We reviewed OPM’s  To review the extent to which HUD’s resource management system  reflects identified standards, we reviewed HUD documents describing its  activities and compared them to the identified standards in the National  Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report for developing an  effective resource management system for HUD. Background

As noted earlier, HUD has faced longstanding challenges with staff  resource estimation and management. HUD Reports That it is Moving Forward with Strategic Human Capital and Workforce Planning Efforts after Several Years of Delays

		HUD Has Awarded Contracts to Further Planning Efforts

In April 2012, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer began  soliciting a contractor to help HUD conduct a workforce analysis and  update both the human capital and workforce plans. HUD’s most recent human capital and workforce plans expired in 2009. Although HUD has since launched several workforce planning efforts, it  reported that these efforts were preempted by other priorities. In February 2010, HUD engaged key program office staff  in training that emphasized the need to determine upfront the staff HUD  could afford to hire. In June 2012, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  reported on its review of HUD’s human capital management and found  that HUD’s human capital and workforce planning activities did not always  follow certain Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework  standards, or key principles. Specifically, OPM found:
Human resources policies and programs are not aligned with  organizational mission, strategic goals, and performance outcomes. As a result of these weaknesses, OPM concluded that HUD cannot  continually assess and improve human capital planning and investments  or measure the impact on mission accomplishment. HUD Is Reexamining Its Resource Management Processes, which Do Not Fully Consider Identified Standards

		HUD Is Reexamining Its Resource Management Processes

In 2012, HUD began taking steps to reexamine its resource management  process. According to the NAPA report, HUD’s system should:  comprehensively define HUD’s workload; provide central guidance on how work is defined and data collected; allow program assistant secretaries to retain decision-making  authority over the systems used in their organizations;  involve headquarters and field staff in the workload definition process;  link workload and resources so that Government Performance and  Results Act (GPRA)-required performance goals can be matched with  resources to accomplish the goals; measure how resources used are related to results; and  create incentives for staff to report accurate data for the system. Officials from the three HUD program offices we  met with reported they selectively used data from REAP’s validation  component, known as the Total Estimation and Allocation Mechanism  (TEAM), as a starting point for budget formulation and staff allocation  decisions. TEAM compares actual staff time to estimated staff time. As previously discussed, HUD’s program offices selectively  use REAP to help define workload and estimate resources. Moreover, there are no routine data reliability checks on the information  REAP produces and there is no widespread agreement that REAP  produces the quality of data needed to accurately determine resource  needs. As a result, staff  are entering information into TEAM on an inconsistent basis and  information is often not used to inform decisionmaking. HUD’s Budget Submission Could More Clearly Explain the Underlying Rationale for Its Request

Primary users of the congressional budget justification (CBJ) have raised  questions about HUD’s budget presentation. They said that CBJs from  fiscal years 2008 through 2012 generally contained data tables for some  program offices and did not always contain narrative that explained or  justified the FTE request. According to HUD officials, HUD provided data  tables because prior submissions with more detail did not prompt  questions from Congress. Although primary users of the CBJs agree that the fiscal year 2013  changes improved the clarity and utility of the justifications, some have  raised additional questions about the uniformity and reliability of the  information presented. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the human capital planning, workforce planning, and resource  management processes at HUD, we recommend that the Secretary of  HUD take the following three actions:  1.  follow through on developing and maintaining strategic human capital  and workforce plans;  2.  ensure that human capital and workforce plans clearly incorporate key  3.  collect data that are used for decision-making, thus creating  incentives for staff to report accurate data for the resource  management system. To improve the quality of HUD’s CBJ, we further recommend that the  Secretary of HUD take the following action:  4.  consult with users of the CBJ, such as congressional decision  makers, to determine what additional information about resource  decisions should be presented, and how, in its CBJ. Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for review and comment.
Why GAO Did This Study

HUD has faced challenges accurately determining the staff resources it needs to fulfill its mission of creating strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. GAO's prior work has shown that strategic human capital management, including efficient and effective workforce planning, helps ensure agencies have people with the skills needed to carry out their missions. GAO was directed to review the status of HUD's workforce planning efforts. GAO reviewed (1) HUD's strategic human capital and workforce planning efforts; (2) the extent to which HUD's resource management systems reflects identified standards; and (3) how clearly HUD presents its rationale behind staff resource requests in the budget request. GAO reviewed department-wide human capital and resource management efforts and selected four of the largest HUD program offices for further review. GAO reviewed documentation of HUD planning efforts and interviewed HUD officials and relevant congressional staff. The results from the reviews of the four program offices cannot be generalized to all offices within HUD.

What GAO Found

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports that it is moving forward with strategic human capital and workforce planning efforts after several years of delays. HUD's most recent workforce plan expired in 2009 and since then HUD has launched several planning efforts. According to HUD, these efforts were preempted by other important priorities, such as responding to the economic crisis. HUD undertook initiatives such as training key program office staff on the need to determine up front the staff HUD could afford to hire. In HUD's latest effort, a contractor is expected to complete human capital and workforce plans no later than fiscal year 2014. In June 2012, an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) review found that HUD's human capital and workforce planning activities did not always follow key principles for planning, implementing, and evaluating the results of human capital management policies and practices. For example, the review found that HUD's human resources policies and programs are not aligned with the organization's mission, strategic goals, or performance outcomes. As a result of these weaknesses, OPM concluded that HUD cannot continually assess and improve human capital planning and investments or measure the impact on mission accomplishment.
HUD is reexamining its resource management processes, which do not fully consider all standards identified by the National Academy of Public Administration in a 1999 report on ways that HUD could address its resource management challenges. GAO's review found that HUD provides central guidance on how work is defined and collected, and involves headquarters and field staff in the workload definition process. However, HUD has not created incentives or accountability for staff to report accurate workload data. GAO found that HUD's program offices selectively use the department's resource estimation and allocation process (REAP) to define workload and estimate resources and there is no widespread agreement that the process produces the quality of data needed to effectively estimate resources. As a result, staff are entering information into the Total Estimation and Allocation Mechanism (TEAM), REAP's validation component (which compares actual staff time to estimated staff time) on an inconsistent basis and officials report that the information is often not used to inform decision-making.
HUD's budget submission could more clearly explain the underlying rationale for HUD's budget request, even though primary users acknowledge that 2013 was an improvement over prior years. The primary users of the congressional budget justification (CBJ) are appropriations staff who said that CBJs from fiscal years 2008 to 2012 generally contained data tables for some program areas and did not always contain narrative that explained or justified the full-time equivalent request. According to HUD officials, HUD provided data tables because prior submissions with more detail did not prompt questions from Congress. Users of the CBJs GAO spoke to agreed that the fiscal year 2013 changes which provided more detail improved the clarity and utility of the justifications, but some still raised questions about the lack of adequate, consistent information available to help Congress make resource allocation decisions.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Secretary of HUD follow through on developing and maintaining human capital and workforce plans that clearly incorporate key principles; create incentives for staff to report accurate data for managing staff resources; and consult with congressional decision makers to determine what additional information about resource decisions should be presented, and how, in its CBJ. HUD agreed with GAO's recommendations.