Annual 

Performance 

Report

U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development
An Overview of the Annual Performance Report

The FY 2010 Annual Performance Report for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) provides detailed performance information to the President, the Congress, 

and the American people. The report allows readers to assess HUD’s performance relative to its 

mission, priority goals, objectives, and stewardship of public resources. This report consists of 

four major components:

•	 Secretary’s Message

•	 Section I- Quick Reference

•	 Section II- FY 2010 Performance Overview

•	 Appendices

Secretary’s Message

Secretary Shaun Donovan presents the Department’s FY 2010 Annual Performance Report and 

highlights the policy priorities for the Administration. 

Section I- Quick Reference

Consult this section to find critical information organized for easy reference. Key information 

includes the Department’s mission, organizations and major program activities, the 

organizational chart, FY 2010-2015 Strategic Plan and framework, as well as our measures of 

success or ‘Priority Goals’. 

Section II- FY 2010 Performance Overview

View this section for detailed information on the Department’s four Priority Goals. In each 

goal you will see a background discussion and general information on the related programs. 

The key area will be the results and analysis section, which will describe what we expected 

to accomplish, our actual results, and the reasons for the variation. It will also include some 

information on data systems and resources in each section. 

Appendices

Appendix A details the official amendments to the Priority Goals. Appendix B includes 

a Resource Table that provides program representation of budget authority, outlays, Full 

Time Equivalents (FTEs), as well as Salaries and Expenses (S&E) under each strategic goal. 

Appendix C describes the Department’s program evaluations and research that informs HUD’s 

strategic goals. Appendix D includes a glossary of acronyms. 
Page 1 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 1

MESSAGE FROM SECRETARY DONOVAN ............................................................................. 2

SECTION I: QUICK REFERENCE ............................................................................................ 4

MISSION, ORGANIZATIONS AND MAJOR PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ............................................ 4

HUD’S ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ........................................................................................ 8

HUD’S STRATEGIC PLAN ...................................................................................................... 9

HUD’S STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ....................................................................................... 10

MEASURES OF SUCCESS ...................................................................................................... 11

SECTION II: FY 2010 PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW ......................................................... 12

PRIORITY GOAL 1: FORECLOSURE PREVENTION................................................................ 12

PRIORITY GOAL 2: RENTAL ASSISTANCE ........................................................................... 22

PRIORITY GOAL 3: VETERANS HOMELESSNESS ................................................................. 34

PRIORITY GOAL 4: ENERGY AND GREEN RETROFITS ......................................................... 42

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX A: AMENDMENTS TO THE PRIORITY GOALS ....................................................... 56

APPENDIX B: HUD RESOURCE TABLES .............................................................................. 58

APPENDIX C: RESEARCH AND EVALUATIONS INFORMING HUD’S STRATEGIC GOALS ......... 75

APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................. 82
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Message from Secretary Donovan

Page 2 

 

Message from the Secretary 

March 2011 

I am honored to present the Annual Performance Report of the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010. 

Under the Obama Administration, the Department issued its FY 2010–2015 Strategic 

Plan, with a newly invigorated mission to “create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and 

quality, affordable homes for all.” From our 15 programmatic measures of success, the 

Department chose 4 key measures to pursue in FY 2010. These priority goals – to be achieved 

fully in 2 years – represent high-impact outcomes and are as follows. 

• Jointly with the Department of the Treasury, assist 3.1 million homeowners at risk of 

foreclosure, to address the current foreclosure crisis. In FY 2010, HUD assisted more 

than 1.2 million homeowners and is on target to meet the 2-year goal. 

• Provide 207,000 new families with affordable rental housing to address the insufficient 

supply of affordable rental housing, particularly among low-income households. To date, 

nearly 55,000 additional households have been served, or approximately 69 percent of the 

first-year goal. Timing is a large factor in this goal in that efforts for both FY 2010 and 

FY 2011 must be synchronized. The FY 2010 program was significantly impacted by 

uncertain FY 2011 funding levels. 

• Jointly with the Department of Veterans Affairs, provide permanent housing to 36,500 

homeless veterans by helping them move into permanent housing to address the issue of 

homelessness confronting this Nation’s servicemen and women. To date, nearly 15,000 

homeless veterans have been assisted, with the two Departments committed to continuing 

collaborative efforts to reach our shared goal of reducing the number of homeless 

veterans to 59,000 by June 2012. 

• Jointly with the Department of Energy (DOE), enable cost-effective energy retrofits of 

126,000 HUD-assisted and public housing units to reduce energy costs and greenhouse 

gas emissions. Apart from its joint energy retrofit goal with DOE, HUD will complete 

green and healthy retrofits of 33,000 housing units. In FY 2010, HUD exceeded its 

combined target for energy and green retrofits by 64 percent through the completion of 

retrofits to about 92,000 units. 

The Department chose to focus on these goals in recognition that affordable housing and 

a healthy mortgage market are critical to America’s continued recovery, as well as the long-term 

health of the U.S. economy. HUD and the Treasury Department recognize the enormous impact 

of the foreclosure crisis and are committed to helping American families at risk of losing their 

homes to foreclosure. HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) continues to play a crucial 
Message from Secretary Donovan

Page 3 

 

role in bringing much needed stability to a challenged national mortgage market. FHA has 

become the Nation’s largest single source for mortgage products, offering a stable interest rate 

and low down payment financing programs with careful underwriting standards. 

The affordable housing goal arose from the fact that the housing market does not sustain 

a sufficient supply of affordable rental homes, especially for low-income households. More than 

70 percent of HUD’s budget funds rental assistance programs, serving about five million 

families. Though it is a highly income targeted effort, only about 25 percent of eligible families 

are served. Expansion and preservation of these units recognize the unmet need and challenges 

that remain, especially while the national economy continues to recover. 

The goal to reduce veterans’ homelessness recognizes the unmet needs of those who 

proudly served our Nation and the debt we owe the men and women of our armed forces. After 

the original establishment of this goal, the Administration issued its Federal Strategic Plan to 

Prevent and End Homelessness, which includes a longer-term goal of preventing and ending 

homelessness among veterans by 2015. 

Finally, the energy and green retrofit goal is focused on HUD-assisted or HUD-financed 

housing, but will also serve as a model for the greening of the Nation’s housing. This effort will 

foster successful strategies to reduce our heavy national dependence on oil and other 

nonrenewable supplies of energy and, at the same time, reduce noxious emissions and improve 

the economy and energy security of our Nation. 

Additionally, implementing plans to achieve these goals reflects the reinvention of the 

Department, with a clear emphasis on working in close cooperation with other departments and 

agencies, as well as across the boundaries of separate programs within the Department. 

I can also provide reasonable assurance that the performance data in this report is reliable 

and complete. 

HUD looks forward to reporting further progress to the Nation and our partners as we 

strive to effectively achieve our mission and provide for the well-being of individuals, families, 

and communities across the country. 

Shaun Donovan 

Secretary
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section I

Page 4 

 

Quick Reference

Mission, Organizations and Major Program Activities, 

and Strategic Plan 

 

HUD’s mission stems from a directive in the Housing Act of 1949 to create “a decent home and 

suitable living environment for every American family.” This founding mandate is the 

groundwork for which we continue to develop and preserve quality, healthy, and affordable 

homes. 

The core focus of HUD’s mission is one in which housing and communities result in a better 

quality of life and the fulfillment of the promise that America holds for all people. Moreover, it 

prioritizes responsible decisions about owning or renting that are financially appropriate for the 

individual or family. HUD is committed in its mission to serve its residents, partners, 

employees, and the communities. For its residents, HUD provides access to the opportunities 

that result from living in homes and neighborhoods that are safe, healthy, affordable, and 

inclusive. For its partners, HUD is committed to strengthening partnerships among federal, state, 

and local entities across the public, nonprofit, and private sectors to meet the housing and 

community development needs of this country. 

Success in delivering services to the nation’s residents and partners is dependent on HUD’s 

employees. Therefore, HUD’s focus will be to invoke a work environment that is missiondriven, results-oriented, innovative, and collaborative. 

Organizations and Major Program Activities

HUD accomplishes its mission through component organizations (outlined on the following 

pages) and offices that administer place-based programs that collaboratively seek to meet the 

mission of the Department. Place-based programs leverage investments by focusing resources in 

targeted places and drawing on the compounding effect of well-coordinated action. Effective 

place-based programs can influence how rural and metropolitan areas develop, how well they 

function as places to live, work, operate a business, preserve heritage, and more. A new 

vigorous effort is underway in collaborating with other Federal agencies to meld the 

Department’s coordinated interests and strengths to pursue better results. Such policies can also 

streamline otherwise redundant and disconnected programs. 

Our Mission 

Create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities 

and quality, affordable homes for all.
Quick Reference 

Mission, Organizations, and Major Program Activities

Page 5 

 

As part of reinventing the Department and to better meet its mission, HUD established an Office 

of the Chief Operating Officer (OCOO) to provide leadership and a comprehensive strategy for 

HUD’s current operations of procurement, human resources, and information technology. The 

OCOO will provide a way to coordinate these interdependent functions in order to facilitate 

decision making and ensure accountability. Under the Office of Chief Human Capital Office 

(OCHCO), a new Office of Disaster and Emergency Management was also established to 

develop, coordinate, and implement HUD’s response to disasters, as well as lead the agency in 

its disaster and emergency preparedness, protective services, and intra- and interagency disaster 

recovery efforts. In addition, the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities was created to 

support HUD’s energy efficiency and green building efforts, and administer HUD’s FY 2010 

Sustainable Communities Initiative. This initiative promotes pedestrian-friendly, public transitoriented, mixed-income and mixed-use communities in order to substantially reduce 

transportation costs, to create energy savings (by reducing vehicle-miles traveled), and enhance 

access to employment and educational opportunities. In FY 2010, the Office of Strategic 

Planning and Management (OSPM) was created to develop and implement the Strategic Plan, 

and to track agency performance against quantitative outcome goals and help drive the agency’s 

transformation effort. 

HUD’s programs are carried out through a network of regional offices and smaller field offices, 

as well as through grantees, contractors, and other business partners. A detailed map of HUD’s 

regional and field offices is located at HUD’s local offices. HUD’s major organizations include: 

• The Office of Housing provides vital public services through its nationally administered 

programs. It consists of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the largest mortgage 

insurer in the world, as well as regulates housing industry business. Within the Office of 

Housing are multiple business areas: 

oSingle Family Housing —HUD’s Single Family programs include mortgage 

insurance on loans to purchase new or existing homes, condominiums, 

manufactured housing, houses needing rehabilitation, reverse equity mortgages to 

elderly homeowners, loss mitigation and property disposition programs. 

o Housing Counseling Program —HUD’s housing counseling program provided 

support and training to 2,743 counseling agencies, of which 2,252 were authorized 

to provide mortgage delinquency and default resolution counseling. 

o Multifamily Housing —HUD’s Multifamily programs provide mortgage insurance 

to HUD-approved lenders to facilitate the construction, substantial rehabilitation, 

purchase, and refinancing of multifamily housing projects and healthcare facilities. 

Multifamily’s Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) program assists low- and 

very low-income households in obtaining decent, safe, and sanitary housing in 

privately owned rental housing, as well as Section 202 - Housing for the Elderly 

and Section 811 - Housing for Persons with Disabilities. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section I

Page 6 

 

o Healthcare Programs—HUD’s healthcare programs consist of Section 242, which 

provides mortgage insurance for hospitals, and Section 232, which provides 

mortgage insurance for long-term care facilities. 

oRegulatory Programs—HUD’s Regulatory programs are designed to protect 

homeowners and homebuyers, while regulating real estate transactions. 

• The Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) channels global capital 

into the U.S. housing market, providing liquidity and stability in support of affordable 

homeownership and rental housing at no cost to the U.S. Government. The Ginnie Mae 

guaranty ensures available funding, strong pricing and favorable spreads, which translate 

into lower interest rates to borrowers. 

• The Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) is responsible for administering and 

managing a range of programs for low-income families. The mission of PIH is to ensure 

safe, decent, and affordable housing for low-income families; create opportunities for 

residents’ self-sufficiency and economic independence; ensure fiscal integrity by all 

program participants; and support mixed income developments to replace distressed 

public housing. More than 4,100 PHAs provide affordable housing opportunities for 

3.2 million low-income families. In order to facilitate this mission, PIH has 11 major 

offices within Headquarters, 46 field offices, more than 1,500 staff, and six area offices 

for Native American programs. PIH administers a budget of more than $26 billion, 

which represents approximately 56 percent of HUD’s budget. Within PIH there are two 

major business areas: 

o Public Housing and Voucher Programs: Three of PIH’s offices provide funding to 

support affordable housing for 1.1 million households through the Low Rent Public 

Housing program, and 2.1 million households receive assistance through the Tenant 

Based Rental Assistance program. 

o Native American Programs provide safe, decent, and affordable housing for lowincome families through more than 550 tribes that administer its programs. 

Additionally, the Office of Native American Programs increases homeownership 

opportunities for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians through 

the Indian Housing Block Grant program, Indian Community Development Block 

Grant program, the Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund, as well as Native 

Hawaiian Loan Guarantee and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program. 

• The Office of Community Planning and Development(CPD) provides funding to a broad 

array of state and local governments, non-profit and for-profit organizations to administer 

a wide range of housing, economic development, homeless assistance, infrastructure, 

disaster recovery and other community development activities in urban and rural areas 

across the country. In partnership, CPD and its local funding recipients develop viable 

communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanded 

economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income persons. 
Quick Reference 

Mission, Organizations, and Major Program Activities

Page 7 

 

• The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) administers and enforces 

federal laws and establishes policies that ensure equal access to housing and housingrelated services in the United States. 

• The Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC) seeks to eliminate 

lead-based paint hazards in America’s privately-owned and low-income housing and to 

lead the nation in addressing other housing-related health hazards that threaten vulnerable 

residents. 

• The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities helps provide communities with the 

support they need to ensure that housing, transportation, water, energy, and “green” 

building investments are working together to build strong, healthy, and inclusive 

neighborhoods. The Office also supports the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, 

an unprecedented collaboration between HUD, the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to coordinate federal resources in 

support of sustainable development and livable communities in the U.S. 

• The Office of Strategic Planning and Management oversees the development and 

implementation of the Department’s FY 2010 - 2015 Strategic Plan and is responsible for 

oversight of performance management. 

• The Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) is responsible for maintaining a 

repository of resources on housing needs, market conditions, and existing programs, as 

well as conducting research on priority housing and community development issues. The 

Office also provides objective program evaluation, data, and analysis to inform policy 

decisions and improve program results. 

• The Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships plays a critical role in special 

event planning and execution, programs and projects that are cross-programmatic and at 

times inter-Departmental, and outreach to constituents for Secretarial priorities. The 

Center disseminates information of great timeliness and necessity for leaders of faithbased and secular neighborhood organizations addressing crises or emergencies in their 

community. For instance, regarding foreclosure prevention, the Center convened 125 

faith-based and non-profit leaders, in Atlanta to meet with Secretary Donovan about 

“Making Home Affordable” and FHA loss mitigation options, as well as First Look, a 

program to accelerate restoration of neighborhoods damaged by foreclosures. 

The organization chart found on the following page reflects the principal lines of authority for 

the Department. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section I

Page 8 

 
Quick Reference 

HUD’s Strategic Plan and Framework

Page 9 

 

HUD’s Strategic Plan 

On May 5, 2010, HUD updated and published its Strategic Plan to address the economic, 

financial, and community development issues confronting the nation. As a result, the 

Department created five overarching Strategic Goals that are guiding the transformation of HUD 

into a cutting edge, streamlined organization capable of implementing place-based policies; 

overseeing a balanced, comprehensive national housing policy that supports sustainable 

homeownership and affordable rental homes alike; and building the strong, inclusive 

communities necessary to make home the foundation of stability and opportunity. An 

introduction to these goals is provided below, followed by the Department’s Strategic 

Framework found on the following page. 

Goal 1: Strengthen The Nation’s Housing Market To Bolster The Economy And Protect 

Consumers will focus on rebuilding the nation’s housing market and economy to ensure longterm stability and success. 

Goal 2: Meet The Need For Quality Affordable Rental Homes discusses the need to balance 

support for sustainable homeownership with affordable homes, in order for housing markets to 

return to stability. 

Goal 3: Utilize Housing As A Platform For Improving Quality Of Life emphasizes the basis of 

stable housing as an ideal platform to deliver a wide variety of health and social services to 

improve the education, health, economic security, and safety of its residents. 

Goal 4: Build Inclusive And Sustainable Communities Free From Discrimination charts a 

course for HUD to catalyze economic development and job creation; promote energy efficiency 

and location efficiency in buildings; and facilitate disaster preparedness, recovery, and resiliency 

in healthy, affordable and diverse communities. 

Goal 5: Transform The Way HUD Does Business is the foundation of the Department’s 

Strategic Goals and aims to transform HUD into a responsive partner to build capacity within the 

Department; improve performance management and accountability; decentralize decision 

making to empower staff; and simplify programs, rules, and regulations. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section I

Page 10 

 

HUD’s Strategic Framework 

 Goal 1.

Strengthen the Nation’s 

housing market to bolster the 

economy and protect 

consumers.

 Goal 2.

Meet the need for quality 

affordable rental homes.

 Goal 3.

Utilize housing as a platform 

for improving quality of life.

 Goal 4.

Build inclusive and 

sustainable communities free 

from discrimination.

1A. Stem the foreclosure crisis. 2A. End homelessness and

 substantially reduce the 

 number of families and

 individuals with severe 

 housing needs.

3A. Utilize HUD assistance to

 improve educational 

 outcomes and early learning

 development.

4A. Catalyze economic

 development and job 

 creation, while enhancing 

 and preserving community 

 assets.

1B. Protect and educate

 consumers when they buy, 

 refinance, or rent a home.

2B. Expand the supply of

 affordable rental homes 

 where most needed.

3B. Utilize HUD assistance to 

improve health outcomes.

4B. Promote energy-efficient

 buildings and location 

 efficient communities that 

 are healthy, affordable, and 

 diverse.

1C. Create financially 

 sustainable homeownership

 opportunities.

2C. Preserve the affordability

 and improve the quality of 

 federally assisted and 

 private unassisted 

 affordable rental homes.

3C. Utilize HUD assistance to

 increase economic security 

 and self-sufficiency.

4C. Ensure open, diverse, and

 equitable communities.

1D. Establish an accountable

 and sustainable housing 

 finance system.

2D. Expand families’ choices

 of affordable rental homes 

 located in a broad range of 

 communities.

3D. Utilize HUD assistance to 

 improve housing stability 

 through supportive services 

 for vulnerable populations, 

 including the elderly, people 

 with disabilities, homeless 

 people, and those individuals 

 and families at risk of 

 becoming homeless.

4D. Facilitate disaster

 preparedness, recovery, and 

 resiliency.

3E. Utilize HUD assistance to

 improve public safety.

4E. Build the capacity of local,

 state, and regional public 

 and private organizations.

5D. Culture change ─ Create a healthy, open, flexible work environment that reflects the values of HUD’s mission.

Goal 5.

Transform the way HUD does business.

Sub-Goals

HUD'S FY 2010-2015 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Our Mission: Create Strong, Sustainable, Inclusive Communities and Quality, Affordable Homes For All

Sub-Goals

5A. Build capacity ─ Create a flexible and high performing learning organization with a motivated, skilled workforce.

5B. Focus on results ─ Create an empowered organization that is customer centered, place-based, collaborative, and responsive to

 employee and stakeholder feedback.

5C. Bureaucracy busting ─ Create flexible, modern rules and systems that promote responsiveness, openness, and transparency.
Quick Reference 

Measures of Success 

Page 11 

 

Measures of Success 

Concurrent with the development of HUD’s Strategic Plan, the Administration released a set of 

agency Priority Goals with the FY 2011 Budget. These goals represent challenging, near-term 

performance improvement objectives to be achieved under existing legislative and budgetary 

authority. As part of this initiative, HUD is pursuing the following four goals: 

1. Assist 3.1 million homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure, 

jointly with the Treasury Department – to address the current foreclosure crisis. 

2. Provide 207,000 new families with affordable rental housing ––to address the 

insufficient supply of affordable rental housing, particularly among low-income 

households. 

3. Provide permanent housing, jointly with the Department of Veterans Affairs, to 

36,500 homeless veterans by helping them move into permanent housing––to address 

the issue of homelessness confronting this nation’s servicemen and women. 

4. Enable cost-effective energy retrofits, jointly with the Department of Energy (DOE), 

of 126,000 HUD-assisted and public housing units––to reduce energy costs and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Apart from its joint energy retrofit goal with DOE, HUD 

will complete green and healthy retrofits of 33,000 housing units. 

These four Priority Goals, which were later incorporated as key outcome measures in the 

Strategic Plan, comprise the FY 2010 Annual Performance Report. The Department’s progress 

on these two-year goals is further discussed on the following pages. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 12 

FY 2010 Performance Overview

Priority Goal 1: Foreclosure Prevention 

 

Strategic Goal 1: Strengthen the Nation’s housing market to bolster the 

economy and protect consumers. 

Measure 1a: Assist 3.1 million homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes due to 

foreclosure by the end of FY 2011:1

• 400,000 homeowners will be assisted through Federal Housing Administration (FHA) 

early delinquency intervention; 

• 300,000 homeowners will be assisted through FHA loss mitigation programs; 

• 2.4 million homeowners will be assisted through joint HUD/Treasury programs; and 

• For all FHA borrowers that receive loss mitigation assistance, achieve a Consolidated 

Claim Workout (CCW) Ratio of 75 percent, and for those receiving a CCW achieve a 

6 month re-default rate of 20 percent or less. 

Supporting Measures: The percentage of servicers with Tier 1 Ranking in engagement in 

loss mitigation is 80 percent in each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 

Supporting Measures: 1000 quality assurance reviews are completed in each of fiscal years 

2010 and 2011. 

Priority Goal Background and Public Benefit

As part of its FY 2010 – 2015 Strategic Plan, HUD established an aggressive goal to assist the 

mounting number of borrowers at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure, while at the same 

time restoring the ability of FHA to play its historical countercyclical role of promoting the 

widespread access to mortgage capital to those families traditionally not well served by the 

private marketplace. Goal 1 seeks to “Strengthen the Nation’s Housing Market to Bolster the 

Economy and Protect Consumers.” To accomplish this goal, HUD will work with other federal 

agencies and private sector partners to stabilize the housing market in the short term, while 

implementing programs that protect consumers and prevent the crisis from happening again. 

By December of 2008, sales of new and existing homes were falling rapidly, the economy was 

losing nearly 700,000 jobs a month and the nation was caught in what would turn out to be the 

deepest and longest recession in memory. The near collapse of the housing and housing finance 

markets caused American families to lose over $6 trillion in housing wealth, damaged the 

integrity of neighborhoods, and threatened the financial viability of major financial institutions 

including the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). However, the increase in volume of FHA 

 

1

 Assisting 3.1 million is a HUD and Treasury goal and includes 400,000 served by FHA Early Delinquency 

Intervention; 300,000 served by FHA Loss Mitigation Program; and 2.4 million all served by Treasury. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 1: Foreclosure Prevention 

Page 13 

 

single-family mortgage has grown to approximately 30 percent of mortgages in the U.S., hereby 

providing a significant support to the housing finance market.

Compounding the problem is the pervasiveness of the mortgage crisis across economic sectors. 

State and local governments cut essential safety net services while public purpose institutions, 

non-profit service providers, educational institutions, and other community-based organizations 

strained to meet steep increases in need and demand with declining financial and in-kind 

resources. Many borrowers become delinquent in their mortgage payments because of changes 

in their financial circumstances caused by “trigger events”- such as job loss or other income 

curtailment, health problems, or divorce - that make it difficult to continue to meet their monthly 

mortgage obligations. In addition, a large number of homeowners financed using ARMs and 

exotic mortgage products that are now reaching the point of adjustment, forcing higher rates and 

higher payments that homeowners cannot afford. Further complicating the problem is the 

decline in home values, making it difficult to refinance or sell the properties. 

A home is typically a family’s most expensive and valuable asset and losing it through 

foreclosure can be a traumatic life experience that leads to significant deterioration in a person or 

family’s living conditions. It affects a community’s economic viability and neighborhood 

stability, and a person’s opportunities for improving quality of life. Equally important, the 

housing market is a critical element of the American economy and its recovery is essential to 

bring our economy out of the current recession. The Department is reporting on the first year of 

a two-year priority goal (FY 2010-FY 2011). 

Programs and Related Strategies

The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), in partnership with the White House, the 

Department of Treasury, and other federal regulatory agencies, is tackling the housing crisis on 

multiple fronts, with HUD playing a central role in helping struggling homeowners avoid 

foreclosure. To address current and difficult conditions in the housing market, FHA developed 

new programs, modified existing programs, and improved controls. More specifically, FHA has: 

• Expanded its capacity to identify and eliminate lenders committing fraud or abuse 

• Modified the premium structure to restore FHA’s capital reserves 

• Tightened underwriting procedures and requirements 

• Expanded loss mitigation programs 

• Hired a Risk Officer and created a risk management office within FHA 

• Introduced the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Saver program 

FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance 

Since its inception in 1934, FHA has been assisting underserved, low- and moderate-income and 

often first time or minority homebuyers by insuring mortgages for single-family homes. Not 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 14 

only does FHA provide opportunities to buy a home, it also has the tools to assist homeowners to 

stay in their home. To accomplish these activities, FHA must be financially strong, operate in an 

effective and efficient manner, and adhere to congressionally mandated capital reserve 

requirements. In addition, FHA has developed a comprehensive set of tools to support struggling 

homeowners and foster the implementation of the key strategic goal components listed on page 

twelve. FHA assists Homeowners to avoid foreclosure through FHA programs as well as 

through third-party lender loss mitigation initiatives. This priority goal also projects that 

additional homeowners will be assisted through joint HUD-Treasury programs. The programs 

listed below will support HUD’s strategic and priority goal of “Foreclosure Prevention”

Early Delinquency Intervention 

To achieve the goal of assisting 400,000 homeowners avoid foreclosure, FHA’s early 

delinquency intervention – the type of assistance most commonly offered by loan servicers to 

homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages – includes cases where lenders and borrowers 

enter into formal forbearance agreements (non-incentive repayment plans). Loan servicers most 

often offer early delinquency intervention assistance to homeowners who are under 90 days in 

default. Providing assistance to homeowners who are in the early stages of experiencing 

difficulty in meeting the requirements of their mortgages averts the potential for more serious 

delinquencies, defaults, and foreclosures at a later date. 

Loss Mitigation Programs 

This performance measure allows HUD to track progress toward achieving the goal of assisting 

300,000 homeowners through FHA loss mitigation. FHA’s set of loss mitigation products 

includes special forbearance agreements, mortgage modifications, partial claims, pre-foreclosure 

sales, the new FHA home affordable modification program (FHA-HAMP), and deeds-in-lieu of 

foreclosure (the borrower turns over the deed to the lender without going through the formal 

foreclosure process). 

Joint HUD-Treasury Programs 

Through these programs, 2.4 million homeowners will be assisted jointly by HUD and the 

Department of the Treasury through the Making Home Affordable (MHA) program which 

provides opportunities to modify or refinance mortgages to more affordable levels. In 

March 2010, the initial suite of MHA program offerings was expanded to include a new FHA 

refinance product designed to assist under-water borrowers (borrowers owing more on their 

home mortgage than their property is worth) to avoid foreclosure. 

Consolidated Claim Workout (CCW) Ratio 

The CCW ratio combines FHA special forbearances, partial claims, loan modifications, preforeclosure sales, deeds-in-lieu and the new FHA Home Affordable Modifications (FHAHAMP). The CCW ratio presents the aggregation of these loss mitigation claims types as a 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 1: Foreclosure Prevention 

Page 15 

 

share of all foreclosure claims. The CCW was at a baseline level of 66.27% in FY 2010 (Q3) 

and has risen to 66.87% in FY 2010 (Q4) with a two-year target goal of 75% by FY 2011. HUD 

is encouraging lender partners to further deploy loss mitigation solutions at the early stages of 

delinquency to achieve this goal. Historically, the CCW ratio has been in the mid 60 percent 

range. HUD is strongly encouraging lender partners to further deploy loss mitigation solutions at 

the early stages of delinquency to achieve this.

Re-default Rate 

The re-default rate refers to homeowners who received loss mitigation assistance but 

notwithstanding the assistance defaulted again. This measure allows HUD to track progress 

toward achieving the goal of reducing the 6-month re-default rate to 20 percent or less from the 

baseline level of 26 percent in FY 2009 to 20 percent in FY 2011. Since most re-defaults tend to 

occur in the first six months after the workout, the 6-month period was selected to allow for 

measurement of goal performance within a given year. 

Restore FHA Excess Capital Reserve Ratio 

As reported in the FY 2009 actuarial review, the severe decline in home prices, the sluggish 

performance of the economy, and the abusive behavior of some lending partners drove the 

excess capital reserve ratio to below the congressionally mandated level of 2 percent. A strong 

FHA is critical to the recovery of the housing market and our economy at large, and FHA is 

working to better identify and manage risk, hold lenders to the highest standards of conduct and 

recoup losses from lenders who abuse the privilege of participating in FHA programs. In 

addition, FHA implemented a new mortgage insurance premium structure (put in place in 

September 2010) and revised underwriting standards to more properly price risk. Finally, the 

Department conducted servicer visits, which involve a high-level review of a servicer’s process 

from collections through foreclosure. Restoration to the statutory two percent levels is projected 

in FY 2014 and will be tracked in future performance reports. 

Housing Counseling Assistance 

HUD’s housing counseling program helps consumers make well-informed decisions concerning 

home buying and mortgage finance. As the scope of the recent crisis grew, HUD’s housing 

counseling efforts were redirected toward foreclosure prevention. HUD provides grants to 

housing counseling agencies with which these organizations provide comprehensive advice and 

assistance to households in making appropriate housing choices. Services provided free of 

charge by HUD-approved housing counseling agencies include Homebuyer Education Programs, 

Mortgage Delinquency and Default Resolution Counseling, Predatory Lending Avoidance, 

Renters Assistance, and Services for Homeless. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 16 

Fair Lending Initiative 

The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), and its partners in the Fair Housing 

Assistance Program, enforces the fair lending provisions of the Fair Housing Act when 

fraudulent refinance schemes are targeted to communities or neighborhoods because of one of 

the protected characteristics. FHEO does this directly and through the Fair Housing Initiatives 

Program, which provides some grants specifically to address discriminatory mortgage rescue 

schemes. In addition to enforcement, FHEO provides education and outreach to homeowners on 

fair lending and foreclosure prevention. FHEO also ensures that mortgage rescue programs are 

available to all people regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or 

familial status.

Ginnie Mae 

A key factor in strengthening and supporting the stability and improvement of the national 

mortgage market is the financial support provided by the Government National Mortgage 

Association (Ginnie Mae). For more than 40 years, Ginnie Mae has provided liquidity and 

stability, serving as the principal financing arm for government loans and ensuring that funds 

flow into the U.S. housing finance market. Ginnie Mae brings the capital necessary to advance 

the goals of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), 

Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development Housing & Community Facilities Programs 

(RD), and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Public and Indian 

Housing (PIH). 

With the full faith and credit guaranty of the U.S. Government on its Mortgage-Backed 

Securities program (MBS), Ginnie Mae is able to attract capital from global markets into the 

nation's housing market and the broader U.S. economy, bringing stability during the current 

credit crisis. The continued demand for these securities not only has provided a steady source of 

funding for government-insured loans, but has meant strong pricing and favorable spreads, which 

translate into lower interest rates to borrowers. The Ginnie Mae MBS ensures that mortgage 

financing is available for homeownership and rental housing regardless of the economic climate. 

The corporation increases the value of its MBS by running a safe and sound, conservative 

business model; providing robust disclosures on MBS; and establishing industry-leading risk 

management initiatives. As a result, the issuance of Ginnie Mae's MBS has risen from between 

$6 billion and $7 billion per month in 2006 to more than $34 billion per month on average during 

the current fiscal year. In FY 2010, Ginnie Mae issued $397.9 billion in commitment authority 

and guaranteed $413 billion in MBS, achieving 30 percent market share of total agency and nonagency MBS. In 2010, Ginnie Mae’s business volume surpassed a historic milestone, ending the 

year with $1.05 trillion in MBS outstanding, and production provided the capital to finance home 

purchases, refinances, or rental housing for approximately 1.9 million U.S. households. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 1: Foreclosure Prevention 

Page 17 

 

The focus of Ginnie Mae in FY 2010 was to ensure that the entire organization executed its core 

strategies and goals of promoting market liquidity, efficient MBS market execution, and prudent 

and conservative risk management practices. Although other agencies and private issuers can 

pool FHA – insured loans for their own MBS, almost all of these loans make their way into 

Ginnie Mae securities. In FY 2010, 99.5 percent of FHA loans and 97.0 percent of VA loans 

were placed into Ginnie Mae pools, exceeding the performance goals set by HUD. Also, 24.5 

percent of single family pools issued received Targeted Lending Initiatives credit in FY 2010. 

As of the end of FY 2010, Ginnie Mae guaranteed securities contained 98 percent of eligible 

multifamily FHA loans. 

Resource Information 

FHA Program funds are generally supported by premiums, fees, interest income, recoveries, 

Congressional appropriations, borrowings from the U.S. Treasury, and other miscellaneous 

sources. The Single Family Forward Mortgage Loan portfolio comprises loans that meet FHA 

credit qualifications for properties between one and four units. The Home Equity Conversion 

Mortgages (HECM) portion of the Single Family portfolio is FHA’s reverse mortgage program, 

which enables borrowers to withdraw a lump sum payment of mortgage proceeds, fixed monthly 

amounts, a line of credit or a combination thereof. Single Family loans are primarily financed 

through the MMI fund and the Single Family Forward mortgage portfolio within this fund is self 

sustaining. The Single Family H4H portfolio is primarily financed through the Hope for 

Homeowners fund. The Multifamily loan portfolio comprises properties consisting of five or 

more units. Multifamily loans are primarily financed through the General Insurance Fund (GI) 

and Special Risk Insurance Fund (SRI). Healthcare facilities are financed under the GI Fund. 

Results and Analysis 

In FY 2010, HUD, along with the Department of Treasury, assisted 1,212,977 homeowners to 

avoid foreclosure, which includes 406,747 through early delinquency intervention and loss 

mitigation programs, as well as 806,230 in joint HUD - Treasury program. 

In addition, the Department tracked two supporting measures under this Priority Goal. In FY 

2010, the actual percentage of servicers with Tier 1 Ranking in Engagement in Loss Mitigation 

was 64.6 percent, which was short of the target of 80 percent for FY 2010. Subsequently, a total 

number of 117 quality assurance reviews were completed during the fourth quarter of FY 2010. 

The Department completed 707 quality assurance reviews for FY 2010, which fell short of the 

1,000 target for FY 2010. 

FHA Single Family Mortgage Insurance 

Loss Mitigation Programs 

The loss mitigation programs assisted 193,344 new homeowners, surpassing the target of 

162,015 by 31,329 or 19 percent. FHA has expanded its loss mitigation tools, provided 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 18 

expanded targeted lender on site and webinar loss mitigation training, held regular 

communication conferences covering FHA expectations with senior management at the top 

lenders, and increased its monitoring of mortgagees and servicers to assure they are making 

sincere efforts to curb foreclosures. 

Early Delinquency Intervention 

The early delinquency intervention program assisted 213,403 homeowners, surpassing the target 

by 13,403 or 7 percent. 

362,015

200,000

162,015

406,747

213,403

193,344

One year into our two-year goal of assisting 3.1 million homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes to 

foreclosure, HUD is over target by 12%,having assisted 406,747 homeowners through early delinquency 

intervention and loss mitigation activities.

Target

Actual HUD progress to Q4 target

Q4 target vs. cumulative Q4 actual

Two year 

cumulative 

Target:

Early Delinquency 

Intervention

Loss Mitigation 

Programs

400,000 300,000 700,000

Progress to Q4 target by Type of Activity

Q4 target vs. cumulative Q4 actual

+12% var.

44,732 

homeowners

+7% var.

13,403 

homeowners

+19% var.

+31,329 

homeowners

Joint HUD –Treasury Programs 

During FY 2010, 806,230 homeowners were assisted through the joint HUD and Treasury 

Making Home Affordable program. Since the inception of the program in March 2009, nearly 

1.4 million homeowners were assisted. Together, both agencies are striving towards the target of 

2.4 million homeowners by the end of FY 2011. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 1: Foreclosure Prevention 

Page 19 

 

Consolidated Claim Workout (CCW) Ratio 

About 66.87 percent achieved a consolidated claim workout from the total FHA borrowers that 

received loss mitigation assistance; or 1.14 percent below the target of 68.01 percent. Although 

the target was not fully achieved, the ratio improved from 63.25 percent in quarter 1 of FY 2010 

to 66.87 percent in quarter 4 and increased each and every quarter. 

7

We had been consistently meeting our quarterly targets for increasing Consolidated Claims Workout (CCW) ratios 

until Q4, in which we were 1.14 percentage points under target.

-6,102

Target

CCW Ratio Actual

Q4 target vs. actual

FY11, Q4 target: 75%

CCW Ratio

Q1-Q4 targets vs. actual

68.01

66.87

63.25

64.52

66.35

66.87

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

CCW Ratio

FY 2010

-1.14 percentage 

points
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 20 

Re-default Rate 

Six month re-defaults for FY 2010 were 17.8 percent, 5.62 percent better than the target of 23.42 

percent and also better than the FY 2011 target of 20 percent. FHA has invoked stricter 

standards and the National Servicing Center has worked closely with lenders and servicers to 

assure that workouts are high quality and meet FHA requirements. 

8

23.42

17.80

We have consistently exceeded our quarterly targets for reducing 6-month re-default rates*.

-6,102

Target

Actual

FY11, Q4 target: 20%

6-month Re-default Rate

Q4 target vs. actual

6-month Re-default Rate 

Q1-Q4 targets vs. actual

+5.62 percentage 

points 26.00

23.22

19.55

17.80

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Re-default Rate

FY 2010

* A lower percentage is better in this case.

Future Strategies 

HUD has developed a comprehensive set of loss mitigation products to provide support to 

homeowners who are struggling to maintain their homes. The type of assistance most commonly 

offered by loan servicers is early delinquency intervention, in which lenders and borrowers enter 

into formal forbearance agreements (non-incentive repayment plans). These products have been 

effective over the years, but as the housing crisis grew, HUD was required to add new programs 

and make adjustments to existing programs to fulfill the current economic issues facing our 

homeowners. FHA’s set of loss mitigation products (including special forbearance agreements, 

mortgage modifications, partial claims, pre-foreclosure sales, deeds-in-lieu, and FHA-HAMP) do 

more than early delinquency intervention to ensure that homeowners will keep their homes. 

Due to changes in programs and products, along with additional pressures that faced loan 

servicers with increasing delinquencies, it was essential that HUD increase its monitoring and 

oversight of servicer’s loss mitigation activities to provide guidance and enforcement, as 

needed. A number of the activities discussed in the milestones above support our efforts to 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 1: Foreclosure Prevention 

Page 21 

 

ensure that HUD has a broad understanding of a servicer’s operational process to execute on our 

loss mitigation products effectively, a process to validate accuracy in loss mitigation standards 

and clear metrics to track a servicer’s performance. 

The other critical element of the implementation strategy involves outreach to homeowners to 

notify them of eligibility for programs. Lenders of FHA-insured mortgages are required to take 

several steps to avoid foreclosure and must supply documentation stating that they have 

attempted to implement each of the various tools available to assist homeowners who are having 

difficulty making their monthly mortgage payments. Thus far, outreach to homeowners has been 

insufficient, and as a result, many eligible homeowners have not received appropriate foreclosure 

assistance. By utilizing its vast network of field staff, as well as its network of HUD approved 

non-profit housing counseling agencies, HUD proposes a number of activities (training of HUD 

field staff, outreach events, targeting hardest hit areas) to improve homeowner awareness of the 

program and in turn increase uptake of foreclosure prevention products. 

Data Discussion 

Data for this goal is drawn from FHA’s Single Family Data Warehouse, an extensive collection 

of database tables organized and dedicated to support the analysis, verification, and publication 

of Single Family Housing data. The warehouse aggregates data from over 10 of HUD’s legacy 

systems, including the Computerized Homes Underwriting Management System (CHUMS), the 

Single Family Insurance System – Claims Subsystem, FHA’s Single Family Acquired Asset 

Management System (expense detail for the conveyance program and the rate of net recovery), 

and FHA’s Subsidiary Ledger (Accelerated Claim and Asset Disposition recovery rate). 

Program Websites: 

FHA: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/federal_housing_administration
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 22 

Priority Goal 2: Rental Assistance 

 

Strategic Goal 2: Meet the need for quality affordable rental homes. 

Measure 5a: By the end of 2011, HUD programs will meet more of the growing need for 

affordable rental homes by serving 5.46 million families, 207,000 more than in 2009. 

Supporting Measure: In FY 2010, renew 98.7 percent of multifamily Section 8 project 

based contracts that were set to expire. 

Supporting Measure: Renew 100 percent of Project Rental Assistance Contracts (Sections 

202 and 811) that were set to expire.

Priority Goal Background and Public Benefit 

In FY 2010 the Department is reporting on the first year of a two year Priority Goal that reflects 

HUD’s commitment to preserving and strengthening the nation’s portfolio of affordable rental 

housing. HUD’s goal of promoting decent, affordable rental housing is focused on closing the 

long-term structural gap between the cost of building and operating a standard-quality housing 

unit, and the ability of lower-income households to afford such units. Through smart 

investments in affordable units funded under existing programs and through a signature initiative 

focused on streamlining and simplifying such programs, HUD expects to be able to serve 

5.46 million families by the end of FY 2011, which represents 207,000 more than in 2009. The 

table on page 26 identifies all of the programs contributing to the goal. 

This Priority Goal serves as a key measure of success in HUD’s FY 2010-2015 Strategic Plan, 

aligning directly with Strategic Goal 2, "Meet the Need for Quality Affordable Rental Homes." 

HUD’s rental assistance programs provide housing security to families who would otherwise 

face greater risk of instability or homelessness and help to stabilize and strengthen communities 

across the nation. 

The number of families struggling to make ends meet in the face of severe rent burdens has 

increased substantially during this decade. Affordability problems have been exacerbated by the 

recession and the increasing demand for rental housing generated by the foreclosure crisis. At 

the same time, the freeze in the credit markets and the sharp reduction in demand for Low 

Income Housing Tax Credits have greatly diminished the private capital available to improve 

and expand the supply of affordable rental housing. Overall, only one-quarter of families 

eligible for rental assistance actually receive such assistance.2

 The average income of such 

families ranges from about $9,400 to $13,600 per year.3 

 

2

 The State of the Nation’s Housing 2010 (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/son/index.htm). 3

 Picture of Subsidized Households, 2008 (http://www.huduser.org/portal/picture2008/index.html). 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 2: Rental Assistance 

Page 23 

 

 

Programs and Related Strategies 

HUD has a number of programs and tools that provide rental assistance funding for hard costs 

(acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction) for housing development, as well as rental 

assistance, and preservation of rental units. HUD envisions a strategic partnership between 

programs across the agency that strive to address the persistent un-affordability of housing. The 

major programs supporting this goal are described below. 

Tenant Based Rental Assistance (Housing Choice Voucher) Program 

The Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) has focused efforts to respond to the continuing 

need for affordable housing through all of its programs, including within the Section 8 Tenant 

Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program. PIH’s TBRA program is the Federal government’s 

largest program generally recognized as a cost-effective means for assisting families, the elderly, 

and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private rental market. The 

TBRA program, administered through nearly 2,350 Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), provides 

participants with the ability to seek rental housing of their choice. 

In prior years, emphasis has been on oversight, monitoring and enforcement. In addition to these 

important components of program administration, PIH’s top priority is working intensively with 

PHAs to increase financial and data integrity and program stability as well as to provide 

technical assistance to agencies that are under leased in order to maximize the limited resources 

to ensure rental assistance is provided to the neediest of our nation’s citizens. 

In order to achieve the goal of increased utilization we need to: 1) ensure that the information 

that we collect from the agencies is accurate, and 2) provide targeted technical assistance and 

training to agencies in order to help them increase voucher utilization and ensure that quality 

rental assistance is made available for low-income families. The HUD staff at both headquarters 

and field offices is working collaboratively with the agencies to ensure that they have the tools 

needed to maximize the number of families they can serve. PIH is continuing its efforts to 

increase leasing at PHAs where leasing potential exists to ensure that voucher dollars are utilized 

to the fullest appropriate extent possible. 

PIH’s goal is to lease an additional 112,379 units under the TBRA program by end of FY 2011. 

It is important to note that attainment of the goal was predicated on funding levels and a number 

of legislative actions which HUD has proposed but that have not yet become law. HUD will 

continue to advocate for the critical legislative measures described below: 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 24 

1. Promote the use of PHA reserves to increase leasing by obtaining recapture and reuse 

authority through the Appropriations act and passage of the Section Eight Voucher 

Reform Act (SEVRA). 

2. Secure authority in the FY 2011 appropriations bill for the following:

• Remove the cap on leasing up to the authorized level.

• Authorize the Secretary to offset excess net restricted assets from under-utilizing 

PHAs and reallocate those funds.

Public Housing 

PIH’s Public Housing program units are owned and operated by 3,150 PHAs. In order to support 

the management, operations, and physical needs of the Public Housing program, Operating and 

Capital funds are provided to PHAs on an annual basis. PIH’s Public Housing Operating Fund 

assists PHAs in meeting operating and management expenses for their projects. The Capital 

Fund provides funds annually for the financing, modernization, and development of the public 

housing stock (including energy and green retrofits) and for management improvements. 

PIH is employing several strategies in the Public Housing program that will help contribute 

33,143 units towards the Department’s two-year goal. Ensuring data quality and data collection 

is accurate and timely is critical to appropriate program administration and the implementation of 

activities to increase the number of families served, such as the number of vacant units each 

PHA has in its inventory. 

In order to assist both HUD and PHAs with appropriately targeting units that could be made 

available for occupancy, PIH has developed a tool to target public housing occupancy vacancies. 

In addition, to achieve the goal to serve more families, PIH will focus resources on improving 

overall program efficiency, providing training and technical assistance to grantees and PIH staff 

to maximize occupancy of current units. 

Project-Based Rental Assistance 

The Office of Housing’s Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) program assists families to 

obtain decent, safe, and sanitary housing in privately owned rental housing that is made 

affordable through a subsidy payment to the owner that makes up the difference between the 

HUD-approved rent for the unit and the family’s income-based contribution toward rent. The 

average income of a household assisted through the PBRA program is $11,400 annually; 

53 percent of PBRA-assisted households are 62 years of age or older and 38 percent are nonelderly disabled.4

 

4

 The percentages of elderly and non-elderly disabled represent properties assisted under the Section 8 NC/SR 

program. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 2: Rental Assistance 

Page 25 

 

The PBRA program’s primary challenge is to preserve its existing portfolio of affordable units. 

Although the Department projected a loss of some units in FY 2010, we strived to minimize the 

phenomenon of landlords leaving the program at the end of their contract. With a focus on 

preservation, HUD used all tools at hand, largely the Mark-to-Market Program, to provide 

incentives to landlords to stay in the program. This strategy, along with renewing contracts that 

were set to expire, will minimize the net loss of PBRA units to approximately 16,047 through FY 

2011, thereby supporting the two year goal of obtaining 207,000 additional units by the end of 

FY 2011. 

Other Programs 

Other major HUD programs promote decent safe affordable rental housing. The Tax Credit 

Assistance Program, Community Development Block Grants- Disaster Recovery, HOME 

Investment Partnerships, Neighborhood Stabilization, Homeless Assistance Grants, Housing 

Opportunities for Persons with AIDS, Elderly (Section 202), Housing for Persons with 

Disabilities (Section 811), Other Multifamily Subsidies, Insured Tax exempt/ LIHTC without 

rent assistance, Indian Housing Block Grant,, Choice Neighborhoods and Mod Rehab programs 

also contribute to this goal by increasing the supply of affordable housing units and contribute to 

the overall total increase of 207,000 units by the end of FY 2011. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 26 

HUD’s Rental Assistance Increase by Program 

Program

FY 2010 

Incremental 

Target

FY 2010 

Incremental 

Actual

FY 2010 

Actual vs. 

Target 

Difference

Two Year 

Incremental 

Goal 

Insured Tax Exempt/LIHTC 

 w/o Rent Assistance 3,856 5,714 1,858 12,056

Multifamily Project Based 

 Rental Assistance -8,047 5,009 13,056 -16,047

Other Multifamily Subsidies -7,110 -17,483 -10,373 -14,210

Project Rental Assistance 

 Contract (Sections 202 and 811) 5,099 6,361 1,262 9,999

TOTAL M ultifamily Housing 

 Programs -6,202 -399 5,803 -8,202

Indian Housing Block Grant 680 675 -5 1,363

Mainstream Vouchers and Tenant 

 Based Vouchers 63,218 30,315 -32,903 112,379

Mod Rehab -1,070 -1,322 -252 -1,724

Public Housing 5,976 1,203 -4,773 33,143

TOTAL Public and Indian 

 Housing Programs 68,804 30,871 -37,933 145,161

CDBG- Disaster Recovery 

 (Gulf Coast) 3,200 8,207 5,007 15,872

HOME completed rental units 4,404 5,898 1,494 8,808

HOME TBRA -591 -1,800 -1,209 -1,182

Homeless Assistance Grants 2,128 7,849 5,721 4,256

HOPWAa/ -1,112 1,144 2,256 -3,602

Neighborhood Stabilization 

 Program 1,040 2,070 1,030 5,200

Tax Credit Assistance Program 7,500 1,019 -6,481 35,686

TOTAL Community Planning

 and Development 16,569 24,387 7,818 65,038

Other 0 0 0 5,003

TOTAL 79,171 54,859 -24,312 207,000

a/ This report reflects a more accurate incremental actual figure of 1,144 units than was reported in the FY 2010 

Agency Financial Report at 2,144 units prior to data clean-up. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 2: Rental Assistance 

Page 27 

 

Resource Information 

The Department’s FY 2010 appropriation for the four major rental assistance programs 

constitutes approximately $35 billion or 72 percent of the total budget. Of this total, $31.4 

billion supports Strategic Goal 2 including among other indicators, Measure 5a: By the end 

of 2011, HUD programs will meet more of the growing need for affordable rental homes 

by serving 5.46 million families, 207,000 more than in 2009. 

By program, $17.2 billion of the Tenant Based Rental Assistance, $4.9 billion of Project 

Based Rental Assistance, and $5.4 of Public Housing Operating and Capital fund assistance 

is dedicated to Goal 2: Rental Assistance. These four programs were projected to provide 

approximately 77 percent of the total FY 2010 additional units and did produce 

approximately 66 percent of the FY 2010 in actual incremental units. 

The remaining programs supporting Goal 2 have approximately $3.9 billion budgeted 

resources in FY 2010. 

Results and Analysis 

The Department has a two year goal to increase the number of supported units by 

207,000. In FY 2010, the Department had a goal of 79,171 additional units. The actual 

results were an increase of 54,859 units or approximately 69 percent of the original 

target. 

In addition, the Department tracked two supporting measures under this Priority Goal. In 

FY 2010, HUD renewed 98.4 percent of multifamily Section 8 Project Based contracts 

that were set to expire- which is slightly below the renewal target of 98.7 percent. This 

represents a minute difference in units and signifies a strong success. Under the Project 

Rental Assistance Contracts for Sections 202 and 811, the Department renewed 

96 percent of the contracts that were set to expire- which fell slightly short of the 

100 percent renewal target. 

The programmatic results for FY 2010 were as follows: 

Public and Indian Housing 

PIH programs were targeted to be the largest contributor to this goal particularly through 

the Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program. In FY 2010, the PIH programs were 

projected to support 68,804 additional rental units (87 percent of the total target). The 

actual result was an addition of 30,871 units that was 37,933 units (45 percent) below the 

target amount. 

• Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA). The FY 2010 target for PIH’s TBRA 

utilization, which includes the mainstream vouchers, was 63,218 units. The 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 28 

actual incremental increase in utilization was 30,315, a shortfall of 32,903 units. 

The increase in unit utilization did not meet the target for FY 2010 as a result of 

several factors. 

In establishing the overall goal of leasing an additional 112,379 units in the TBRA 

program by end of FY 2011, PIH projected when new vouchers and vouchers from PHAs 

net restricted asset accounts would come under lease during FY 2010 and 2011. 

In FY 2010, PIH anticipated that the leasing of both special purpose vouchers (including 

tenant protection vouchers) and vouchers from net restricted assets would contribute to 

the goal. However, the award of the special purpose vouchers and obligation of funds 

occurred later in the fiscal year than what was initially projected. Consequently, the 

leasing of these vouchers will occur in FY 2011 as opposed to FY 2010. While this 

leasing will be counted in terms of PIH’s progress in meeting the overall goal, it did not 

factor into leasing for the FY 2010 leasing goal. 

 

PIH also undertook an extensive outreach effort in FY 2010 to under-utilizing PHAs in 

order to provide technical assistance to increase leasing within the PHAs’ existing 

budgetary allocations. This effort commenced in spring of 2010 and PIH spent the early 

months of the year laying the groundwork for significant increases in voucher issuance 

and leasing by PHAs. As part of that effort, PIH developed a voucher leasing and 

utilization tool to help PHAs project program costs in both the current calendar year and 

in the subsequent calendar year. The tool helps PIH identify PHAs that have both units 

and sufficient funding available that may allow the PHA to increase the number of 

families they are currently serving within their existing budgets and to sustain those 

leasing gains throughout the calendar year. 

In addition, PIH assigned dedicated field office staff to aggressively monitor and improve 

utilization rates. These subject matter experts provide the day-to-day monitoring of the 

TBRA program operations and are responsible for assisting PHAs in utilizing the 

forecasting tool. Refinements were made to the Voucher Management System (VMS) to 

better enable PIH to track and monitor voucher issuance and utilization. PIH conducted 

numerous training sessions to assist PHAs in better managing their voucher resources and 

increasing their leasing while ensuring they remained within their budgetary limits. 

As a result of PIH’s efforts and the new vouchers coming online, there was a significant 

increase in the number of vouchers issued to households from PHA waiting lists in the 

second half of the fiscal year (from approximately 18,500 in February to over 57,000 in 

September). This increase in voucher issuance will likely result in a significant increase 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 2: Rental Assistance 

Page 29 

 

in vouchers leased in future quarters, depending on household success with finding a unit 

in which to use their voucher. 

 

• Public Housing. The Public Housing program was targeted to increase modestly by 

5,976 units in FY 2010. In actuality, the program gained 1,203 units, which were 4,773 

units less than the target. 

The shortfall in meeting FY 2010 targets reflects the interaction of several contributing 

factors. The largest factor is that the Public Housing program received approximately 

$4 billion in capital funding under the Recovery Act to rehabilitate public housing units, 

which required some units be taken “off-line” so that the units could be rehabilitated or 

modernized. The pace of the Recovery Act-funded rehabilitation exceeded expectations 

significantly and resulted in fewer occupied units than expected, comprising a 

significant portion of the shortfall. The expectation is that units supported by the 

Recovery Act that were off-line in FY 2010 will come online in FY 2011. 

• Additional PIH Programs. The FY 2010 incremental target occupancy for the Indian 

Housing Block Grant Program was 680, the actual incremental occupancy was 675; 

thus, a slight shortfall of 5 units. The FY 2010 target occupancy for the Mod Rehab 

Program was a projected net loss of 1,070 units, the actual occupancy was a net loss of 

1,322 units; thus, the modest shortfall of 252 units. 

Office of Multifamily Housing Programs 

• Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA). In FY 2010, the PBRA program was 

projected to have a net reduction of 8,047 units. However, the number of actual 

incremental units was a gain of 5,009, 13,056 units above the target, due to increased 

occupancy and lower turnover. For Project Based Section 202, Elderly and Section 811 

Housing for Person with Disabilities, the number of actual incremental units was 6361; 

this is 1262 more than the target.

The Office of Housing reserved and obligated the entire PBRA Recovery Act 

appropriation of $2 billion in FY 2009, helping to ensure the continued affordability of 

units assisted under some 6,300 contracts. In addition, 99.3 percent of this appropriation 

has been spent as of September 30, 2010.

Office of Community Planning and Development 

• HOME Investment Partnerships. The FY 2010 incremental target for the HOME 

program was 4,404 units. With an actual incremental figure of 5,898, the program 

exceeded their target by 1,494 units. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 30 

• HOME-funded Tenant Based Rental Assistance (HOME-TBRA). The FY 2010 

incremental target for the HOME TBRA program was a projected net loss of 

591 units. This reflects a loss of 1,800 units – 1,209 units more than expected. 

HOME TBRA is being tracked differently than in the past; the incremental actual 

number represents all households that are currently receiving TBRA (under two 

year contracts), whereas the projected incremental target figure represented the total 

households in TBRA activities completed during fiscal year 2010. 

• The Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP). The FY 2010 incremental target for 

TCAP was 7,500 additional occupied units. However, the program had an 

incremental actual of 1,019 occupied units, and missed their target by 6,481 units. 

The program overall has been slower to move projects to completion than originally 

estimated, but for the conclusion of the program in February 2012, the cumulative 

incremental goal of 35,686 occupied units is still on target. 

• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). In FY 2010, the 

HOPWA program served an additional 1,144 households with TBRA and in 

residential support provided in permanent housing facilities. HOPWA was 

projected to have a net loss of 1,112 units, and therefore, exceeded their FY 2010 

target by 2,256 units. 

Future Strategies 

The Department has several initiatives to address the critical need for quality affordable rental 

homes. The ability of the Department to achieve the two-year rental assistance goal is highly 

dependent on the resources appropriated and available to operate the programs. 

The first strategy is through an increased commitment to rental vouchers. In the Tenant Based 

Rental Assistance Program, subject to the availability of funding, HUD will continue to provide 

incremental vouchers, as well as work with each PHA to improve or maintain a high utilization 

rate for vouchers in the renewal base. This will be achieved through the provision of technical 

assistance utilizing tools providing real-time data, monitoring and oversight, policy development 

and implementation, as well as training for both HUD and PHA staff. 

The second strategy is to increase the number of units able to be occupied with smart 

investments in public, Native American and assisted housing. Through the use of American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funds and regular program funds, HUD 

recipients will work to reduce vacancies and preserve the existing stock of affordable rental 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 2: Rental Assistance 

Page 31 

 

housing. In addition, in HUD’s project-based rental assistance programs, the focus of our efforts 

will be on limiting reductions in units by tracking contract expiration dates, renewals, and 

terminations and by offering incentives for keeping projects under contract. 

The third strategy involves expanding supply of affordable rental units through access to capital 

funds. Additional units will be brought into the public and Native American housing inventory 

through development, supported by HOPE VI, Public Housing Capital funds, Recovery Act 

funds, Choice Neighborhoods, and ONAP programs. In addition, a number of HUD’s 

community development and special needs assistance grant programs will contribute to this 

strategy through building and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. Finally, a number of 

multifamily housing and tax credit programs will focus on increasing the number of affordable 

units developed. 

Lastly, Transforming Rental Assistance (TRA) is HUD’s signature initiative and a key strategy 

for this Priority Goal. In the 2012 Budget, the Department proposes a demonstration to preserve 

existing public housing and other HUD-assisted units, streamline the Department’s rental 

assistance programs, and provide residents with the sort of mobility option that is currently 

available only to voucher program participants. 

Data Discussion 

The “All Rental Assistance Programs” measure has multiple data sources or utilized FY 2009 

baseline estimates where data was not available. For the TBRA measure, HUD staff reviews the 

status data for consistency prior to quarterly reporting, which includes an opportunity for PHAs 

to correct any deficiencies. The PBRA measure has status data updated by Housing field staff 

and contractors and is generally considered as reliable. For the “Public Housing” measure, 

quarterly data is obtained from PIH’s Inventory Management System (IMS)/PIH Information 

Center (PIC) with known data anomalies filtered from the count provided. Capacity building 

and training is being provided to both HUD and PHA staff, as well as technical assistance to 

PHAs, in order to improve the data quality in this system. 

Tenant Based Rental Assistance 

Data provided for PIH’s TBRA program is based on the number of vouchers provided to 

recipients and the rate in which units are leased. There is a fluctuating pattern in how agencies 

lease vouchers; as such, the data reflects the dynamics of local rental markets as well as any 

other individual-level factors and program inefficiencies. 

The funding cycle has a significant impact on the issuance of vouchers. Voucher funding is 

based on the calendar year, not the Federal fiscal year, which impacts the leasing cycle. For 

example, the end of the calendar year often represents a peak in leasing, as agencies are more 

acutely aware of their full financial health near the end of the calendar year. In December and 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 32 

January agencies often suspend or slow leasing until PHAs know exactly how much funding they 

will receive for that calendar year, per Appropriations. This final calendar year funding amount 

is provided in the Appropriations bill, at which time PHAs can be more confident about 

resources and therefore, less conservative in leasing. As such, the data is often skewed per this 

traditionally ‘unbalanced’ funding and thus leasing cycle. 

In light of this PIH has developed a voucher utilization projection tool, which will enable PIH to 

forecast voucher budget authority utilization going forward. In addition, PIH is putting systems 

in place to target deficiencies and track progress by housing agency, and is working with the 

PHAs to ensure that reporting into VMS is correct. 

Public Housing 

There are a number of factors that influence the current data. PIH is currently undergoing a data 

validation effort of public housing occupancy indicators and vacancy categories (described 

below); because of this, baseline and target numbers may need to be adjusted accordingly. The 

initial baseline set for the Public Housing program was based on budgetary projections that did 

not take into account eligible unit vacancies and units approved for non-dwelling purposes. 

PIH is working to ‘clean up’ data in our existing systems, as well as to identify the agencies with 

the highest number of data quality issues and data discrepancies. Public Housing data in this 

report reflects ongoing validation and clean-up efforts through December 31, 2010. In addition, 

PIH has developed a tool to assist in targeting public housing occupancy vacancies in those 

agencies with the highest number of vacancies. PIH field staff is working closely with those 

‘high vacancy’ agencies through a new tracking and monitoring system. 

HOPWA 

Data for HOPWA comes from financial reports under the Integrated Disbursement Information 

System (IDIS), and performance information collected in grantee annual reports, including the 

Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) for formula grantees and the 

Annual Progress Report for competitive grantees. 

Future plans involve an upgrading of IDIS to allow for HOPWA functionality and data reporting 

and for inclusion of competitive grantees (ten percent of program resources) within this IT 

system. These IT enhancements, when completed, are expected to save substantial time and also 

reduce grantee reporting burden while enhancing the validity and quality of data. In addition, 

during 2011 efforts will be made to identify changes in the CPD Consolidated Planning tools a 

well as undertake collaborations with Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and 

other Federal agencies that will involve possible streamlining of performance reporting in order 

to focus results and reduce grantee reporting burdens. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 2: Rental Assistance 

Page 33 

 

HOME/TCAP 

Data for this indicator are based on the accomplishments reported by grantees in HUD’s IDIS. 

CPD staff verifies data and data collection processes when monitoring grantees. 

Program Website 

PIH Website:http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/public_indian_housing

Tenant Based Rental Assistance: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/index.cfm

Public Housing: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/

http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/capfund/index.cfm

http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/capfund/ocir.cfm

http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/index.cfm

Office of Native American Programs: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/index.cfm

HOPWA: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/aidshousing/index.cfm and HUDHRE.info/HOPWA 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 34 

Priority Goal 3: Veterans Homelessness 

 

Strategic Goal 3: Utilize housing as a platform for improving quality of life. 

Measure 6: The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of 

Veterans Affairs will jointly reduce homelessness among veterans. 

• Together the two agencies will reduce the number of homeless veterans to 59,000 by 

June 2012. Without this intervention there would be an estimated 194,000 homelesss 

veterans by June 2012. 

• Towards this joint goal, HUD is committed to assisting an average of 13,250 homeless 

veterans each fiscal year to move out of homelessness into permanent housing. 

Priority Goal Background and Public Benefit 

Despite recent inroads, homelessness continues to be a challenge for communities across the 

United States. While homelessness is always unacceptable, it is particularly abhorrent among 

veterans of U.S. military service. A large number of veterans live with the effects of posttraumatic stress disorder, debilitating injuries, and other problems resulting from their 

experiences in combat. The effects are often compounded by a lack of family and social support 

networks. As a result, many of these veterans struggle with unemployment, poor health, 

substance abuse, and/or a criminal record; all of which pose significant barriers to both obtaining 

and maintaining housing. Of the nearly 1.6 million Americans (or 1 in every 200) experiencing 

homelessness in 2009, more than 10 percent were veterans.5

 

Eliminating veteran homelessness in five years is one of the key goals of Opening Doors: 

Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness (Federal Strategic Plan) issued in June 

2010 by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH).6 In support of this 

strategy, HUD’s programs have an annual goal of assisting 13,250 homeless veterans to move 

into permanent housing. 

A subset of this effort is a joint Priority Goal of HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA). HUD and VA are partnering to reduce the number of homeless veterans to 59,000 by June 

2012. Without this joint venture, there would be an estimated 194,000 homeless veterans by 

June 2012. This Priority Goal serves as a catalyst for meeting the five-year goal of ending 

veteran homelessness and focuses on delivering permanent housing and thereby improving the 

quality of life for homeless veterans. 

Programs and Related Strategies 

This Administration believes that veterans should never find themselves on the streets, living 

 

5 The 5th Homeless Assessment Report, Executive Summary, p.iii. 6 http://www.usich.gov/PDF/OpeningDoors_2010_FSPPreventEndHomeless.pdf
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 3: Veterans Homelessness 

Page 35 

 

without care and without hope and has committed through the Federal Strategic Plan to prevent 

and end homelessness among veterans within five years. The Federal Strategic Plan calls for 

increased collaboration at the Federal and local levels, for both government and community 

providers. Strategies that have proven successful in helping homeless veterans obtain affordable 

housing, jobs, and access to health and behavioral health care will be undertaken through the 

joint action of Federal, State, and local leaders together with service providers, advocates, the 

private sector, and faith-based, philanthropic, and community organization leaders. 

These strategies include better targeting of rental subsidies to veterans; more permanent 

supportive housing with intensive support services to address mental health, substance abuse, 

health, and employment needs; more meaningful employment by coordinating housing with 

workforce training; better access to financial assistance; and encouraging community crisis 

response teams that focus on prevention and rapid re-housing activities. HUD and the VA are 

coordinating efforts to jointly achieve this Priority Goal by June 2012. HUD is implementing 

two primary, but inter-related strategies, to ensure that 36,500 homeless veterans are able to live 

as independently as possible in a permanent setting. The two strategies are: 

• Provide individuals and families with rental housing subsidies, and 

• Provide and increase access to homelessness prevention services. 

There are three primary programs designed to help veterans obtain or maintain HUD-assisted 

permanent housing: 

• HUD-VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing), 

• HUD Homeless Continuum of Care Programs, and 

• Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP). 

HUD- VASH (Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing) 

The 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-161), provided $75 million of 

funding for the HUD-VASH. This fund is expected to produce approximately 10,000 units to 

support veterans housing. The Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010 HUD appropriations acts added an 

additional $75 million each year for a projected estimated 3-year total of 30,000 VASH voucher 

units. 

The HUD-VASH program combines tenant based rental assistance for homeless veterans with 

case management and clinical services provided by the VA. These funds are distributed to PHAs 

selected by HUD based on geographical need for assistance and issued to veterans as vouchers 

that can be used to rent housing in the private market. Veterans must be referred to participating 

PHAs by Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. With HUD approval, participating PHAs may use 

some of the funding allocated for project-based HUD-VASH vouchers, which involves attaching 

HUD-VASH assistance to specific housing units for a given period of time, as stipulated in a 

contract between the PHA and the owner of the units. FY 2010 is the third year HUD is 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 36 

supporting the housing and service needs of homeless veterans across America through HUDVASH. 

HUD Homeless Continuum of Care Programs 

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act provides federal financial support for a variety 

of homeless assistance programs. To access these homeless assistance funds, HUD requires 

communities to come together to submit a single comprehensive Continuum of Care application, 

to ensure that homeless individuals, with their unique problems and specific needs, get the help 

they need and eventually leave homelessness. A Continuum of Care is the primary decisionmaking body that represents a community’s plan to organize and deliver housing and services 

needed by homeless individuals and families within the community. For FY 2010, funding from 

HUD’s Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, and the Single Room Occupancy programs 

supported this Priority Goal as eligible Continuum of Care programs, by providing housing and 

other supportive services. 

HUD implements several strategies through its Continuum of Care homeless grant competition. 

Using its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), HUD has and will continue to encourage 

grantees to focus their resources on serving homeless veterans. Additionally, HUD is expanding 

on its biennial point-in-time count requirements to include both sheltered and unsheltered 

veterans in its subpopulation count. Through such a count the Continuums of Care will gain a 

greater understanding of the needs of the homeless veterans in their communities. The increased 

emphasis in the NOFA and on enumerating homeless veterans increases the likelihood that 

grantees will propose new projects that have a veteran focus. 

Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program 

The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP), funded at $1.5 billion 

through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, is being used by HUD to assist 

individuals, including veterans, who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. The funds 

are being used to serve persons such as those who may be facing evictions within a two week 

time period, or have residencies in condemned housing, or have experienced sudden losses of 

income. Although many providers of these funds are directing them to homeless subpopulations, 

such as veterans, the funds are broadly intended for those individuals or families that are 

homeless or would be homeless but for this assistance. 

Funds were given to states (to distribute to local governments and private non-profit 

organizations), metropolitan cities, and urban counties. These funds provide financial assistance, 

such as short-term (up to three months) and medium-term (4-18 months) rental assistance, 

security or utility deposits, and moving cost assistance; or housing relocation and stabilization 

services, including credit counseling, case management, and housing search and placement. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 3: Veterans Homelessness 

Page 37 

 

HUD is allowing HPRP grantees to combine HPRP funds with HUD-VASH funds to enhance 

the service opportunities of veterans. This allowance is intended to encourage HPRP grantees to 

maximize the benefits they can provide to veterans by combining funding sources. 

Resource Information 

In support of the Department’s goal to reduce homelessness among veterans, $152.7 million of 

the Continuum of Care funding (Non-Emergency Shelter Grants funding) is projected to assist 

veterans. This figure is a prorated estimate of nine percent, which is based on the proportion of 

veterans to the total homeless population assisted. 

In addition, since 2008, $225 million in new voucher funding has been targeted for homeless 

veterans through the HUD-VASH program.

Results and Analysis 

 

HUD-VASH 

Metric FY 2009 

Actual 

FY 2010 

Target 

FY 2010 

Actual 

Increase over 

FY 2009 

Progress over FY 

2010 Targets 

Vouchers Issued 9,646 10,060 13,605 41% 35%

Veterans Unit 

Under Lease 6,575 7,325 11,140 69% 52%

The measures for the progress of HUD-VASH under Goal 3 are the number of veterans housed 

with a voucher, and the number of HUD-VASH vouchers issued. The HUD-VASH targets for 

FY 2010 were to issue 10,060 vouchers to homeless veterans and to lease-up 7,325 veterans with 

HUD-VASH vouchers. The results for 

FY 2010 were a substantial increase over 

the targets. Over the course of FY 2010, 

participating PHAs issued 

13,605 vouchers, and 11,140 veterans 

were able to lease units. Therefore, 

PHAs exceeded the issuance target by 

3,545 vouchers (35 percent) and, the 

number of veterans housed by 

3,815 (52 percent). Additionally, the 

results were a significant increase over 

FY 2009. In FY 2010, PHAs 

participating in HUD-VASH issued 

41 percent more vouchers and housed 69 percent more veterans than in FY 2009. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 38 

Community and Planning Development Results: 

The Community and Planning Development programs that support homeless assistance and 

targeted assistance to veterans were projected to assist 3,724 in FY 2010. Results are reported 

through Annual Performance Reports that are submitted by grantees on a calendar year basis and 

have allowance of up to 90 days past the beginning of the year for final submission. At the time 

of publication the current review of somewhat more than 40 percent of APRs showed results 

equal to the target. The projection is that with additional reporting the target for FY 2010 will be 

exceeded. 

11,049

3,724

7,325

14,864

3,724

11,140

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

HUD Target By June 30, 2012 SNAPS HUD-VASH

Number Of Homeless Veterans Permanently Housed Through 

HUD's Programs

Ending FY 2010

Target Actual
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 3: Veterans Homelessness 

Page 39 

 

Future Strategies 

The success over the past year has been supported in part by trainings and site visits carried out 

by VA and HUD headquarters staff, as well as the increased involvement of HUD field offices 

in troubleshooting problems at low-performing HUD-VASH sites. However, the most important 

component of the HUD-VASH program’s success in relation to the progress over the past three 

years is the robust interagency collaboration that takes place at all levels of the program’s 

implementation – locally, regionally and nationally. The goal to end veteran homelessness is 

jointly shared by HUD and the VA, and therefore a sound partnership is essential for ensuring 

the goal’s realization. At the headquarters level, HUD staff work with a team of VA policymakers, while at the ground level, PHAs work mainly with VA case managers, who make the 

referrals and ensure that veterans have the support they need to remain stably housed. HUD field 

office staff and VA regional staff plays key roles as well by improving local coordination and 

facilitating the sharing of information among agencies at all levels. 

Despite the success of these efforts and other efforts by HUD-VASH sites themselves, HUD and 

VA realize that many sites continue to face significant challenges. Three strategies will be 

initiated by HUD headquarters staff to increase support provided to those sites that are still 

struggling. First, HUD will continue strengthening field office expertise and participation in 

HUD-VASH through the development of a network of HUD-VASH subject-matter experts 

(SMEs). In the spring of 2011, the HUD-VASH team at headquarters, with assistance from VA, 

will hold an SME training in order to increase the monitoring and technical assistance activities 

carried out by field office staff. Secondly, HUD plans to follow through on an initial meeting 

with the VA and OMB and work to establish a data-sharing agreement with the VA. This 

agreement will enable the two agencies to share and compare information on HUD-VASH 

participants and more easily reconcile data on voucher issuance and lease-up. Finally, HUD 

aims to gather stories on best practices, as well as carry out more in-depth research on the 

successes of specific sites, and then publish this HUD-VASH information in FY 2011. 

Providing more information on best practices has been a request heard frequently from both field 

offices and participating PHAs. 

Signature Initiative - Ending Homelessness by Preventing It 

In HUD’s FY 2011 budget request, the Department will partner with the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Education (ED) to link health and social 

services with housing vouchers in order to end homelessness for 6,000 homeless families and 

families at-risk of becoming homeless and 4,000 chronically homeless households. By forging 

new partnerships through this initiative, HUD, HHS, and ED will model and encourage the 

development of new strategies at a local level for effectively combining mainstream federal 

programs in order to better serve homeless families and individuals, including unaccompanied 

homeless veterans and those with families. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 40 

HUD’s signature initiative will serve as the building block for making housing a platform for 

improving the quality of life for homeless persons, including veterans. More detailed 

information regarding HUD’s future strategies for homelessness is located at HUD’s Strategic 

Plan (Goal 3), and HUD’s Budget Summary FY 2011. 

Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness 

HUD is also a principal partner in USICH’s Federal Strategic Plan, as sponsored by this 

Administration, which is designed to spur increased collaboration at both a federal and local 

level, for both government and community providers. One of the key goals of the Federal 

Strategic Plan is to end veteran homelessness in five years by strategically aligning HUD and 

other Federal resources targeted to homeless veterans. This homeless veteran’s component of 

the Federal Strategic Plan will not only help individual veterans escape homelessness, but it will 

also test models of local and federal collaboration on behalf of veterans. It also presents an 

opportunity to look at cross-agency savings. As part of the Federal Strategic Plan, HUD and VA 

will be partnering with PHAs to make better use of mainstream voucher and public housing units 

to serve homeless veterans. 

Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration 

In an effort to prevent homelessness among veterans, primarily those returning from the wars in 

Afghanistan and Iraq, the Department, and the VA are providing $15 million in grant funding for 

housing assistance and supportive services in five selected communities near military 

installations to veterans who might otherwise be living in homeless shelters or on the streets. 

The U.S. Department of Labor, another partner in this initiative, will provide linkages to 

employment resources. 

Under the new Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration Program (VHPD), existing 

HUD grantees or 'Continuums of Care' located near the following military installations will each 

receive $2 million: MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida; Camp Pendleton in San Diego, 

California; Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas; Fort Drum in Watertown, New York; and Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, Washington. In addition, VA medical centers in the following 

areas will each receive $1 million: Tampa, San Diego, Dallas, Syracuse, New York; and 

American Lake in Washington. 

The grantees for the VHPD program have been identified by the Continuum of Care planning 

groups in the five selected communities. HUD is proceeding to complete the grant agreements 

based on the business plan applications and budgets that were submitted. We are expecting fully 

executed grant agreements by the middle of February 2011.
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 3: Veterans Homelessness 

Page 41 

 

Data Discussion 

The VA sends monthly field reports to HUD. HUD reviews the data and then converts it to a 

PHA-specific format. This monthly data includes the number of veterans referred to PHAs, the 

number of vouchers issued, and the number of veterans who have leased units. 

The data quality and accuracy of VA data is deemed high, due to the numerous levels of 

oversight by the VA (including senior staff at local, regional, and national levels), and HUD’s 

review of data for quality control purposes. Under HUD’s systems, the PIH Information Center 

(PIC) and Voucher Management System (VMS), participating PHAs are not able to provide 

information on referrals, and issuance data is not completely accurate. HUD has ramped up 

efforts in the past year to ensure that participating PHAs are reporting on vouchers issued, and 

the percent that are reporting issuance data correctly improved by over 50 percent in FY 2010. 

Despite using VA data as the primary source for reporting under Priority Goal 3, HUD routinely 

compares the VA monthly data with PIC and VMS data and work with PHAs to reconcile 

discrepancies as part of ongoing monitoring efforts. 

In the coming year, two planned activities will further advance the validity and reliability of 

HUD-VASH data. First, the increased expertise and involvement of field office staff as subjectmatter experts will allow for reporting errors at specific sites to be more quickly addressed. 

Secondly, the data-sharing agreement between HUD and VA will make it easier for the agencies 

to compare data from both VA and PIC/VMS systems and to ensure its validity. 

The HUD Continuum of Care data is generated from the Annual Performance Reports (APRs) 

for HUD’s Continuum of Care grantees. At the end of each operating year, Continuum of Care 

grantees report to HUD various outcome measures of the programs performance, including the 

number of veterans that were served during the operating year. For the past several years 

grantees submitted paper copies of Annual Progress Reports to HUD. Starting in July 2010, 

HUD changed the name of the reports to Annual Performance Reports and began collecting the 

data in an electronic database. With the paper reports, HUD spent significant resources on 

correcting basic math and data entry errors. The electronic database allows for a new level of 

verification that greatly reduces the number of data entry errors. HUD expects the electronic 

database to enhance the data quality of the APRs. 

The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP) data is generated from the 

HPRP APRs. The HPRP APR data will be collected in an electronic database and provide 

insight on HPRP program outcomes, including how many veterans have been served. 

Program Website 

HUD-VASH: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/vash/

http://www.hudhre.info/hprp/

http://www.hudhre.info/index.cfm?do=viewResourcesByTopic&topicId=11
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 42 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

 

Strategic Goal 4: Build inclusive and sustainable communities free from 

discrimination. 

Measure 13: The Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development will work 

together to enable the cost-effective energy retrofits of a total of 1.1 million housing units 

through FY 2011. 

• Of this number, HUD will complete cost-effective energy retrofits of an estimated 

126,000 HUD-assisted and public housing units. 

• Apart from our joint goal with DOE, HUD will complete green and healthy retrofits of 

33,000 housing units. 

Priority Goal Background and Public Benefit 

HUD’s fourth Priority Goal is a two year goal to complete energy and green retrofits of 

approximately 159,000 public, assisted, and other HUD-supported affordable homes by the end 

of FY 2011. Of this number, HUD will complete energy retrofits of an estimated 126,000 HUDassisted and public housing units. This goal will be carried out by the Offices of Public and 

Indian Housing, Community Planning and Development, and Housing (Multifamily). In 

addition, HUD will complete healthy and green improvements in approximately 33,000 lowincome housing units through the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control that will 

yield positive health outcomes for individuals and families, and have the potential to drastically 

and permanently change the way housing, energy, and health concerns are addressed in cities 

across our nation. 

Improving the quality of housing is a cross-cutting goal throughout HUD’s Strategic Plan. This 

Priority Goal serves as a key measure of success in HUD’s FY 2010-2015 Strategic Plan, 

aligning directly with Strategic Goal 4, "Build Inclusive and Sustainable Communities Free from 

Discrimination." HUD is committed to providing safe and healthy homes for all families and 

children by addressing housing conditions that threaten the health of residents, coordinating 

disparate health and housing agendas, supporting key research, and providing tools to build 

sustainable local programs that mitigate housing-related health hazards. 

HUD’s energy strategy and plans are driven by concerns over high residential energy costs, an 

aging and less efficient public and assisted housing stock, growing fiscal demands on HUD’s 

budget to cover utility costs, the disproportionate energy cost burdens on low- and moderateincome families, and the health aspects of housing. The residential sector, approximately 130 

million homes, generates 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, 33 percent of electricity 

demand, and 22 percent of energy consumption in the U.S. HUD itself annually funds energy 

costs exceeding $6 billion in its public housing and other rental assistance programs. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

Page 43 

 

The level of energy expenditures at HUD is substantial, and improvements to increase the energy 

performance of its assets are material to reducing spending on energy. The Department has 

committed to catalyzing a residential energy retrofit and new construction market in the 

affordable housing sector by making significant investments in energy efficiency measures in 

federally assisted housing developments. These measures not only stimulate construction of new 

energy efficient and green buildings, but also help modernize the existing public and assisted 

housing stock. 

An additional concern is that energy costs are a significant income burden for lower-income 

families. Energy costs, when combined with housing and transportation costs, can create 

difficulties for many households’ ability to cover living expenses, and can also impact the 

financial stability of multi-family rental housing. Much of HUD’s portfolio of public and 

assisted housing was built before the advent of energy codes, creating both environmental and 

affordability challenges for the federal government, building owners, and indirectly to residents, 

as it is an important consideration of the economies and often can ultimately affect the viability 

of some project. 

Programs and Related Strategies 

HUD has a number of programs and tools that address this Priority Goal, which are summarized 

in the charts and described in the narratives below. 

HUD Energy Retrofits Targets 

Program FY 2010 FY 2011 Cumulative 

Total Public and Indian Housing 19,512 54,445 73,957 

Tax Credit Assistance Program 

(TCAP)- Recovery Act 1,140 1,142 2,282 

HOME 4,688 4,692 9,380 

CDBG 248 252 500 

Total Community Planning and 

 Development 6,076 6,086 12,162 

Sections 202 Elderly and 811 

Disability 3,000 2,500 5,500 

Mark-to-Market 4,000 4,000 8,000 

Green Retrofit Program- Recovery 

Act 1,500 18,500 20,000 

Total Multifamily Housing 8,500 25,000 33,500 

Other 6,000 500 6,500 

TOTAL Energy Retrofits 40,088 86,031 126,119 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 44 

Programs Administered by the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) 

PIH is using funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) 

of 2009 and non-Recovery Act appropriations, as well as third party financing through Energy 

Performance Contracts, to complete nearly 74,000 cost-effective energy efficient retrofits and 

affordable green units through FY 2011. PIH funding supports rehabilitation of existing 

buildings with Energy Conservation Measures that include energy efficient lighting; new, more 

efficient heating and cooling systems; additional insulation; and upgraded windows and doors. 

PIH also supports new construction and substantial rehabilitation of existing housing built to the 

Energy Star for New Homes, Enterprise Green Communities, Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED), National Green Building Standard or other green standards. 

With the availability of additional resources through the Recovery Act, PIH has been able to 

significantly increase the level of energy improvement in public housing. Key PIH programs 

that support these improvements include: 

• Public Housing Capital Fund (Recovery Act). PIH awarded $600 million in competitive 

grants to public housing authorities to either build new or rehabilitate existing housing to 

meet the Enterprise Green Communities standard, or to undertake comprehensive energy 

retrofits of existing housing. In addition, PIH awarded nearly $3 billion in formula grants 

for capital improvements that included significant investments in energy improvements. 

• Native American Housing and Indian Community Development Block Grants 

(Recovery Act). The Office of Native American Programs awarded $510 million in 

competitive and formula grants to tribes to support new construction, acquisition, 

rehabilitation and infrastructure development activities, with strong incentives for energy 

efficiency and green building. 

 

• HOPE VI. HUD includes language in its annual HOPE VI Notice of Funding 

Availability (NOFA) that encourages the adoption of Energy Star for New Homes in 

HOPE VI projects, and provides additional points when rating and ranking HOPE VI 

proposals for projects that meet this standard, or a higher national green building standard 

that incorporates this standard. 

 

• Public Housing Operating Fund. PIH provides incentives for energy performance 

contracting in public housing. An energy performance contract is normally an agreement 

with a third-party energy services company which performs an energy audit, arranges 

financing, oversees the installation of energy efficiency measures, and provides 

additional services, such as monitoring of energy use, training of maintenance staff, and 

resident education. 

Programs Administered by the Office of Multifamily Housing 

Several multifamily programs are contributing to this priority goal: 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

Page 45 

 

• Green Retrofit Program (Recovery Act). This program aims to reduce energy costs, cut 

water consumption, and improve indoor air quality. The program is designed to create or 

save thousands of green jobs in retrofitting an estimated 20,000 units in federally-assisted 

multifamily developments with energy efficient technologies and green building products 

and practices. 

• Mark- to-Market Green Initiative. The Office of Housing has a two-year goal of 

completing up to 8,000 energy and green retrofits through the Mark to Market program. 

By restructuring the underlying debt, the program supports rents at reduced levels 

prevalent in the market on thousands of privately-owned multifamily properties with 

federally-insured mortgages. The Office of Affordable Housing Preservation provides 

incentives to owners and purchasers of affordable multifamily properties to rehabilitate 

and operate their properties using sustainable green building principles. 

• Section 202 and 811 Supportive Housing. The Office of Housing continues to promote 

energy efficiency through the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and 

Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities programs. Up to 5,500 

units with energy efficiency improvements are expected to be completed in FY 2010 -

 FY 2011. 

Programs Administered by the Office of Community Planning and Development 

CPD has set a target to complete 12,162 green and energy retrofits by the end of FY 2011. CPD 

contributing programs include the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), the 

HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and the Tax Credit Assistance Program 

(TCAP) funded through the Recovery Act. New units funded through these programs that are 

built to the Energy Star for New Homes standard are counted towards this goal. 

• Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). The primary objective of the 

CDBG Program is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent 

housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, 

principally for persons of low and moderate income. Each grantee receiving CDBG 

funds is free to determine what activities it will fund from among the 26 different 

categories of eligible activities. The rehabilitation of housing is one such eligible use. 

More than 1,200 grantees use their CDBG funds to rehabilitate a substantial number of 

housing units each year - over 100,000 in FY 2010. New construction of housing is 

eligible only in limited situations. 

• The Tax Credit Assistance Program (Recovery Act). Approximately $2 billion in TCAP 

grants were awarded by formula to state housing credit agencies facilitate the 

development of projects that received Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 46 

• HOME Investment Partnerships. During FY 2010, the HOME program began posting a 

new quarterly report on its web page, Energy Star Units Reports. One of the goals of 

this report is to promote more accurate reporting of those units that qualify as Energy Star 

units. 

Programs administered by the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control 

(OHHLHC) 

The OHHLHC’s Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes Grant Programs, the Green and 

Healthy Homes Initiative, and enforcement programs all achieve lead hazard control 

interventions and broader, healthy homes interventions in housing, including green 

improvements. Through grants to state and local jurisdictions, non-profits and universities, and 

other supported activities, these programs will complete healthy and green improvements in 

approximately 33,000 low-income housing units. These will yield positive health and safety 

outcomes for individuals and families, and have the potential to permanently change the way 

housing, energy, and health concerns are addressed in cities across our nation. 

Interagency Partnerships 

In addition to the individual program contributions to this goal noted above, in May of 2009, 

HUD signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Energy (DOE) aimed at 

lowering barriers to the use of DOE Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funds in public 

housing and other HUD-assisted multifamily housing. As a result, DOE issued a new rule in 

January 2010 that streamlined the weatherization program’s income eligibility requirements, as 

well as other procedural requirements applicable to public housing and other HUD-assisted 

multifamily housing properties. These enhancements and increased funding have resulted in 

increased participation by multifamily properties and facilitated the start-up of new and 

expanded multifamily energy efficiency programs in several states. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

Page 47 

 

Resource Information 

In FY 2010, approximately 70 percent of the energy and green units completed were 

financed through the Recovery Act. Recovery Act funds included: 

• $3 billion in formula funds and $600 million in competitive funds for energy 

efficiency and green building through the Public Housing Capital Fund 

• $250 million was made available for assisted multifamily housing through the 

Green Retrofit Program 

• A share of the $510 million for Indian Housing Block Grant and Indian Community 

Development Block Grant Programs 

• A share of the $2.25 billion for the Tax Credit Assistance Program 

• $100 million for Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes programs 

The remaining 30 percent of the energy efficient and green retrofits were funded through a 

variety of sources and are listed below: 

• Energy Performance Contracts finance through third party financing in public 

housing 

• Based upon a per unit cost of $16,497 the CDBG- Disaster Recovery supported 

retrofits in 369 units, with a total resources of approximately $6,087,393 

• Additional funds through the multifamily Mark to Market program, Section 202 & 

Section 811 Supportive Housing Progtrams, HOME, or HOPE VI 

In FY 2011, the Department expects to use $50 million of the Energy Innovation Fund to 

launch and support innovation in financing assisted multifamily housing, as well as to 

support retrofits of FHA-insured single family housing. 

Results and Analysis 

HUD has made significant investments, both through the Recovery Act and its on-going 

programs, to further its commitment to energy efficiency and green building. Overall, a total of 

91,565 energy efficient and green units were completed in FY 2010, approximately a 64 percent 

increase over the target of 55,985. The following depicts the Department’s accomplishments 

reported through the fourth quarter of FY 2010 via graphics and narrative. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 48 

HUD Energy, Green, and Healthy Retrofits by Program

Program

FY 2010 

Target 

FY 2010 

Actual

FY 2010 

Actual vs. 

Target 

FY 2011 

Target

Cumulative 

Targets

Total Public and Indian 

 Housing* 19,512 63,673 44,161 54,445 73,957

HOME 4,688 5,343 655 4,692 9,380

CDBG 248 369 121 252 500

Tax Credit Assistance 

 Program- Recovery Act 1,140 287 -853 1,142 2,282

Total Community Planning 

 and Development 6,076 5,999 -77 6,086 12,162

Section 202 and Section 

 811 Supportive Housing 3,000 3,743 743 2,500 5,500

Mark-to-Market 4,000 1,412 -2,588 4,000 8,000

Green Retrofit Program 1,500 0 -1,500 18,500 20,000

Total Multifamily Housing 8,500 5,155 -3,345 25,000 33,500

Other 6,000 0 -6,000 500 6,500

TOTAL Energy Retrofits 40,088 74,827 34,739 86,031 126,119

Healthy Homes and Lead 

 Hazard Control 15,897 16,738 841 17,317 33,214

TOTAL Green and Healthy

 Retrofits 15,897 16,738 841 17,317 33,214

TOTAL ENERGY AND 

 GREEN RETROFITS 55,985 91,565 35,580 103,348 159,333

* The following programs contributed towards the Public and Indian Housing goal: Energy Performance Contracts, 

23,366 units; HOPE VI 1,593 units; Indian Housing Block Grants, 3,048 units; and Recovery Act Capital Funds, 

35,666 units. 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

Page 49 

 

HUD Retrofits by Program Office

3

One year in to our two-year goal of completing 159,000 energy and green retrofits, HUD is above its 

target by 35,580 units (+63.6%).

Actual

Target

55,985

19,512

6,076 8,500

15,897

91,565

63,673

5,999 5,155

16,738

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

Total HUD Retrofits PIH CPD MFH OHHLHC

+63.6% var.

+ 35,580 units

+5.3% var.

+ 841 units

+226.3% var.

+ 44,161 units

-1.3% var.

-77 units

*

-39.4% var.

-3,345 units

HUD progress through Q4 Progress through Q4 by Program Office

Public and Indian Housing 

PIH achieved a total of 63,673 completed units, an increase of 226 percent over the original 

target. The units were financed principally through the Recovery Act and include $3 billion in 

formula funds and $600 million in competitive funds through the Public Housing Capital Fund. 

Additional units were completed through the HOPE VI program and Energy Performance 

Contracts. The Indian Housing Block Grant Program financed through Recovery Act funds is 

also included in this figure. 

• HOPE VI 

PIH completed the construction of 1,593 HOPE VI energy efficient and/or green homes 

in FY2010. In previous years, PIH did not collect information on the green standards that 

its units met, so it is not possible to compare this year’s performance to prior fiscal years. 

• Public Housing Capital Fund Recovery Grant 

The Capital Fund Recovery Grant formula and competitive grants contributed a 

combined 35,666 energy efficient or green units cumulatively through FY 2010. Because 

the funding source for these grants is the Recovery Act, which utilized the use of the new 

Recovery Act Management and Performance System (RAMPS) for tracking of grant 

activities, no prior annualized data exists. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 50 

• Public Housing Operating Fund (Energy Performance Contracts) 

In FY 2010, 24 Energy Performance contracts were completed, improving the energy 

efficiency of 23,366 public housing units. These units reported as retrofitted in FY 2010 

may have been started prior to the fiscal year, but were completed in FY2010. 

• Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG)/ Indian Community Development Block Grant 

(ICDBG) - Recovery Act 

IHBG-Recovery grant funds enabled the retrofitting of 3,048 energy efficient or green 

units cumulatively through FY2010. Because the funding for this grant was through the 

Recovery Act, which facilitated the use of the RAMPS system for tracking of grant 

activities, no prior annualized data exists. The IHBG-Recovery and ICDBG-Recovery 

grantees have a March 2011 expenditure deadline; thus, future performance on an 

annualized level is expected to be lower than reported in FY 2010. 

Multifamily Housing 

Through the on-going Mark to Market Green Initiative and the Section 202 and 811 programs, 

green retrofits totaling 5,155 units of assisted multifamily housing were completed in FY 2010. 

No units were completed through the Green Retrofit Program because of timing issues. This 

program closed out at the beginning of FY 2011 and award recipients have 60 days from the 

close date to begin retrofits. The Mark to Market program completed 1,412 green units, and 

energy efficiency improvements were completed in 3,743 units of Section 202 Housing for the 

Elderly and Section 811 Housing for Persons with Disabilities. 

Community Planning and Development 

CPD completed a total of 5,999 units, approximately 1 percent under their target of 6,076 units. 

This included 5,712 new homes meeting the standard for Energy Star for New Homes through 

the HOME and CDBG programs and another 287 Recovery Act TCAP units. 

• CDBG 

In FY 2010, CDBG grantees completed 369 newly constructed housing units that were 

certified as meeting Energy Star standards. This exceeded the CDBG goal by more than 

100 units. The rehabilitation undertaken by CDBG grantees usually focuses on less 

substantial rehabilitation such as: emergency home repairs; accessibility (ADA) 

improvements; and minor-to-moderate level rehabilitation limited to correcting specific 

housing deficiencies, such as replacing or repairing a roof. This rehabilitation assistance 

provides much-needed assistance to low- and moderate-income households, including 

seniors. However, most CDBG grantees do not undertake housing rehabilitation 

activities that are extensive enough to lead to Energy Star certification. While the CDBG 

program produces some certified Energy Star units each year and tracks these data in 

IDIS, the Energy Star goal focuses on programs that perform more substantial levels of 

rehabilitation and new construction; activities that are only occasionally funded with 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

Page 51 

 

CDBG. CDBG grantees are more likely to use their HOME funds for such rehabilitation 

activities. 

• TCAP 

TCAP completed 287 units with the Energy Star label during FY 2010. This is 

below the goal of 1,140 units, but the number of overall completions for this 

program has lagged behind the original projections. However, 45 percent of the 

completed units are Energy Star units; this has far exceeded the original estimates 

of 10 percent. 

• HOME Investment Partnerships 

The HOME Program completed 5,343 Energy Star units during FY 2010. This 

exceeded the FY 2010 target by 655 units. 

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC) 

OHHLHC eliminated lead-based paint and other housing-related environmental health hazards in 

16,738 low-income housing units, 5.3 percent over the FY 2010 target. 

Future Strategies 

HUD’s future strategies for achieving this goal include the following: 

(1) Continuing to provide, or where possible increase, incentives for energy efficiency through 

HUD’s competitive and formula grant programs 

The primary strategy for achieving this Priority Goal involves incentivizing energy 

efficiency and greening of federally-assisted housing through HUD’s competitive and 

formula grant programs. HUD will continue to take steps to complete cost effective energy 

retrofits of its public housing stock. Multifamily housing programs will encourage project 

owners that are building or rehabilitating their properties to do so in ways that improve the 

energy efficiency of those properties. HUD’s Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard 

Control will award and ensure the successful completion of grants to state and local 

governments and non-profit organizations for lead hazard control interventions in housing, 

as well as broader healthy homes interventions. 

In addition, HUD’s community development grant programs (HOME and CDBG) will 

provide funds for gut rehabilitation and new construction that meet energy efficiency 

standards. The Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) will continue to 

encourage CDBG and HOME grantees to fund Energy Star compliant new housing 

construction and housing rehabilitation, through ongoing program updates and 

communications with grantees, and through interest group meetings. Capacity building 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 52 

measures will include highlighting the eligibility of Energy Star -certified housing 

rehabilitation (and new housing construction where appropriate and eligible). Decisions 

regarding the degree of rehabilitation or energy conservation work to be achieved in the 

CDBG program rests entirely with the CDBG grantees themselves. New housing 

construction, with or without energy-efficient construction features, is an eligible CDBG 

activity only in very limited circumstances. 

(2) Upgrading data collection and reporting systems 

HUD will also endeavor to upgrade data collection and reporting systems for programs to 

improve the Department’s capacity to collect and report on energy efficient retrofitting 

activities. HUD programs are working to establish mechanisms for determining the cost 

effectiveness of energy retrofit activities. As these are established, the agency will work to 

collect data and educate grantees and recipients to allow for more detailed and comprehensive 

energy data collection. Data collection will be facilitated through upgrades to HUD’s data 

systems to track grantee accomplishments in developing energy efficient housing. 

PIH is planning to continue providing high-level technical assistance to grantees for data 

collections systems such as the Recovery Act Management and Performance System (RAMPS) 

and the HOPE VI Grants Management System (GMS), including updated guidance related to 

energy savings. 

CPD provides training to grantees on timely and accurate Integrated Disbursement & 

Information System (IDIS) data reporting. 

(3) Implementing a comprehensive technical assistance initiative to provide support and capacity 

building to grantees 

A third strategy for achieving this goal involves educating and training grantees to improve the 

energy efficiency of the housing stock. Transformation Initiative funds will be used to provide 

cross- cutting, broad based technical assistance in order to build capacity as well as promote and 

facilitate energy efficiency activities and conservation efforts across the spectrum of HUD grant 

recipients and the multifamily housing portfolio. HUD will focus on building core competencies 

and skill sets and will introduce certification and education programs to ensure energy efficiency 

standardization across all related activities. This outreach will be critical in order to assist HUD 

grantees and subsidy recipients in producing more cost effective energy and green retrofit units, 

as well as allowing HUD to collect more detailed energy data. 

(4) Expanding access to capital and market-based incentives 
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

Page 53 

 

HUD will continue to explore strategies for leveraging private sector financing to supplement 

scarce public sector funds for greening public and assisted housing, as well as housing insured 

through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). HUD’s Energy Innovation Fund, 

capitalized with $50 million in FY 2010 appropriations, will be launched to support innovation 

in financing assisted multifamily housing, as well as to support retrofits of FHA-insured single 

family housing. Other strategies will explore the potential for leveraging resources from other 

public and private sector entities, such as municipal and investor-owned utilities as well as state 

and local energy programs, to supplement HUD funds for energy efficiency and green building. 

(5) Strengthening standards, guidelines and protocols 

HUD will implement enhanced minimum energy standards and adopt guidelines that support 

energy efficiency, healthy and green building performance goals. HUD has established green, 

healthy and energy-efficient guidelines for its competitive grant programs, including Energy 

Star for New Homes, Enterprise Green Communities, LEED for Neighborhood Development, 

the National Green Building Standard, and other green building standards - providing 

additional points for rating and ranking applications for HUD funds that met these standards. 

(6) Intra and interagency cooperation and coordination 

HUD’s success with this goal depends upon effective execution by HUD partners and grantees. 

HUD will work with local housing authorities, local governments, and for-profit and non-profit 

housing developers and property owners to build their capacity to integrate energy efficiency 

and green building practices into their local programs. The Department will also work to 

increase coordination of HUD’s programs and reporting systems with those of federal, state, 

and local governments, including the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance 

Program the Better Buildings program, and other Recovery Act funded programs, as well as 

with EPA to promote Energy Star products and appliances. 

Within the Department, HUD will work towards increasing coordination of green building and 

energy efficiency initiatives across program areas. For example, the Office of Public and 

Indian Housing has selected representatives from all involved offices to serve as part of an 

“Energy Group.” The Energy Group will focus on information sharing and procurement 

planning, and will also develop a smaller working group that will meet quarterly to check on 

the individual progress of each program office to meet their measures and milestones 

associated with Goal 4. 

(7) The Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Section II

Page 54 

In addition to catalyzing a residential energy retrofit and new construction market with 

renovations to its own stock of older, federally-assisted affordable housing, HUD has 

established an Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities and an interagency Sustainable 

Communities Initiative to assist in these efforts. The Sustainable Communities Initiative is a 

partnership among HUD, the Department of Transportation, and EPA. The initiative aims to 

lower carbon emissions and household costs through competitive grant awards that support 

integrated housing, transportation programs, and environmental planning as well as through 

innovative land use, zoning, and affordable housing practices. 

Data Discussion 

Public and Indian Housing Programs 

HOPE VI 

The data used for FY 2010 reporting for the HOPE VI program was gathered through the HOPE 

VI Grants Management System (GMS), which all grantees are required to use on a quarterly 

basis. For the first time, during FY 2010, the GMS was expanded to collect information on 

whether the HOPE VI units being built were achieving a comprehensive green standard (e.g. 

LEED for Homes), a non-comprehensive energy-efficiency standard (e.g. Energy Star for 

Homes), or meeting the local building code.

There are some limitations to the HOPE VI GMS. In particular, the data is self-reported and 

unverified. However, the HUD Grants Manager in charge of each project checks the data for 

each quarter. Additionally, the HOPE VI program has a Data Collection Contractor to provide 

technical assistance to grantees is carrying out their reporting requirements.

Public Housing Capital Fund Recovery Grant 

Section 1609 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) required that 

PHAs receiving Capital Fund Recovery Grant dollars, for both formula and competitive grants, 

report into the Recovery Act Management and Performance System (RAMPS) system with 

regard to environmental compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. 

In addition to reporting on NEPA requirements, PHA grantees also report on work activities 

related to Recovery Act dollars, including reporting on completed energy efficiency measures.

Data entered into the system is validated by PIH staff in terms of completeness of information; 

PIH staff also provides technical assistance to grantees to ensure that the data prompts within the 

RAMPS system are fully understood. Data may also be confirmed through remote and on-site 

reviews of PHAs’ Recovery Act work activities. The collection of data through RAMPS is 

advantageous as it provides a mechanism to track energy efficiency activities more effectively; 

however, it is only for Recovery Act grants and is subject to reporting errors.
FY 2010 Performance Overview 

Priority Goal 4: Energy and Green Retrofits 

Page 55 

 

Public Housing Operating Fund (Energy Performance Contracts) 

The data used for FY 2010 reporting for the EPC program was gathered through the EPC 

Inventory process, a survey that all PIH field offices are required to complete on an annual 

basis. For the first time, during FY 2010, the EPC Inventory was restructured to gather data at 

the project level rather than at the contract level, and training was provided to the field offices to 

increase the reporting accuracy and completeness. Despite this, the EPC Inventory frequently 

contains large amounts of missing or erroneous data. However, PIH makes a strong effort to 

track down and confirm the data that it reports. 

In future years, PIH hopes to continue to improve the EPC Inventory to make it easier to 

complete, thus improving accuracy and completeness. Ultimately, PIH hopes to integrate 

reporting on the EPC Inventory within an existing PIH system. 

Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) - Recovery Act 

Grantees receiving IHBG Recovery dollars, for both formula and competitive grants, report into 

the Recovery Act Management and Performance System (RAMPS) with regard to environmental 

compliance per NEPA requirements. In addition to reporting on NEPA requirements, grantees 

also report on work activities related to IHBG Recovery dollars, including reporting on those 

work items that promote energy efficiency. 

Community Planning and Development 

Data for this indicator are based on the accomplishments reported by the grantees in 

HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). CPD staff verifies data 

and data collection processes when monitoring grantees. 

Data on accomplishments are reported by CDBG grantees in IDIS. Data reliability has been 

enhanced by the re-engineering of the system at the end of FY 2009 into FY 2010. CPD field 

staff verifies program data when monitoring grantees.

Program Website 

PIH: http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/program_offices/public_indian_housing

Office of Capital Improvements: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/capfund/index.cfm

Office of Capital Improvements, Recovery Act: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/capfund/ocir.cfm

Indian Housing Block Grant: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/grants/ihbg.cfm

Indian Community Development Block Grant: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/ih/grants/icdbg.cfm

HOPE VI: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/

Energy Performance Contracting: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/phecc/eperformance.cfm

HOME: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/

TCAP: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/recovery/programs/tax
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 56 

Appendices

Appendix A: Amendments to the Priority Goals 

The Office of Management and Budget has approved the following changes to the performance 

goals since publication of the original measures in the Analytical Perspectives volume of the 

FY 2011 Budget of the U.S. Government. 

Foreclosure Prevention 

Original Measure 

• Assist three million homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes due to foreclosure.

o 200,000 homeowners will be assisted through FHA programs. 

o 400,000 homeowners will be assisted through third-party loss mitigation 

initiatives mandated by FHA but not receiving FHA subsidy. 

o 2.4 million homeowners will be assisted through joint HUD-Treasury programs. 

 For all FHA borrowers that become 30 days late, achieve a Consolidated 

Claim Workout (CCW) Ratio7

 of 75 percent, representing a 10 percentage 

point improvement over current levels, and for those receiving a CCW 

achieve a six month re-default rate8 of 20 percent or less, representing a 

five percentage point reduction from current levels. 

Approved Changes and Rationale 

• First, the overall target increased from 3 to 3.1 million homeowners assisted, and the 

form of assistance provided revised to reflect an increased contribution from HUD/FHA 

program activities. Instead of measuring assistance provided through third-party lender 

loss mitigation initiatives mandated by FHA but not receiving FHA subsidy, HUD 

decided, upon further analysis of FHA loss mitigation activities and the evolving 

conditions surrounding the foreclosure crisis, to focus on early delinquency and FHA loss 

mitigation tools. 

• Second, a definitional change related to consolidated workout claims from FHA 

borrowers who “become 30 days late" to "receive loss mitigation assistance" reflects the 

fact that borrowers in varying stages of delinquency can be assisted, and that the added 

criteria of being at least "30 days late" does not reflect the universe of borrowers being 

helped through FHA's programs. 

 

7

 CCWs combine FHA partial claims, loan modifications and new HAMP modifications that represent affordable 

solutions, but exclude less affordable forbearance programs. 8

 Since most re-defaults tend to occur in the first six months after the workout, the six month period was selected to 

allow measurement of goal performance within a given year. 
Appendices 

Page 57 

 

• Third, the clauses tied to the Consolidated Claim Workout ratio and re-default rate 

explaining the impact of meeting those targets have been deleted because they were 

inadvertently calculated using incorrect baselines. 

• Finally, per the 2.4 million homeowners assisted through joint HUD-Treasury programs, 

the performance period used to calculate the total number of trial modifications will be 

May 2009, the launch date of the Administration’s Making Home Affordable program. 

Both Departments thought it important to align this portion of the goal with the start of 

the Administration’s broader effort to deal with the foreclosure crisis and that a true fiscal 

year start date for the performance period might be confusing to the public and other 

external stakeholders who would expect to see reporting alignment with the 

Administration’s monthly Housing Scorecard. 

Veteran’s Homelessness 

Original Measure 

HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will jointly reduce homelessness among 

veterans. 

• Together, the two agencies will reduce the number of homeless veterans to 59,000 in 

June, 2012. 

• Toward this joint goal, HUD is committed to assisting 16,000 homeless veterans each 

fiscal year to move out of homelessness into permanent housing (6,000 through 

Continuum of Care programs, and 10,000 in partnership with VA through the HUDVASH program). 

Approved Changes and Rationale 

The expected average number of homeless veterans housed each fiscal year by HUD was 

reduced from 16,000 to 13,250 to correct an inconsistency in the number of veterans served 

through HUD-VASH. The overall goal of reducing the number of homeless vets to 59,000 

remains unchanged, however. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 58 

Appendix B: HUD Resource Tables 

2009 Enacted 2010 Enacted 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Discretionary BA 5,098,148 2,291,669 2,271,257 (20,412)

FTE 1,349 1,462 1,492 30

Personnel Cost 157,539 175,892 189,141 13,249

Obligations 3,661,836 5,005,718 2,636,387 (2,369,330)

Outlays 2,414,308 3,006,560 4,147,645 1,141,086

Discretionary BA 35,906,609 31,771,433 31,793,859 22,426

FTE 3,113 3,140 3,203 63

Personnel Cost 365,947 378,390 410,715 32,325

Obligations 35,915,597 31,954,221 32,357,613 403,392

Outlays 31,625,337 35,402,322 36,203,363 801,040

Discretionary BA 2,915,916 2,537,198 2,522,297 (14,901)

FTE 528 528 551 24

Personnel Cost 64,217 65,818 73,586 7,768

Obligations 3,305,029 3,052,869 2,726,251 (326,618)

Outlays 2,596,413 2,935,243 3,084,587 149,344

Discretionary BA 10,900,826 9,596,759 9,534,754 (62,005)

FTE 1,725 1,737 1,795 58

Personnel Cost 200,990 207,867 224,981 17,114

Obligations 12,802,204 12,083,743 10,567,377 (1,516,367)

Outlays 10,247,121 11,420,765 11,806,933 386,168

Discretionary BA 841,391 816,502 816,502 0

FTE 2,580 2,623 2,748 125

Personnel Cost 281,022 297,963 362,455 64,492

Non-Personnel Expenses 552,526 587,322 727,510 140,188

Obligations 897,273 969,607 1,020,632 51,025

Outlays 833,548 873,419 1,133,965 260,546

Total Resources

Discretionary BA 55,662,890 47,013,561 46,938,669 (74,892)

FTE 9,295 9,489 9,788 299

S&E 1,622,241 1,713,251 1,988,387 275,136

Obligations 56,581,939 53,066,158 49,308,260 (3,757,898)

Outlays 47,716,726 53,638,308 56,376,493 2,738,185

Strategic Goal 3: Utilize Housing as a Platform for Improving Quality of Life

Strategic Goal 4: Build Inclusive and Sustainable Communities Free from Discrimination

Strategic Goal 5: Transform the Way HUD Does Business

Summary of HUD Resources by Strategic Goal

Budget Authority (BA), Personnel Cost, Salaries and Expenses (S&E), Obligations and Outlays are in thousands of dollars

Full-time equivalents (FTE) represent the number of paid positions.

Strategic Goal 1: Strengthen the Nation's Housing Market to Bolster the Economy and Protect Consumers

Strategic Goal 2: Meet the Need for Quality Affordable Rental Homes

Notes to HUD Resource Tables: 

• All tables reflect gross discretionary amounts; 

• Amounts may not match previously reported totals due to rounding; 

• FY 2010 outlays include $10 million more than previously reported due to corrected and updated data; 

• FY 2010 and FY 2011 total Salaries and Expenses assume outlays of all non-personnel expense obligations; 

• Non-Personnel expenses include the personnel expenses of the Working Capital Fund; 

• Tables exclude reimbursable obligations and outlays in the Salaries and Expenses account. 
Appendices 

Page 59 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

Family Self-Sufficiency Program

Discretionary BA 3,500 4,200 4,200 0

Obligations 3,427 3,503 4,200 697

Outlays 3,427 3,503 4,200 697

HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods

Discretionary BA 6,000 8,700 8,700 0

FTE 343 (1)

Personnel Cost 367 489 399 (90)

Obligations 516 6,520 10,335 3,815

Outlays 16,198 9,740 10,642 902 

Native American Housing Block Grants

Discretionary BA 577,500 350,000 350,000 0

FTE 73 78 79 1 

Personnel Cost 8,929 9,539 10,516 977

Obligations 583,523 390,509 402,016 11,507 

Outlays 330,433 437,495 426,796 (10,699)

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund

Discretionary BA 9,000 7,000 7,000 0

FTE 25 31 31 0

Personnel Cost 3,058 3,791 4,127 336

Obligations 16,097 9,082 10,577 1,495

Outlays 13,337 10,953 12,409 1,456

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants

Discretionary BA 9,000 11,700 11,700 0

FTE 0 1 10

Personnel Cost 0 122 133 11

Obligations 9,241 12,124 26,233 14,109 

Outlays 3,620 7,677 14,308 6,631 

Native Hawaiian Loan Guarantee Fund

Discretionary BA 1,044 1,044 1,044 0

FTE 1 1 10

Personnel Cost 122 122 133 11

Obligations 478 1,196 1,533 337 

Outlays 209 658 1,308 650 

PIH Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 606,044 382,644 382,644 0

Discretionary BA - PIH Personnel 13,552 14,878 14,575 (303)

FTE 102 114 115 0

Personnel Cost 12,476 14,063 15,308 1,245

Obligations 613,282 422,933 454,894 31,960

Outlays 367,223 470,025 469,663 (362)

Community Planning and Development (CPD)

Community Development Block Grants

Discretionary BA 980,000 910,000 890,000 (20,000)

FTE 53 55 60 5

Personnel Cost 6,206 6,470 7,735 1,265

Obligations 1,624,540 1,701,161 1,209,535 (491,626)

Outlays 1,286,072 1,403,225 1,418,935 15,710

Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP 2)

Discretionary BA 2,000,000 0 0 0

Obligations 0 2,000,000 0 (2,000,000)

Outlays 0 59,089 1,000,000 940,911

Strategic Goal 1: Strengthen the Nation's Housing Market to Bolster the Economy and Protect Consumers

Budget Authority (BA), Personnel Cost, Obligations and Outlays are in thousands of dollars

Full-time equivalents (FTE) represent the number of paid positions.
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 60 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

HOME Investment Partnerships

Discretionary BA 1,100,250 492,750 492,750 0

FTE 36 39 39 0

Personnel Cost 4,215 4,673 5,028 355

Obligations 1,114,234 506,349 503,990 (2,359)

Outlays 515,012 763,483 732,335 (31,148)

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program /Capacity Building

Discretionary BA 44,800 57,400 57,400 0

FTE 464 (2)

Personnel Cost 468 719 516 (203)

Obligations 44,918 47,134 57,377 10,243

Outlays 22,527 36,097 43,882 7,785

Rural Housing and Economic Development

Discretionary BA 13,780 0 0 0

FTE 8 10 7 (2)

Personnel Cost 937 1,198 902 (296)

Obligations 9,889 13,715 4,186 (9,529)

Outlays 8,653 8,660 10,442 1,782

CPD Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 4,138,830 1,460,150 1,440,150 (20,000)

Discretionary BA - CPD Personnel 12,094 13,404 13,119 (285)

FTE 101 109 110 1

Personnel Cost 11,826 13,060 14,181 1,121

Obligations 2,793,580 4,268,359 1,775,088 (2,493,272)

Outlays 1,832,264 2,270,554 3,205,594 935,040

Housing

FHA/Mutual Mortgage Insurance

Discretionary BA 116,800 151,120 151,120 0

FTE 737 825 828 3

Personnel Cost 83,119 96,228 101,051 4,823

Obligations 140,768 186,494 252,251 65,757

Outlays 116,719 144,178 309,051 164,873

Housing Counseling

Discretionary BA 45,500 61,250 61,250 0

FTE 76 74 74 0

Personnel Cost 8,571 8,631 9,031 400

Obligations 43,584 54,516 69,481 14,965

Outlays 24,859 36,489 67,131 30,642

Manufactured Housing

Discretionary BA 8,000 16,000 16,000 0

FTE 12 16 16 0

Personnel Cost 1,353 1,866 1,953 87

Obligations 9,167 10,617 17,953 7,336

Outlays 7,704 16,546 21,953 5,407

Interstate Land Sales/Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

FTE 36 33 33 0

Personnel Cost 4,060 3,849 4,027 178

Obligations 4,363 4,430 4,567 137

Outlays 4,363 4,389 4,567 178

Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

FTE 7 8 80

Personnel Cost 790 933 976 43

Obligations 790 943 976 33

Outlays 790 933 976 43

Homeownership Assistance Program (Section 235)

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 0 0 00

Outlays 4,518 4,208 4,000 (208)
Appendices 

Page 61 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

HOPE I

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 0 0 00

Outlays 3,552 0 0 0

Housing Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 170,300 228,370 228,370 0

Discretionary BA - Housing Personnel 99,785 111,753 111,929 176

FTE 868 956 959 3

Personnel Cost 97,893 111,507 117,038 5,531

Obligations 198,671 257,000 345,228 88,228

Outlays 162,505 206,743 407,678 200,935

GNMA

Discretionary BA - GNMA Personnel 7,500 8,321 8,321 0

FTE 44 50 59 8

Personnel Cost 6,045 7,115 8,321 1,207

Obligations 6,045 7,500 8,321 821

Outlays 6,045 7,115 8,321 1,207

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 6,955 9,360 9,360 0

Discretionary BA - FHEO Personnel 8,973 9,334 9,334 0

FTE 75 74 79 0

Personnel Cost 8,507 8,747 9,360 613

Obligations 16,272 15,502 19,110 3,608

Outlays 14,501 15,364 17,680 2,316

Policy Development and Research (PD&R)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 12,889 10,667 10,667 0

Discretionary BA - PD&R Personnel 4,015 4,697 4,697

FTE 28 30 35 5

Personnel Cost 3,603 3,921 4,888 967

Obligations 15,682 15,695 15,656 (39)

Outlays 14,581 19,280 18,665 (615)

General Counsel

Discretionary BA 16,968 17,812 17,812 0

FTE 129 127 133 6

Personnel Cost 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Obligations 18,061 18,489 17,812 (677)

Outlays 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Discretionary BA 243 279 279 0

FTE 2 2 20

Personnel Cost 228 223 309 86

Obligations 243 239 279 40

Outlays 228 223 309 86

Presidential Mortgage Fraud Initiative

Discretionary BA 0 20,000 20,000 0

FTE 0 0 00

Personnel Cost 0 0 00

Obligations 0 0 00

Outlays 0 0 00

Total for Strategic Goal 1

Discretionary BA 5,098,148 2,291,669 2,271,257 (20,412)

FTE 1,349 1,462 1,492 30

Personnel Cost 157,539 175,892 189,141 13,249

Obligations 3,661,836 5,005,718 2,636,387 (2,369,330)

Outlays 2,414,308 3,006,560 4,147,645 1,141,086
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 62 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Request 2011 vs 2010

Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

Housing Certificate Fund

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 55,828 212,707 109,803 (102,904)

Outlays 1,493,151 1,031,049 1,059,250 28,201

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

Discretionary BA 15,366,250 17,217,990 17,217,990 0

FTE 369 446 471 26

Personnel Cost 45,133 55,019 62,699 7,680

Obligations 15,472,751 17,175,563 17,472,870 297,307 

Outlays 15,180,140 17,095,981 17,667,149 571,168 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program

Discretionary BA 3,500 4,200 4,200 0

Obligations 3,427 3,503 4,200 697 

Outlays 3,427 3,503 4,200 697 

Public Housing Operating Fund

Discretionary BA 3,029,400 3,247,000 3,247,000 0

FTE 360 331 339 7

Personnel Cost 43,910 40,832 45,127 4,295

Obligations 3,070,925 3,274,444 3,292,127 17,683

Outlays 3,069,206 3,170,745 3,290,767 120,022

Public Housing Capital Fund

Discretionary BA 5,704,900 2,180,500 2,180,500 0

FTE 247 260 267 7

Personnel Cost 30,211 32,073 35,543 3,470

Obligations 5,680,382 2,205,862 2,309,386 103,524

Outlays 2,884,054 3,842,386 3,493,193 (349,193)

HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods

Discretionary BA 88,800 143,450 143,450 0

FTE 46 52 50 (1)

Personnel Cost 5,627 6,415 6,656 241

Obligations 7,827 95,650 153,702 58,052

Outlays 239,923 143,332 158,255 14,923

Native American Housing Block Grants

Discretionary BA 381,150 231,000 231,000 0

FTE 48 51 52 1

Personnel Cost 5,871 6,291 6,922 631

Obligations 385,103 257,733 265,312 7,580

Outlays 218,063 288,742 281,667 (7,075)

Prevention of Resident Displacement

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 25 0 0 0

Outlays 828 0 0 0

PIH Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 24,574,000 23,024,140 23,024,140 0

Discretionary BA - PIH Personnel 142,294 148,915 149,421 506

FTE 1,069 1,140 1,179 39

Personnel Cost 130,752 140,630 156,947 16,317

Obligations 24,676,268 23,225,462 23,607,400 381,938

Outlays 23,088,792 25,575,737 25,954,481 378,744

Strategic Goal 2: Meet the Need for Quality Affordable Rental Homes

Full-time equivalents (FTE) represent the number of paid positions.

Budget Authority (BA), Personnel Cost, Obligations and Outlays are in thousands of dollars
Appendices 

Page 63 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Request 2011 vs 2010

Community Planning and Development (CPD)

Community Development Block Grants

Discretionary BA 245,000 227,500 222,500 (5,000)

FTE 13 14 15 1

Personnel Cost 1,522 1,678 1,934 256

Obligations 406,105 425,352 302,384 (122,968)

Outlays 321,489 350,867 354,734 3,867

HOME Investment Partnerships

Discretionary BA 2,200,500 985,500 985,500 0

FTE 73 79 79 0

Personnel Cost 8,548 9,466 10,184 718

Obligations 2,228,586 1,012,822 1,008,108 (4,715)

Outlays 1,030,141 1,527,086 1,464,799 (62,287)

Homeless Assistance Grants

Discretionary BA 2,223,900 1,305,500 1,305,500 0

FTE 194 196 197 1

Personnel Cost 22,716 23,365 25,396 2,031

Obligations 2,025,968 1,293,108 1,241,296 (51,812)

Outlays 1,060,951 1,441,763 1,657,796 216,033

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

Discretionary BA 226,300 244,550 244,550 0

FTE 39 36 40 4

Personnel Cost 4,567 4,314 5,157 843

Obligations 237,028 233,853 245,288 11,436

Outlays 236,068 219,127 239,608 20,481

Rural Housing and Economic Development

Discretionary BA 3,900 0 0 0

FTE 232 (1)

Personnel Cost 234 359 258 (101)

Obligations 2,768 3,903 1,187 (2,716)

Outlays 2,418 2,471 2,958 487

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program

Discretionary BA 2,000 2,000 2,000 0

FTE 3 3 30

Personnel Cost 351 359 387 28

Obligations 2,129 1,700 2,241 541

Outlays 1,799 1,555 2,908 1,353

Permanent Supportive Housing

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 39,869 2,016 2,100 84

Outlays 2,436 7,553 7,000 (553)

CPD Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 4,901,600 2,765,050 2,760,050 (5,000)

Discretionary BA - CPD Personnel 38,915 40,579 40,073 (506)

FTE 324 330 336 6

Personnel Cost 37,938 39,541 43,316 3,775

Obligations 4,942,453 2,972,754 2,802,604 (170,150)

Outlays 2,655,302 3,550,422 3,729,803 179,381

Housing

FHA/General and Special Risk Insurance

Discretionary BA 41,976 6,880 6,880 0

FTE 970 918 920 2

Personnel Cost 109,397 107,075 112,279 5,204

Obligations 149,936 119,380 115,702 (3,677)

Outlays 155,767 148,358 124,701 (23,658)
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 64 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Request 2011 vs 2010

Project-Based Rental Assistance

Discretionary BA 5,360,000 4,890,202 4,886,341 (3,861)

FTE 229 233 232 (1)

Personnel Cost 25,827 27,177 28,314 1,137

Obligations 5,358,275 5,037,169 4,986,732 (50,437)

Outlays 4,301,036 4,759,336 5,086,347 327,010

Section 202/Housing for the Elderly

Discretionary BA 469,200 506,000 506,000 0

FTE 179 178 178 0

Personnel Cost 20,188 20,762 21,724 962

Obligations 510,688 376,847 545,304 168,456

Outlays 620,833 609,808 574,432 (35,377)

Section 811/Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Discretionary BA 164,425 197,310 197,310 0

FTE 91 90 90 0

Personnel Cost 10,263 10,497 10,984 487

Obligations 196,863 152,405 199,373 46,968

Outlays 231,614 224,748 218,586 (6,162)

Housing Counseling

Discretionary BA 6,500 8,750 8,750 0

FTE 11 11 11 0

Personnel Cost 1,240 1,283 1,342 59

Obligations 6,242 7,839 9,978 2,139

Outlays 3,567 5,263 9,642 4,379

Rent Supplement Program

Discretionary BA 27,600 9,000 9,000 0

FTE 6 5 50

Personnel Cost 677 583 610 27

Obligations 8,539 4,990 13,006 8,016

Outlays 46,677 47,761 42,556 (5,205)

Rental Housing Assistance Program (Section 236)

Discretionary BA (37,600) (41,036) (9,600) 31,436

FTE 26 26 26 0

Personnel Cost 2,932 3,033 3,173 140

Obligations 22,822 13,297 32,173 18,876

Outlays 506,932 470,399 439,173 (31,226)

Flexible Subsidy Program

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 0 0 00

Outlays (25,661) (35,732) (26,000) 9,732

Housing Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 6,032,101 5,577,106 5,604,681 27,575

Discretionary BA - Housing Personnel 173,733 170,786 170,637 (149)

FTE 1,512 1,461 1,462 1

Personnel Cost 170,524 170,410 178,426 8,016

Obligations 6,253,365 5,711,926 5,902,267 190,341

Outlays 5,840,765 6,229,942 6,469,437 239,495

GNMA

Discretionary BA - GNMA Personnel 2,500 2,774 2,774 0

FTE 15 17 20 3

Personnel Cost 2,015 2,372 2,774 402

Obligations 2,015 2,500 2,774 274

Outlays 2,015 2,372 2,774 402
Appendices 

Page 65 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Request 2011 vs 2010

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 3,210 4,320 4,320 0

Discretionary BA - FHEO Personnel 4,141 4,308 4,308 0

FTE 34 34 37 0

Personnel Cost 3,926 4,037 4,320 283

Obligations 7,510 7,155 8,820 1,665

Outlays 6,693 7,091 8,160 1,069

Policy Development and Research (PD&R)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 12,889 10,667 10,667 0

Discretionary BA - PD&R Personnel 4,015 4,697 4,697

FTE 28 30 35 5

Personnel Cost 3,603 3,921 4,888 967

Obligations 15,682 15,695 15,656 (39)

Outlays 14,581 19,280 18,665 (615)

General Counsel

Discretionary BA 16,968 17,812 17,812 0

FTE 129 127 133 6

Personnel Cost 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Obligations 18,061 18,489 17,812 (677)

Outlays 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Discretionary BA 243 279 279 0

FTE 2 2 20

Personnel Cost 228 223 309 86

Obligations 243 239 279 40

Outlays 228 223 309 86

Total for Strategic Goal 2

Discretionary BA 35,906,609 31,771,433 31,793,859 22,426

FTE 3,113 3,140 3,203 63

Personnel Cost 365,947 378,390 410,715 32,325

Obligations 35,915,597 31,954,221 32,357,613 403,392

Outlays 31,625,337 35,402,322 36,203,363 801,040
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 66 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Request 2011 vs 2010

Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

Housing Certificate Fund

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 588 2,239 1,156 (1,083)

Outlays 15,717 10,853 11,150 297

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

Discretionary BA 161,750 181,242 181,242 0

FTE 4 5 50

Personnel Cost 489 617 666 49

Obligations 162,885 180,833 183,931 3,098

Outlays 159,805 179,996 185,976 5,980

Family Self-Sufficiency Program

Discretionary BA 39,500 47,400 47,400 0

Obligations 38,674 39,530 47,400 7,870

Outlays 38,674 39,530 47,400 7,870

Public Housing Operating Fund

Discretionary BA 668,250 716,250 716,250 0

FTE 80 73 75 2

Personnel Cost 9,785 9,005 9,984 979

Obligations 677,509 722,302 726,234 3,932

Outlays 677,130 699,427 725,934 26,507

Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program

Discretionary BA 40,000 50,000 50,000 0

FTE 2 2 20

Personnel Cost 245 247 266 19

Obligations 40,811 43,881 44,266 385

Outlays 245 30,247 31,266 1,019

HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods

Discretionary BA 12,000 23,250 23,250 0

FTE 6 7 70

Personnel Cost 734 863 932 69

Obligations 1,031 12,923 20,803 7,881

Outlays 32,396 19,365 21,418 2,053

Native American Housing Block Grants

Discretionary BA 103,950 63,000 63,000 0

FTE 13 14 14 0

Personnel Cost 1,590 1,727 1,864 137

Obligations 105,017 70,292 72,334 2,043

Outlays 59,461 78,759 76,794 (1,965)

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants

Discretionary BA 500 650 650 0

Obligations 513 667 1,450 783

Outlays 201 420 788 368

Prevention of Resident Displacement

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 11 0 0 0

Outlays 355 0 0 0

PIH Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 1,025,950 1,081,792 1,081,792 0

Discretionary BA - PIH Personnel 13,950 13,182 13,054 (128)

FTE 105 101 103 2

Personnel Cost 12,843 12,459 13,712 1,253

Obligations 1,027,038 1,072,666 1,097,574 24,908

Outlays 983,983 1,058,597 1,100,726 42,130

Strategic Goal 3: Utilize Housing as a Platform for Improving Quality of Life

Budget Authority (BA), Personnel Cost, Obligations and Outlays are in thousands of dollars

Full-time equivalents (FTE) represent the number of paid positions.
Appendices 

Page 67 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Request 2011 vs 2010

Community Planning and Development (CPD)

Community Development Block Grants

Discretionary BA 735,000 682,500 667,500 (15,000)

FTE 40 41 45 4

Personnel Cost 4,648 4,913 5,758 845

Obligations 1,218,398 1,275,933 907,108 (368,825)

Outlays 964,548 1,052,479 1,064,158 11,679

Homeless Assistance Grants

Discretionary BA 953,100 559,500 559,500 0

FTE 83 84 84 0

Personnel Cost 9,643 10,184 10,748 564

Obligations 868,180 554,366 531,848 (22,518)

Outlays 454,601 618,069 710,348 92,279

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

Discretionary BA 3,100 3,350 3,350 0

FTE 1 0 10

Personnel Cost 116 0 128 128

Obligations 3,300 3,142 3,417 275

Outlays 3,287 2,943 3,340 397

Empowerment Zones

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

FTE 5 1 43

Personnel Cost 581 120 512 392

Obligations 581 124 512

Outlays 4,675 8,885 812 (8,073)

Permanent Supportive Housing

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 17,087 864 900 36

Outlays 1,044 3,237 3,000 (237)

CPD Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 1,691,200 1,245,350 1,230,350 (15,000)

Discretionary BA - CPD Personnel 15,326 15,617 15,862 245

FTE 128 127 133 6

Personnel Cost 14,988 15,217 17,146 1,929

Obligations 2,107,546 1,834,429 1,443,785 (390,644)

Outlays 1,428,155 1,685,612 1,781,658 96,045

Housing

FHA/Mutual Mortgage Insurance

Discretionary BA 7,300 9,445 9,445 0

FTE 46 52 52 0

Personnel Cost 5,188 5,949 6,346 397

Obligations 8,791 11,589 15,796 4,207

Outlays 7,288 8,946 19,346 10,400

Section 202/Housing for the Elderly

Discretionary BA 61,200 66,000 66,000 0

FTE 23 23 23 0

Personnel Cost 2,594 2,683 2,807 124

Obligations 66,576 49,131 71,104 21,973

Outlays 80,943 79,519 74,903 (4,616)

Section 811/Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Discretionary BA 28,525 34,230 34,230 0

FTE 16 16 15 (1)

Personnel Cost 1,804 1,866 1,831 (35)

Obligations 34,176 26,485 36,419 9,933

Outlays 40,205 39,035 37,847 (1,188)
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 68 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 Request 2011 vs 2010

Housing Counseling

Discretionary BA 6,500 8,750 8,750 0

FTE 11 11 11 0

Personnel Cost 1,241 1,283 1,342 59

Obligations 6,243 7,839 9,978 2,139

Outlays 3,568 5,263 9,642 4,379

College Housing Debt Service Program

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 0 0 00

Outlays 3,724 2,749 2,000 (749)

Housing Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 103,525 118,425 118,425 0

Discretionary BA - Housing Personnel 11,023 11,806 11,788 (18)

FTE 96 101 101 (0)

Personnel Cost 10,827 11,781 12,326 545

Obligations 115,786 95,045 133,296 38,251

Outlays 135,728 135,512 143,738 8,226

Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 9,600 5,600 5,600 0

Discretionary BA - OHHLHC Personnel 269 286 286 0

FTE 222 0

Personnel Cost 267 279 286 7

Obligations 9,865 5,821 5,846 25

Outlays 6,994 7,439 7,606 167

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 2,935 3,895 3,895 0

Discretionary BA - FHEO Personnel 3,796 3,949 3,949 0

FTE 32 32 34 2

Personnel Cost 3,599 3,701 3,960 259

Obligations 6,884 6,559 8,085 1,526

Outlays 6,135 6,500 7,480 980

Policy Development and Research (PD&R)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 16,111 13,333 13,333 0

Discretionary BA - PD&R Personnel 5,020 5,872 5,872 0

FTE 34 37 43 6

Personnel Cost 4,504 4,902 6,112 1,209

Obligations 19,606 19,622 19,574 (48)

Outlays 18,230 24,104 23,335 (769)

General Counsel

Discretionary BA 16,968 17,812 17,812 0

FTE 129 127 133 6

Personnel Cost 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Obligations 18,061 18,489 17,812 (677)

Outlays 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Discretionary BA 243 279 279 0

FTE 2 2 20

Personnel Cost 228 223 309 86

Obligations 243 239 279 40

Outlays 228 223 309 86

Total for Strategic Goal 3

Discretionary BA 2,915,916 2,537,198 2,522,297 (14,901)

FTE 528 528 551 24

Personnel Cost 64,217 65,818 73,586 7,768

Obligations 3,305,029 3,052,869 2,726,251 (326,618)

Outlays 2,596,413 2,935,243 3,084,587 149,344
Appendices 

Page 69 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

Housing Certificate Fund

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

Obligations 2,351 8,956 4,623 (4,333)

Outlays 62,870 43,413 44,600 1,187

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance

Discretionary BA 647,000 724,968 724,968 0

FTE 16 19 20 1

Personnel Cost 1,957 2,344 2,662 318

Obligations 651,541 723,210 735,722 12,512

Outlays 639,220 719,858 743,902 24,044

Family Self-Sufficiency Program

Discretionary BA 3,500 4,200 4,200 0

Obligations 3,427 3,503 4,200 697

Outlays 3,427 3,503 4,200 697

Public Housing Operating Fund

Discretionary BA 757,350 811,750 811,750 0

FTE 90 83 85 2

Personnel Cost 11,008 10,239 11,315 1,076

Obligations 767,762 818,643 823,065 4,422

Outlays 767,332 792,717 822,725 30,008

Public Housing Capital Fund

Discretionary BA 705,100 269,500 269,500 0

FTE 30 32 33 1

Personnel Cost 3,670 3,947 4,393 446

Obligations 702,006 272,618 285,430 12,812

Outlays 356,392 474,885 431,743 (43,142)

HOPE VI/Choice Neighborhoods

Discretionary BA 13,200 24,600 24,600 0

FTE 787 (0)

Personnel Cost 856 987 932 (55)

Obligations 1,183 14,252 22,790 8,538

Outlays 35,684 21,340 23,467 2,128

Native American Housing Block Grants

Discretionary BA 92,400 56,000 56,000 0

FTE 12 12 13 0

Personnel Cost 1,468 1,480 1,731 251

Obligations 93,403 62,435 64,371 1,936

Outlays 52,909 69,953 68,336 (1,617)

Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grants

Discretionary BA 500 650 650 0

Obligations 513 667 1,450 783

Outlays 201 420 788 368

PIH Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 2,219,050 1,891,668 1,891,668 0

Discretionary BA - PIH Personnel 20,594 20,099 20,024 (75)

FTE 155 154 158 4

Personnel Cost 18,959 18,997 21,033 2,036

Obligations 2,222,185 1,904,283 1,941,651 37,368

Outlays 1,918,034 2,126,087 2,139,760 13,673

Strategic Goal 4: Build Inclusive and Sustainable Communities Free From Discrimination

Full-time equivalents (FTE) represent the number of paid positions.

Budget Authority (BA), Personnel Cost, Obligations and Outlays are in thousands of dollars
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 70 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Community Planning and Development (CPD)

Community Development Block Grants

Discretionary BA 2,940,000 2,730,000 2,670,000 (60,000)

FTE 158 164 178 14

Personnel Cost 18,384 19,650 22,947 3,297

Obligations 4,873,385 5,103,733 3,628,347 (1,475,386)

Outlays 3,857,983 4,209,916 4,256,547 46,631

HOME Investment Partnerships

Discretionary BA 774,250 346,750 346,750 0

FTE 26 28 28 0

Personnel Cost 3,045 3,355 3,610 255

Obligations 784,169 356,388 354,731 (1,657)

Outlays 362,494 537,332 515,419 (21,913)

Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program/Capacity Building

Discretionary BA 19,200 24,600 24,600 0

FTE 222 (1)

Personnel Cost 234 240 258 18

Obligations 19,284 20,129 24,627 4,498

Outlays 9,688 15,402 18,843 3,441

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

Discretionary BA 80,600 87,100 87,100 0

FTE 14 13 14 2

Personnel Cost 1,639 1,558 1,805 247

Obligations 84,433 83,312 87,331 4,019

Outlays 84,092 78,067 85,308 7,241

Rural Housing and Economic Development

Discretionary BA 8,320 0 0 0

FTE 564 (1)

Personnel Cost 585 719 516 (203)

Obligations 5,990 8,276 2,499 (5,777)

Outlays 5,244 5,224 6,276 1,052

Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program

Discretionary BA 4,000 4,000 4,000 0

FTE 7 7 70

Personnel Cost 820 839 902 63

Obligations 4,376 3,524 4,610 1,086

Outlays 3,717 3,231 5,943 2,712

Brownfields Economic Development Initiative

Discretionary BA 10,000 17,500 17,500 0

FTE 8 16 7 (9)

Personnel Cost 937 1,917 902 (1,015)

Obligations 12,786 7,738 10,902 3,164

Outlays 23,037 19,069 28,902 9,833

Empowerment Zones

Discretionary BA 0 0 00

FTE 14 3 11 8

Personnel Cost 1,639 359 1,418 1,059

Obligations 1,639 373 1,418 1,045

Outlays 13,921 26,653 2,318 (24,335)

CPD Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 3,836,370 3,209,950 3,149,950 (60,000)

Discretionary BA - CPD Personnel 27,899 29,389 29,935 546

FTE 233 239 251 12

Personnel Cost 27,283 28,637 32,358 3,721

Obligations 5,786,062 5,583,473 4,114,465 (1,469,008)

Outlays 4,360,175 4,894,894 4,919,557 24,663
Appendices 

Page 71 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Housing

FHA/Mutual Mortgage Insurance

Discretionary BA 21,900 28,335 28,335 0

FTE 138 155 155 0

Personnel Cost 15,564 18,079 18,917 838

Obligations 26,373 35,004 47,267 12,263

Outlays 21,864 27,070 57,917 30,847

FHA/General and Special Risk Insurance

Discretionary BA 10,495 1,720 1,720 0

FTE 243 230 230 1

Personnel Cost 27,405 26,827 28,070 1,243

Obligations 37,540 29,903 28,926 (978)

Outlays 38,998 37,148 31,175 (5,972)

Project-Based Rental Assistance

Discretionary BA 4,020,000 3,667,651 3,665,184 (2,467)

FTE 172 174 174 (0)

Personnel Cost 19,398 20,179 21,235 1,056

Obligations 4,019,201 3,778,108 3,740,482 (37,626)

Outlays 3,226,179 3,569,713 3,815,202 245,490

Section 202/Housing for the Elderly

Discretionary BA 234,600 253,000 253,000 0

FTE 90 89 89 0

Personnel Cost 10,150 10,381 10,862 481

Obligations 255,440 188,453 272,695 84,242

Outlays 310,521 304,952 287,261 (17,691)

Section 811/Housing for Persons with Disabilities

Discretionary BA 57,050 68,460 68,460 0

FTE 31 31 31 0

Personnel Cost 3,496 3,616 3,783 167

Obligations 68,240 52,853 72,959 20,106

Outlays 80,297 77,954 75,814 (2,140)

Housing Counseling

Discretionary BA 6,500 8,750 8,750 0

FTE 11 11 11 0

Personnel Cost 1,241 1,283 1,342 59

Obligations 6,243 7,839 9,978 2,139

Outlays 3,568 5,263 9,642 4,379

Green Retrofit Program, Recovery Act

Discretionary BA 250,000 0 0

Obligations 11,750 235,750 0

Outlays 0 68,354 126,000

Energy Innovation Fund

Discretionary BA 0 50,000 50,000 0

Obligations 0 0 50,000 50,000

Outlays 0 0 16,000 16,000

Housing Total

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 4,350,545 4,077,916 4,075,449 (2,467)

Discretionary BA - Housing Personnel 78,657 80,542 80,533 (9)

FTE 685 689 690 1

Personnel Cost 77,254 80,365 84,209 3,844

Obligations 4,424,786 4,327,910 4,222,306 (105,604)

Outlays 3,681,427 4,090,453 4,419,012 328,559

Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLHC)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 230,400 134,400 134,400 0

Discretionary BA - OHHLHC Personnel 6,459 6,865 6,865 0

FTE 54 57 57 0

Personnel Cost 6,396 6,688 6,865 177

Obligations 236,756 139,695 140,305 610

Outlays 167,849 178,528 182,545 4,017
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 72 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 40,400 54,425 54,425 0

Discretionary BA - FHEO Personnel 52,111 54,209 54,209 0

FTE 433 433 461 29

Personnel Cost 49,404 50,798 54,360 3,562

Obligations 94,504 90,032 110,985 20,953

Outlays 84,216 89,219 102,680 13,461

Policy Development and Research (PD&R)

Discretionary BA - Program Funding 16,111 13,333 13,333 0

Discretionary BA - PD&R Personnel 5,020 5,872 5,872 0

FTE 34 37 43 6

Personnel Cost 4,504 4,902 6,112 1,209

Obligations 19,606 19,622 19,574 (48)

Outlays 18,230 24,104 23,335 (769)

General Counsel

Discretionary BA 16,968 17,812 17,812 0

FTE 129 127 133 6

Personnel Cost 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Obligations 18,061 18,489 17,812 (677)

Outlays 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Discretionary BA 243 279 279 0

FTE 2 2 20

Personnel Cost 228 223 309 86

Obligations 243 239 279 40

Outlays 228 223 309 86

Total for Strategic Goal 4

Discretionary BA 10,900,826 9,596,759 9,534,754 (62,005)

FTE 1,725 1,737 1,795 58

Personnel Cost 200,990 207,867 224,981 17,114

Obligations 12,802,204 12,083,743 10,567,377 (1,516,367)

Outlays 10,247,121 11,420,765 11,806,933 386,168
Appendices 

Page 73 

 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Executive Direction

Discretionary BA 23,799 26,855 26,855 0

FTE 125 141 160 19

Personnel Cost 17,042 21,403 30,000 8,597

Obligations 18,099 22,589 26,855 4,266

Outlays 17,042 21,403 30,000 8,597

Chief Human Capital Officer

Discretionary BA 75,510 76,958 76,958 0

FTE 640 587 613 26

Personnel Cost 65,748 65,104 85,266 20,162

Obligations 70,011 69,755 76,958 7,203

Outlays 65,748 65,104 85,266 20,162

Departmental Operations and Coordination

Discretionary BA 11,004 9,623 9,623 0

FTE 87 75 74 (1)

Personnel Cost 10,895 9,606 10,662 1,056

Obligations 11,602 10,292 9,623 (669)

Outlays 10,895 9,606 10,662 1,056

Field Policy and Management

Discretionary BA 48,818 51,275 51,275 0

FTE 357 374 388 14

Personnel Cost 45,126 47,114 56,811 9,697

Obligations 48,052 50,479 51,275 796

Outlays 45,126 47,114 56,811 9,697

Chief Procurement Officer

Discretionary BA 13,438 14,649 14,649 0

FTE 100 104 118 14

Personnel Cost 11,850 12,736 16,231 3,495

Obligations 12,619 13,646 14,649 1,003

Outlays 11,850 12,736 16,231 3,495

Chief Financial Officer

Discretionary BA 34,029 35,197 35,197 0

FTE 199 200 213 13

Personnel Cost 24,364 25,378 38,997 13,619

Obligations 25,944 27,191 35,197 8,006

Outlays 24,364 25,378 38,997 13,619

General Counsel

Discretionary BA 16,968 17,812 17,812 0

FTE 129 127 133 6

Personnel Cost 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Obligations 18,061 18,489 17,812 (677)

Outlays 16,961 17,256 19,735 2,479

Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity

Discretionary BA 3,085 3,296 3,296 0

FTE 23 24 26 2

Personnel Cost 2,838 3,065 3,652 587

Obligations 3,022 3,284 3,296 12

Outlays 2,838 3,065 3,652 587

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Discretionary BA 243 279 279 0

FTE 2 2 20

Personnel Cost 228 223 309 86

Obligations 243 239 279 40

Outlays 228 223 309 86

Strategic Goal 5: Transform the way HUD Does Business

Full-time equivalents (FTE) represent the number of paid positions.

Budget Authority (BA), Personnel Cost, Obligations and Outlays are in thousands of dollars
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 74 

2009 Actual 2010 Actual 2011 CR 2011 vs 2010

Sustainable Housing and Communities

Discretionary BA 0 2,400 2,400 0

FTE 0 6 20 13

Personnel Cost 0 814 2,659 1,845

Obligations 0 872 2,400 1,528

Outlays 0 814 2,659 1,845

Strategic Planning and Management

Discretionary BA 0 3,288 3,288 0

FTE 0 6 27 20

Personnel Cost 0 774 3,643 2,869

Obligations 0 829 3,288 2,459

Outlays 0 774 3,643 2,869

HUD Transformation Initiative

Obligations 0 32,973 120,000 87,027

Outlays 0 71 44,000 43,929

Working Capital Fund

Discretionary BA 224,000 200,000 200,000 0

FTE 279 293 295 2

Obligations 305,920 332,843 264,000 (68,843)

Outlays 270,883 290,368 427,000 136,632

Inspector General

Discretionary BA 135,000 125,000 125,000 0

FTE 638 684 680 (4)

Personnel Cost 85,970 94,490 94,490 0

Obligations 126,700 127,126 132,000 4,874

Outlays 115,144 132,444 132,000 (444)

Non-Personnel Expenses

Discretionary BA 255,497 249,870 249,870 0

Obligations 257,000 259,000 263,000 4,000

Outlays 252,469 247,063 263,000 15,937

Total for Strategic Goal 5

Discretionary BA 841,391 816,502 816,502 0

FTE 2,580 2,623 2,748 125

Personnel Cost 281,022 297,963 362,455 64,492

Non-Personnel Expenses 552,526 587,322 727,510 140,188

Obligations 897,273 969,607 1,020,632 51,025

Outlays 833,548 873,419 1,133,965 260,546
Appendices 

Page 75 

 

Appendix C: Program Evaluations and Research 

Informing HUD’s Strategic Goals

Program Evaluations and Research Informing Strategic Goal 1 

Final Report to Congress on the Root Causes of the Foreclosure Crisis 

Mandated by Section 1517 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, this 

report analyzes trends in the housing market and reviews the literature to identify the root causes 

of the current extremely high levels of defaults and foreclosures among residential mortgages. 

The report finds that major factors that contributed to the crisis include the rapid growth in loans 

with a high risk of default, such as subprime loans, and the slowdown in house price growth. The 

study finds that the rapid surge in riskier loans was, in turn, a result of insufficient regulatory 

oversight, deterioration of underwriting standards, rising demand for mortgage-backed securities, 

predatory lending, and a rapid increase in house prices that created a self-perpetuating cycle 

fueling more risky lending. In assessing the role of federal policies to the crisis, the report finds 

empirical evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played little or no role in the 

foreclosure crisis. And while the report concludes that Government Sponsored Enterprises 

contributed to the growth of the subprime market in the first half of 2000, their role decreased 

sharply with the rapid growth in demand for these securities from a wide variety of investors. 

The report also provides a review of policy responses and recommended actions to mitigate the 

crisis and help prevent similar crises from occurring in the future. The report finds that Hope 

Now Alliance, which provides counseling to facilitate repayment plans and loan modifications, 

has been the most successful initiative. Through two Congressional appropriations, it assisted 4.4 

million loan workouts between July 2007 and May 2009. Other programs, such as FHA Secure 

program and HOPE for Homeowners, have not produced the expected results. The Home 

Affordable Modification Program, a new effort to reduce mortgage payments through interest 

subsidies, is expected to have a more sustainable effect on reducing foreclosures than earlier loan 

modifications that left payments unchanged or increased. Efforts to reduce future risks of a 

similar foreclosure crisis include promoting uniform federal regulation in the primary and 

secondary markets through comprehensive mortgage market reform, improving regulation and 

consumer protection against deceptive lending practices, and expanding consumer counseling 

and assistance. 

Program Evaluations and Research Informing Strategic Goal 2 

Worst Case Needs 2007, Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Reports to Congress 

The 2007 report, twelfth in the series of worst case housing needs reports issued by HUD since 

1991, provides national data and information on unassisted renter households with very lowincomes who pay more than half of their income for housing or live in severely substandard 

housing. The report shows that in 2007 there were 5.91 million renter households with worst 

case housing needs, 5.3 percent of all households. The level of worst case housing needs 

remained effectively stable between 2005 and 2007, but it was 18 percent higher than in 2001. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 76 

Rent burden (paying more than half of gross income on rent) was the primary source of worst 

case needs, and seven out of ten households with worst case needs had income below 30 percent 

of area median income. Worst case needs were found across different family types, races, 

geographic regions and locations. 

The 2009 report finds dramatic increases in worst case needs, due to shrinking incomes and 

upward pressure on rents caused by growing competition for already-scarce affordable units. 

Between 2007 and 2009, the number of renters experiencing worst case needs jumped by more 

than 20 percent, from 5.91 to 7.10 million. This is the sharpest increase, both in absolute and 

percentage terms, since HUD started collecting this data in 1985. Although the incidence of 

worst case needs has fluctuated during the past decade, the overall upward trend is disturbing: 

since 2001, the number of cases has increased by almost 42 percent, now representing more than 

6 percent of all households. Because of these dramatic increases, 41 percent of the 17.12 million 

very low-income American renters had worst case needs in 2009. Rent burden continues to be 

the primary source of worst case needs. 

Markov Chain Model of Rent Burden in the Housing Choice Voucher Program 

This independent study models the likelihood of persistent high rent burden in the Tenant Based 

Rental Assistance (Housing Choice Voucher) Program, which provides housing assistance in 

privately owned rental units. Using a Markov Chain model and longitudinal data on households 

admitted to the program between 2000 and 2008, the study predicts that rent burden increases 

with time in the program. This is not surprising, given that rent burden is required to be between 

30 to 40 percent of adjusted household income at admission, yet this restriction doesn’t apply in 

following years. The study suggests that burden levels above 30 percent do not necessarily imply 

inadequate subsidies and can be explained by a household’s preference for larger or newer 

homes or better neighborhoods. However, prior research suggests that prolonged burden may 

disproportionately affect the most disadvantaged households. Results also predict considerable 

reductions in the probability of rent burden over time. A family with rent burden of 50 percent or 

more at admission has a one in two chance of reducing its burden below 32 percent in the next 

year. This is consistent with prior research which indicates considerable turnover in the 

population of households with high rent burdens. 

U.S. Rental Housing Characteristics: Supply, Vacancy, and Affordability 

This independent study documents U.S. rental housing market conditions, based on the existing 

literature and original analysis of public and privately-collected proprietary data. The study 

describes the characteristics and trends of rental housing supply, variations across local housing 

markets, conditions in the nation’s assisted rental housing stock, and the demand for rental 

housing. The study finds that the number of unassisted rental units affordable to households at or 

below 60 percent of the area median income decreased by 6.3 percent while high-rent units 

increased by 94.3 percent between 2001 and 2007. This translates into a loss of more than 1.2 

million affordable unassisted rental units. The study finds that although vacancy rates have been 

rising nationally, conditions in the nation’s assisted housing stock have been considerably 

tighter, with lower or decreasing vacancy rates. The study also estimates that 8.7 million renter 

households had extreme rent burden, paying 50 percent or more of their income on rent in 2009, 

up from 8.3 million renter households in 2007 and 6.2 million in 2000. Finally, the study finds 
Appendices 

Page 77 

 

evidence that the continued rise in foreclosures and worsening economic conditions may have 

caused some household consolidation or “doubling up.” 

Program Evaluations and Research Informing Strategic Goal 3 

The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress 

This report is the fifth in a series of reports on homelessness and responds to a series of 

Congressional directives calling for the collection and analysis of data on homelessness. With 

this report, there are three complete years of data on the number and characteristics of homeless 

people, how they became homeless, and how they used the homeless service system. The report 

compiles data from 2,988 counties and 1,056 cities, which represents an increase in participating 

communities from last year by more than 66 percent. The report uses two main estimates of 

homelessness. The first is point-in-time (PIT) estimates, which estimates total number of 

homeless persons sheltered and unsheltered on a single night in January. The second is one-year

estimates of the total sheltered homeless population who used homeless programs over the 

course of a year, based on the Homeless Management Information System. 

The report finds that on a single-night in January 2009, there were an estimated 643,067 

sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide, of whom 37 percent were unsheltered. 

The counts have remained fairly stable from year to year, but a smaller share of homeless people 

is unsheltered or experience chronic homelessness (persons with disabilities and long or frequent 

patterns of homelessness). Nearly two thirds were homeless as individuals, while more than a 

third were homeless as part of a family. 

The report also finds that 1.56 million people used emergency shelter or a transitional housing 

program during the one-year period (October 2008 to September 2009). Two-thirds were 

homeless as individuals, and one-third were homeless as members of families with children. For 

the second straight year, the number of sheltered homeless families increased. A typical sheltered 

homeless person was an adult male, from a minority group, middle aged, and alone. Slightly over 

two-thirds of sheltered homeless adults have a disability. Adults in sheltered homeless families 

are overwhelmingly females, under age 31, and very few have disabilities. Three in five people 

in homeless families are children and more than half of them are under age of six. 

Finally, the report analyzes trends in sheltered homelessness and program capacity. It finds 

families staying longer in shelters and few changes in the demographic characteristics of 

sheltered homeless people. It also reports a total of 643,423 year-round beds for homeless people 

nationwide. For the first time, permanent supportive housing, one of HUD’s policy priorities, 

offered more beds than emergency shelter or transitional housing did, and this might have 

contributed to the decline in unsheltered and chronic homelessness. 

Cost Associated with First-Time Homelessness for Families and Individuals 

This independent study examines costs associated with the use of homeless and mainstream 

service delivery systems by families and individuals experiencing homelessness for the first time 

in six communities (Des Moines, Iowa; Houston, Texas; Jacksonville, Florida; Kalamazoo, 

Michigan; Upstate South Carolina; and Washington, DC). Using telephone outreach, in-person 

site visits and analysis of Homeless Management Information System data, researchers develop a 

homeless program typology and usage pattern and estimate homeless program costs and, when 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 78 

possible, mainstream program costs for each individual or family household in the study. Three 

types of programs are analyzed: emergency shelter, transitional housing, and permanent 

supportive housing. 

The study finds that average homeless system costs for individuals ($1,634 to $2,308) are much 

lower than those for families ($3,184 to $20,031), who usually have higher daily costs and stay 

longer. For individuals, overnight emergency shelter has the lowest cost per day (and provides 

the fewest services and often limited hours), while for families, emergency shelters are usually 

equally or more expensive than transitional housing and permanent supportive housing, because 

families are often given private rooms or apartments and unlimited hours. Individuals and 

families who remain in homeless programs for extended periods incur the highest percentage of 

costs, presenting the greatest opportunity for homeless system cost savings. Cost savings could 

be realized if permanent supportive housing were more readily available to these households, as 

permanent supportive housing tends to be less expensive than transitional housing because most 

service costs are borne by mainstream systems. 

Life after Transitional Housing for Homeless Families 

This independent study evaluates the effectiveness of transitional housing programs, which 

received significant investments after the enactment of the McKinney-Vento Homeless 

Assistance Act. Although this study does not include a control group to support an impact 

evaluation, its design permits associating the characteristics and use of programs with the family 

outcomes, controlling for other factors that might also affect those outcomes. The study follows 

179 families in 36 transitional housing programs within five communities for one year after 

leaving the program to assess the effect of transitional housing program on three major family 

outcomes: housing stability; income and employment; and children’s school engagement and 

emotional health. 

The study finds that transitional housing programs appear to help the families who use them to 

achieve some important goals. It finds that patterns of program use (length of time and use of 

special services) appear to have more effect on outcomes than program characteristics (size and 

restrictiveness). Longer stays in transitional housing were associated with higher levels of 

educational attainment and employment and with increased likelihood of employment and 

housing stability. Receipt of help for some specific issues was associated with better outcomes in 

income, employment, and children’s emotional health. Other factors that were found to affect 

outcomes were local labor and housing market conditions, personal characteristics and access to 

rental subsidy. The study concludes by suggesting that transitional housing programs target their 

resources on families with multiple barriers that would not have been able to accomplish as 

much on their own. 

Strategies for Improving Homeless People’s Access to Mainstream Benefits and Services 

This independent study examines whether, and how, communities mobilize to improve homeless 

people’s access to mainstream services, following HUD’s 2000 policy decision to target funds 

towards housing activities and shift away from funding services through the Supportive Housing 

Program (SHP). The study conducts interviews and site visits and uses quantitative and 

qualitative data analysis to assess the response of seven communities that were thought to be 

making significant efforts to increase mainstream service access to homeless people. These 
Appendices 

Page 79 

 

communities included Albany (NY), Albuquerque (NM), Denver (CO), Miami-Dade County 

(FL), Norfolk (VA), Portland (ME), and Pittsburg/Allegheny County (PA). 

The study finds three categories of barriers to service access: (a) structural barriers, such as 

program location, organization or requirements; (b) capacity barriers resulting from inadequacy 

of available resources; and (c) eligibility barriers, such as program rules for income, age, and 

household type. The study identifies three mechanisms used by communities to overcome each 

barrier: (a) smoothing mechanisms that reduce structural barriers, such as conducting street 

outreach and providing transportation; (b) expanding mechanisms that address capacity barriers, 

such as raising funds from state and local sources; and (c) changing mechanisms that alter 

eligibility but not overall capacity, such as prioritizing certain groups. While smoothing 

mechanisms were the most common approach used by communities to overcome barriers, the 

study communities were able to change eligibility and/or expand capacity through significant 

new commitments of local and state resources. The study also finds evidence that people exiting 

HUD-funded programs were likely to be connected to mainstream benefits at rates for 2007 that 

exceeded national rates for that year. Finally, the study finds that a strong central organization 

focused on improving the access of homeless households to mainstream services in these 

communities was associated with the most effective steps in overcoming obstacles. 

Moving to Work: Interim Policy Applications and the Future of the Demonstration 

This interim report to Congress summarizes how the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration 

program informs key housing policy areas and what lessons can be learned about the abilities of 

participating public housing authorities to implement MTW activities. MTW is a demonstration 

program authorized in 1996 that allows PHAs to design and test innovative, locally-designed 

strategies in order to improve rental assistance. It pursues three objectives: (a) reduce cost and 

achieve greater cost effectiveness in Federal expenditures, (b) give incentives to families with 

children who are participating in programs that assist people to become economically selfsufficient, and (c) increase housing choices for low-income families. The report indicates that 

there are currently 33 MTW agencies that manage over 11 percent of all public housing units and 

nearly 13 percent of all vouchers.

The report finds MTW applications in four main policy areas. First, it finds that several agencies 

have used the program’s flexibilities to preserve public housing and replace decaying housing 

stock with modernized, mixed-income communities. Second, PHAs have been able to more 

efficiently allocate resources and engage in strategic long-term planning by combining funds and 

streamlining operations. Third, PHAs have adopted alternative rent calculations, alleviating 

administrative burden and creating positive self-sufficiency outcomes for residents. Finally, 

agencies have used their flexibility to establish a more holistic approach to housing assistance 

that combines rental subsidy with supportive services. Analysis of qualitative data indicates that 

the characteristics of PHAs that have successfully implemented MTW include resident, 

community and stakeholder support; responsiveness to community needs; strong leadership and 

committed staff; innovation and openness to change; and evaluation capacity. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 80 

Program Evaluations and Research Informing Strategic Goal 4 

Combining the American Housing Survey and the American Community Survey to 

Produce Information Useful in Public Emergency Situations: An Exploratory Analysis 

This independent study explores the possibility of better preparing for or responding to disasters 

by using American Housing Survey (AHS) data and small area statistical techniques to generate 

information for areas not covered by the AHS. The study identifies variables from the AHS that 

would be useful in disaster situations, such as the proportion of households with needs, the 

proportion of deficient housing or housing susceptible to damage, and the proportion of renters 

and owners with home insurance. The study uses national AHS data grouped by metropolitan 

area to build regression models that have AHS information as dependent variables and ACS 

information at the metropolitan and lower levels of geography as independent variables. The 

study finds only mildly encouraging results. Although most models don’t have strong statistical 

results, two of them improve the estimates in areas not covered by the survey. The study 

concludes that although there might be better techniques to generate this information, they would 

require more time to produce it. Therefore, the techniques proposed by this study might be a 

valuable second-best approach to get crucial data in the event of a disaster. 

Program Evaluations and Research Informing Strategic Goal 5 

Risk-Based Monitoring of CPD Formula Grants 

This report assesses the effectiveness of the risk analysis used by HUD’s Office of Community 

Planning and Development (CPD). The risk analysis is used on recipients of grants in order to 

identify those programs most susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement and monitor 

the programs identified as high risk as well as a sample of other lower risk programs. The study 

uses multivariate analysis to understand the factors that affect the likelihood of getting a 

particular risk assessment. The study finds that, at least for two programs, the risk analysis seems 

to be accurately identifying “risk.” Opportunities for improvement are found in two areas: (a) 

better utilizing available data to improve the success rate, and (b) revising the process to save 

time and resources of CPD field staff. In particular, the study recommends reducing the numbers 

of factors used in the analysis while keeping the ones that are significantly associated with risk 

assessment and adding a randomly selected sample of low- and medium-risk grantees for 

monitoring. 

Quality Control for Rental Assistance Subsidies Determinations: Final Report for FY 2008 

This independent study provides national estimates of the extent, severity, costs, and sources of 

rent errors in tenant subsidies for the PHA-administered Public Housing, Section 8 Housing 

Choice Voucher, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs; and the owner-administered Section 8, 

and Section 202 and Section 811 programs with Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRAC) or 

Project Assistance Contracts (PAC). The study uses a nationally representative sample of 600 

projects and a random sample of 2,041 households to estimate the difference between a quality 

control rent reported by PHA or households and the actual tenant rent (the rent from HUD forms 

calculated by project staff). 
Appendices 

Page 81 

 

The study finds that 63 percent of all households paid the correct amount of rent, 18 percent paid 

less than they should have, and 19 percent paid more than they should have. The aggregate rent 

underpayment of $433 million and rent overpayment of $342 million yield an aggregated net rent 

error of $91 million annually. This net effect represents a –$2 rent error per case. Comparison 

with prior studies demonstrates that FY 2008 had the lowest level of gross dollars in erroneous 

payments found since studies began in 2000, but the decrease from 2007 does not represent a 

statistically significant difference. The two most common administrative errors were consistency 

and transcription errors, while incorrect income and allowance amounts were by far the most 

significant sources of error in determining rents. Finally, the report documents the progress of 

actions taken by HUD to address the causes of erroneous assistance payments. The study finds 

that in FY 2008 HUD exceeded the performance goal of reducing the 2000 benchmark assisted 

housing error levels by 50 percent by the end of 2005. The study concludes that although 

progress since 2000 has been impressive, improvements have remained stable since 2004. It 

provides suggestions to further reduce the percent of rent errors. 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 82 

Appendix D: Glossary of Acronyms 

AFR Agency Financial Report 

APR Annual Performance Report 

BA Budget Authority 

CCW Consolidated Claim Workout 

CDBG Community Development Block Grant 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CFRG Capital Fund Recovery Grant 

CMHI Cooperative Management Housing Insurance 

CPD Office of Community Planning and Development 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

ED U.S. Department of Education 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPC Energy Performance Contract 

Fannie Mae Federal National Mortgage Association 

FHA Federal Housing Administration 

FHAP Fair Housing Assistance Program 

FHEO Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

FHIP Fair Housing Initiatives Program 

Freddie Mac Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 

FTE Full Time Equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GI General Insurance Fund 

Ginnie Mae Government National Mortgage Association 

GMS Grants Management System 

HCV Housing Choice Voucher 

HECM Home Equity Conversion Mortgage 

HHS U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 
Appendices 

Page 83 

 

HOME HOME Investment Partnerships Program 

HOPWA Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 

HPRP Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

H4H Hope 4 Homeowners 

ICDBG Indian Community Development Block Grant 

IDIS Integrated Disbursement and Information System 

IHBG Indian Housing Block Grant 

IMS Inventory Management System 

IT Information Technology 

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LIHTC Low Income Housing Tax Credit 

MFH Office of Multifamily Housing 

MHA Making Home Affordable Program 

MMI Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NSP Neighborhood Stabilization Program 

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

OCOO Office of the Chief Operating Officer 

OHHLHC Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control 

ONAP Office of Native American Programs 

OSPM Office of Strategic Planning and Management 

PBRA Project-Based Rental Assistance 

PD&R Office of Policy Development and Research 

PHA Public Housing Agency 

PIC PIH Information Center 

PIH Office of Public and Indian Housing 

RAMPS Recovery Act Management and Performance System 

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

SME Subject Matter Experts 
HUD FY 2010 Annual Performance Report 

Appendices

Page 84 

SNAPS Special Needs Assistance Program 

SRI Special Risk Insurance Fund 

S&E Salaries and Expenses 

TBRA Tenant Based Rental Assistance 

TCAP Tax Credit Assistance Program 

TRA Transforming Rental Assistance 

Treasury U.S. Department of the Treasury 

VA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

VASH Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing 

VHPD Veterans Homelessness Prevention Demonstration 

WAP Weatherization Assistance Program 
If you have any questions or comments, please call

Grant Erhuanga, 202-402-3863

Brittany Gibbs, 202-402-2826

Ken Leventhal, 202-402-6849

Written comments or suggestions for improving this report may be 

submitted by mail to:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 7th St. SW, Room 3268

Washington, DC 20410

Attention: Frank Murphy

Acting Deputy Assistant Chief Financial Officer for Budget

Or by email to

Frank.J.Murphy@hud.gov

For additional copies of this report, please call the

Office of the Chief Financial Officer for Budget

at 202-402-5722

Or email Maria.A.Lewis@hud.gov 

To view the report on the internet, go to the following website:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cfo/reports/cforept
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development