MTW  agencies are not required to expend a specific proportion of their HUD  funds on activities that encourage work and self-sufficiency. The total number of families in either of the two FSS programs cannot be  reliably assessed based on available PIC data for fiscal years 2006-2011  because of missing program start dates, exit dates, and annual updates. Participation data for the ROSS SC program from fiscal years 2008 (the  year the current version of this program started) through 2011 also were  limited, primarily because of the lack of reporting guidance for the  program and the difficulty of aggregating the data. Without developing a reliable process for collecting  and analyzing data on the number of residents assisted through the  ROSS SC program, HUD lacks basic information needed to manage the  program. Programwide data on residents’ participation in MTW activities related to  increasing self-sufficiency from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 generally  were unavailable. HOPE VI. MTW. HUD Has Lacked a Strategy for Using Collected Data to Evaluate the Impact of Four Programs

HUD has performed limited analyses—to assess outcomes for the  programs as a whole—of data related to self-sufficiency outcomes that  FSS grant recipients must report into its information systems. Additionally, the GPRA   Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) emphasizes the need for  information on the effectiveness of federal programs to improve  congressional decision making. Where HUD had data, the data suggest positive changes in income and  employment for families that participated in the two FSS programs, but  these results are not conclusive. We observed  these changes for the families that started an FSS program in 2006 and  completed it in 5 years or less.based on the 25 percent of families for which HUD data indicated  completed the programs in 5 years or less. Conclusions

HUD’s housing assistance programs serve millions of low-income  residents. First, it does not have reliable data on participation in self- sufficiency activities across PHAs. Federal internal control standards state that program managers need  operational data to determine whether they are meeting their agencies’  strategic plans and meeting their goals for the effective and efficient use  of resources. As stated above, internal control  standards underline the importance not only of collecting but also using  information to achieve programmatic goals—helping families increase  self-sufficiency. A strategy for using these data could  inform overall management review, congressional oversight, and planning  for these programs. For instance, using such data could help HUD  identify from which PHAs to draw lessons to help improve HUD  management of the grant programs as well as PHA management of self- sufficiency-related activities. Recommendations for Executive Action

To better inform Congress and improve what is known about residents’  participation in key grant programs designed to facilitate resident self- sufficiency, and their progress towards self-sufficiency, the Secretary of  the Department of Housing and Urban Development should develop and  implement a process to better ensure that data on FSS participant grants are  complete; such a process should include steps for identifying missing  data, identifying the reasons for missing data, and taking steps to help  ensure data are complete; a process to better ensure that PHAs awarded ROSS SC grants  annually report required participation and outcome data that are  comparable among grant recipients; this process should include the  issuance of program-specific reporting guidance; a strategy for regularly analyzing FSS participation and outcome data;  such a strategy could include identification of PHAs from which  lessons could be learned and PHAs that may need assistance  improving completion rates or outcomes; and a strategy for regularly analyzing ROSS SC participation and outcome  data; such a strategy could include identification of PHAs from which  lessons could be learned and PHAs that may need assistance  improving participation rates or outcomes. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our objectives were to (1) discuss what is known about the costs of and  residents’ participation in Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD) grant programs that encourage work and self-sufficiency, (2)  determine what is known about the effect on residents of HUD grant  programs to promote self-sufficiency, and (3) describe steps HUD has  taken to coordinate with other federal agencies and increase residents’  access to non-HUD programs that encourage work and self-sufficiency. Based on these criteria, we identified the following programs:
Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency (PH FSS)
Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (HCV FSS)
Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Service Coordinators   (ROSS SC)
Moving to Work (MTW)
HOPE VI  HUD officials agreed that we had identified the key grant programs that  encourage work and self-sufficiency.
Why GAO Did This Study

HUD reported in 2011 that nearly 8.5 million lower-income families paid more than half their monthly income for rent, lived in substandard housing, or both. As the number of those needing assistance is greater than existing federal programs can serve, if families were able to increase their income and no longer require housing assistance, spaces could become available for other needy families. HUD offers several competitive grants that PHAs can use to hire staff who link residents to services or implement programs that encourage self-sufficiency. GAO was asked to examine the effectiveness of HUD's efforts to promote self-sufficiency among residents. Among its objectives, this report describes (1) costs and resident participation in HUD grant programs for PHAs that encourage work and self-sufficiency and (2) available information on the programs' effects on residents.
GAO reviewed HUD's goals for encouraging self-sufficiency, program descriptions, and regulations; analyzed grant award data for fiscal years 2006-2011 and available outcome information; and interviewed HUD and PHA officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds five key grant programs that encourage resident self-sufficiency. In fiscal year 2011, HUD awarded $113 million to the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS), Public Housing FSS, and Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Service Coordinators (ROSS SC) programs. Public housing agencies (PHA) with HOPE VI grants or designated as Moving to Work (MTW) agencies spent a portion of their funds on activities that encourage self-sufficiency, but the amounts MTW agencies spent are not known for the program as a whole. Additionally, data on resident participation in the five programs were limited. The number of families that participated in the FSS programs and ROSS SC cannot be reliably assessed due to missing start dates, end dates, and annual updates, and a lack of reporting guidance. HOPE VI data on residents' participation does not include information on the elderly or persons with disabilities. Programwide MTW data on participation generally were unavailable. Internal control standards for the federal government state that program managers need operational data to determine whether they are meeting goals for accountability (effective and efficient use of resources). Without complete participation data, HUD lacks key information to effectively manage and evaluate its programs and Congress lacks data needed to oversee the programs.
HUD lacks a strategy for using data it requires of PHAs to expand what is known about outcomes in four of the programs. HUD has performed limited analysis of the data related to self-sufficiency outcomes for both types of FSS grants reported into its information systems. HUD has not analyzed similar data reported for ROSS SC and MTW activities. However, for HOPE VI HUD collects consistent, outcome-based measures for participation in self-sufficiency activities and uses the data to track residents' progress towards self-sufficiency. Internal control standards underline the importance not only of collecting but also using information to achieve programmatic goals. Also, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) emphasizes the need for information on the effectiveness of federal programs to improve congressional decision making. A strategy for using these data could inform overall management review, congressional oversight, and planning for these programs. Using such data could help HUD identify from which PHAs to draw lessons to help improve HUD management of the programs as well as PHA management of self-sufficiency-related activities. GAO's analysis of available data on residents who participated in the FSS programs suggests positive changes for those who completed the programs, but the results are not conclusive because data indicating whether a family exited FSS or subsidized housing were missing for 35 percent of families that started an FSS program in 2006.

What GAO Recommends

For three of its self-sufficiency programs, HUD should develop processes and program-specific reporting guidance to better ensure required data on participation and outcomes are complete. HUD agreed with three recommendations but disagreed that it should analyze data for the ROSS SC program. GAO believes that analysis of program data is critical for assessing outcomes.