Much Do We Know?" Every five years the study is repeated to determine the effectiveness of education and outreach and enforcement efforts. It is anticipated that as more people know their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Housing Act more people will recognize housing related discrimination and file fair housing complaints .

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) was created under the Federal Fair Housing Act to provide HUD with a means of delegating its enforcement authority to State and local enforcement agencies with State and local fair housing laws that are determined by HUD to be "substantial equivalent" to the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Evidence: The Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) provides that whenever a complaint alleges a discriminatory housing practice arising in the jurisdiction of a State or local agency that has been certified by the Secretary under section 810(f) of the Act, HUD shall refer the complaint to that State or local agency. The program regulations at 24 CFR Part 115 and the program's strategic goals state that the goal of the program is to recruit new State and local agencies to participate in the substantially equivalency program, thus increasing the number of agencies with laws that have been deemed to be substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act that can take in and investigate complaints and enforce the Fair Housing Act.

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

Explanation: The State and local agencies participating in the FHAP program address individual complaints of housing discrimination in their jurisdictions against any of the seven protected classes of the Federal Fair Housing Act (which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and familial status) as well as additional protected classes as authorized by the State or local substantially equivalent law.

Evidence: HUD's Housing Discrimination Study, which has been conducted in 1977, 1989, and 2000, demonstrates that national rates of discrimination remain consistently high. In 1996, HUD conducted a study of public awareness of fair housing laws, "How Much Do We Know?", and determined that in a national survey, approximately 14 percent of the general American public (about 28 million people) have experienced discrimination in their lifetime. Of that 14 percent, only 17 percent of those discriminated against took action, including 3 percent who sought help from a government agency.

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

Explanation: The Department of Justice also is authorized by the Fair Housing Act bring lawsuits to address discriminatory policies or "patterns and practices" and to create a mechanism by which individuals may file a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Through this authority, the Department of Justice may chose to bring housing discrimination lawsuits to Federal Court. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has a Housing and Civil Enforcement section that enforces DOJ's fair housing authorities through activities focused on exposing systemic discriminatory practices. The important difference between the Department of Justice's Fair Housing Act authorities and HUD's Fair Housing Act authorities is that HUD is authorized to investigate individual cases of discrimination, whereas Justice is authorized to investigate systemic discrimination patterns or practices, such as cases of ensuring reasonable accommodation or accessible design and fair lending practices. However, if an individual complainant chooses to pursue a civil action suit, the Secretary of HUD is authorized by the Fair Housing Act to refer such individual cases to the Attorney General to begin civil proceedings in Federal district court.

Evidence: HUD and the Department of Justice are partners in investigation and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. Through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), DOJ attorneys and HUD attorneys work closely together on individual cases that are referred from HUD as well as on DOJ-led cases on systemic practices and patterns in housing discrimination. However, the majority of cases filed with HUD are conciliated through HUD's administrative law judges (ALJs), rather than being referred to the Department of Justice to be entered as a civil action in Federal district court. Research of data in HUD's TEAPOTS by Michael Schill of the NYU Law School notes that the number of charged cases where complainants elected to enter a civil action in Federal district court has decreased in the last ten years. Schill also noted that in cases where settlement was reached, that HUD ALJs settled in less time than cases that settled in Federal District Court. However, cases that settled in Federal district court often resulted in higher penalties for respondents and higher satisfaction levels for complainants.

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

Explanation: The program and its regulations require specific procedures of the state and local equivalent agencies, including requiring all complaints received by FHAP agencies to be dual filed with HUD, which allows for performance tracking. HUD Hub field offices review, at least annually, agency performance using the performance criteria contained in 24 CFR, Part 115. An agency must receive a rating of "Excellent" or "Fair" to qualify as a substantially equivalent agency. Agencies that violate any of the performance criteria outlined in the regulations may be placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP), and funding may be suspended until improvement is demonstrated

Evidence: The broad range of rights to individuals provided under the Federal Fair Housing Act allows for a complex process for individual complainants in term of which path they chose to pursue conciliation/settlement of their case. After an investigation is conducted and a cause finding has been determined, complainants may elect to conciliate the case through HUD's administrative law judges (ALJs), or through Federal district court (through the Department of Justice). However, a complainant may also elect mediation at any point in the process. However, some state's fair housing laws may also present other options for a complainant to chose, which may make case tracking difficult to reconcile in HUD's case tracking systems. For example, the state of Louisiana does not have an administrative law judge, but the complainants can elect to have their cases hear through a state mediation board (an option which is not often used). In addition, the Louisiana fair housing laws allow the State Attorney General to send housing cases to the state courts, rather than the Federal district court.

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

Explanation: An important aspect of the FHAP program is that it provides a steady funding stream to State and local agencies that allows decentralized enforcement of both the Federal Fair Housing Act, as well as state and local fair housing laws. FHAP agencies receive annual funding for complaint processing, administrative costs, training, special enforcement funds (for experienced FHAP agencies that meet specific criteria), and for partnerships with faith-based and grassroot organizations. The allocation for each agency is determined by the agency's annual performance rating. For example, HUD allocates approximately $1.5 million annual to FHAP agencies for administrative costs associated with complaint intake and case processing. The allocation is determined by the the number of complaints correctly processed by the agency during the previous fiscal year.

Evidence: The FHAP program also allocates funding to initiatives that support program needs. For example, in the 2004 NOFA, HUD announced $1 million in FHAP funding to law schools at historically Black colleges and universities to develop and operate fair housing law clinics. This initiative establishes partnerships between the local FHAP office and law schools at historically Black colleges and universities to increase the number of law students specializing in fair housing law.

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: The program's long-term measures focus on activities that are fundamental to the work of FHEO. The overarching goal of all of FHEO's operations and programs is to reduce housing discrimination. FHEO's long-term measures support the program's strategic objectives, which are: (1) increase access to rental and sales housing through enforcement efforts by FHIPs and FHAP; (2) promote public awareness of fair housing laws; and (3) improve housing accessibility for persons with disabilities. Three studies provide measures which demonstrate reductions in housing discrimination. FHAP agencies contribute to reductions in housing discrimination by providing an enforcement mechanism at the State and local level to increase compliance with the Fair Housing Act and the FHAP's own substantially equivilent state fair housing laws.

Evidence: FHEO has revised their strategic objectives, as outlined in the annual Strategic Plan, the annual Performance Plan, and the annual Management Plan, to support its long-term outcome measure of "Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Housing." Three studies provide baselines for FHEO's long-term measures. The Housing Discrimination Study, which is conducted every ten years, shows a reduction in instances of white-favored treatment over minorities in the rental and sales markets since 1989. The "How Much Do We Know?" study tracks rates of public awareness in fair housing laws. In 2001, 51% of the general public could identify six or more scenarios (out of eight) describing discriminatory conduct as illegal. In 2003, HUD issued a study on "Multifamily Building Conformance with the Fair Housing Accessibility Guidelines," which examines the percentage of existing multifamily housing units and architectual plans of multifamily units under development which meet the Fair Housing Act's standards for accessibility for persons with disabilities. The study concluded that 88% of existing multifamily units meet the Act's accessibility standards.

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

Explanation: The baselines for the annual strategic measures are established through studies conducted every 5 to 10 years. Discrimination is a difficult phenonmenon to meausure, and studies must rely on testing or surveys to demonstrate reduced instances of discrimination. Discrimination cannot be adequetely measured through controlled trials. The baselines for FHEO's measures the level of housing discrimination through reductions in the number of instances where one group (whites) are favored over other groups (as shown in HDS 2000) as well as increased awareness by the general public of situations which violate fair housing laws (as shown in the "How Much Do We Know?" study). FHEO is able to demonstrated steady progress, given the methodological difficulties in capturing discrimination.

Evidence: The major long-term indicator is a reduction in housing discrimination. Change in the levels of incidents of discriminatory behavior has been measured through the Housing Discrimination Studies. Between 1977 and 1989, HUD found no significant difference in the rates of white-favored treatment over minorities in the rental and housing markets. The Fair Housing Act was amended in 1988, and the FHAP program was established. Between 1989 and 2000, a reduction of several percentage points occured, with whites being favored in fewer instances over Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians. By 2010, if another national study of housing discrimination is funded, HUD's goal is a further reduction in white favoritism over minorities in both rental and sales from the 2000 levels. The next study to measure the public's awareness of fair housing through the "How Much Do We Know?" study will be in 2005, and HUD's goal is to see an increase in a "high" level of awareness from 51% in 2001 to 60% in 2005.

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 program's annual output measures focus on reducing the number of aged HUD and Fair Housing Assistance Program fair housing complaints and monitoring FHIP grants and FHAP cooperative agreements to ensure proper use of funds. The program's output measures show progress in meeting annual targets and supporting the strategic goals of the program.

Evidence: HUD's Annual Performance Plan does not include annual target numbers; only the annual Management Plan provides this information.

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

Explanation: The program's annual measures seek to meet an annual target number. However, these targets are not particularly ambitious, and FHEO should continue to develop multiyear baselines for their output measures. For example, one of the primary annual measures for the FHAP program is the reduction of aged cases (cases that have been open for 100 days or more) in both the FHAP and the HUD inventories, as required by the Fair Housing Act. It is not clear if the program is seeking to completely eliminate its inventory of aged cases, or to reach an acceptable percentage of aged cases in the inventory. FHEO's annual strategic planning and performance metrics should allow FHEO to determine the appropriate target percentage necessary to keep the aged case inventory from increasing, while also allowing FHEO to continue efforts to resolve outstanding aged cases already in the inventory system. An efficiency measure based on the percentage of all cases which become aged cases would allow FHEO to set a more realistic goal for reducing its current backlog while maintaining a low level of new aged cases in the TEAPOTS system.

Evidence: HUD Annual Performance Plan, 2004

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: All of the partners are committed to the overall goal of fighting and reducing housing discrimination. The partners contribute to meeting the annual output goals and FHAP agencies receive payment for their activities based upon their performance in meeting annual measures.

Evidence: Advocates, such as the National Fair Housing Alliance, have stated in publications and studies that HUD's performance goals and targets do not demonstrate program progress because they focus on measures that show management improvement, but not progress towards reducing the number of incidences of discriminatory behaviors. Advocates have suggested performance measures that track the number of tests conducted, or the results of a conciliation/settlement agreement, such as the number of units that become available on the market because of the resolution of a discrimination case, rather than the number of aged cases in the TEAPOTS system (National Fair Housing Alliance 2004 Fair Housing Trends report). In addition, a recent General Accountability Office study on the FHAP program's performance in reducing its aged caseload (GAO-04-463, "Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process," April 21, 2004) notes in its findings that partner agencies have difficulties demonstrating that they have a direct connection or interest in meeting the program's long-term strategic objectives.

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: No independent evaluations exist that are of sufficient scope and quality.

Evidence: While the General Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted several studies on the HUD and FHAP aged cases inventories, these studies focus on particular aspects of the program's activities. No one has conducted an independent evaluation of the FHAP program to that evaluate program processes, impact, or cost efficiencies. It is recommended that FHEO work with HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) to conduct an independent evaluation for this program

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 tied to annual output and outcome measures and supports the administrative enforcement and the education and outreach activities of FHAP agencies. The program's strategic objectives under the Fair Housing Act are achieved through the establishment of new substantially equivalent agencies under the Fair Housing Act, increasing the number of fair housing conciliation/settlement agreements processed and decreasing aged fair housing complaints in HUD and FHAP inventories, as well as the establishment of a Fair Housing Training Academy.

Evidence: However, partners have raised concerns with the reduction in some program resources, such as the special enforcement funds, which are an reward for agencies who maintain 3 years of quality enforcement efforts. The FHAP agencies have traditionally relied heavily on the availability of these funds, which have been reduced to a flat amount of $16,500 in 2004 by to budget constraints. Previously, FHAP agencies received between $60,000 and $100,000 for special enforcement work in complex or long term investigations or cases.

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

Explanation: The program continues to work towards improving their process and efficiency, primarily by focusing on increasing the availability of training for FHAP agency staff and HUD fair housing staff through the National Fair Housing Training Academy.

Evidence: National Fair Housing Training Academy materials, 2004 Management Plan

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: Field Offices review, at least annually, fully certified FHAP agency performance using the performance criteria contained in 24 CFR, part 115. Agencies under an interim agreement are reviewed at least once within the capacity building period (up to 3 years).

Evidence: Annual performance assessment reports are conducted by the FHEO Government Technical Representative (GTR) of each HUD regional offices. FHAP agencies are rated "Excellent," "Fair," or "Poor." The Assistant Secretary is authorized by program regulations (24 CFR Part 115) to remove "Poor" performing FHAP agencies from the list of substantially equivalent agencies. For example, while the state of Nevada's fair housing laws have been determined to be substantially equivalent to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the state of Nevada has not been able to support a well-performing FHAP agency.

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: All of FHEO's program partners are required to adhere to the performance measures established in the Performance Assessment Review. For purposes of ensuring that grantees are held accountable for cost, schedules and performance results, grantees submit a report and payment requests on a quarterly basis. FHAP agencies are reimbursed the costs of case processing and grants are made to experienced FHAP agencies to conduct special enforcement projects, such as lengthy investigations into predatory lending cases or steerage in communities. In 2004, HUD issued new regulations that change the process of reimbursing the cost of case processing to a "sliding scale," where FHAPs can qualify for $1800 - $2300 in cost reimbursement. The level of reimbursement is dependent on HUD staff review of each case against performance metrics for timeliness (resolution of cases in 100 days or less) and quality (complete and through investigations). FHAP agencies also receive other incentives. Agencies that process more than 100 cases receive bonus payments under the Administrative Cost category. Agencies can also receive monetary incentives, under the Special Enforcement Efforts category. However, FHAP agency directors have also seen a change in the amount of special enforcement dollars made available to their agencies. In the new regulations, special enforcement dollars are now capped at $16,500 per agency, whereas previously, many experienced agencies received between $60,000 to $100,000 in additional special enforcement funds a year.

Evidence: FHAP performance is discussed in FHEO's annual Performance and Accountability Report to Congress.

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

Explanation: FHEO annually prepares a Funds Distribution Plan and provides guidance to HUD Regional offices on the use / obligation of appropriated funds. The HUD Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has not issued audit findings that indicate that FHAP funds have not been spent for its intended purpose.

Evidence: According to HUD's 2001 study on HUD-partner satisfaction levels, "How is HUD Doing? Agency Performance as Judged by its Partners, " 72 percent of FHAP partners are satisfied with the timeliness of grant agreement payments made to their agencies; 41 percent are very satisfied. However, 22 percent and 14 percent report being dissatisfied and very dissatisfied respectively. Historically, FHEO obligates 85 percent of its annual appropriation per fiscal year.

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: FHAP is a formula/block grant type program. HUD provides incentives for FHAP agencies to process complaints timely and of acceptable quality.

Evidence: 2004 Funds Distribution Plan. 2004 Instruction and Guidance for the Allocation of FHAP Funds. 2004 Performance Measures for Complaint Processing.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: HUD collaborates with the Department of Justice on housing-related civil rights issues. HUD collaborates with the Office of Thrift Supervision. HUD collaborates with State and Local governments.

Evidence: The criteria and process for referrals of cases to the Attorney General are outlined in the Federal Fair Housing Act and in the program regulations, 24 CFR Part 115.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: FHAP utilizes Departmental financial systems. There were no material weaknesses reported in the Auditor's Report directly relating to the FHAP. FHAP follows HUD Fund Control Procedures.

Evidence: FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report. FY 2003 Independent Auditor's Report.

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

Explanation: As a result of the findings in a recent General Accountability Office study (GAO-04-463, "Fair Housing: Opportunities to Improve HUD's Oversight and Management of the Enforcement Process," April 21, 2004) the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity office is planning to conduct a business process reengineering; update the Title 8 handbook, which outlines the review procedures and process for complaint management; and work to disseminate best practices across FHAP agencies. FHEO is also planning to find ways to strengthen the relationship between investigators and attorneys, through joint training sessions. HUD has taken the dramatic step of establishing the Fair Housing Training Academy. In addition to certifying current and future FHAP staff, the academy will provide uniform and consistent instruction to FHAPs. The academy will make clear the intake/investigation/adjudication processes, as well as improving the quality of FHAP performance.

Evidence: However, FHAP directors raise concerns about inconsistent guidance from HUD staff, both at Headquarters and at Regional Offices concerning reporting requirements and recent changes to the performance criteria outlined in the FHAP regulations. FHAP directors also noted that the Title VIII handbook, which is scheduled to be revised, needs clearer discussion and definitions of the intake/investigatory/adjudication process, especially when dealing with timelines, reporting requirements, and consistent definitions of required input fields for dual filing of complaints. TEAPOTS data shows that FHAP agencies are responsible for processing approximately 67 percent of complaints made to government agencies annually. Based on their output, FHAP Directors and FHEO officials agree that HUD and FHEO need to consider ways to increase interaction between HUD staff and FHAP staff by disseminating best practices and to ensure more training of HUD staff to allow for standard and consistant guidance from HUD Headquarters and Regional office staff.

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

Explanation: Regional office FHEO GTRs review FHAP agency performance by reviewing review agency audit reports and noting any findings on annual agency performance assessments. FHEO Regional office GTRs work closely with Headquarters staff on annual Technical Assistance or Performance Assessment Reports. Additionally, Headquarters must be informed immediately whenever there is a reported misuse of FHAP funds.

Evidence: Instructions and Guidance for Allocation of FHAP Funds for FY 2004. Technical Assistance Reports / Performance Assessment Reports. Agency audit reports.

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: FHEO develops and distributes the Annual Report to Congress. HUD develops and distributes the Accountability and Results Report. FHEO holds the National Fair Housing Training Conference / Housing Policy Summit. However, FHEO needs to increase the amount of information that it makes available through such resources as the FHEO webpage. In addition, HUD should consider making training materials available through the FHEO website, so that FHAP staff who cannot travel to training due to budget restrictions will be able to benefit from training until the National Fair Housing Training Academy can make this information available through its online learning functions.

Evidence: The Annual Report to Congress. The Accountability and Results Report. The National Fair Housing Training Conference / Housing Policy Summit.

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

Explanation: FHEO does not have clearly defined long-term goals or targets. Annual output goals demonstrate that progress is occurring; however, FHEO's vague annual strategic goals (with baselines which are updated every 5 to 10 years) cannot demonstrate contributions towards FHEO's overall goal of "Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Housing." There needs to be a clear connection between the strategic objectives of "resolving discrimination complaints on a timely base," "promote public awareness of fair housing laws," and " improve housing accessibility for persons with disabilities," and the ultimate goal of "Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Housing."

Evidence: Given the cost associated with measuring FHEO's annual strategic objectives, the baseline for these objective measures are updated every 5 to 10 years. Studies to measure the level of housing discrimination, such as the Housing Discrimination Study 2000, are done approximately every 10 years. The next study to measure the public's awareness of fair housing will be in 2005, and HUD's goal is to see an increase in a "high" level of awareness from 51% in 2001 to 60% in 2005. By 2010, if another national study of housing discrimination is funded, HUD's goal is a reduction in consistent adverse treatment by 5 percentage points in both rental and sales from the 2000 levels.

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

Explanation: The program routinely meets its annual performance goal targets.

Evidence: 2005 Annual Performance Report, Annual report to Congress

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

Explanation: Efficiency measures have recently been developed by FHEO for this program. One new measure tracks the percentage of complaints closed in 100 days or less and the second tracks the training dollars per person allocated to the Training Academy. Data from fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for the first efficiency measure shows that the FHAP has, in fact, improved it performance / efficiency with respect to meeting a performance requirement under the Fair Housing Act. The percentage of cases closed within 100 days improved from 24.8% in 2002 to 33.5% in 2003. Data for the additional efficiency measures will be available as HUD goes forward with the operations of the Academy.

Evidence: FHEO will continue to refine newly developed efficiency measures for this program.

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

Explanation: The program addresses a very serious need, and is the only government program that provides funding to both public (state and local) and private organizations to conduct investigations, perform testing, and increase education and outreach.

Evidence: Annual performance assessment reports, Annual Report to Congress

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

Explanation: No independent evaluations exist that are of sufficient scope and quality.

Evidence: See question 2.6