GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

May 15, 2012

Congressional Committees

Subject: HUD Has Identified Performance Measures for Its Block Grant Programs, but

Information on Impact Is Limited

In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated about $3.4 billion for the Community 

Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and $1 billion for the HOME Investment 

Partnerships (HOME) program. The CDBG and HOME programs, which are administered by 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Community Planning 

and Development (CPD), are the federal government’s largest block grant programs for 

community development and affordable housing production, respectively. Both programs 

give grantees discretion to fund a wide range of allowable activities; in particular, CDBG 

funds can be used for 26 eligible activities. Block grants typically devolve substantial 

authority for setting priorities to state or local governments, and state and local officials bear 

the primary responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the planning, management, and

implementation of activities financed with federal grant funds. However, federal agencies 

have oversight responsibilities and are expected to ensure that block grant funds are used 

effectively. 

Section 231 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 

2012 directed us to review the effectiveness of the block grant programs administered by 

CPD. As part of this review, we were to examine performance metrics used by HUD and best 

practices utilized by program grantees.1 As agreed with your offices, this report focuses on 

the CDBG and HOME programs.2 Specifically, this report discusses (1) what is known about 

the effectiveness (or impact) of the CDBG and HOME programs, (2) the performance 

measures HUD has in place for the CDBG and HOME programs and any challenges HUD 

faced in developing these measures, and (3) promising practices HUD and others have 

identified for the CDBG and HOME programs. 

To determine what is known about the effectiveness (or impact) of the CDBG and HOME 

programs, we identified and reviewed studies that evaluated these programs or studied a 

particular aspect of them. To identify these studies, we conducted a literature review; 

interviewed HUD officials, representatives of selected national organizations that represent

 

1

Pub. L. No. 112–55 §231. 

2

CPD also administers the Emergency Solutions Grants and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 

programs. These programs are dedicated to addressing the needs of special populations—individuals and 

families experiencing homelessness and low-income persons living with AIDS and their families, respectively. A 

review of the legislative history indicated interest in the effectiveness of CDBG and HOME. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

grantees, and researchers; and contacted state auditors.3 To describe the performance 

measures HUD has in place for the CDBG and HOME programs and any challenges HUD 

faced in developing them, we reviewed and summarized HUD’s guidance on its performance 

measures for the CDBG and HOME programs and performance reports, and we interviewed 

HUD officials. We compared this information with the GPRA (Government Performance and 

Results Act) Modernization Act of 2010 requirements. We also identified and reviewed 

studies that discuss the challenges associated with developing performance measures for 

block grant programs, including CDBG and HOME. To identify promising practices, we 

interviewed HUD officials, representatives from selected national organizations, and 

researchers, and reviewed relevant documentation.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2011 to May 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. Enclosure I provides additional information on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief

Information on the overall effectiveness (or impact) of the CDBG and HOME programs is 

limited. According to HUD officials, the agency has faced challenges in evaluating the impact 

of CDBG and HOME because, among other things, such an evaluation would have to 

compare neighborhoods that received program assistance with those that did not. Our 

previous work has also identified the difficulties of evaluating the impact of block grant 

programs that do not represent a uniform package of activities or desired outcomes across 

the country, as well as the common problem of attributing differences in communities’ 

outcomes to the effect of a program in the absence of controls for other explanations.4

 

3

We conducted a literature search to identify relevant studies published since 2002. Through our interviews, we 

identified studies published prior to 2002 that we included because they offered insights on the impact of the 

CDBG and HOME programs. The oldest study from which we reported findings was published in 1995. Because 

HUD considers this study the most comprehensive evaluation of CDBG and the program has changed little since 

1995, we included it in our review.

As a 

result, few comprehensive studies on the impact of the CDBG and HOME programs exist, 

but studies that focused on specific activities have generally found that each of the programs 

has made positive contributions. We identified two studies that attempted to examine the 

overall impact of the CDBG program on communities, but both studies encountered 

evaluation challenges due to the program’s design. For example, a 1995 study that HUD 

considers the most comprehensive evaluation of CDBG suggests that, at that time, the 

program played a role in neighborhood stabilization and revitalization in a number of U.S. 

cities included in the study. However, the study states that it did not attempt to isolate the 

impact of CDBG-funded activities in these communities, in part because of the variability of 

CDBG activities at the community level. The three additional CDBG studies we identified 

focused on specific aspects of the program, such as disaster assistance, rather than the 

entire program. Similarly, we identified five studies of the HOME program. Two of these 

studies described implementation in the first 5 years of the program (fiscal years 1992–

1996). The remaining three studies examined specific aspects of HOME and suggested 

some positive contributions of the program but did not evaluate its overall impact. For 

example, a 2008 study examined the foreclosure and delinquency rates among 

4

GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: January 2012).
Page 3 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

HOME-assisted homebuyers. It found that compared with homebuyers whose mortgages 

were insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)—a group with a similar 

population of lower-income, first-time homebuyers—foreclosure rates were slightly lower for 

buyers who received HOME assistance from 2001 to 2005. 

HUD collects performance information for both the CDBG and HOME programs, but the 

information varies. Using a performance measurement system that HUD activated in 2006, 

grantees are to select and report the objective, intended outcome, and outputs (direct 

products or services delivered by the programs) of each activity they undertake. In fiscal 

years 2007–2011, HUD collected data for the following types of activities funded under the 

CDBG program: public services, economic development, rehabilitation and construction of 

rental or homeowner housing, and homebuyer assistance. For example, for CDBG activities 

related to economic development, grantees reported on the total number of businesses 

assisted and total number of jobs created or retained. The data HUD collects for the HOME 

program using this performance measurement system are not as detailed as those it collects 

for CDBG because, according to HUD officials, the agency already collected accomplishment 

data for HOME prior to development of the system and there are fewer eligible activities. 

According to HUD officials, they also use this accomplishment data to assess the 

performance of the HOME program. Specifically, for fiscal years 2007–2011, HUD used the 

performance measurement system to report data such as the number of units assisted with 

HOME funds and the number of units occupied by households with income that is less than 

80 percent of the area median income. In addition, HUD has collected other information 

since program inception, including the amount of other funds leveraged with HOME funds 

and the per-unit cost of HOME units. According to HUD officials and others, one of the 

challenges associated with creating outcome-oriented performance measures that can be 

uniformly applied to all CDBG and HOME activities is the grantees’ flexibility to design and 

implement activities tailored to meet local needs and priorities. Another challenge for 

measuring the outcomes of CDBG is grantees’ ability to undertake a broad range of 

activities. 

HUD officials and others have identified promising practices for the CDBG and HOME 

programs that relate to program management practices and use of funds. HUD officials have 

identified program management practices that they believe assist CDBG and HOME 

grantees to implement successful programs. These practices include developing a local 

performance measurement system and internal operating procedures for effectively 

managing subrecipients.5 According to HUD officials, the agency has encouraged grantees 

to develop local performance measurement systems because of challenges in developing 

outcome-oriented performance measures for the programs as a whole resulting from the 

wide discretion provided to grantees. For example, a 2005 HUD study on promising practices 

in grantee performance measurement noted practices such as measuring outcomes as well 

as outputs and efficiency measures and choosing outcomes that tie to goals. In addition, 

HUD and national organizations with whom we spoke have identified a number of projects as 

examples of how grantees have successfully utilized CDBG and HOME funds. For example, 

in 2005 and 2011, HUD gave awards for a number of HOME-funded projects under various 

categories, including neighborhood revitalization, innovative design, reaching underserved 

populations, and producing sustainable housing.

 

5

Subrecipients are entities that receive funding from CDBG or HOME grantees to implement projects.
Page 4 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Background

HUD’s CPD, which administers the HOME and CDBG programs, provides financial and 

technical assistance to states and localities in order to promote community-based efforts to 

develop housing and economic opportunities. The CDBG program is the federal 

government’s principal community development program. It provides annual formula grants 

to states and entitlement communities—principal cities of metropolitan areas, other 

metropolitan cities with populations of at least 50,000, and qualified urban counties with 

populations of at least 200,000 (excluding the population of entitled cities)—to develop viable 

urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by 

expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.6

Under the CDBG program, states and entitlement communities develop their own programs 

and funding priorities. Grantees can use their CDBG funds on 26 eligible activities, but all 

funded activities must meet one of three national objectives.7 These national objectives are 

to (1) primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons, (2) aid in the prevention or 

elimination of slums and blight, or (3) meet urgent community development needs. In fiscal 

year 2012, Congress appropriated about $3.4 billion for CDBG, $2.9 billion of which HUD 

allocated to 1,137 entitlement communities (including Washington, D.C.), 49 states, and 

Puerto Rico.8 The remaining $467 million was for disaster assistance, Indian tribes, and 

insular areas.9

HOME is the largest federal program that awards block grants to state and local 

governments exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. Its goals, 

which are to (1) help build, buy, or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or homeownership 

or (2) provide direct tenant-based rental assistance, are more specific than those of CDBG.10

HOME provides formula grants to states and localities—urban cities, urban counties, and 

consortiums of cities and counties—to fund a range of activities to benefit low-income 

people.11

 

6

The CDBG program was authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 

(Pub. L. No. 93-383, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). In 1981, Congress amended the act to allow states 

the opportunity to administer CDBG funds for nonentitlement communities—units of general local government that 

do not receive CDBG funds directly from HUD as part of the entitlement program.

Under the HOME program, states and localities may use program funds to finance 

a range of activities to meet program goals, such as providing eligible homeowners and new 

homebuyers with home purchase or rehabilitation financing assistance, and building or 

7

For reporting purposes, HUD classifies the 26 eligible activities into eight broad categories—acquisition, 

administration and planning, economic development, housing, public improvements, public services, repayment of 

section 108 loans, and “other” (including nonprofit organization capacity building and assistance to institutions of 

higher learning). Congress established the section 108 program in 1974 as part of the CDBG program. This 

program allows communities to borrow against their current and future CDBG allocations to fund larger-scale 

housing rehabilitation and community and economic development projects.

8

The state of Hawaii permanently has elected not to receive CDBG program funding. As a result, HUD awards 

funds directly to the three eligible counties in Hawaii.

9

The four insular areas are American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

10Under a tenant-based rental assistance program, states and localities provide HOME funds to eligible 

households for the payment of a portion of the rent on units of their choosing.

11HOME was authorized under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as 

amended (Pub. L. No. 101-625, 42 U.S.C. 12721, et seq.). States administer HOME funds for localities that do 

not qualify to receive allocations directly from HUD.
Page 5 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

rehabilitating housing for rent or ownership. In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated 

$1 billion for the HOME program, and HUD allocated these funds to 591 localities; all 50 

states; Washington, D.C.; and Puerto Rico. 

Few Comprehensive Studies on the Effectiveness of the CDBG and HOME Programs 

Exist, but Some Studies Have Suggested Positive Contributions 

Information on the overall effectiveness (or impact) of the CDBG and HOME programs is 

limited. According to HUD officials, the agency has faced several challenges in evaluating 

the impact of CDBG and HOME. First, the officials stated that the mix of eligible activities that 

grantees implement can vary greatly. Second, neither program requires grantees to target 

the use of funds in a specific geographic area. According to HUD officials and researchers 

with whom we spoke, the diversity of activities and lack of statutory targeting requirements 

make it difficult to collect information to assess the overall impact of the programs. However, 

they noted that because the goals of the CDBG program are less specific than the HOME 

program’s goals, these challenges are greater for CDBG. Further, officials noted that, to 

study neighborhood effects, an evaluation would have to compare neighborhoods where 

program investments had been made with those without such investments. Our previous 

work has also identified the difficulties of evaluating the impact of block grant programs that 

do not represent a uniform package of activities or desired outcomes across the country, as 

well as the common problem of attributing differences in communities’ outcomes to the effect 

of a program in the absence of controls for (or without being able to rule out) other 

explanations.12 

As a result, few comprehensive and current studies on the impact of the CDBG and HOME 

programs exist; however, studies focusing on specific activities have generally found that 

each program has made positive contributions. We identified five studies of the CDBG 

program. Two studies examined the overall impact of the program, and three studies focused 

on specific aspects of the program rather than on the program as a whole. For the HOME 

program, we also identified five studies. Two of these studies described implementation in 

the first 5 years of the program (fiscal years 1992–1996). The remaining three studies 

examined specific aspects of HOME and suggested some positive contributions of the 

program but did not evaluate its overall impact.

According to HUD, the most comprehensive evaluation of the CDBG program was published 

in 1995.13 This study was conducted by the Urban Institute at HUD’s request and examined 

selected dimensions of the program's performance and whether it had made a difference in 

communities across the country.14

 

12GAO-12-208G. 

The findings suggest that, at that time, the CDBG program 

played a role in neighborhood stabilization and revitalization in a number of U.S. cities 

included in the study. However, the study stated that it did not attempt to isolate the impact of 

CDBG-funded activities in these communities, in part because of the variability of CDBG 

activities at the community level resulting from the discretion provided to grantees. 

13While somewhat dated, we included this study in our review because the CDBG program has changed little 

since 1995. 

14Federal Funds, Local Choices: An Evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant Program, a special 

report prepared at the request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: Urban

Institute, May 1995). 
Page 6 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Specifically, the program has multiple objectives, and communities can focus on any one of 

them. In the end, the authors noted that communities may try to address some objectives 

and not others, presenting a challenge to evaluating the CDBG program as a whole.15 In 

addition, a 2002 Urban Institute study evaluated the effect of CDBG spending on specific 

characteristics of neighborhood improvements in 17 cities.16 It found that, in general, certain 

CDBG investments were linked to improvements in neighborhood quality in these 17 cities.17

However, the study’s authors stated that the study was not broad enough to conclusively link 

CDBG investments to specific measures of neighborhood quality because, for example, the 

study did not include a nationally representative sample of communities, did not account for 

the effects of other public investments, and could not take into account the effects of 

previous years’ CDBG funding. 

Three other studies evaluated specific aspects of CDBG. For example, two studies issued in 

December 2010 and August 2011 evaluated the role that CDBG disaster recovery assistance 

played in housing recovery in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas after Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita.18 CDBG disaster recovery assistance is supplemental funding for presidentially 

declared disaster areas that primarily benefits low-income residents in and around 

communities that have experienced a natural disaster. According to both studies, CDBG 

played a key role in the rebuilding efforts in these states. For example, the 2010 study found 

that properties in Mississippi that received CDBG assistance were almost 2.5 times as likely 

to have been rebuilt as properties that did not. In addition, a 2003 study found that nearly 80 

percent of businesses that received CDBG-funded loans from 1996 to 1999 were still in 

business in 2002.19 It also found that 64 percent of the CDBG borrowers that had promised 

to create or retain jobs met or exceeded their job targets and that 35 percent reported that 

they would not have been able to undertake their projects without these loans.

We also identified five studies of the HOME program. The Urban Institute published two 

studies in 1995 and 1999 that described implementation in the first 5 years of the program 

 

15The authors noted other challenges as well, including differences in the definition of “community.”

16Chris Walker, Chris Hayes, George Galster, Patrick Boxall, and Jennifer Johnson, The Impact of CDBG 

Spending on Urban Neighborhoods, a special report prepared at the request of the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, October 2002).

17The characteristics of neighborhood quality that the study identified were median loan amount, percent of loans 

for home purchase, loan approval rate, numbers of jobs, number of businesses, and number of loan applications. 

The study found a positive relationship between larger CDBG spending and five of the six characteristics—

median loan amount, percent of loans for home purchase, loan approval rate, numbers of jobs, and number of 

businesses. 

18Jennifer Turnham, Jonathan Spader, Jill Khadduri, and Meryl Finkel, Housing Recovery on the Gulf Coast 

Phase I: Results of Windshield Observations In Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, a special report prepared at 

the request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, December 

2010); and Jennifer Turnham, Kimberly Burnett, Carlos Martín, Tom McCall, Randall Juras, and Jonathan Spader,

Housing Recovery on the Gulf Coast Phase II: Results of Property Owner Survey in Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Texas, a special report prepared at the request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, August 2011).

 

19Christopher Walker, Martin D. Abravanel, Patrick Boxall, Roger C. Kormendi, Kenneth Temkin, and Marsha 

Tonkovich, Public-Sector Loans to Private-Sector Businesses: An Assessment of HUD-Supported Local 

Economic Development Lending Activities, a special report prepared at the request of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, July 2003).
Page 7 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

(fiscal years 1992–1996).20 The reports included information on the characteristics of state 

and local programs, participation of nonprofit organizations, and HOME program developers. 

The other three studies we identified focused on specific aspects of the program. For 

example, a 2008 study examined the foreclosure and delinquency rates among HOMEassisted homebuyers.21 The study found that in comparison to FHA-insured homebuyers—a 

group with a similar population of lower-income, first-time homebuyers—foreclosure rates 

were slightly lower for buyers who received HOME assistance from 2001 to 2005.22 A 2004 

study evaluated the effectiveness of the HOME program in increasing homeownership 

opportunities for low-income households.23 In part, the study explored the outcomes for 

buyers in terms of geographic mobility and success in sustaining homeownership. The study 

found that, at that time, HOME-assisted buyers generally chose what the authors termed 

“healthy neighborhoods”—those with, for example, racial and ethnic diversity, moderateincome populations, and little welfare dependence—which was considered to be an 

indication that the program supported both geographic and economic mobility by 

homebuyers. The study also reported that among survey respondents, the foreclosure rates 

for HOME-assisted buyers were lower than those of FHA-insured homebuyers and that sales 

rates among these buyers were lower than those for the average homeowner. In addition, a 

2001 study focused on the compliance of rental housing units developed using HOME funds 

with the program’s affordable rent limit requirements.24 The study’s analysis of data as of 

February 2000 showed that slightly more than 95 percent of HOME-funded units had rents 

that were at or below program affordability limits.25 

 

20Implementing Block Grants for Housing: An Evaluation of the First Year of HOME, a special report prepared at 

the request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, November 

1995); and Expanding the Nation’s Supply of Affordable Housing: An Evaluation of the HOME Investment 

Partnership Program, a special report prepared at the request of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, March 1999).

21Karmen Carr, Christopher Herbert, Ken Lam, and Yusuf Makhkamov, Rates of Foreclosure in HOME and ADDI 

Programs, a special report prepared at the request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(Washington, D.C.: Concentrance® Consulting Group, Inc., November 2008). The study included homebuyers 

that received homebuyer assistance through the HOME program and the American Dream Downpayment 

Initiative. In the context of the study, these two programs were combined into one and analyzed jointly; therefore, 

results are not available by program. The American Dream Downpayment Initiative was created under the HOME 

program to help low-income, first-time homebuyers cover the up-front costs of buying a home (up to the greater of 

$10,000 or 6 percent of the purchase price). Funds for this program were appropriated for fiscal years 

2004–2008.

22After comparing foreclosure rates provided by grantees to FHA-provided foreclosure information, the authors 

found some error in grantees’ reporting rates; that error may be responsible for some of the differences observed 

between HOME recipients and FHA homebuyers overall.

 

23Jennifer Turnham, Christopher Herbert, Sandra Nolden, Judith Feins, and Jessica Bonjorni, Study of 

Homebuyer Activity through the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a special report prepared at the 

request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, January 2004).

24Christopher E. Herbert, Jessica Bonjorni, Meryl Finkel, Naomi Michlin, Sandra Nolden, Karen Rich, and K. P. 

Srinath, Study of the Ongoing Affordability of HOME Program Rents, a special report prepared at the request of 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, June 2001). 

25All rental housing units acquired, built, or rehabilitated with HOME funding must meet affordability and income 

targeting requirements. The rents for most HOME units are set so as to be affordable to households earning 65 

percent of area median income adjusted for family size.
Page 8 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

HUD Has Established Some Performance Measures for the CDBG and HOME 

Programs

HUD collects some performance information for the CDBG and HOME programs. In 2004 

and 2005, a working group—which included HUD and representatives of several national 

organizations—developed a performance measurement system for the CDBG and HOME 

programs that collects information on outputs.26 HUD activated the system in May 2006. 

Using the performance measurement system, grantees are required to select and report the 

objective, intended outcome, and output of each activity they undertake (see fig. 1).27 First, 

grantees are to select one of three objectives that best describes the purpose of the funded 

activity. The three objectives are (1) suitable living environment, (2) decent housing, and 

(3) creating economic opportunities.28 Grantees are then required to select one of three 

outcome categories that best reflects what they are seeking to achieve with the funded 

activity. The outcome categories are (1) availability/accessibility, (2) affordability, and (3) 

sustainability, which is defined as promoting livable or viable communities.29 Based on the 

objective and outcome selected, grantees then are required to report specific output 

information for each activity. According to HUD, only the specific measures appropriate for 

the activity are available for the grantee to report, and the grantee is required to report on at 

least one of these measures. 

 

26Grantees of the Emergency Solutions Grants and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS programs are 

also required to use this performance measurement system. However, for purposes of this report, we are focusing 

our discussion of the system on the CDBG and HOME programs. The working group was made up of 

representatives from the Council of State Community Development Agencies, National Association for County 

Community Economic Development, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National 

Community Development Association, National Council of State Housing Agencies, CPD, HUD’s Office of Policy 

Development and Research, and the Office of Management and Budget.

27Grantees are required to report this performance information through HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and 

Information System (IDIS). Developed in fiscal year 1996, IDIS is a management information system that 

consolidates reporting processes across HUD’s CPD programs.

28Because the performance measurement system applies to four HUD programs, the objectives it uses are 

different than the programs’ statutory objectives. HUD states that activities that fall under the suitable living 

environment objective are designed to benefit communities, families, or individuals by addressing issues in their 

living environment. The decent housing objective focuses on housing programs intended to meet individual family 

or community needs, rather than programs where housing is an element of a larger effort. Finally, the creating 

economic opportunities objective applies to activities related to economic development, commercial revitalization, 

or job creation. 

29The availability/accessibility category applies to activities that make services, infrastructure, public services, 

public facilities, housing, or shelter available or accessible to low- and moderate-income people. The affordability 

category applies to activities that provide affordability in a variety of ways to low- and moderate-income people, 

including the creation or maintenance of affordable housing or services such as transportation or day care. The 

sustainability category applies to projects aimed at improving communities or neighborhoods, helping to make 

them livable or viable. Grantees are encouraged to only select one outcome category; however, if a grantee 

believes that two outcomes of equal importance will be realized, then a second outcome may also be selected.
Page 9 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Figure 1: Example of HUD’s Performance Measurement System for the CDBG and HOME Programs

Note: Grantees are required to report the performance information through HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information 

System (IDIS). 

Since 2007, HUD has collected data for the CDBG program by objective, outcome, and 

output measure. For fiscal years 2007–2011, this information was organized by type of 

activity funded—including public services, economic development, rehabilitation and 

construction of rental or homeowner housing, and homebuyer assistance. For example, for 

economic development activities, grantees reported the total number of businesses assisted 

or total number of jobs created or retained as a result of the activity. These measures were 

further divided into different categories, such as type of business, type of jobs created or 

retained, and number of jobs with employer-sponsored health care benefits. For activities 

related to building and rehabilitating rental or owner-occupied housing, grantees reported on 

the number of units produced. This measure was further divided into several categories, 

including units made accessible to persons with disabilities.

The data HUD reports for the HOME program using the performance measurement system 

are not as detailed as those it reports for CDBG because, according to HUD officials, the 

agency already collected accomplishment data for HOME and there are fewer eligible 

activities for the program. Specifically, from fiscal years 2007–2011, HUD used the 

performance measurement system to report data on the number of units receiving HOME 

assistance, number of those units brought into compliance with property standards, and 

number of those units occupied by households with income that is less than 80 percent of the 

area median income. HUD did not divide this data into other categories, such as number of 

units that were made accessible to persons with disability, or report it by activity type. 

According to HUD officials, the agency collects such information for the HOME program but 

does not publish it in a standard report. In addition, HUD has collected other information 

since program inception, including the amount of other funds leveraged with HOME funds 

and the per-unit cost of HOME units. According to HUD officials, they also use this 

information to assess the performance of the HOME program. Enclosure II lists the CDBG 

and HOME measures that HUD uses to collect information at the national level. 

HUD has faced challenges in developing outcome-oriented performance measures for the 

CDBG and HOME programs at the national level. Office of Management and Budget 

guidance on implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 states that, while output 

measures may be used in some circumstances, quantitative and outcome-focused measures 
Page 10 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

are preferred.30 However, according to HUD officials and others, one challenge associated 

with creating outcome-oriented performance measures that can be uniformly applied to all 

CDBG and HOME activities is grantees’ flexibility to design and implement strategies tailored 

to meet local needs and priorities. Another challenge for CDBG is grantees’ ability to 

undertake a broad range of activities. HUD officials told us that the diversity of these 

activities makes gathering, combining, and presenting robust and consistent performance 

information difficult, leading to challenges demonstrating the overall outcomes of these 

efforts. Selected studies we reviewed also stated that it is challenging to develop 

performance measures for block grant programs. For example, a National Academy of Public 

Administration study on CDBG performance measures noted that most experts 

acknowledged that it was challenging to craft a performance measurement system for a 

block grant program that promotes flexible investments in people, places, organizations, and 

things, based on locally determined needs.31 The study concluded that the potential to gather 

outcome-oriented measurement data at the national level that truly reflect program 

performance is remote because linking outcome-oriented measures directly to programs, 

projects, and activities is difficult. In addition, we have previously found that design features 

that encourage performance accountability in federal grant-making programs, such as CDBG 

and HOME, can limit state and local grantee flexibility.32 

However, HUD officials told us that the agency plans to consult with national organizations 

that represent grantees, individual grantees, and other interested parties to determine how to 

improve HUD’s data collection efforts. This effort will focus on redesigning the CDBG 

performance measures to focus on critical measures and reduce grantees’ reporting burden. 

HUD officials also expect that additional attention to data-quality issues will lead to 

improvements in performance measurement.33 

HUD and Others Have Identified Several Promising Practices for the CDBG and HOME 

Programs

HUD officials and others we interviewed identified promising practices for the CDBG and 

HOME programs that fell into two categories: program management and use of funds. 

Program management practices may be transferable to other grantees. The use of funds 

promising practices that we discuss below are illustrative examples of projects that were 

 

30OMB Circular A-11, Part 6 (“Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and 

Annual Program Performance Reports”), Section 220.7.IV.

31Nicolas Retsinas, Thomas M. Downs, David F. Garrison, and Barry White, Developing Performance Measures 

for the Community Development Block Grant Program, a special report prepared at the request of the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration, February 

2005).

 

32GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, 

GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2006).

33Section 232 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012 (Pub. L. No. 

112-55) required HUD to take necessary actions to improve data quality, data management, and grantee 

oversight and accountability with respect to programs and activities administered by CPD. HUD was required to 

report to Congress on the progress it has made with respect to addressing these problems, identify further 

improvements that can be made, and propose actions and timelines to carry out such improvements. See HUD, 

Report to Congress: HUD’s Efforts to Improve CPD Data Quality, Data Management, and Grantee Oversight and 

Accountability (Washington, D.C.: March 2012). 
Page 11 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

recognized as being successful or promising. However, these practices may not be 

generalizable to other grantees.

Promising Practices for Program Management

HUD officials have identified program management practices that they believe assist CDBG 

and HOME grantees to implement successful programs. These practices include developing 

a local performance measurement system and internal operating procedures, such as for 

effectively managing subrecipients. According to HUD officials, the agency has encouraged 

grantees to develop local performance measurement systems because of challenges in 

developing outcome-oriented performance measures for the program as a whole. For 

example, a 2005 study on promising practices in grantee performance measurement 

examined the efforts of five grantees that received CDBG or HOME funding to measure their 

performance in meeting local goals.34

• start with an established approach to performance measurement; 

According to the report, the five communities visited—

which were different in terms of community size, community development objectives, and 

experience with performance measurement—had crafted systems to measure and assess 

performance. The report identified useful practices that may help other grantees develop or 

refine performance assessment in community development. For example, the study identified 

the following 10 lessons learned:

• reflect local concerns and goals; 

• involve key partners; 

• measure community outcomes, as well as outputs and efficiency measures; 

• choose outcomes that tie to goals; 

• select a reasonable number of outcomes and measures with available data; 

• create accountability through reporting; 

• integrate performance measures into agency procedures and policies; 

• build in a feedback loop for program planning and decision making; and 

• change the performance measurement system as needed.

To help grantees better track their performance, HUD made enhancements to its 

consolidated planning process that included providing improved data, a mapping tool, and a 

 

34Economic Systems, Inc., Promising Practices in Grantee Performance Measurement, a special report prepared 

at the request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and 

Research, April 2005. The study examined five grantees: Minneapolis, Minnesota; Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Austin, Texas; Burlington, Vermont; and King County, Washington. These grantees were chosen from a list of 23 

“finalists” because, according to the study, they best met the site selection criteria. These criteria considered the 

following factors: the technical quality of the grantees’ performance measures (including whether the system had 

outcome measures), evidence of system value to decision makers, system coverage of multiple community

development activities, and regional dispersion.
Page 12 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

standard template for all grantees to use.35 According to HUD officials, these enhancements 

will facilitate local decision making by providing grantees with better data to assess their 

community’s needs and target and leverage their resources. HUD released these 

enhancements on May 7, 2012. 

In addition, HUD officials identified specific operating procedures for CDBG grantees that 

HUD considers to be important for administering a successful program. Some of these 

practices include (1) using data to prioritize and target investments; (2) researching the local 

housing stock, housing market conditions, and target-area demographics to design 

rehabilitation programs tailored to different physical and economic needs; (3) ensuring that 

activities are implemented in a timely manner to maximize the use of funds and benefits to 

citizens; and (4) developing processes for effectively managing subrecipients.36 For example, 

a 2005 HUD study identified several effective local practices for managing subrecipients, 

including providing incentives such as tying funding to performance goals to encourage 

better performance.37

Similarly, HUD officials identified a number of operational practices that grantees could use 

to successfully administer their HOME programs. According to HUD officials, some HOME 

grantees’ policy of employing an underwriting process for affordable rental housing projects 

as well as homeownership projects is a good practice. Specifically, many grantees use an 

underwriting process for their rental housing projects to evaluate grant and loan applications 

to determine the likelihood that a project is and will remain financially viable. According to 

HUD, to be successful, such an underwriting process should evaluate whether a HOMEfunded loan will be repaid to the grantee, and it should review a project’s cost analysis to 

identify proposed funding sources and uses. Other practices HUD identified for successful 

administration of the HOME program include evaluating whether a developer applying for 

 

35Grantees must submit a strategic plan that addresses the housing, homeless, and community development 

needs in their jurisdictions at least once every 5 years. The plan covers CDBG, HOME, and two other formula 

grant programs administered by CPD—the Emergency Solutions Grants and the Housing Opportunities for 

Persons with AIDS programs. Annually, grantees must submit an action plan that identifies the activities they will 

undertake to meet the objectives in their strategic plans. At the end of each year, grantees must submit to HUD 

an annual performance report detailing progress they have made in meeting the goals and objectives outlined in 

their strategic and action plans. 

36HUD has published two guidebooks on managing the use of CDBG funds in a timely manner that, according to 

HUD officials, include examples of successful techniques. See HUD, Keeping Your CDBG Funds Moving: 

Guidelines for Managing Your Overall Community Development Block Grant Program in a Timely Manner, HUD2002-13A-CPD (Washington, D.C.: May 2002); and Ensuring CDBG Subrecipient Timeliness: Guidelines for 

Grantee Selection, Management, and Oversight of Subrecipients in the Community Development Block Grant 

Program, HUD-2003-13C-CPD (Washington, D.C.: May 2003).

37Carol Star, James Broughman, John Nagoski, Chris Walker, Marsha Tonkvotich, Andy Zene, and Scott Ledford, 

Managing Subrecipients of CDBG Grantees, a special report prepared at the request of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research (Bethesda, MD: Econometrica, 

Inc., December 2005). The study suggested that an “effective” approach for managing subrecipients includes 

ensuring compliance with program requirements and creating an appropriate framework of incentives and 

disincentives.
Page 13 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

HOME funding has the ability to complete a project on time and on budget and having robust 

project selection processes in order to efficiently distribute HOME funds.38

Promising Practices for Grantees’ Use of Funds 

HUD and national organizations with whom we spoke identified a number of projects as 

examples of how grantees have successfully utilized CDBG and HOME funds.39 On its 

website, HUD has recognized promising practices in projects that were at least partially 

funded with CDBG money.40 For example, in 2010, a HUD Secretary’s Award for Excellence 

was given to a community that developed strong partnerships—between a resident group, a 

developer, and the city—and used CDBG, HOME, and other funds to revitalize a historic 

neighborhood. The project created both affordable and market-rate housing and other 

amenities in the neighborhood that benefited existing residents and attracted new residents. 

According to HUD’s description, the project’s architects partitioned a historic building into two 

separate structures to balance the need for commercial space and apartments large enough 

to appeal to renters. 

In 2005 and 2011, HUD recognized a number of HOME-funded projects through its HOME 

Door Knocker awards. It gave awards under various categories, including neighborhood 

revitalization, innovative design, reaching underserved populations, and producing 

sustainable housing.41 

• Neighborhood revitalization. In 2005, HUD recognized a project that was developed on 

the largest vacant parcel in a community, which had been a major impediment to the 

area’s revitalization for decades. According to the award description, the project 

demonstrated that with proper planning, community input, and a diverse funding blend, 

even the most distressed and blighted parcels can be revitalized and neighborhoods 

transformed. The result of this project was 62 units of housing, of which 59 were 

affordable housing units. The project housed 62 families, including 6 who had previously 

been homeless. 

 

38In December 2011, HUD issued a proposed rule making mandatory some of the practices HUD officials 

identified to us as promising for program management. For example, HUD proposed requiring grantees to 

underwrite and conduct a subsidy evaluation for all HOME projects. Grantees would be required to, at a minimum, 

include in these evaluations an assessment of the market conditions of the neighborhood in which the project 

would be located, the experience of the developer, and whether firm financial commitments for the project existed. 

Public comments on the proposed changes were due by February 14, 2012. See HUD, HOME Investment 

Partnerships Program: Improving Performance and Accountability; and Updating Property Standards, 76 Fed 

Reg. 78344-78382 (Dec. 16, 2011) (proposed rule).

39According to HUD officials, HUD also has disseminated promising practices to HOME grantees through several 

mechanisms including program guides, training, procedural policy documents, and technical assistance.

40HUD publishes best practices that highlight federal, state, and local strategies that increase affordable housing 

opportunities, apply sustainable features and practices, and increase access to public transportation. Some of the 

descriptions of the featured projects include information about the project’s funding sources, including CDBG and 

HOME. See HUD, Best Practices, accessed March 20, 2012,

http://www.huduser.org/portal/bestpractices/home.html. 

41In 2005, HUD gave Door Knocker Awards in seven categories: (1) homeownership housing, (2) innovative 

design, (3) neighborhood revitalization, (4) rural housing, (5) special needs housing/reaching underserved 

populations, (6) tenant-based rental assistance, and (7) underserved populations and rental housing. In 2011, the 

awards were given in four categories: promoting long-term affordability, reaching underserved populations, 

producing sustainable housing, and building community housing development organization capacity. 
Page 14 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

• Innovative design. In 2005, HUD recognized a project that demonstrated the use of 

sustainable design and green building techniques in a downtown setting. The project was 

a mixed-use building—that is, used for housing and commercial purposes—with a 

geothermal heating, cooling, and water heating system.42 According to the award 

description, the system would cut tenants’ heating bills by approximately 50 percent and 

water heating bills by approximately 70 percent, increasing affordability for low-income 

tenants. In addition, the system would reduce the overall energy consumption for the 

building by 32 percent.

• Reaching underserved populations. In 2011, HUD recognized a project that combined 

tenant-based rental assistance with case management services to help ensure housing 

stability for people experiencing homelessness, very low-income people, and people with 

disabilities. According to the award description, the grantee reached out to the local 

housing authority and more than 20 landlords and local management companies to 

identify units for families and to help those families access appropriate social, 

educational, and vocational resources to meet a variety of needs. The project used a 

blend of outreach, financial assistance through HOME funds, and case management to 

assist people moving from homelessness into stable housing.

• Producing sustainable housing. In 2011, HUD recognized a 70-unit affordable housing 

project that serves young families and youth transitioning out of foster care. According to 

the award description, residents in the existing neighborhood were consulted extensively 

on this project. The project was built with state-of-the-art green techniques, including 

high-quality insulation and windows and other energy-efficient materials and appliances. 

According to the project description, this project was the first in the county to receive a

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Platinum rating.43 

National organizations that represent CDBG and HOME grantees also recognize projects 

with promising practices. For example, according to the National Association for County 

Community and Economic Development’s website, the organization recognizes innovative, 

effective, and exemplary activity in various categories, including community development, 

economic development, and affordable housing. Similarly, according to the National 

Community Development Association (NCDA), the organization’s award program recognizes 

exemplary uses of CDBG and HOME funds that address the needs of families and 

neighborhoods. Some of the projects identified and recognized by the national organizations 

feature characteristics similar to those HUD recognized as promising practices. For example, 

in 2012, NCDA recognized a CDBG-funded project that, according to NCDA, provided 

essential shopping and services to the residents of a low-income neighborhood. The project 

helped double the number of businesses, from 19 to 38, in the commercial site that was 

developed and almost tripled the number of jobs, from 38 to 108. In addition, according to 

the project description, the project spurred an interest in revitalizing the area. The grantee

and neighborhood residents partnered to create a plan for the area, which is a long-term 

vision for the community’s revitalization efforts and future development. 

 

42Geothermal energy is a unique type of renewable resource in that it can provide power that is independent of 

weather and climate, thereby enabling a consistent and uninterrupted supply of heat and electricity. Geothermal 

energy also creates fewer environmental impacts than the production of natural gas and other conventional fossil 

fuels that are used to generate electricity.

43Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design is a third-party certification program and the nationally 

accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high-performance green buildings, according 

to the U.S. Green Building Council. 
Page 15 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its comment. HUD provided technical 

comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. In addition, the report is available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 

listed in enclosure III.

William B. Shear

Director, Financial Markets and

 Community Investment

Enclosures
Page 16 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

List of Committees

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Chairman 

The Honorable Susan Collins

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and

 Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Latham 

Chairman 

The Honorable John W. Olver

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and

 Urban Development, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Enclosure I

Page 17 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Scope and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to describe (1) what is known about the effectiveness (or 

impact) of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment 

Partnerships (HOME) programs, (2) the performance measures the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) has in place for the CDBG and HOME programs and any 

challenges HUD faced in developing these measures, and (3) promising practices HUD and 

others have identified for the CDBG and HOME programs. The Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012 directed us to review the effectiveness of 

the block grant programs administered by HUD’s Office of Community Planning and 

Development (CPD).44 The CDBG and HOME programs are the federal government’s largest 

block grant programs for community development and affordable housing production, 

respectively. 

To determine what is known about the effectiveness (or impact) of the CDBG and HOME 

programs, we identified and reviewed studies that evaluated these programs or studied a 

particular aspect of them. To identify these studies, we conducted a literature review; 

interviewed HUD officials, representatives of national organizations that represent program 

grantees, and researchers; and contacted state auditors. Specifically, we conducted a 

literature search to identify relevant studies published since 2002. Through our interviews, 

we identified studies published prior to 2002 that we included because they offered insights 

on the impact of the CDBG and HOME programs. The oldest study from which we reported 

findings was published in 1995. Because HUD considers this study the most comprehensive 

evaluation of CDBG and the program has changed little since 1995, we included it in our 

review. We reviewed the methodology of the studies and determined them to be of sound 

quality and reliable for the purposes of our report. To identify the organizations with whom we 

spoke, we reviewed a previous GAO report and relevant HUD documentation, including the 

Federal Register notice that established the performance measurement system for the 

CDBG and HOME programs, and we interviewed HUD officials.45 We interviewed 

representatives of the Council of State Community Development Agencies, National Alliance 

of Community Economic Development Associations, National Association for County 

Community and Economic Development, National Association of Counties, National 

Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Community Development 

Association, and National Council of State Housing Agencies. 

To describe the performance measures HUD has in place for the CDBG and HOME 

programs and any challenges HUD faced in developing them, we reviewed and summarized 

HUD’s guidance on its performance measures for the programs and performance reports 

and interviewed HUD officials. We compared this information with the GPRA (Government 

Performance and Results Act) Modernization Act of 2010 requirements. We also conducted 

 

44CPD also administers the Emergency Solutions Grants and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 

programs. These programs are dedicated to addressing the needs of special populations—individuals and 

families experiencing homelessness and low-income persons living with AIDS and their families, respectively. A 

review of the legislative history indicated interest in the effectiveness of CPD’s block grant programs—CDBG and 

HOME.

45GAO, Community Development Block Grants: Entitlement Communities’ and States’ Methods of Distributing 

Funds Reflect Program Flexibility, GAO-10-1011 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2010).
Enclosure I

Page 18 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

a literature search to identify and review studies that discuss the challenges associated with 

developing performance measures for block grant programs, including CDBG and HOME.46

To identify promising practices, we interviewed HUD officials, researchers, and 

representatives from the national organizations mentioned above and reviewed relevant 

documentation. For example, we reviewed HUD studies that identified promising practices 

for administering the CDBG and HOME programs. In addition, we reviewed information 

about projects that had received CDBG and HOME funding and that HUD and the national 

organizations we interviewed had recognized through their awards. We reviewed the award 

descriptions for these projects to identify illustrative examples of projects that were 

recognized as being successful or promising. However, the practices that were identified 

may not be an exhaustive list of promising practices and may not be generalizable to other 

grantees.

We conducted this performance audit from December 2011 to May 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. 

 

46See Nicolas Retsinas, Thomas M. Downs, David F. Garrison, and Barry White, Developing Performance 

Measures for the Community Development Block Grant Program, a special report prepared at the request of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration, 

February 2005) and Carl W. Stenberg, “The Community Development Balancing Act: Reconciling Expectations 

for a Hybrid Block Grant,” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, vol. 20, no. 1 (2008). 
Enclosure II 

Page 19 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Measures for the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment 

Partnerships Programs

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has used a number of measures 

to collect information on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME 

Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs. The measures for the CDBG program vary by 

activity (see table 1).

 

Table 1: Measures HUD Reported for CDBG by Activity, Fiscal Years 2007–2011

Public facilities and infrastructure

Number of persons assisted with • new access to a facility 

• improved access to a facility 

• access to facilities that are no longer substandard

Number of households assisted with • new access to a facility

• improved access to a facility

• new access to a facility that is no longer substandard

Public services

Number of persons assisted with • new (or continuing) access to a service

• improved (or continuing) access to a service

• new access to a service that is no longer substandard

Number of households assisted with • new (or continuing) access to a service

• improved (or continuing) access to a service

• new access to a service that is no longer substandard

Economic development

Total number of businesses assisted

Of total number of businesses assisted • new businesses assisted

• existing businesses assisted

• number of business facades/buildings rehabilitated

• assisted businesses that provide a good or service to a service 

area/neighborhood/community

Total number of jobs created

Of total number of jobs created, number with 

employer-sponsored health care benefits

Types of jobs created (e.g., professional, 

technicians, sales, etc.)

Number of persons unemployed prior to 

taking jobs

Total number of jobs retained

Of total number of jobs retained, number with 

employer-sponsored health care benefits

Types of jobs retained (e.g., professional, 

technicians, sales, etc.)

Number of acres of brownfields remediateda

Rehabilitation of rental housing

Total number of low- and moderate-income 

housing units

Total number of slum/blight and urgent-needs 

units

Of total number of units, number that were • made accessible to persons with disabilities

• qualified as Energy Starb

• brought from substandard to standard condition

• created through conversion of nonresidential to residential 

buildings

• brought to lead-safety compliance

• affordable
Enclosure II 

Page 20 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Of affordable units • number subsidized by another federal, state, or local program

• number occupied by elderly

• number of years of affordability

• average number of years of affordability per unit

• number designated for persons with HIV/AIDS (and the 

number of these for the chronically homeless)

c

• number of permanent housing units for homeless persons and 

families (and the number of these for the chronically homeless) 

Construction of rental housing

Total number of low- and moderate-income 

housing units

Total number of slum/blight and urgent-needs 

units

Of total number of units, number that were • made accessible to persons with disabilities

• qualified as Energy Starb

• affordable

Of affordable units • number subsidized with project-based rental assistance by 

another federal, state, or local program

• number occupied by elderly

• number of years of affordability

• average number of years of affordability per unitc

• number designated for persons with HIV/AIDS (and the 

number of these for the chronically homeless)

• number of permanent housing units for homeless persons and 

families (and the number of these for the chronically homeless)

Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation

Total number of low- and moderate-income 

housing units

Total number of slum/blight and urgent-needs 

units

Of total number of units, number that were • occupied by elderly

• brought from substandard to standard condition

• qualified as Energy Starb

• brought to lead-safety compliance

• made accessible to persons with disabilities

Development of homeowner housing

Total number of low- and moderate-income 

housing units

Total number of slum/blight and urgent-needs 

units

Of total number of units, number that were • made accessible to persons with disabilities

• qualified as Energy Starb

• occupied by households previously in subsidized housing

• affordable

• years of affordability

• average number of years of affordability per unit

Of affordable units

c

• number occupied by elderly

• number designated for persons with HIV/AIDS (and the 

number of these for the chronically homeless)

• number of permanent housing units for homeless persons and 

families (and the number of these for the chronically homeless)

Homebuyer assistance

Total households assisted

Of total households assisted • number of first-time homebuyers (and the number of these that 

received housing counseling)

• number of households receiving down payment/closing costs 

assistance

Housing subsidies

Total number of households
Enclosure II 

Page 21 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

Of total number of households  number of households receiving short-term rental assistance 

(less than or equal to 3 months) 

 number of households assisted that were previously homeless 

(and the number of these that were chronically homeless 

households) 

Shelter for homeless persons 

Number of beds created in overnight 

shelter/other emergency housing 

Number of homeless persons given overnight 

shelter 

Homeless prevention 

Number of persons assisted that received  emergency financial assistance to prevent homelessness 

 emergency legal assistance to prevent homelessness 

Source: HUD. 

a

Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underused real property where expansion or redevelopment is complicated 

by the presence or potential presence of environmental contamination. 

b

Energy Star was created in response to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 

1992. In general, the program is designed to identify models for 60 categories of household and commercial 

products that are the most energy efficient (efficiency of up to 10 to 25 percent over the minimum federal 

standards). 

c

HUD did not report on the average number of years of affordability per unit in fiscal year 2007. 

For the HOME program, HUD collected similar information for all eligible activities (see table 

2). 

Table 2: Measures HUD Reported for HOME, Fiscal Years 2007–2011 

All eligible HOME activities combined

Number of units  number of units brought to compliance with property standards 

 number of units occupied by households with income of 80 percent or less 

of the area median income 

Source: HUD. 

Note: Eligible activities under the HOME program are activities to help build, buy, or rehabilitate affordable 

housing for rent or homeownership or provide direct tenant-based rental assistance. 

In addition to the information in table 2, HUD has collected the following information for the 

HOME program since its inception: 

 

 Amount of HOME funding used for completed projects (by activity type and tenure)47

 Number of units completed (by activity type and tenure) 

 Per-unit cost of HOME units (by activity type and tenure) 

 Percentage of units occupied by households with income of 

 30 percent or less of the area median income (by activity type and tenure) 

 

47The activity types are new construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, and tenant-based rental assistance, and the 

tenure types are rental, homebuyer, and homeowner. 
Enclosure II 

Page 22 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

• 30 to 50 percent of the area median income (by activity type and tenure)

• 50 to 60 percent of the area median income (by activity type and tenure)

• 60 to 80 percent of the area median income (by activity type and tenure)

• Leveraging

• Number of families that have received tenant-based rental assistance since 1992

• Beneficiary household type (e.g., single/nonelderly, elderly) by tenure

• Racial/ethnic breakout of beneficiaries by tenure

• Number of Energy Star units
Enclosure III

Page 23 GAO-12-575R Effectiveness of Block Grants

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov

 

Staff Acknowledgments 

In addition to the individual named above, A. Paige Smith, Assistant Director; Cindy Gilbert; 

Kirsten Lauber; John McGrail; Brenda Muñoz; Josephine Perez; and Jennifer Schwartz 

made key contributions to this report. 

(250651)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.