RENTAL HOUSING 

ASSISTANCE

HUD Data on SelfSufficiency Programs 

Should Be Improved

Congressional Requesters

July 2013

GAO-13-581

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-581, a report to 

congressional requesters

July 2013

RENTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE

HUD Data on Self-Sufficiency Programs Should Be 

Improved

Why GAO Did This Study

HUD reported in 2011 that nearly 8.5 

million lower-income families paid 

more than half their monthly income for 

rent, lived in substandard housing, or 

both. As the number of those needing 

assistance is greater than existing 

federal programs can serve, if families 

were able to increase their income and 

no longer require housing assistance, 

spaces could become available for 

other needy families. HUD offers 

several competitive grants that PHAs 

can use to hire staff who link residents 

to services or implement programs that 

encourage self-sufficiency. GAO was 

asked to examine the effectiveness of 

HUD’s efforts to promote selfsufficiency among residents. Among its 

objectives, this report describes (1) 

costs and resident participation in HUD 

grant programs for PHAs that 

encourage work and self-sufficiency 

and (2) available information on the 

programs’ effects on residents. 

GAO reviewed HUD’s goals for 

encouraging self-sufficiency, program 

descriptions, and regulations; analyzed 

grant award data for fiscal years 2006-

2011 and available outcome 

information; and interviewed HUD and 

PHA officials. 

What GAO Recommends

For three of its self-sufficiency 

programs, HUD should develop 

processes and program-specific 

reporting guidance to better ensure 

required data on participation and 

outcomes are complete. HUD agreed 

with three recommendations but 

disagreed that it should analyze data 

for the ROSS SC program. GAO 

believes that analysis of program data 

is critical for assessing outcomes.

What GAO Found

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds five key grant 

programs that encourage resident self-sufficiency. In fiscal year 2011, HUD 

awarded $113 million to the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency 

(FSS), Public Housing FSS, and Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency 

Service Coordinators (ROSS SC) programs. Public housing agencies (PHA) with 

HOPE VI grants or designated as Moving to Work (MTW) agencies spent a 

portion of their funds on activities that encourage self-sufficiency, but the 

amounts MTW agencies spent are not known for the program as a whole. 

Additionally, data on resident participation in the five programs were limited. The 

number of families that participated in the FSS programs and ROSS SC cannot 

be reliably assessed due to missing start dates, end dates, and annual updates, 

and a lack of reporting guidance. HOPE VI data on residents’ participation does 

not include information on the elderly or persons with disabilities. Programwide 

MTW data on participation generally were unavailable. Internal control standards 

for the federal government state that program managers need operational data to 

determine whether they are meeting goals for accountability (effective and 

efficient use of resources). Without complete participation data, HUD lacks key 

information to effectively manage and evaluate its programs and Congress lacks 

data needed to oversee the programs.

HUD lacks a strategy for using data it requires of PHAs to expand what is known 

about outcomes in four of the programs. HUD has performed limited analysis of 

the data related to self-sufficiency outcomes for both types of FSS grants 

reported into its information systems. HUD has not analyzed similar data 

reported for ROSS SC and MTW activities. However, for HOPE VI HUD collects 

consistent, outcome-based measures for participation in self-sufficiency activities 

and uses the data to track residents’ progress towards self-sufficiency. Internal 

control standards underline the importance not only of collecting but also using 

information to achieve programmatic goals. Also, the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 (GPRAMA) emphasizes the need for information on the effectiveness of 

federal programs to improve congressional decision making. A strategy for using 

these data could inform overall management review, congressional oversight, 

and planning for these programs. Using such data could help HUD identify from 

which PHAs to draw lessons to help improve HUD management of the programs 

as well as PHA management of self-sufficiency-related activities. GAO’s analysis 

of available data on residents who participated in the FSS programs suggests

positive changes for those who completed the programs, but the results are not 

conclusive because data indicating whether a family exited FSS or subsidized 

housing were missing for 35 percent of families that started an FSS program in 

2006.

View GAO-13-581. For more information, 

contact Mathew Scirè at (202) 512-8678 or 

ScireMJ@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Letter 1

Background 3

Participation Information for Self-Sufficiency Programs Was 

Limited 10

HUD Has Not Fully Utilized the Data It Collects on Self-Sufficiency 

Programs 19

HUD Encourages PHAs to Coordinate with Local Service Providers 30

Conclusions 34

Recommendations for Executive Action 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 39

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 44

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments Error! Bookmark not 

defined.

Tables

Table 1: Program Features for the Family Self-Sufficiency and 

Service Coordinators Programs 5

Table 2: Total Amounts Awarded to PHAs through FSS and ROSS 

SC Programs, Fiscal Years 2006-2011

(dollars in millions) 10

Table 3: FSS Escrow Disbursements, Fiscal Years 2006-2011

(dollars in millions) 11

Table 4: Proportion of HOPE VI Revitalization Grant Funds Spent 

on Community and Supportive Services, for Grants 

Awarded in Fiscal Years 2006-2010

(dollars in millions) 12

Table 5: FSS Participation Data Posted by HUD 14

Table 6: Data Reported by HOPE VI Grantees on the Number of 

Residents Who Enrolled in and Completed Community and 

Supportive Service Programs, as of December 2012 24

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Table 7: HUD Information on Experiences of a Subset of Families 

That Started FSS in Fiscal Year 2006 and for Which Data 

Were Available on Program Completion, Exit, or 

Extension, as of December 2012 25

Table 8: Income and Employment Changes for Families that Began 

FSS in Fiscal Year 2006 and Had Completed It by Fiscal 

Year 2011 26

Table 9: Examples of Ways That HUD Encourages or Requires 

PHAs to Coordinate with Local Agencies to Improve 

Resident Self-Sufficiency 32

Figure

Figure 1: FSS Escrow Account Example 6
Page iii GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Abbreviations

FSS Family Self-Sufficiency

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

HCV FSS Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency program

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MTW Moving to Work

OMB Office of Management and Budget

NOFA notice of funding availability

PH FSS Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency program

PHA public housing agency

PIC Public and Indian Housing Information Center

QHWRA Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998

ROSS SC Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Service 

Coordinators program

WIA Workforce Investment Act

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 9, 2013

The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial Institutions

and Consumer Credit

Committee on Financial Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Randy Neugebauer

Chairman

Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance

Committee on Financial Services

House of Representatives

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provided 

more than $33 billion in rental assistance in fiscal year 2012 to millions of 

low-income households through a variety of programs. These programs—

primarily housing choice vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and 

public housing—serve an estimated 5.4 million low-income households.1

The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA) 

requires public housing agencies (PHA), which administer public housing 

and voucher programs, to establish policies and practices that encourage 

all but elderly residents and residents with disabilities to work and 

However, HUD reported in 2011 that nearly 8.5 million lower-income 

families paid more than half their monthly income for rent, lived in 

severely substandard housing, or both. As the number of those needing 

assistance is greater than can be served by existing federal programs, if 

families were able to increase their income and move out of assisted 

housing, spaces could become available to assist other needy families.

 1

In fiscal year 2012, the budget authority for these programs was $18.3 billion for housing 

choice vouchers, $9.3 billion for project-based rental assistance, and $5.8 billion for public 

housing. The amount for public housing includes $1.9 billion for the Public Housing Capital 

Fund and nearly $4 billion for the Public Housing Operating Fund, which are meant to 

supplement rents and help meet the operation, maintenance, and capital needs of public 

housing. 
Page 2 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

become more economically self-sufficient.2

You asked us to review the effectiveness of HUD programs that 

encourage resident self-sufficiency. This report (1) discusses what is 

known about the costs of and residents’ participation in HUD grant 

programs that encourage work and self-sufficiency, (2) determines what 

is known about the effect on residents of HUD’s grant programs, and (3) 

describes steps HUD has taken to coordinate with other federal agencies 

and increase residents’ access to non-HUD programs that encourage 

work and self-sufficiency.

For example, QHWRA

requires PHAs to establish minimum rent policies (with exceptions for 

hardship circumstances). For the public housing program, it also requires 

nonelderly, nondisabled residents to work or participate in community 

service or a self-sufficiency program for 8 hours a month; requires PHAs 

to establish rent policies that encourage and reward employment and 

economic self-sufficiency; and allows PHAs to phase-in rent increases 1 

year after public housing residents find employment. To encourage 

resident self-sufficiency, PHAs can apply for several HUD grants. Some 

of these grants provide funds for PHA staff to link residents to the 

services that they need to become increasingly self-sufficient. Other grant 

programs enable selected PHAs to establish their own policies—such as 

rent policies—that encourage work and self-sufficiency.

To describe what is known about the costs of HUD grant programs that 

encourage self-sufficiency, we reviewed documentation of HUD’s 

programs and determined whether and how they defined and addressed 

resident self-sufficiency. Because HUD did not have an agencywide 

definition of self-sufficiency, we established criteria for what constitutes a 

self-sufficiency program, and identified the Housing Choice Voucher 

Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS), Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency, 

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Service Coordinators (ROSS 

SC), Moving to Work (MTW), and HOPE VI programs. HUD officials 

agreed that we had identified the key grant programs that encourage 

work and self-sufficiency. We then interviewed HUD officials about costs 

associated with the five programs, and reviewed documentation of grant 

 2

HUD defines an elderly family as a family whose head (including co-head), spouse, or 

sole member is a person at least 62 years of age. A disabled family is one whose head 

(including co-head), spouse, or sole member is a person living with disabilities; or two or 

more persons with disabilities living together; or one or more persons with disabilities 

living with one or more live-in aides. 
Page 3 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

awards for the programs. To assess resident participation, we determined 

how HUD collects program participation data and analyzed data from 

HUD’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) system and 

the HOPE VI Quarterly Reporting System. To determine what is known 

about the effects of the five programs on residents’ self-sufficiency, we 

determined how HUD collects data on indicators of self-sufficiency for 

each of the five programs and interviewed HUD officials about how they 

use the data. For the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) programs, we 

analyzed changes in indicators of self-sufficiency for a cohort of 

participants who completed the programs. We also summarized available 

research on self-sufficiency-related outcomes for four programs. To 

describe how HUD has coordinated with other federal agencies to 

increase residents’ access to non-HUD programs, we reviewed HUD 

regulations and policies related to such coordination and interviewed 

officials from PHAs administering each HUD program in our review. For 

all three objectives, we interviewed HUD officials and officials from a 

sample of five PHAs and research organizations. We determined, based 

on interviews with HUD officials and our own analyses, that the fiscal 

years 2006 through 2011 data were not sufficiently complete to enable us 

to reliably analyze the total number of families participating over time and 

their self-sufficiency-related outcomes. Further, for those families that 

began either of the FSS programs in 2006, we described outcomes for 

those families for which HUD’s data indicated that they successfully 

completed the program. HUD’s data for approximately one-third of these 

families did not indicate whether the family successfully completed the 

program or otherwise exited the public housing or voucher programs. 

Additionally, we determined based on interviews with HUD officials and 

our own analysis that HUD data on the extent to which MTW families 

participated in FSS was not reliable prior to 2011. Appendix I provides 

further details on our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through July 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on the audit objectives.

HUD housing serves populations that include persons in a position to 

increase their self-sufficiency and those who need long-term support (for 

example, the elderly and persons with severe disabilities). To assist those 

Background
Page 4 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

who can improve their self-sufficiency, HUD permits PHAs to allocate

space in its public housing to offer training programs and information 

sessions. It also awards grants to PHAs to encourage them to work with 

local social service providers in offering education, job training, and other 

supportive services to residents of public housing and recipients of 

vouchers. The purpose of these programs is to increase the earned 

incomes of residents and reduce their reliance on cash assistance and 

housing assistance.

For this report, we examined five HUD programs that fund self-sufficiency 

efforts in whole or in part. Three grant programs only award grants to 

support self-sufficiency activities: HCV FSS, PH FSS, and ROSS SC.3

FSS was authorized in 1990 to help families receiving vouchers or in 

public housing become self-sufficient through referrals to education, 

training, and other supportive services and case management.4 PHAs 

use grant funds to pay program coordinators who link residents to the 

supportive services they need to achieve self-sufficiency.5 Families in 

either FSS program sign a contract with their PHA, requiring that all family 

members become independent of cash welfare assistance and the head 

of the family seek and maintain employment.6

 3

Rather than operate two separate and independently administered FSS programs for 

voucher and public housing families, the Administration proposes in its 2014 budget 

proposal to consolidate the two FSS programs to enable PHAs to more uniformly serve 

program participants.

Both programs feature 

case management, referrals to supportive services, and an escrow 

account that accumulates balances, or savings, for the tenant based on 

increases in tenant contributions toward rent. The ROSS SC program 

provides funding to hire service coordinators to assess the needs of 

4

According to recent FSS notices of funding availability (NOFA), case management 

should help ensure that the services in the participants’ contracts of participation are 

provided on a regular, ongoing, and satisfactory basis; that participants are fulfilling their 

responsibilities under the contracts; and that FSS escrow accounts are established and 

properly maintained for eligible families.

5

42 U.S.C. § 1437u. 

6

For the FSS programs, welfare assistance means income assistance from federal or 

state welfare programs, and includes only cash maintenance payments designed to meet 

a family’s ongoing basic needs. It does not include nonrecurrent, short-term benefits, or 

food assistance and emergency rental and utilities assistance, among others. See 24 CFR 

§ 984.103.

HUD-Funded SelfSufficiency Programs
Page 5 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

public housing residents and coordinate available resources in the 

community to meet those needs.7

Table 1: Program Features for the Family Self-Sufficiency and Service Coordinators Programs

Program

Features that 

encourage selfsufficiency Eligible recipients

Intended 

beneficiaries

Funding terms 

and uses

Housing Choice 

Voucher FSS

Escrow account

Family generally must 

remain independent from 

welfare for at least 1 year 

to obtain funds in escrow 

account

Family head must 

become employed

Case management

Public housing 

agencies that 

administer housing 

choice vouchers

Housing choice 

voucher recipients

One-year funding for 

coordinator salaries

Public Housing FSS Public housing 

agencies that 

administer public 

housing

Tribes/Tribally 

Designated Housing 

Entities

Public housing 

and Indian housing 

residents

Resident Opportunity 

and Self-Sufficiency 

Service Coordinators

Referrals to services 

that enable families to 

increase earned income, 

reduce or eliminate need 

for welfare assistance, 

and make progress 

towards economic 

independence, or the 

case of the elderly or 

disabled, live 

independently

Public housing 

agencies

Tribes/Tribally 

Designated Housing 

Entities

Resident associations

Nonprofit organizations

Three-year funding for 

coordinator salary, 

training, and 

administrative expenses

Requires matching 

funds, in-kind donations 

totaling 25 percent of the 

requested grant amount, 

or both

Source: GAO analysis of HUD information.

For the FSS programs, the escrow accounts are incentives to increase 

work effort and earnings. Specifically, when participants have to pay a 

higher rent after their earned income increases, the PHA calculates an 

escrow credit that is deposited each month into an interest-bearing 

account (see fig. 1). Families that successfully complete their contract for 

either FSS program receive their accrued escrow funds. In general, in 

 7

PHAs can designate whether the service coordinator will serve families, the elderly, or 

disabled residents, or a mix of the three. In the case of elderly or disabled residents, 

services should help improve living conditions and enable residents to age in place. 
Page 6 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

order to complete an FSS contract, the family head must certify that no 

member of the family has received welfare for at least one year, and the 

family head must be employed.8

Figure 1: FSS Escrow Account Example

Note: The figure presents a hypothetical example. Individual FSS participant experiences may vary 

based on factors, including level of income at program enrollment and changes in employment and 

income during program participation.

 8

Completion of the contract occurs when the PHA determines that: (1) the family has 

fulfilled all of its responsibilities under the contract; or (2) 30 percent of the family’s 

monthly adjusted income equals or is greater than the Fair Market Rent amount for the 

unit size for which the family qualifies. 24 C.F.R. § 984.303(g). Families are expected to 

complete their contracts within 5 years, although a PHA may extend a family’s contract for 

up to 2 additional years in some circumstances. 24 C.F.R. § 984.303(c), (d). 
Page 7 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

HUD has two other programs—MTW and HOPE VI Revitalization Grants 

(HOPE VI)—that allow participating PHAs to determine how they will 

encourage self-sufficiency.9 The purposes of HUD’s MTW demonstration 

program include providing PHAs the flexibility to design and test policies 

that give incentives to families with children to become economically selfsufficient.10 For example, PHAs in MTW can alter eligibility and rent 

policies. Through the HOPE VI program, participating PHAs (HOPE VI 

agencies) can use HOPE VI grants to demolish, rehabilitate, or replace 

severely distressed public housing and also provide community and 

supportive services to help residents achieve self-sufficiency.11 HOPE VI 

agencies can spend up to 15 percent of their revitalization grant funds for 

community and supportive services activities, which HUD defines as any 

activity designed to promote upward mobility, self-sufficiency, and 

improved quality of life for residents of the public housing project 

involved.12

 9

For the purposes of this report, we focused on programs that were active or still had open 

grants at the time of our review. HOPE VI revitalization grants were not awarded after 

fiscal year 2010; this program was replaced by the Choice Neighborhood Program. HUD 

previously funded other demonstration programs that encouraged resident self-sufficiency, 

such as the Jobs Plus Demonstration Program, which was implemented by six PHAs from 

1998 through 2003. For more information about this program, see Howard S. Bloom, 

James A. Riccio, and Nandita Verma, Promoting Work in Public Housing: The 

Effectiveness of Jobs-Plus, Final Report (New York, N.Y.: March 2005).

10Authorized by the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 

(Pub. L. No.104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-281), MTW is a demonstration program. MTW 

agencies do not receive special funding allocations. Rather, they receive funds from the 

three primary funding sources (public housing capital funds, public housing operating 

funds, and Housing Choice Vouchers).

11Authorized by Pub. L. No. 105-276, § 535 (42 U.S.C. § 1437v).

12HOPE VI NOFAs used from 2006 through 2010 noted that PHAs would be evaluated 

based on their Community and Supportive Services Plans. Recipients can also establish 

endowment trusts so that they can continue to fund such activities after the grant funds 

have been expended. Examples of activities include adult education, employment training, 

training on parenting and budgeting, homeownership counseling, and substance and 

alcohol abuse treatment and counseling. A NOFA announces the availability of grant 

funding. HUD’s NOFAs generally include a description of the funding opportunity, eligibility 

requirements, and relationship to HUD’s strategic goals and policy priorities.
Page 8 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

For the two FSS programs, HUD regulations state that self-sufficiency 

means that a family is no longer receiving housing assistance or welfare 

assistance.13 However, the regulations also indicate that while achieving 

self-sufficiency is an FSS objective, no longer receiving housing 

assistance is not a requirement for completing the program and receiving 

escrow funds.14

Other HUD documents suggest additional indicators for self-sufficiency. 

For instance, HUD’s fiscal years 2010 through 2015 strategic plan 

emphasizes the importance of increasing economic security and selfsufficiency, but does not define these terms.

HUD does not define self-sufficiency for the other three 

programs we reviewed. Thus, HUD does not have a uniform measure of 

self-sufficiency across the programs. HUD officials with responsibility for 

administering all five programs noted that a single definition of selfsufficiency would not be useful, particularly because levels of selfsufficiency could differ for different groups. However, officials noted that 

the concept is commonly understood to indicate that a family does not 

rely on government programs that are intended to address poverty. 

15

 1324 CFR 984.103.

The plan notes that 

increasing the average income of HUD-assisted households is an 

indicator of success towards these goals, and that increasing selfsufficiency requires access to life-skills training, wealth-creation and 

asset-building opportunities, job training, and career services. HUD 

program information, such as NOFAs, also describes indicators of 

progress towards self-sufficiency. These indicators include the number of 

families with members who obtained their first job, or obtained higherpaying jobs; no longer needed benefits under one or more welfare 

programs; obtained a high school diploma or higher education degree; or 

accomplished similar goals that would assist the family in obtaining 

economic independence. To graduate from either FSS program and 

obtain any escrowed funds, families generally must remain independent 

from welfare assistance for at least 1 year. Similarly, for the ROSS SC 

program, NOFAs state that the services provided to participating families 

should help them increase earned income, reduce or eliminate the need 

for welfare assistance, or progress toward economic independence and 

housing self-sufficiency. In the case of elderly residents or residents with 

14See 24 C.F.R. § 984.305.

15HUD, HUD Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2010-2015 (Washington, D.C.: May 2010).

HUD Indicators of 

Self-Sufficiency
Page 9 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

disabilities, services should help improve living conditions and enable 

residents to age in-place. For the HOPE VI program, indicators of 

progress towards self-sufficiency include the number of residents who 

obtained a high school or equivalent education, obtained new 

employment, and completed a job training program.

In contrast, MTW agencies determine their own measures of residents’ 

progress towards self-sufficiency. In a 2012 report on the MTW program, 

we reported that HUD had not defined key program terms, including the 

statutory purpose of encouraging employment and self-sufficiency, and 

recommended that HUD issue guidance that clarifies such terms.16 We 

also noted the limited usefulness of having MTW agencies devise their 

own metrics, particularly when they are not outcome-oriented. We 

recommended that HUD improve its guidance to MTW agencies by 

requiring that they provide performance information that is quantifiable 

and outcome-oriented. HUD has taken steps to revise its reporting 

guidance, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved 

revised guidance on May 31, 2013. 

HUD requires all PHAs to collect detailed data from their residents. PHAs 

must submit these data electronically through the PIC at least annually for 

each household that participates in assisted housing programs. According 

to HUD guidance, PIC can be used to create reports, analyze programs, 

monitor PHAs, and provide information about those that live in HUDsubsidized housing. The data collected include amounts and sources of 

income; the amount of rent paid; and the presence of household heads 

and members who are elderly or have disabilities. MTW agencies can 

submit some tenant-related data into a separate module in PIC called 

MTW-PIC, which was created in 2007 to better accommodate some of 

the activities allowed under MTW. Most MTW agencies had transitioned 

to it by 2008.

PHAs that receive either of the FSS grants, including MTW agencies, 

must report additional data about participating households into a section 

of the PIC and MTW-PIC systems called the FSS Addendum. The 

addendum captures data on each family when it enters either of the two 

 16GAO, Moving to Work Demonstration: Opportunities Exist to Improve Information and 

Monitoring, GAO-12-490 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 19, 2012).

Data Collection
Page 10 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

FSS programs and should be updated annually. Specifically, the 

addendum includes fields for PHAs to report whether the head of the 

household works full-time, part-time, or is unemployed; the highest grade 

of education for the head of the household; and the sources of assistance 

received by the family, such as cash or food assistance.

The annual totals for grant awards in the two FSS and ROSS SC 

programs have increased in recent years. As shown in table 2, the

amount HUD awarded to PHAs in constant 2013 dollars through the two 

FSS programs increased from about $64 million in fiscal year 2006 to 

about $78 million in fiscal year 2011, with the majority of funds being 

awarded through the HCV FSS program. For the ROSS SC program, the 

total amount awarded, in constant 2013 dollars, increased from $30 

million in fiscal year 2008 to $35 million in fiscal year 2011.17

Table 2: Total Amounts Awarded to PHAs through FSS and ROSS SC Programs, Fiscal Years 2006-2011

(dollars in millions)

Program 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

HCV FSS $54 52 53 53 63 62 $337

PH FSS $10 12 13 13 16 16 $80

ROSS SC n/a n/a 30 34 34 35 $133

Source: HUD.

Notes: Award amounts for PH FSS and ROSS SC may include amounts drawn from previous years’ 

appropriations. All dollar amounts are adjusted to fiscal year 2013 dollars using the chain-weighted 

Gross Domestic Product price index and rounded to the nearest million. We used “n/a” (not 

applicable) for the 2006 and 2007 data for ROSS SC because while HUD awarded funds for a 

different version of the program in 2006 and 2007, ROSS SC was implemented in its current form in 

2008.

 17Although first implemented in 1999, the current version of the ROSS SC program was 

implemented in 2008.

Participation 

Information for SelfSufficiency Programs 

Was Limited

Available Data Indicate 

That Annual Amounts of 

Grant Awards in Three 

Self-Sufficiency Programs 

Increased
Page 11 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Escrow payments to households represent additional program 

expenditures associated with the two FSS programs. As previously 

described, PHAs establish escrow accounts for households that 

participate in FSS. PHAs generally disburse the amount in the escrow 

account (the excess of any amount owed to the PHA by the family) to the 

head of the family when the contract of participation has been 

completed.

18

Table 3: FSS Escrow Disbursements, Fiscal Years 2006-2011

As previously noted, in order to successfully complete an 

FSS contract, the head of the family must be employed and no members 

may be receiving welfare. According to HUD data adjusted to 2013 

dollars, the agency disbursed nearly $82 million to FSS participants 

between fiscal years 2006 and 2011 (see table 3).

(dollars in millions) 

Program 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total 

amount 

disbursed

HCV FSS amount disbursed $ 14 14 14 12 11 10 $ 76

PH FSS amount disbursed $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Total $15 15 15 13 12 11 $82

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: All dollar amounts are adjusted to fiscal year 2013 dollars using the chain-weighted Gross 

Domestic Product price index, and rounded to the nearest million. Sum of disbursements may not 

equal the total column due to rounding. This analysis excludes MTW agencies.

Expenditures for community and supportive services, adjusted to 2013 

dollars, represented 7 percent or less of HOPE VI grant awards during 

fiscal years 2006-2010. HUD data indicate that the 29 PHAs that were 

awarded HOPE VI revitalization grants between fiscal years 2006 and 

2010 had spent about 5 percent of these funds on community and 

supportive services as of December 2012 (see table 4). Of the 29 grants, 

4 were closed and 25 were open. HOPE VI agencies with open grants 

could spend more of their revitalization grant on supportive services, up to 

 18PHAs have the authority to disburse some funds to a family before contract completion. 

If a PHA determined that a family had fulfilled certain goals in its FSS contract and needed 

a portion of the escrowed funds for purposes consistent with the contract goals (such as 

completion of higher education), the PHA could disburse a portion of the funds to the 

family. 
Page 12 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

15 percent. HOPE VI agencies also can leverage other sources of 

funding for community and supportive services.

Table 4: Proportion of HOPE VI Revitalization Grant Funds Spent on Community and Supportive Services, for Grants Awarded 

in Fiscal Years 2006-2010

(dollars in millions)

Fiscal 

year 

Number of 

revitalization grants

(status as of December 2012)

Total actual 

expenditures for 

community and 

supportive services

(as of December 2012)

Total grant 

award amount

Proportion of 

award amounts 

expended on 

community and 

supportive services 

(as of December 2012)

Closed Open

grants grants

2006 4 n/a $6 $82 7%

2007 n/a 5 $7 98 7

2008 n/a 6 $5 105 5

2009 n/a 6 $5 121 4

2010 n/a 8 $3 161 2

Total 4 25 $26 $568 5%

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: The last HOPE VI revitalization grant NOFA was for fiscal year 2010. All dollar amounts are 

adjusted to fiscal year 2013 dollars using the chain-weighted Gross Domestic Product price index and 

rounded to the nearest million.

The amounts that MTW agencies spend on activities intended to increase 

resident self-sufficiency are not known for the program as a whole. MTW 

agencies are not required to expend a specific proportion of their HUD 

funds on activities that encourage work and self-sufficiency. However, 

they must implement activities that address the program’s statutory 

purposes (which include encouraging work and self-sufficiency), and 

annually submit written reports to HUD with information on each activity 

they undertake and its linkage to the program’s statutory purposes. MTW 

agencies had been required to annually report to HUD financial data on 

the sources and uses of their funds. A HUD official with responsibility for 

administering the MTW program stated that the agency had not analyzed 

this information and that MTW agencies had reported it using varying 

formats. According to HUD, with the implementation of revised MTW 

reporting requirements, MTW agencies will be required to report data on 

the costs of self-sufficiency activities using standardized metrics. 
Page 13 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Residents’ participation in the five self-sufficiency programs was not 

comprehensively known because the data were not reliable, aggregated 

programwide, or collected for all participants. Internal control standards 

state that transactions should be promptly recorded to maintain their 

relevance and value to management in controlling operations and making 

decisions.19

The total number of families in either of the two FSS programs cannot be 

reliably assessed based on available PIC data for fiscal years 2006-2011 

because of missing program start dates, exit dates, and annual updates.

This applies to the entire life cycle of a transaction or event. 

They also state that program managers need operational data to 

determine whether they are meeting their agencies’ strategic plans and 

meeting their goals for the effective and efficient use of resources.

20

According to HUD guidance, PHAs that receive FSS grants must update 

information about each participating family at least annually. As a part of 

these updates, PHAs are supposed to indicate whether the family is 

active or has exited the program. For those who exited the program, 

PHAs are supposed to indicate whether they completed the program or 

stopped participating for other reasons. These data must be reported in 

the FSS addendum of PIC or MTW-PIC. NOFAs consistently have cited 

PIC as a data source for FSS program participation counts, which HUD 

uses in part to determine eligibility for funding. For some years, the 

notices also stated that applicants for grant funding could use other 

documentation for participation counts, such as a separate HUD form or 

MTW documents.21

However, we observed that many PIC records lacked information on 

when and why the participating family exited the program before 

completion. For example, while HUD’s PIC data indicate that 14,690 

families began participating in the two FSS programs in fiscal year 2006, 

data on exits for these 5-year programs were missing for nearly half of 

 19GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

20We excluded MTW households from our analysis of FSS participation because available 

data were not reliable prior to 2011.

21PH FSS funding notices for fiscal years 2007 through 2011 stated that PHAs seeking 

funding could submit participation data using a separate HUD form, and notices for fiscal 

years 2009 through 2011 stated that this form would take precedence over PIC data. HCV 

FSS funding notices state that participation data should come from PIC or other 

documents, including a separate HUD form or a MTW report.

Program Participation Not 

Comprehensively Known 

Because of Data 

Limitations

The Two FSS Programs
Page 14 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

these families. For 11 percent of the families that began the FSS 

programs in 2006, HUD data do not indicate the families had exited the 

programs, although other HUD data indicated that the families no longer 

received housing assistance. Similarly, HUD data also indicate that 

11,596 families exited the two programs in fiscal year 2011 (some 

completing the program and others leaving before completion), but did 

not indicate a start date for about one quarter of these families.22 Because 

both FSS programs are intended to be 5-year programs, it is reasonable 

to expect that most of the families that began participating in fiscal year 

2006 would have exited or completed the program by fiscal year 2011.23

HUD began posting FSS participation data from the PIC system online 

beginning with the fiscal year 2009 funding announcement for HCV FSS 

and the fiscal year 2012 funding announcement for PH FSS. According to 

these data, the number of families participating in HCV FSS has 

increased in recent years (see table 5).

Table 5: FSS Participation Data Posted by HUD

Fiscal year of NOFA HCV FSS participants PH FSS participants

2009 54,972 n/a

2010 56,491 n/a

2011 56,915 n/a

2012 68,548 14,386

Source: HUD.

Notes: According to HUD officials, the posted participation data for fiscal years 2009 through 2011 do 

not consistently include MTW agencies’ data due to the data reliability issues discussed in this report. 

We used “n/a” (not applicable) for the 2009-2011 data for PH FSS because HUD did not post 

participation online for the PH FSS program until the fiscal year 2012 funding round.

HUD officials told us that posting participation data online has 

emphasized to PHAs the importance of ensuring the data they submit into 

PIC are accurate. If a PHA believed the participation number HUD posted 

was incorrect and that it would be underfunded or ineligible, that PHA 

 22For nearly 600 of the 11,596 families, the data included more than one program start 

date.

23PHAs can extend a families’ participation in either FSS program for up to 2 additional 

years. 
Page 15 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

could submit documentation to confirm a higher number.24 However, as a 

part of the NOFA process, neither HUD nor the PHA were required to 

make corrections to the PIC system.25

According to HUD officials with responsibility for implementing the FSS 

programs, the FSS records could be incomplete or incorrect for several 

reasons. For example, if a participating family left public housing or the 

voucher program, the responsible PHA might not update the FSS portion 

of PIC to reflect the departure. PHAs are supposed to enter the exit date, 

whether the family completed their contract of participation, or one of five 

primary reasons for leaving the program without completing it. According 

to these officials, no HUD staff have specific responsibility for monitoring 

the completeness of FSS participants’ records in PIC. HUD officials also 

stated that there are challenges with the PIC system. They were aware of 

cases in which PHAs have entered data into PIC, but either the entries 

were not saved or they overwrote previously entered data. PHA officials 

with whom we met, as well as HUD staff with responsibility for the PIC 

system, stated that PHAs cannot readily run reports that show FSS 

participation data, a feature which would enable them to identify and 

correct missing or incorrect data. While PHAs can run ad hoc reports from 

PIC, the functionality of the system is limited, and records older than 18 

months cannot be accessed. We previously reported on the weaknesses 

associated with HUD’s antiquated technologies.

Officials from one of the PHAs with 

whom we met stated that the enrollment data in PIC generally are 

inconsistent with their internal records. The staff stated that they have 

worked with HUD to correct PIC, but noted that once some errors were 

fixed, new errors emerged. Staff from another PHA, which is also a MTW

agency, stated that their FSS enrollment data do not appear in PIC; thus, 

they must create ad hoc reports using their own internal systems.

26

 24Funding announcements did not specify similar procedures for PHAs that believed they 

would be overfunded as the result of an incorrect participation count posted by HUD.

Without complete 

information on families’ participation in either FSS program (including a 

reliable count of program participants, participants’ length of time in the 

program, and reasons participants do not complete the programs), HUD 

lacks accurate information to make grant funding decisions. Moreover, by 

25According to HUD officials, PHAs are continually encouraged to make corrections to 

their PIC data.

26GAO, Information Technology: HUD Needs to Strengthen Its Capacity to Manage and 

Modernize Its Environment, GAO-09-675 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2009).
Page 16 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

not analyzing the extent to which PHAs have reported required data into 

PIC (and MTW-PIC), HUD’s ability to effectively oversee the program is 

limited.

Participation data for the ROSS SC program from fiscal years 2008 (the 

year the current version of this program started) through 2011 also were 

limited, primarily because of the lack of reporting guidance for the 

program and the difficulty of aggregating the data. HUD does not require 

PHAs to report whether a resident received services through this program 

in its information systems; rather, HUD collects ROSS SC participation 

data from PHAs through individual Excel-based reporting tools.

27

According to HUD officials with responsibility for the PIC and MTW-PIC 

systems, these systems were intended to collect resident characteristics 

and not to enable PHAs to report data on residents’ participation in 

specific programs, such as ROSS SC. PHAs must use the tool to apply 

for grant funding, inserting projections for the number of residents or 

households they intend to serve. Grant recipients then must submit 

annual updates, reporting on the number of residents or households 

actually assisted. Internal control standards state that transactions should 

be promptly recorded to maintain their relevance and value to 

management in controlling operations and making decisions. They also 

state that program managers need operational data to determine whether 

they have been meeting their agencies’ strategic plans and meeting their 

goals for the effective and efficient use of resources. As we previously 

reported, according to OMB, being able to track and measure specific 

program data can help agencies diagnose problems, identify drivers of 

future performance, evaluate risk, support collaboration, and inform 

follow-up actions. Analyses of patterns and anomalies in program 

information also can help agencies discover ways to achieve more value 

for the taxpayers’ money.28

 27HUD refers to the reporting tools used to collect this information as a Logic Model. 

Recipients of other HUD grants, including the grants under the two FSS programs, also 

must report data to HUD using this tool. Training materials for the Logic Model state that it 

can be used to manage, monitor, and evaluate program services. It contains data on 

needs, outputs, and outcomes.

28GAO, Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Programs’ 

Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance Management, GAO-13-452T

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2013).

ROSS SC
Page 17 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

According to HUD officials, the data that individual PHAs report using the 

Excel-based reporting tool cannot be easily or reliably aggregated to 

provide a count of resident participation across all PHAs. HUD officials 

who manage the ROSS SC program did not attempt to aggregate data 

reported through individual reporting tools until 2013 in response to our 

review. While HUD provided us with annual program participation data 

based on the tools, we determined that the data were not sufficiently 

reliable for these purposes. Specifically, we found duplicate records; 

differences in the time periods for which PHAs were reporting data; and 

different results for the “number of persons receiving services,” the 

“number of persons served,” and the sum of counts of persons served by 

age category. HUD officials told us that there are no line-level instructions 

for reporting these data. Thus, recipients of ROSS SC grants have not 

been given any formal guidance on what should be reported into these 

fields. Because of these limitations, HUD does not use the reporting tools 

to prepare official counts of residents assisted through the ROSS SC 

program. Rather, HUD multiplies the number of coordinators funded each 

year by 50 (the minimum number of residents who must be assisted 

under the terms of the grant). Based on this formula, they can report on 

the minimum number of residents who likely were assisted. Using this 

approach, HUD estimated that from 6,450 to 7,800 residents received 

services through the ROSS SC program annually from fiscal years 2008 

through 2011. While this estimate provides information on the minimum 

number of residents who likely received assistance, it is not based on a 

count of the number of residents who actually received assistance.

HUD officials who manage the ROSS SC program stated that the current 

process for collecting data from the reporting tools was supposed to be 

temporary, and a planned web-based replacement was never developed. 

Additionally, the officials stated that the data PHAs report into the tool 

were not always comparable because PHAs have varying interpretations 

of what they should report, and HUD never developed program-specific 

reporting guidance. Without developing a reliable process for collecting 

and analyzing data on the number of residents assisted through the 

ROSS SC program, HUD lacks basic information needed to manage the 

program.

According to HUD participation data for HOPE VI (available on a 

cumulative basis), at least 73,000 working-age, nondisabled residents 

have participated in the community and supportive services component of 

HOPE VI
Page 18 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

the HOPE VI program since the program began in 1993.29 For the 280 

revitalization grants awarded through the program since its inception, 

HOPE VI agencies self-reported that about 55,000 original residents 

(those who lived at the site before revitalization) participated in a program 

or service designed to help them progress towards self-sufficiency.30

Programwide data on residents’ participation in MTW activities related to 

increasing self-sufficiency from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 generally 

were unavailable. While MTW-PIC was created in 2007 to better fit the 

needs of MTW agencies, this system was not designed to collect activitylevel data (unless a household was participating in one of the two FSS 

programs). Moreover, HUD officials do not consider the data in MTW-PIC 

to be reliable prior to 2011 because some MTW agencies were still 

transitioning to it through the end of 2010. As a result, officials with 

responsibility for administering the MTW program have not used MTWPIC as a tool for analyzing residents’ participation in activities related to 

increasing self-sufficiency. In addition, HUD does not analyze the data 

that MTW agencies provide in their annual MTW reports, including data 

on residents’ participation in activities related to self-sufficiency, because 

reporting requirements do not call for the reporting of standardized data, 

such as the number of residents who found employment.

In 

addition, HOPE VI agencies self-reported that nearly 18,000 additional 

individuals who became residents at the revitalized HOPE VI sites also 

participated in community and supportive services.

We previously recommended that HUD develop and implement a plan for 

quantitatively assessing the effectiveness of similar activities, which 

would include activities related to encouraging self-sufficiency.31

 29For the purposes of tracking residents’ participation in community and supportive 

services, HUD defined “working age” as residents between the ages of 18 and 64. While 

HOPE VI agencies also provided community and supportive services to the elderly and 

disabled, HUD did not require the agencies to track these residents’ participation.

HUD 

agreed that quantitatively assessing the effectiveness of similar activities 

was an important step. HUD has made revisions to its reporting 

requirements, which were approved by OMB in May 2013. 

30Data are from HUD’s HOPE VI Quarterly Reporting System as of the end of 2012, but 

HUD does not verify the accuracy of these self-reported data. About 95,000 (nonelderly 

and nondisabled) residents lived at the HOPE VI sites before revitalization. 

31GAO-12-490.

MTW
Page 19 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

According to our analysis of available HUD data, 338,900 households 

received rental housing assistance from an MTW agency in fiscal year 

2011. Because HUD officials do not believe their PIC or MTW-PIC 

systems contain reliable data from MTW agencies prior to 2011, we did 

not attempt to analyze these data. Of the MTW households, 14,314 were 

reported as participating in the two FSS programs in fiscal year 2011. 

According to HUD officials, most MTW agencies participate in FSS, but 

the quality of their FSS data reporting is unknown.

HUD requirements for collecting data on indicators of self-sufficiency vary 

by program. HUD requires PHAs to collect and report into PIC or MTWPIC certain types of detailed information on every resident of HUDassisted rental housing. For instance, PHAs collect data on the amount 

and sources of residents’ income, including whether it is earned or 

provided through disability payments, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families, or other sources. PHAs are supposed to collect and report this 

type of information into HUD’s PIC system at least annually. For residents 

affiliated with the MTW program, this information is reported into MTWPIC, a separate module in the PIC system.32

In addition to reporting basic demographic and income data on each 

resident, HUD requires PHAs that implement the five programs to report 

additional indicators of residents’ progress towards self-sufficiency using 

information systems, an Excel-based reporting tool, and narrative reports.

• FSS programs and ROSS SC. As discussed earlier in this report, 

HUD requires PHAs that receive FSS grants to enter additional data 

 32MTW agencies may seek permission to update this information less frequently than 

regular PHAs—for example, they may verify an elderly resident’s income every 2 years 

instead of annually. 

HUD Has Not Fully 

Utilized the Data It 

Collects on SelfSufficiency Programs

HUD Collects Data 

on Indicators of 

Self-Sufficiency
Page 20 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

in the FSS Addendum section of PIC on each family upon entry into 

an FSS program and update this information annually. For example, 

PHAs enter whether the head of the household works full-time, parttime, or is unemployed; and the highest grade of education for the 

head of the household. For the two FSS programs and the ROSS SC 

program, HUD also requires PHAs to annually enter summary output 

and outcome data related to their residents’ progress towards selfsufficiency into the previously described Excel-based reporting tool. 

Data fields in the tool include the number of households that 

increased their income, moved to nonsubsidized housing, and the 

number of residents that obtained a high school diploma.

• HOPE VI. HUD requires participating agencies to submit quarterly 

reports of summary data on residents’ progress towards selfsufficiency into the HOPE VI Quarterly Reporting System. For 

example, HOPE VI agencies must report the total number of residents 

who participated in activities that facilitate self-sufficiency, including 

the numbers enrolled in counseling programs, job training, and 

General Education Development classes.

• MTW. HUD requires MTW agencies to submit annual reports 

containing summary information about the impact of the activities 

intended to encourage resident self-sufficiency they have been 

implementing. The agencies were able to use metrics of their 

choosing at the time of our review.

HUD has performed limited analyses—to assess outcomes for the 

programs as a whole—of data related to self-sufficiency outcomes that 

FSS grant recipients must report into its information systems. In addition, 

HUD has not analyzed similar data that FSS, ROSS SC, and MTW 

agencies must report through other mechanisms to assess each program 

as a whole. Standards for internal control emphasize the need for federal 

agencies both to collect reliable information with which to manage their 

programs and review the integrity of performance measures. Moreover, 

these standards emphasize the need for program managers to collect 

operational data to determine whether they have been meeting their goals 

for the efficient and effective use of resources.33

 33

Additionally, the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) emphasizes the need for 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

HUD Has Lacked a 

Strategy for Using 

Collected Data to 

Evaluate the Impact 

of Four Programs
Page 21 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

information on the effectiveness of federal programs to improve 

congressional decision making.34

Based on the information that PHAs must report in PIC and the FSS 

Addendum in PIC, HUD has performed limited analyses of the data 

related to self-sufficiency outcomes for the two FSS programs. As 

previously discussed, FSS participation data were sometimes incomplete 

and therefore of questionable reliability. Specifically, HUD’s data lacked 

start dates and annual updates for some FSS participants. Despite these 

limitations, HUD has used these data in its Congressional Budget 

Justifications. For example, in the 2014 Congressional Budget 

Justification HUD reported that as of March 30, 2012, a total of 57,087 

families were enrolled in the two FSS programs. Without annually 

updated records for each family, HUD cannot reliably determine whether 

families were still active program participants.

Additionally, HUD has not analyzed and reported on the experiences of 

all families that start the FSS programs, including the extent to which they 

completed the program, the primary reasons they exited the program 

without completing it, and the extent to which required data are missing. 

According to HUD, they have not conducted such analysis due their own 

concerns about the usefulness of available data. As described previously, 

internal control standards state that such information can help agencies 

determine whether they have been meeting operational goals and using 

resources effectively. According to HUD officials with responsibility for 

administering the two FSS programs, they were aware that some PHAs 

did a better job of reporting into PIC than others, which affected the 

completeness and reliability of the data. We acknowledge that analyzing 

this information and summarizing overall changes in indicators of selfsufficiency among participants would not yield definitive results on the 

impact of FSS on resident self-sufficiency. But by not analyzing the data 

that FSS grant recipients must report in HUD’s information systems more 

thoroughly, HUD has been missing an opportunity to gain valuable 

information about the results of FSS programs for certain agencies. That 

is, for those agencies that have submitted complete data (all annual 

 34Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). GPRAMA amends the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). 

See also Office of Management and Budget, Preparation and Submission of Strategic 

Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program Performance, Circular A-11, Part 

6, sec. 200.4 (Washington, D.C.: August 2012).

FSS and the ROSS SC Programs
Page 22 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

updates as well as information on whether and how the participant exited 

the program), HUD could review available information, such as changes 

in income and employment. Also, HUD has been missing an opportunity 

to identify PHAs with notably effective or ineffective FSS programs (or 

data reporting) and learn from their experiences. Ultimately, HUD’s lack of 

complete data on FSS participants limits the usefulness of analysis 

reported to Congress.

In part due to the data’s weaknesses, HUD also has not assessed the 

data related to self-sufficiency outcomes that it requires FSS and ROSSSC grant recipients to report through the Excel-based reporting tool for 

each program as a whole. According to HUD officials, HUD field office 

staff review the outcomes data that individual PHAs report, but HUD had

no process in place for assessing the outcomes reported through this tool 

programwide. Standards for internal control emphasize the need for 

federal agencies to collect reliable information with which to manage their 

programs and to review the integrity of performance measures.35

While HUD’s effort to aggregate the performance data that they require 

grant recipients to report was a step in the right direction, the agency 

lacks a strategy for better ensuring that the outcomes data it collects are 

reliable and permit comparison across PHAs. Without a plan for helping 

to ensure that the outcome data FSS and ROSS SC grant recipients 

report are comparable and reliable, HUD will be unable to fully use the 

data it requires PHAs to report.

HUD 

officials with responsibility for these programs told us that headquarters 

staff did not use the reporting tools to assess the effectiveness of the FSS 

or ROSS SC programs because a system had not been developed to do 

such an assessment and because the data submitted were sometimes 

incomplete, not comparable, and unreliable. HUD officials also stated that 

PHAs likely vary in their interpretations of what to report because HUD 

never developed program-specific guidance. In 2013, in response to our 

review, HUD had its contractor (which collects data PHAs report using the 

tool) aggregate the outcomes data reported for the PH FSS and ROSS 

SC programs for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. However, HUD staff 

found that the results did not appear to be accurate or reliable.

 35 GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Page 23 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

HUD has not assessed the effectiveness of the MTW program using the 

information that it requires MTW agencies to submit in their annual 

performance reports on the impact of their MTW activities, including 

activities related to increasing resident self-sufficiency. MTW agencies 

generally have devised their own metrics for activities and reporting 

performance information, so the usefulness of this information for 

assessing programwide results is limited. That is, because the data are 

not consistent across agencies, they cannot be used to assess the 

performance of similar activities across MTW agencies. Additionally, in 

some cases the information is not outcome-oriented and thus cannot be 

effectively used to assess performance.

We previously recommended that HUD (1) improve its guidance to MTW 

agencies on providing information in their performance reports by 

requiring that such information be quantifiable and outcome-oriented to 

the extent possible; and (2) develop and implement a plan for 

quantitatively assessing the program as a whole, including the 

identification of standard performance data needed.36

Unlike the previously discussed programs, for the HOPE VI program, 

HUD collects consistent, outcome-based measures for residents’ 

participation in major types of community and supportive services, and 

uses the data to track residents’ progress towards self-sufficiency.

HUD generally 

agreed with our recommendations, and in May 2013 OMB approved the

revised guidance. Additionally, according to HUD, the agency continues 

to seek funding for a full evaluation that will better analyze the MTW 

information that is already collected and assess the effectiveness of the 

program, including self-sufficiency activities.

37

 36

According to cumulative data on the community and supportive services 

as of the end of 2012, 72,278 working-age adults had received services 

related to improving their level of self-sufficiency. According to these data, 

GAO-12-490.

37We recommended in July 1998 that HUD develop consistent national, outcome-based 

measures for community and supportive services at HOPE VI sites. HUD has used its 

HOPE VI reporting system to collect data from grantees on the major types of community 

and supportive services they provide and outcomes achieved by some of these services. 

See GAO, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing Distressed Public Housing, 

GAO/RCED-98-187 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 1998); and Public Housing: HOPE VI 

Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites, GAO-04-109

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 21, 2003).

MTW Program

HOPE VI
Page 24 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

many residents enrolled in services related to education and job training, 

and from one-third to half of those who enrolled completed the activity 

(see table 6). However, these outputs may not be directly attributable to 

the community and supportive services program and are self-reported by 

HOPE VI agencies. HUD officials with responsibility for collecting these 

data noted that it would be excessively time and resource-intensive to 

verify the accuracy of these data. HUD staff also noted that if a HOPE VI 

agency’s community and supportive services data appeared to be 

inconsistent with past trends, HUD staff would follow up with the agency.

Table 6: Data Reported by HOPE VI Grantees on the Number of Residents Who 

Enrolled in and Completed Community and Supportive Service Programs, as of 

December 2012

Activity Enrollment Completion Percentage

Job skills training 34,098 18,115 53%

High school or equivalent education 17,944 5,225 29

Entrepreneurship training 3,704 1,626 44

Homeownership counseling 16,277 7,004 43%

Source: HUD.

Note: These figures include the last reported data for HOPE VI grantees with closed revitalization 

grants, and the most recent updates for grantees with ongoing revitalization grants.

Where HUD had data, the data suggest positive changes in income and 

employment for families that participated in the two FSS programs, but 

these results are not conclusive. Data on program completion were

missing for nearly half of the records we evaluated. More specifically, the 

FSS Addendum data in PIC lacked exit, completion, or extension data on 

6,819 (46 percent) of 14,690 families that started either of the programs in 

2006. Of these families, the “family report” section of PIC indicated that 

1,671 (25 percent) had left subsidized housing. Thus, after comparing 

both the FSS Addendum and the main “family report” data, we found that 

HUD’s systems lacked information on whether 5,148—35 percent—of the 

families that started either of the FSS programs in 2006 exited the FSS 

programs or subsidized housing. 

Of the subset of families for which exit, completion, or extension data 

were available in the FSS Addendum of PIC (that is, 54 percent of 

program participants), about 60 percent exited the program without 

completing it. In contrast, 25 percent of participants completed the 

program in 5 years or less (see table 7).

Our Analysis of Available 

Data Is Not Conclusive
Page 25 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Table 7: HUD Information on Experiences of a Subset of Families That Started FSS 

in Fiscal Year 2006 and for Which Data Were Available on Program Completion, 

Exit, or Extension, as of December 2012

HCV FSS PH FSS Total FSS Percentage

Exited without completing 4,215 497 4,712 60%

Completed in 5 years or less 1,731 206 1,937 25

Completed in 6 years 189 31 220 3

Granted an extension past 2011 915 87 1,002 13

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: These data exclude MTW households and data on families for which HUD’s FSS Addendum 

in PIC lacked completion, exit, or extension dates—46 percent of families that started either of the 

FSS programs in their fiscal year 2006. Percentages do not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

Considering only those families for which HUD had complete data, we 

observed positive changes in income and employment. We observed 

these changes for the families that started an FSS program in 2006 and 

completed it in 5 years or less.38

 38These outcomes cannot be directly attributed to participation in the FSS program. Other 

factors for which we did not control may have influenced them.

As noted above, this information is 

based on the 25 percent of families for which HUD data indicated 

completed the programs in 5 years or less. But, these findings do not take 

into account other factors that may have affected the families’ progress 

towards self-sufficiency. Specifically, of the 1,937 families that started 

either of the two FSS programs in fiscal year 2006 and completed them 

within 5 years, HUD’s data suggest positive changes in income and 

employment (see table 8). For example, median income increased from 

about $17,000 per year to about $25,000 per year. Families with total 

incomes of $35,000 or more when they started the program (ninetieth 

percentile) experienced income gains of 34 percent, compared with 

income gains of 106 percent for families that had total incomes of about 

$3,000 or less (tenth percentile). These families also experienced positive 

changes in employment. For example, full-time employment among these 

program graduates increased 76 percent. The proportion of these 

graduates who were working part-time decreased 30 percent and the 

proportion not employed decreased 61 percent.
Page 26 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Table 8: Income and Employment Changes for Families that Began FSS in Fiscal Year 2006 and Had Completed It by Fiscal 

Year 2011

Program start Program completiona

Percent age 

change for 

total FSS

HCV FSS PH FSS Total FSS HCV FSS PH FSS Total FSS

Median incomeb $17,153 $11,507 $16,684 $25,804 $19,267 $25,323 52%

Mean income 18,551 14,983 18,172 27,286 21,889 26,712 47

Income at tenth percentile 3,411 0 3,075 7,513 2,402 6,345 106

Income at ninetieth 

percentile 

$35,264 $32,072 $35,179 $47,232 $45,502 $47,141 34

Employed full-timec 664 84 748 1,181 135 1,316 76

Employed part-timec 442 46 488 310 34 344 -30

Not employedc 625 76 701 234 37 271 -61%

Source: GAO analysis of HUD data.

Notes: We used HUD’s FSS Addendum data to determine the number of families. All dollar amounts 

are adjusted to fiscal year 2013 dollars using the chain-weighted Gross Domestic Product price index. 

This analysis excludes MTW agencies. Six of the HCV FSS records were missing information on 

employment status at program completion.

a

Successfully graduated from the program.

b

All income figures are based on the total household income.

c

Head of household.

About half of the 1,937 families that started one of the FSS programs in 

fiscal year 2006 and completed it received disbursements of escrow 

funds, according to PIC data. More specifically, 945 of the 1,937 families 

that completed either of the two FSS programs in 5 years or less received 

a total of $5.9 million. The average amount disbursed ranged from about 

$2,400 in fiscal year 2007 to about $7,700 in fiscal year 2011.39

We also analyzed HUD data to determine the extent to which those who 

completed either of the two FSS programs stopped receiving rental 

housing assistance from HUD. As noted above, 1,937 families that began 

either of the two FSS programs in 2006 completed them within 5 years. 

Of these families, HUD data suggest that 473, or about 25 percent, had 

 39Dollar amounts are adjusted to fiscal year 2013 dollars using the chain-weighted Gross 

Domestic Product price index. For the HCV FSS program, forfeited funds are placed in the 

Housing Assistance Payment account. For the PH FSS program, forfeited funds are 

credited to the PHA’s operating fund and counted as other income in the calculation of the 

operating subsidy eligibility for the next budget year.
Page 27 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

stopped receiving rental housing assistance from HUD within 1 year of 

program completion.

HUD and a variety of researchers, including GAO, have reported on what 

is known about the impact on residents of the two FSS programs, HOPE 

VI, and MTW.40

• A 2004 study compared HCV FSS participants with nonparticipants at 

seven PHAs.

These reports have shown some positive outcomes 

related to indicators of self-sufficiency but are mostly inconclusive 

because of methodological limitations. For example, evaluations of HUD’s 

FSS programs indicate some positive impacts on participating residents 

but are not conclusive.

41

• A 2011 study of HCV FSS tracked 181 participants from 14 PHAs.

The study reported that HCV FSS participants 

achieved higher incomes than nonparticipants and were more 

successful in reducing their reliance on welfare. But the study did not 

control for potentially significant differences between program 

participants and the comparison group, such as educational 

attainment and level of motivation. 42

• In addition, a 2005 academic study of a single PHA’s implementation 

of both FSS programs found that residents who completed the 

programs attained significantly higher annual household incomes than 

those who did not and were able to find housing in the private 

This evaluation concluded that program graduates achieved 

substantial financial gains. It also found that residents who started the 

program with higher levels of education at enrollment achieved better 

results. This study is also inconclusive, because it did not employ a 

control group, participating residents were not representative of the 

overall HCV FSS population, and several PHAs declined to 

participate.

 40We did not identify any studies of ROSS SC by HUD or others.

41Robert C. Ficke, Andrea Piesse, et al., Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency 

Program: Retrospective Analysis, 1996 to 2000 a report prepared for the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, April 

2004.

42Lalith de Silva, Imesh Wijewardena, Michelle Wood, and Bulbul Kaul, Evaluation of the 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study, a report prepared for the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, 

February 2011.

Other Research on the 

Impact of Self-Sufficiency 

Programs Also Produced 

Inconclusive Results
Page 28 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

market.43

According to HUD, in March 2012 it began work on the first study of FSS 

to use random-assignment methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

programs. The study will be conducted over at least 5 years.

This study is not generalizeable because the sample size of 

program participants was small and it examined one PHA.

HUD, GAO, and independent researchers have described the impact of 

the HOPE VI program on residents, but none of these studies has 

isolated the impact of community and supportive services on residents’ 

self-sufficiency.

• HUD’s 2003 study of 15 HOPE VI sites described changes in the 

characteristics of the residents who occupied the sites before and 

after revitalization and described the types of supportive services 

provided.44

• In 2004, we described limited HUD data on 165 HOPE VI grants 

awarded through fiscal year 2001, which indicated that the community 

and supportive services component of HOPE VI contributed towards 

positive outcomes.

The report noted that the characteristics of the resident 

population at HOPE VI sites might be different after revitalization for 

several reasons. For example, the revitalized developments may draw 

higher-income residents, and new on-site services may draw people 

interested in receiving services. However, this study did not include an 

assessment of the impact of community and supportive services on 

residents.

45

• The Urban Institute reported in 2007 that, based on its work in 

tracking residents who had been relocated from HOPE VI sites in 

2001, there was no evidence that community and supportive services 

This description was based on HUD’s HOPE VI 

Quarterly Reporting System. Through this system, HOPE VI grantees 

reported on the numbers of residents who participated in and 

graduated from various types of services. We noted the outcomes 

could not always be attributed to participation in HOPE VI.

 43Jerry Anthony, “Family Self-Sufficiency Programs: An Evaluation of Program Benefits 

and Factors Affecting Participants’ Success,” Urban Affairs Review, 41, no. 1 (September 

2005).

44Mary Joel Holin, Larry Buron, Gretchen Locke, and Alvaro Cortes, Interim Assessment 

of the Hope VI Program, Cross-Site Report, prepared by Abt Associates for the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research, September 

2003.

45GAO-04-109.
Page 29 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

improved residents’ self-sufficiency.46

• A 2009 update to the Urban Institute’s 2007 tracking effort similarly 

found that unemployment and self-sufficiency had not improved for 

residents who moved into private-market housing or for those 

remaining in public housing.

According to the institute’s 

analysis, while many residents reported living in better housing 

located in safer neighborhoods, unemployment rates had not 

improved.

47

Although HUD issued a report on the MTW program in 2010, little is 

known about the program’s impact on the statutory goal of increasing 

resident self-sufficiency. A comprehensive evaluation of the MTW 

program is lacking, in part because HUD does not have a plan for 

identifying and analyzing standard performance data and has not 

established performance indicators for the MTW program as a whole. The 

2010 HUD report to Congress found that the effects of many MTW 

activities, especially as they related to residents, could not be 

conclusively identified because of the variety of and differences in the 

activities and metrics that MTW agencies were implementing.48 The 

Urban Institute, which evaluated the program in 2004, noted that the lack 

of consistent data on resident characteristics, incomes, and rent 

payments prevented the authors from being able to determine whether 

individual MTW agencies were able to achieve the goal of increasing selfsufficiency.49

 46Diane K. Levy and Mark Wookey, Relocation Is Not Enough: Employment Barriers 

among HOPE VI Families, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center of the Urban 

Institute, Brief No. 6 (June 2007).

HUD’s MTW Office has developed a statement of work for 

an evaluation of the program that is intended to assess self-sufficiency 

and other outcomes, but HUD officials confirmed that the proposed study 

was on hold pending funding. Officials also noted that newly admitted 

MTW agencies must implement and study rent reform activities, which 

47Susan J. Popkin, Diane K. Levy, and Larry Buron, “Has HOPE VI Transformed 

Residents’ Lives? New Evidence from the HOPE VI Panel Study,” Housing Studies, 24, 

no. 4 (July 2009).

48HUD, Office of Public and Indian Housing and Office of Policy Research and 

Development, Moving to Work: Interim Policy Applications and the Future of the 

Demonstration, a report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

49Martin D. Abravanel, Robin E. Smith, et al., Housing Agency Responses to Federal 

Deregulation: An Assessment of HUD’s “Moving to Work” Demonstration (Washington, 

D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2004). 
Page 30 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

are designed as a strategy to promote work and therefore selfsufficiency.50 These agencies have entered into partnerships with the 

Urban Institute and local universities to evaluate their rent reform 

activities.

HUD aims to improve self-sufficiency among residents of HUD-assisted 

rental housing by encouraging coordination between PHAs and agencies 

offering services that promote work and self-sufficiency. HUD’s 2010-

2015 strategic plan presents strategies for increasing resident selfsufficiency, which include coordination with federal, state, and local 

programs to increase access to job training, career services, and work 

support.51

Consistent with this strategy, HUD formed a partnership with the 

Department of Labor (Labor) to improve residents’ access to Labor 

programs and services. Residents of HUD-assisted rental housing may 

be eligible for a variety of Labor programs and services, including those 

funded through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). These services are 

delivered locally through American Job Centers, also known as one-stop 

centers, which provide education and career training, job search tools, 

and assistance with developing resumes and interview skills. Since 2009,

HUD officials have held meetings with Labor’s Employment and Training 

Administration to share information about their respective programs and 

seek opportunities to collaborate. One product of these meetings has 

been a joint toolkit for PHAs and local workforce agencies intended to 

improve HUD-assisted residents’ access to employment services offered 

 50HUD defines rent reform as any change from the Code of Federal Regulations to the 

way rent is calculated for an assisted household. This includes adopting alternative 

recertification schedules, flat or tiered rent structures, modifications to current exclusion 

and deduction requirements, and alternate income verification procedures.

51HUD, HUD Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2010-2015 (May 2010).

HUD Encourages 

PHAs to Coordinate 

with Local Service 

Providers

HUD’s Strategic Plan and 

Guidance Encourage 

Coordination, and Some 

Programs Require It
Page 31 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

through the workforce agencies’ one-stop centers, intended for release in 

2013. The draft toolkit offers PHAs and workforce agencies a baseline 

understanding of each other’s functions, examples and lessons learned 

from successful partnerships currently in place, information on available 

online resources, and sample Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), or 

partnership agreements.

HUD guidance also encourages PHAs to coordinate with local entities 

such as social service agencies and job training providers to increase 

residents’ self-sufficiency. For example, HUD issued a notice to all PHAs 

in 2011 promoting partnerships with such agencies.52 The notice 

describes the benefits of collaboration, provides examples of possible 

partnerships and strategies for partnership development, and includes 

model MOUs. The notice states that HUD encourages such partnerships 

and recognizes that they benefit both PHAs and the households they 

serve. In addition, HUD’s guidance to PHAs implementing the selfsufficiency programs we reviewed emphasizes the value of coordinating 

with local agencies. For example, HUD developed a resource website for 

HOPE VI grantees that provides information on interagency coordination 

and examples of PHA practices.53

HUD’s program requirements for four of the self-sufficiency programs we 

reviewed call for PHAs to coordinate with local service providers (see 

table 9).

Also, HUD’s training materials for 

ROSS SC grantees include resources that PHAs can use to form 

partnerships, such as a sample partner outreach letter. While this 

guidance is directed to HOPE VI and ROSS SC grantees, it is publicly 

available on HUD’s website and can be accessed by all PHAs.

54

 52HUD, Promoting Partnerships to Utilize Housing as a Platform for Improving Quality of 

Life, HUD Notice PIH-2011-51 (Sept. 20, 2011). 

For example, grant funds for the two FSS programs and the 

ROSS SC program cannot be used to fund direct services. Instead, they 

must be used to hire coordinators who refer residents to local service 

providers, making coordination a key component of these programs’ 

53Resources for Community and Supportive Services, 

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/program

s/ph/hope6/css/resources, accessed June 11, 2013. 

54Although program requirements for the MTW program do not specifically call for PHAs 

to coordinate with local service providers, MTW agencies can use their funding to contract 

with local agencies to provide supportive services. 
Page 32 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

designs. Furthermore, applicants for ROSS SC and HOPE VI grants must 

demonstrate financial or in-kind support from partner organizations or 

agencies. Additionally, supportive services funded through HOPE VI 

grants must be coordinated with other service providers, including state 

and local programs. Finally, all four programs require participating PHAs 

to form coordinating committees to help ensure that residents are linked 

to the services that they need. For example, PHAs that receive either of 

the two FSS grants must establish a Program Coordinating Committee, 

which is charged with securing commitments of public or private 

resources for the operation of self-sufficiency programs. PHAs are 

encouraged to include local service providers, including welfare and 

workforce agencies, on the committees.

Table 9: Examples of Ways That HUD Encourages or Requires PHAs to Coordinate with Local Agencies to Improve Resident 

Self-Sufficiency

For PHAs implementing: FSSa ROSS SC HOPE VI MTW

HUD notice, “Promoting Partnerships,” offers examples, strategies, and model agreements 

for coordinating with local agenciesb    

Grant funds are used to pay a coordinator or case manager responsible for connecting 

residents with available community resources.

  

Grant funds may be used to contract with local agencies to provide services to residentsc  

Grant applications include expectations for PHAs to coordinate with local agencies.   

Grant applications ask PHAs to demonstrate monetary or in-kind support from local 

agencies.

 

Program requirements encourage PHAs to include local agencies on coordinating 

committees.

  

Source: GAO analysis of HUD information.

Notes: HUD regulations implementing a provision in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act 

of 1998 require that all PHAs (not only those implementing one of HUD’s self-sufficiency programs) 

make their best effort to enter into cooperation agreements with local welfare agencies to target 

services and share information. However, this requirement has not been monitored and HUD officials 

were not aware whether PHAs generally had such agreements in place.

a

Applies to both HCV FSS and PH FSS.

b

This notice applies to all PHAs; it is not limited to those PHAs that implement one of HUD’s selfsufficiency programs.

c

MTW agencies do not receive special funding allocations. Rather, they receive funds from the three 

primary funding sources (public housing capital funds, public housing operating funds, and Housing 

Choice Vouchers).

Selected PHAs worked with local service providers to implement HUD’s 

self-sufficiency programs. We interviewed officials from a sample of five 

PHAs that had implemented one or more of HUD’s self-sufficiency

programs, as well as officials from workforce and welfare agencies in 

Selected PHAs 

Coordinated with Local 

Service Providers
Page 33 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

those locations.55

Officials from the five PHAs with whom we met identified few barriers to 

coordinating with local service providers and found current HUD guidance 

related to such coordination sufficient. Officials said that, despite resource 

constraints, they generally were able to obtain the services their residents 

needed from local agencies. PHA officials also stated that local agencies, 

including federally funded agencies, were receptive to their coordination 

efforts. However, while officials from two PHAs stated that they had 

strong relationships with their local workforce agencies, officials from the 

other three PHAs noted that these agencies’ one-stop centers could be 

intimidating for residents and might not always be able to provide 

residents with appropriate services. Officials from workforce agencies we 

interviewed generally agreed, noting that residents might not have the 

education or work experience needed for some of the training 

opportunities that the centers offered. For example, a workforce agency 

official told us that individuals interested in job training in certain fields, 

such as trucking or nursing, must take tests to demonstrate required 

levels of academic readiness to participate. He said that many assisted 

housing residents were not prepared to pass these tests and might first 

need remedial adult education. HUD officials with responsibility for 

administering the self-sufficiency programs we reviewed and Labor 

officials with responsibilities related to workforce agencies told us that the 

joint HUD-Labor toolkit described above was developed in part to improve 

resident access to services offered through the one-stop centers.

All of the PHAs we interviewed connected residents to 

local agencies that provided a broad range of services, including job 

training, mental health services, child care, transportation, food 

assistance, and homeownership counseling. Some of these local 

agencies received federal funding—for example, workforce agencies that 

administered WIA programs. PHA and local agency officials with whom 

we met stated that coordination efforts sometimes were formally 

established through MOUs, contracts, or regular meetings but added that 

most coordination efforts were informal. This informal coordination 

included referrals to each other’s services or the sharing of information or 

updates on new programs and services.

In general, awareness of federal efforts to improve coordination was 

mixed among the PHAs, workforce, and welfare agencies with which we 

 55For more information on our selection methodology, see appendix I. 
Page 34 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

met. For example, officials from two of the PHAs were familiar with the 

HUD notice on promoting partnerships, but officials from the other three 

PHAs were not. Additionally, officials from two of the PHAs and all five 

workforce agencies were not aware of a 2009 joint HUD-Labor letter on 

collaboration.56 Still, officials from these agencies generally did not 

express a need for further federal guidance or assistance in facilitating 

relationships between PHAs and local agencies.

HUD’s housing assistance programs serve millions of low-income 

residents. Statutory and programmatic requirements for HUD and PHAs 

also direct the organizations to undertake activities that would help these 

households increase their economic self-sufficiency. In particular, HUD 

has five programs that, in whole or in part, fund activities intended to help 

families become self-sufficient. However, HUD faces two major 

impediments to effectively operating these programs and achieving their 

goals. First, it does not have reliable data on participation in selfsufficiency activities across PHAs. Second, even though it has complete 

data for some PHAs, it generally does not use these data to review the 

progress participants may have made in, for example, finding a job or 

completing more education.

In relation to participation data for the programs we reviewed, HUD has 

missed opportunities to help ensure that FSS participation data are 

complete. For example, in the two FSS programs significant gaps exist in 

participant entry and completion dates or reasons for leaving. These gaps 

are detrimental for several reasons, including their effects on grant 

funding and congressional reporting. Specifically, HUD uses resident 

participation data as a factor in making grant funding decisions and has 

reported this information in Congressional Budget Justifications. 

Moreover, without such data HUD cannot identify PHAs that have low or 

high completion rates. Federal internal control standards state that 

transactions should be promptly recorded to maintain their relevance and 

value to management and HUD’s own reporting guidance also directs 

grant recipients to record program start dates, exit dates, reasons for 

exiting the program prior to completion, and completion dates. HUD has 

 56HUD and Labor released a joint letter on May 26, 2009, encouraging PHAs and 

workforce agencies to work collaboratively to identify opportunities to train and place 

public housing residents into jobs created by PHAs’ capital improvement projects funded 

by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

Conclusions
Page 35 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

recognized the importance of having reliable participation data in recent 

years, emphasizing its importance to grantees in funding notices. But 

HUD could further work with agencies to correct participation data during 

the grant award process, or analyze the data outside of this process to 

help ensure that all required data are complete. By doing so, HUD will 

improve the accuracy of these data, improve its ability to assess FSS 

grantee activities and thus make better-informed decisions about funding 

them, and provide Congress a more complete view of program 

performance.

Similarly, ROSS SC is designed to provide grant recipients with funds to 

hire staff to help residents progress towards economic independence and 

self-sufficiency. Since 2008, HUD has required grant recipients to report 

participation data. However, HUD has not provided grant recipients with 

program-specific reporting guidance; thus, the reported data vary and 

cannot be easily or reliably used for assessing programwide participation. 

Federal internal control standards state that program managers need 

operational data to determine whether they are meeting their agencies’ 

strategic plans and meeting their goals for the effective and efficient use 

of resources. By developing program-specific reporting guidance, HUD 

could help ensure the collection of accurate participation data, and 

establish data sets that can be used to assess participation for the ROSS 

SC program as a whole. 

In relation to outcome data for the programs we reviewed, HUD has not 

optimized its use of the information it requires PHAs to collect. We 

acknowledge that determining the outcomes of self-sufficiency activities is 

difficult and requires rigorous analyses. It is also difficult to isolate the 

impact of such activities from other factors that may influence participant 

outcomes. But HUD could do more to put itself in a position to look across 

a program to review participant accomplishments. While HUD has 

collected some indicators for the FSS and ROSS SC programs (such as 

information on hours worked and receipt of welfare), it lacks a strategy for 

using the data it collects, whether through PIC or its Excel-based 

reporting tool. And, as with participation data, PHAs have not consistently 

reported such information, a condition exacerbated by the lack of 

program-specific reporting guidance. As stated above, internal control 

standards underline the importance not only of collecting but also using 

information to achieve programmatic goals—helping families increase

self-sufficiency. Additionally, GPRAMA emphasizes the need for 

information on the effectiveness of federal programs to help improve 

congressional decision making. A strategy for using these data could 

inform overall management review, congressional oversight, and planning 
Page 36 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

for these programs. For instance, using such data could help HUD 

identify from which PHAs to draw lessons to help improve HUD 

management of the grant programs as well as PHA management of selfsufficiency-related activities.

To better inform Congress and improve what is known about residents’ 

participation in key grant programs designed to facilitate resident selfsufficiency, and their progress towards self-sufficiency, the Secretary of 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development should develop and 

implement

• a process to better ensure that data on FSS participant grants are 

complete; such a process should include steps for identifying missing 

data, identifying the reasons for missing data, and taking steps to help 

ensure data are complete;

• a process to better ensure that PHAs awarded ROSS SC grants 

annually report required participation and outcome data that are 

comparable among grant recipients; this process should include the 

issuance of program-specific reporting guidance;

• a strategy for regularly analyzing FSS participation and outcome data; 

such a strategy could include identification of PHAs from which 

lessons could be learned and PHAs that may need assistance 

improving completion rates or outcomes; and

• a strategy for regularly analyzing ROSS SC participation and outcome 

data; such a strategy could include identification of PHAs from which 

lessons could be learned and PHAs that may need assistance 

improving participation rates or outcomes.

We provided a draft of this report to HUD, Labor, Treasury, and HHS. 

HUD provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendix II. 

Labor and HHS provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate, and Treasury did not provide comments. HUD agreed with 

three of our recommendations, and pointed to actions it intends to take to 

implement them. While agreeing with these recommendations, HUD 

noted some concerns about our recommendation that it develop and

implement a strategy for regularly analyzing FSS participation and 

outcome data, and disagreed with our similar recommendation for the 

ROSS SC program.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 37 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

While agreeing with our recommendation that it develop and implement a 

strategy for regularly analyzing FSS participation and outcome data, HUD 

stated that the data captured in PIC for this program are not designed for 

rigorous statistical analysis. However, according to HUD guidance, PIC 

can be used to create reports, analyze programs, monitor PHAs, and 

provide information about residents in HUD-subsidized housing. In 

addition, if participating PHAs annually updated data, as required, in the 

FSS Addendum, PIC would include data on sources of assistance 

received by the family; whether the head of the household worked fulltime, part-time, or was unemployed; and the highest grade of education 

for the head of the household. By implementing our first 

recommendation—that HUD develop and implement a process to better 

ensure that data on FSS participants are complete—the completeness 

and therefore reliability of outcome data should improve. Consequently, 

usefulness of analysis of such data would also be improved.

HUD disagreed that it should develop a strategy for regularly analyzing 

ROSS SC participation and outcome data. In doing so, the agency noted 

the small size of the program, the difficulty of analyzing outcomes, and 

that the data it collects are administrative in nature and not intended to 

serve as the basis for analysis. However, HUD’s training materials on the 

Excel-based tool that it uses to collect participation and outcomes data for 

the ROSS-SC program state that the tool is intended to be used to 

manage, monitor, and evaluate program services. These training 

materials and HUD staff with whom we met also indicated that the tool, 

when populated by participating PHAs, contains data on outputs and 

outcomes. And, as noted above, HUD agreed that its reporting guidance 

to ROSS SC grantees should be improved to help make data more 

meaningful. HUD’s disagreement with our recommendation to analyze the 

information collected does not accord with its requirement for PHAs to 

submit operational data or with its assessment that data quality ought to 

be improved. Consistent with internal controls for the federal government, 

which apply to programs of all sizes, regular analysis of ROSS SC 

operational data would help HUD determine whether it was meeting goals 

for the effective and efficient use of resources. It can be difficult to isolate 

and definitively assess program outcomes. But program data can help 

identify patterns and anomalies in program operations, which can help 

agencies discover ways to achieve more value for the taxpayer’s money. 

Consequently, we continue to recommend that HUD develop and 

implement a strategy for regularly analyzing ROSS SC participation and 

program data.
Page 38 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

In its technical comments, HUD also raised concerns about the accuracy 

of dollar amounts reported and the characterization of outputs related to 

the community and supportive services component of HOPE VI. First, 

HUD questioned the accuracy of the amounts awarded to PHAs through 

the FSS and ROSS SC programs and the amounts HOPE VI agencies 

spent on community and supportive services. Because trends in nominal 

spending may reflect changes in both price and quantity, we chose to 

present inflation-adjusted values by removing the general effects of 

inflation using a price index. Specifically, we adjusted these figures to 

fiscal year 2013 dollars using the fiscal year chain-weighted Gross 

Domestic Product price index. Second, for the HOPE VI program, HUD 

stated that without a costly and time-intensive experimental research 

design, it would not be possible to know whether the outputs residents’ 

experienced were directly attributable to the program. We acknowledged 

the difficulties of isolating program outcomes in this report, and have not 

made any recommendations related to HOPE VI. Finally, during the 

course of our review, OMB approved revised reporting requirements for 

the MTW program, which are intended to establish standard metrics for 

activities related to self-sufficiency, among other things. We revised the 

report to recognize these changes. HUD provided additional technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Housing 

and Urban Development and other interested committees. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8678 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix III.

Mathew J. Scirè

Director, Financial Markets

and Community Investment
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Our objectives were to (1) discuss what is known about the costs of and 

residents’ participation in Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) grant programs that encourage work and self-sufficiency, (2) 

determine what is known about the effect on residents of HUD grant 

programs to promote self-sufficiency, and (3) describe steps HUD has 

taken to coordinate with other federal agencies and increase residents’ 

access to non-HUD programs that encourage work and self-sufficiency.

To discuss what is known about the costs of and residents’ participation 

in HUD programs that encourage self-sufficiency we reviewed 

documentation of HUD’s programs and determined whether and how they 

defined and addressed resident self-sufficiency. Because HUD did not 

have an agencywide definition of self-sufficiency, and included 20 

programs in its list of programs that contribute to its subgoal of increasing 

economic security and self-sufficiency, we established criteria to narrow 

the scope of programs to include in our review. First, we limited our 

review to grant programs that were intended to encourage work and selfsufficiency among residents of HUD-assisted rental housing. Second, we 

included grant programs that did not have self-sufficiency as their primary 

focus but rather as a secondary program goal. We sought to include 

programs that were actively awarding grants, or for which grants were still 

open. Based on these criteria, we identified the following programs:

• Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency (PH FSS)

• Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (HCV FSS)

• Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency Service Coordinators 

(ROSS SC)

• Moving to Work (MTW)

• HOPE VI

HUD officials agreed that we had identified the key grant programs that 

encourage work and self-sufficiency. To describe what is known about the 

programs’ costs, we met with program staff and obtained documentation 

of the total grant amounts awarded for specific periods, as follows:

• For the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) programs, we obtained grant 

award amounts for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and analyzed data 

from HUD’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) 

system on escrow account disbursements from fiscal years 2006 

through 2011. We adjusted all dollar amounts to fiscal year 2013 

dollars using the chain-weighted Gross Domestic Product price index.

• For ROSS SC, we obtained grant award amounts for fiscal years 

2008 through 2011, because 2008 was the first year of the current 

version of the program.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

• For the MTW program, we met with program staff and staff from 

HUD’s Grants Management Office to determine whether HUD 

collected information on MTW agencies’ expenditures for activities 

related to self-sufficiency.

• For the HOPE VI program, we reviewed and summarized the fiscal 

year 2006-2010 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) requirements 

related to community and supportive services expenditures and the 

amount of HOPE VI revitalization grant funds that HOPE VI agencies 

expended on community and supportive services in that period.

To analyze residents’ participation in each of the five programs, we met 

with HUD staff to determine how participation data were collected and 

summarized any readily available information.

• For the two FSS programs, we analyzed participation data from PIC 

for fiscal years 2006 through 2011. Specifically, we analyzed data that 

public housing agencies (PHA) entered in the FSS Addendum, a PIC 

subcomponent. As a part of this analysis, we identified the extent to 

which program start dates, end dates, and annual updates for 

participating households were entered. We interviewed HUD officials 

with responsibility for administering both FSS programs and the PIC 

system about the completeness of the data and HUD’s use of the 

information. We evaluated the information available on families’ 

participation in the two FSS programs in relation to internal control 

standards for the federal government as well as HUD’s own 

guidance.1

• For the ROSS SC program, we obtained and reviewed aggregated 

data on program participation that a HUD contractor created in 2013. 

We evaluated the information available on residents’ participation in 

ROSS SC in relation to internal control standards for the federal 

government.

Based on interviews with HUD officials and our review of 

the completeness of data fields in the FSS Addendum component of 

PIC, we determined that the available data were not sufficiently 

reliable to provide an accurate count of residents’ participation in FSS 

for fiscal years 2006 through 2011. We summarized data that HUD 

posted on its website as a part of the NOFA process for fiscal years 

2009 through 2012.

2

 1

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

We determined that the aggregated participation data 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

2 GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

were not sufficiently reliable to provide an accurate count of residents’ 

participation in ROSS SC for fiscal years 2008 through 2011.

• For the HOPE VI program, we summarized data from the HOPE VI 

Quarterly Reporting System on the total number of nondisabled 

residents between the ages of 18 and 64 who had received services 

through the community and supportive services component of HOPE 

VI from the program’s inception through the end of 2012.

• For the MTW program, we interviewed program administrators to 

determine whether and how they used information from participating 

agencies’ Annual MTW Reports or MTW-PIC to determine the number 

of MTW households participating in MTW and activities related to selfsufficiency. We analyzed the FSS Addendums associated with MTWPIC in an effort to determine the number of MTW families that had 

participated in either of the two FSS programs. We determined, based 

on interviews with HUD officials and our analysis of FSS Addendum 

data for MTW agencies, that these data were not sufficiently reliable 

prior to 2011. We summarized available data on MTW families’ 

participation in the two FSS programs in 2011.

To determine what is known about the effect on residents of HUD’s grant 

programs that encourage work and self-sufficiency, we examined whether 

and how HUD collected information that could indicate progress toward 

self-sufficiency, such as information on income and employment, for each 

program. We reviewed available data dictionaries and guidance HUD 

provided to PHAs required to report this information. We determined that 

for the five programs we reviewed, HUD used PIC, MTW-PIC, Excelbased reporting tools, written reports, and other reporting systems to 

collect this information. We interviewed HUD staff about their use of the 

self-sufficiency indicators they require PHAs to report, the reliability of the 

data collected, and program-specific guidance. We evaluated HUD’s 

processes for aggregating self-sufficiency-related outcomes data in 

relation to our standards for internal control. For the two FSS programs, 

we analyzed PIC data on the 14,690 families that HUD’s data indicated 

started the programs in 2006. Based on PIC data for fiscal years 2006 

through 2012, we identified the number of families that completed the two 

FSS programs, exited the programs without completing them, and 

received an extension to continue the program past 2011, and for which 

HUD’s system lacked either program exit, completion, or extension 

information. For the subset of families that HUD’s data indicated had 

completed the two FSS programs in 5 years or less (1,937 households), 

we analyzed changes in median and mean income, income for those at 

the tenth and ninetieth percentiles, and employment experiences. We 

adjusted all dollar amounts to fiscal year 2013 dollars using the chainweighted Gross Domestic Product price index. This sample represented 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

about 25 percent of the families that started in 2006 and for which exit, 

completion, or extension data were available. In addition, this analysis 

does not control for other factors that may have affected participants’ 

progress towards self-sufficiency. We excluded any households that were 

receiving rental assistance from an MTW agency because HUD officials 

indicated that their FSS participation data were not as reliable, particularly 

before 2011.

Through interviews and a literature search, we identified several studies 

of the two FSS programs, HOPE VI, and MTW. We reviewed these 

studies to identify information on the programs’ impact on resident selfsufficiency. We determined that these reports were methodologically 

sound and reliable for our purposes. We did not identify any studies of the 

ROSS SC program.

To describe the steps HUD has taken to coordinate with other federal 

agencies and increase residents’ access to non-HUD programs, we 

reviewed HUD regulations, policies, and guidance related to coordination. 

We also interviewed officials from HUD, the Department of Health and 

Human Services, and the Department of Labor, and reviewed materials 

related to interagency coordination provided by these officials. To better 

understand how PHAs connect residents with non-HUD programs, we 

interviewed staff from PHAs administering each of the self-sufficiency 

programs included in our review.3 To select PHAs, we compiled lists of 

PHAs that received grant funding (or permission to participate in MTW) 

between 2004 and 2011. We then randomly selected a PHA to interview 

for each program and adjusted our initial sample to ensure that the five 

selected PHAs varied in terms of size and region.4 Four of the selected 

PHAs implement more than one of the programs in our review. The 

selected PHAs were:

 3

Interviews with these PHAs also covered other topics including how the PHAs collect and 

track participation and outcomes data for their self-sufficiency programs.

4

We consolidated size categories from HUD’s Housing Authority Profiles database into the 

following three categories: small (fewer than 250 total units); medium (more than 249 units 

but fewer than 1,250 units); and large (more than 1,249 units). We then combined the 

small and medium categories because very few PHAs participating in these five programs 

would meet the small category standards. For regions, we used the four Census Bureau 

regions: Midwest, Northwest, South, and West.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 43 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

• Boulder County Housing Authority (Boulder, Colorado)

• Jersey City Housing Authority (Jersey City, New Jersey)

• Kingsport Housing and Redevelopment Authority (Kingsport, 

Tennessee)

• Louisville Metro Housing Authority (Louisville, Kentucky)

• Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 

(Woodbury, Minnesota)

For each of these locations, we also interviewed officials from the local 

agencies that administered Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

and the Workforce Investment Act programs.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through July 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on the audit objectives.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 44 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 45 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 46 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 47 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 48 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development

Page 49 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 50 GAO-13-581 Self-Sufficiency Programs

Mathew J. Scirè, (202) 512-8678 or sciremj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Paul Schmidt (Assistant 

Director), Stephen Brown, Emily Chalmers, Geoff King, John McGrail, 

Marc Molino, Lisa Moore, Michael Pahr, Barbara Roesmann, Beverly 

Ross, and Andrew Stavisky made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(250686)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

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

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

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.