Housing and Urban Development: Strategic Human Capital and Workforce Planning Should be an Ongoing Priority
Published: 2013-03-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: HUD has faced challenges accurately determining the staff resources it needs to fulfill its mission of creating strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. GAO's prior work has shown that strategic human capital management, including efficient and effective workforce planning, helps ensure agencies have people with the skills needed to carry out their missions. GAO was directed to review the status of HUD's workforce planning efforts. GAO reviewed (1) HUD's strategic human capital and workforce planning efforts; (2) the extent to which HUD's resource management systems reflects identified standards; and (3) how clearly HUD presents its rationale behind staff resource requests in the budget request. GAO reviewed department-wide human capital and resource management efforts and selected four of the largest HUD program offices for further review. GAO reviewed documentation of HUD planning efforts and interviewed HUD officials and relevant congressional staff. The results from the reviews of the four program offices cannot be generalized to all offices within HUD.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reports that it is moving forward with strategic human capital and workforce planning efforts after several years of delays. HUD's most recent workforce plan expired in 2009 and since then HUD has launched several planning efforts. According to HUD, these efforts were preempted by other important priorities, such as responding to the economic crisis. HUD undertook initiatives such as training key program office staff on the need to determine up front the staff HUD could afford to hire. In HUD's latest effort, a contractor is expected to complete human capital and workforce plans no later than fiscal year 2014. In June 2012, an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) review found that HUD's human capital and workforce planning activities did not always follow key principles for planning, implementing, and evaluating the results of human capital management policies and practices. For example, the review found that HUD's human resources policies and programs are not aligned with the organization's mission, strategic goals, or performance outcomes. As a result of these weaknesses, OPM concluded that HUD cannot continually assess and improve human capital planning and investments or measure the impact on mission accomplishment.
HUD is reexamining its resource management processes, which do not fully consider all standards identified by the National Academy of Public Administration in a 1999 report on ways that HUD could address its resource management challenges. GAO's review found that HUD provides central guidance on how work is defined and collected, and involves headquarters and field staff in the workload definition process. However, HUD has not created incentives or accountability for staff to report accurate workload data. GAO found that HUD's program offices selectively use the department's resource estimation and allocation process (REAP) to define workload and estimate resources and there is no widespread agreement that the process produces the quality of data needed to effectively estimate resources. As a result, staff are entering information into the Total Estimation and Allocation Mechanism (TEAM), REAP's validation component (which compares actual staff time to estimated staff time) on an inconsistent basis and officials report that the information is often not used to inform decision-making.
HUD's budget submission could more clearly explain the underlying rationale for HUD's budget request, even though primary users acknowledge that 2013 was an improvement over prior years. The primary users of the congressional budget justification (CBJ) are appropriations staff who said that CBJs from fiscal years 2008 to 2012 generally contained data tables for some program areas and did not always contain narrative that explained or justified the full-time equivalent request. According to HUD officials, HUD provided data tables because prior submissions with more detail did not prompt questions from Congress. Users of the CBJs GAO spoke to agreed that the fiscal year 2013 changes which provided more detail improved the clarity and utility of the justifications, but some still raised questions about the lack of adequate, consistent information available to help Congress make resource allocation decisions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Secretary of HUD follow through on developing and maintaining human capital and workforce plans that clearly incorporate key principles; create incentives for staff to report accurate data for managing staff resources; and consult with congressional decision makers to determine what additional information about resource decisions should be presented, and how, in its CBJ. HUD agreed with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In the past, we have reported that the U.S. Department of Housing and  Urban Development (HUD) has faced challenges accurately determining  the staff resources it needs to fulfill its mission of creating strong,  sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.  The collapse of the housing and mortgage markets in 2008 created  additional demand on HUD’s resources, increasing the importance of  HUD having employees with the skills needed to address these crises  while using its existing resources as efficiently as possible. Further, the  current fiscal environment and the continued recovery from the housing  crisis necessitate effective human capital and workforce planning and  resource management and increase the need to use existing staff as  efficiently as possible.
Our prior work has shown that strategic workforce planning helps  agencies use staff efficiently by (1) aligning an organization’s human  capital program with its current and emerging mission and programmatic  goals and (2) developing long-term strategies for acquiring, developing,  and retaining staff to achieve programmatic goals. Further, effective staff management assists an agency in identifying full-time equivalent (FTE)  needs and informs an agency’s budget formulation and execution  processes.
To facilitate the use of a resource estimation and allocation process for  future budget estimates and submissions, Congress directed us to review  and report on the status of HUD’s workforce planning efforts and its staff  resource management tools. Our objectives were to review (1) HUD’s  strategic human capital and workforce planning efforts (2) the extent to  which HUD’s resource management system reflects identified standards  and (3) how clearly HUD presents its rationale behind staff resource  requests in the budget request.
subsections: section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: We reviewed department-wide human capital and resource management  efforts for all objectives. We also selected four HUD program offices for  further review that (1) had the largest number of FTEs, (2) were included  in HUD’s agency priority goals for fiscal years 2012 to 2013, and (3)  appeared in HUD’s annual performance plans for fiscal years 2012 to  2013. Three of the program offices—the Office of Community Planning  and Development, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, and the Office  of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity—provide illustrative examples of  planning and processes. In addition to those three offices, we used our  prior work to gather information about HUD’s planning and processes in a  fourth program office, the Office of Housing, which is HUD’s largest  program office.those we did not include in our review.
The findings from this work cannot be generalized to  To review HUD’s strategic human capital and workforce planning efforts,  we compared HUD’s planning efforts to the Office of Personnel  Management’s (OPM) Human Capital Assessment and Accountability  Framework. We also reviewed OPM’s June 2012 report on HUD’s human capital management and the key principles described in our prior  reports on workforce planning to inform our efforts.methodology and found that it was reasonable for our purposes.
We reviewed OPM’s  To review the extent to which HUD’s resource management system  reflects identified standards, we reviewed HUD documents describing its  activities and compared them to the identified standards in the National  Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report for developing an  effective resource management system for HUD.
To understand how clearly HUD presents its rationale behind staff  resource requests, we reviewed congressional budget justifications (CBJ)  and met with HUD appropriations subcommittee staff, as they are the  primary users of this information. For all objectives, we interviewed  relevant HUD officials in the offices of the Chief Financial Officer and the  Chief Human Capital Officer and in the selected program offices.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to March 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 our audit objectives.
section_title: Background
paragraphs: As noted earlier, HUD has faced longstanding challenges with staff  resource estimation and management. To improve its ability to estimate  FTEs and support budget requests, in 1999, HUD partnered with NAPA to  develop standards for a resource estimation and allocation process.  NAPA identified standards for HUD to (1) adopt a resource management  methodology with estimates and allocations based on anticipated work  and where it is to be performed; (2) include all of the departmental  responsibilities in a resource estimation system; (3) identify work that can  be accomplished with current staffing levels, which tasks must be done  less often or are no longer required, and which tasks are to be contracted  out; and (4) include a resource validation component that accurately  measures actual staff activities. HUD agreed and appendix II provides  additional detail on these standards.
HUD intended that the resource estimation and allocation process it  developed known as REAP would produce analytically-based data upon  which HUD could accurately determine staff needs in relation to program  requirements. REAP is composed of three components: resource  estimation, validation, and allocation. Figure 1, an interactive graphic,  illustrates the original design of REAP (see appendix I for more  information). While the allocation component was piloted in the Office of  Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, ultimately it was not implemented  agency-wide.
As shown in the timeline in Figure 2, HUD’s present staff resource  management efforts began with the development of REAP.
Within HUD, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer has  responsibility for developing HUD’s department-wide human capital and  workforce plans. These plans set the tone for identifying an agency’s  workforce goals and determining the activities and initiatives needed to  achieve those goals. The Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer is also  responsible for providing guidance to program offices in assessing their  needs, performing workload analyses, and creating hiring plans.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer oversees HUD’s budget  formulation and submission to Congress. In addition, each program office  has its own budget office that formulates requests for its individual  program office. These budget offices submit their requests to the Office of  the Chief Financial Officer for consideration. According to the officials, this  approach provides the program offices with flexibility to estimate their  workload and staff resource needs.
section_title: HUD Reports That it is Moving Forward with Strategic Human Capital and Workforce Planning Efforts after Several Years of Delays
subsections: section_title: HUD Has Awarded Contracts to Further Planning Efforts
paragraphs: In April 2012, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer began  soliciting a contractor to help HUD conduct a workforce analysis and  update both the human capital and workforce plans. However, HUD  placed award of the contract on hold while related initiatives were being  evaluated. HUD then delayed this effort when its newly appointed Deputy  Secretary requested information on the workforce planning process that  established a workforce planning task force, among other things.
The original target date for completion of these plans was September 30,  2012. However, as a result of the delay stemming from the creation of the  new workforce planning task force, HUD signed the contract for the  development of the workforce and human capital strategic plans in  September 2012. According to officials, HUD has since modified the  timeline for deliverables and the plans are now expected to be completed  no later than fiscal year 2014. Although this contract is an example of  HUD’s centralized efforts to prioritize human capital and workforce  planning, the contract does not specify which years the plans will cover  and calls for development of “multi-year” plans, starting in fiscal year  2012. HUD officials said that they will align the end date for the plans with  the department’s strategic plan, which is currently applicable through  2015. By definition, plans should be forward looking, but once HUD’s  plans are completed, the first two years—fiscal years 2012 and 2013— will have elapsed. In comments on a draft of this report, HUD stated its  intention to modify the contract deliverables to reflect fiscal years 2014  and future years. Further, HUD stated in its comments that the  deliverables will also be amended based on any changes caused by a  revision to HUD’s strategic plan.
According to the contract, the human capital plan is to be developed to  align with OPM’s Human Capital Assessment and Accountability  Framework.the desired outcomes and, among other things, identify strategies to:   The contract states that the plans are supposed to outline provide a roadmap for accomplishing the mission and implementing  HUD’s strategic plan goals;  recruit, retain, and train a workforce with the skills and abilities to fulfill  HUD’s responsibilities; and provide metrics to determine the effectiveness of the plan.
According to HUD, the plan will support decision-making and prioritization  of human capital initiatives.
Separately, the contract states that the workforce plan must identify the  human capital required to meet HUD’s organizational goals, conduct  analyses to identify and close competency gaps, develop strategies to  address human capital needs, and ensure that HUD is appropriately  structured. The workforce plan is also to:  link directly to HUD’s strategic plan and be used in decision-making  for structuring and deploying the workforce; ensure mission-critical occupations and competencies are identified  identify current and future workforce competencies; and  implement a business forecasting process that identifies probable  workforce changes, enabling HUD’s managers to anticipate changes  in human capital that require action to ensure mission  accomplishment.
section_title: Program Offices Developed Processes to Inform Human Capital Decisions
paragraphs: While HUD is continuing centralized planning efforts, some of its program  offices are performing workload or workforce analysis to produce more  specific information at the program level. For example, the Office of  Community and Planning Development maintains a workforce and  staffing plan that outlines all of the current positions and historical  vacancies within the office. Similarly, the Office of Public and Indian  Housing maintains a workload management tracking report that manages  and tracks work activities that directly impact critical strategic and  management plan goals. Both the Office of Community Planning and  Development and the Office of Public and Indian Housing submit hiring  plans to the Offices of the Chief Human Capital Officer and the Chief  Financial Officer for review and input. Further, in 2011, we reported that  the Federal Housing Administration addressed staffing challenges in its  Office of Single Family Housing to some extent by hiring more  contractors; increasing overtime; sharing resources among  homeownership centers; and changing business processes to minimize  loan reviews. In 2012, the Federal Housing Administration developed a  workforce analysis and succession plan for the Office of Single Family  Housing that included its future workforce planning priorities and  strategies. Workforce analysis at the program office level is necessary  and provides the offices flexibility and foresight in decision-making and  devising FTE requests.
section_title: Other Priorities Delayed HUD’s Human Capital Planning Activities
paragraphs: Our prior work has shown that human capital and workforce planning are  essential elements of an agency’s infrastructure. Each agency is  responsible for ensuring that its human capital program capitalizes on its  workforce’s strengths and addresses related challenges in a manner that  is clearly linked to achieving the agency’s mission, goals, and  objectives. Operationally, HUD interprets workforce planning and  human capital planning as separate processes that are intended to  support each other. According to an official in the Office of the Chief  Human Capital Officer, workforce planning identifies the positions, skills,  and competencies that will be required to continue HUD’s mission and  service delivery requirements into the future. Separately, human capital  planning in HUD is focused on current employees and includes activities  such as performance management and employee retention.
HUD’s most recent human capital and workforce plans expired in 2009.  Although HUD has since launched several workforce planning efforts, it  reported that these efforts were preempted by other priorities.
According to HUD, when the administration changed in 2009, HUD was  immediately immersed in the economic crisis that fell upon the housing  market and nearly all of its attention was focused on implementation of  the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Nonetheless,  HUD leadership initiated an effort to develop a comprehensive, new  strategic plan. In February 2010, HUD engaged key program office staff  in training that emphasized the need to determine upfront the staff HUD  could afford to hire. In mid-2010, HUD’s Office of Administration planned  to initiate a workforce analysis based on HUD’s new Strategic Goal 5,  “Transform the Way HUD Does Business”. However, at the same time,  reorganization efforts incorporated the Office of Administration into the  Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer and new employees were hired  to conduct a workforce analysis and update the human capital and  workforce plans. Subsequent restructuring and management turnover that  occurred from 2010 through 2011 caused further delays and, as  previously discussed, HUD renewed efforts to complete these plans in  April 2012. Nonetheless, until HUD completes planning efforts, it cannot  ensure it is using resources efficiently and is making decisions informed  by strategic direction.
section_title: The Office of Personnel Management Identified a Need for Reinvigorated HUD Planning Efforts
paragraphs: The success of HUD’s current workforce planning efforts is particularly  important. In June 2012, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  reported on its review of HUD’s human capital management and found  that HUD’s human capital and workforce planning activities did not always  follow certain Human Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework  standards, or key principles. The framework outlines an ongoing process  of human capital management in five systems: strategic alignment,  leadership and knowledge management, results-oriented performance  culture, talent management, and accountability. The strategic alignment  system includes both human capital and workforce planning activities.  Specifically, OPM found:
Human resources policies and programs are not aligned with  organizational mission, strategic goals, and performance outcomes.
Workforce planning is not approached strategically and in an explicit  documented manner.
Mission-critical occupations are identified, but there needs to be  additional analysis to identify gaps and strategies to close the gaps.
Agency workforce planning and management practices should, but do  not include strategies such as restructuring, competitive sourcing,  redeployment, retraining, and technology solutions.
As a result of these weaknesses, OPM concluded that HUD cannot  continually assess and improve human capital planning and investments  or measure the impact on mission accomplishment.
In HUD’s response to OPM’s evaluation, it acknowledged deficiencies in  these areas and outlined planning initiatives that are currently under way  to develop and deliver workforce and strategic human capital plans. For  instance, HUD officials told us that on August 7, 2012, HUD entered into  an inter-agency agreement with the Department of Treasury to design a  new system that is meant to (1) explain FTE needs and match FTEs with  the workload; (2) propose for management consideration the allocation of   FTEs; (3) identify FTE trends which can assist management in aligning  future workload to strategic goals and operational and performance plans;  (4) assist managers in aligning work with staff; and (5) provide succession  planning and identify gaps in mission critical occupations and  competencies. HUD officials told us that they system will be available by  September 30, 2013.
section_title: HUD Is Reexamining Its Resource Management Processes, which Do Not Fully Consider Identified Standards
subsections: section_title: HUD Is Reexamining Its Resource Management Processes
paragraphs: In 2012, HUD began taking steps to reexamine its resource management  process. Officials in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer reported that  HUD is working to develop a consistent methodology for the budget  process. HUD plans to use a comprehensive approach to estimating its  resources by integrating all aspects of HUD’s activities including budget  planning, workforce and human capital planning, and information  technology, among other areas. Officials in the Office of the Chief  Financial Officer also told us that they are encouraging program offices to  focus on the main reason for requesting a specific number of FTEs and  the total cost of producing an outcome rather than the separate  component costs, such as salary.
HUD’s workforce planning task force, established by the Deputy  Secretary in 2012, is reviewing the usefulness of REAP studies and how  the studies inform the workforce planning process as part of the  reexamination process. The task force is to also consult with another  contractor with whom HUD awarded a 40-week contract in September  2012 to (1) conduct an assessment of HUD’s existing workforce planning  tools, including, but not limited to, a review of the REAP methodology,  and (2) research resource estimation best practices and systems at other  government agencies and private sector entities.report is expected by July 2013.
section_title: HUD’s Resource Management Processes Do Not Fully Consider Standards Identified by NAPA
paragraphs: In addition to the principles OPM identified that strategic workforce  planning should address irrespective of the context in which the planning  is done, NAPA’s 1999 report identified HUD-specific standards for  effective resource management. This report emphasized that using  analytically-based data would increase HUD’s ability to develop human  capital requirements based on meaningful measures. Further, it outlined  the underlying requirements of an effective overall resource management  system. According to the NAPA report, HUD’s system should:  comprehensively define HUD’s workload; provide central guidance on how work is defined and data collected; allow program assistant secretaries to retain decision-making  authority over the systems used in their organizations;  involve headquarters and field staff in the workload definition process;  link workload and resources so that Government Performance and  Results Act (GPRA)-required performance goals can be matched with  resources to accomplish the goals; measure how resources used are related to results; and  create incentives for staff to report accurate data for the system.
The following summarizes our review of the extent to which HUD has  incorporated NAPA-identified standards.
Comprehensively define HUD’s workload. NAPA reported that a more  analytical and well-documented approach to defining workload and  determining needs would be helpful in understanding the agency’s  justification. HUD and its program offices use various tools and processes  to define and analyze workload. Centrally, the Office of Field and Policy  Management tracks manager and staff projects and reports on progress,  budget, and timelines for achieving strategic goals. The HUD Offices of  Community Planning and Development, Public and Indian Housing, and  Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity reported using REAP data as a  starting point to project workload and to prepare their workload  justification submissions for the salaries and expenses section of the  budget requests. These program offices also reported using other tools  and processes to define workload and estimate resources. Although  officials from the program offices we spoke with described individual  efforts, officials from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer indicated that  budget requests are not predicated on a comprehensive analysis of the  agencies’ workload. Instead, budget requests are based on a budget  amount predetermined by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.  Program offices then work backwards to determine what work can be  accomplished with that amount.
Provide central guidance on how work is defined and data collected.  HUD’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer provides central budget  formulation guidance to the program offices on how work is defined and  data are collected. In addition, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer  issues a memorandum to the program offices detailing technical guidance  on how to develop a congressional budget justification. The memorandum  directs the program offices to include legislative policy proposals  associated with significant new initiatives and staffing requirements  derived from REAP. According to the guidance, the program offices  should provide a narrative that clearly explains what the program office  requests funding for, the expected results of that funding level, and the  effect decreased funding would have on the taxpayers and communities  the program serves. Additionally, Office of the Chief Financial Officer  guidance includes decisional outlines for the salaries and expenses  portion of the budget request and requires that program offices explain  any change in requests from one fiscal year to another.
Allow program assistant secretaries to retain decision-making  authority over the systems used in their organizations. Budget  decisions involve tradeoffs that HUD and the program offices make to  ensure HUD has the resources needed to meet its mission. HUD’s  program assistant secretaries and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer  provide input during budget deliberations. For example, program assistant  secretaries discuss the effect of funding decreases on program activities.  Officials from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer told us that HUD’s  priority goals had a direct impact on program office decisions.
Involve headquarters and field staff in the workload definition  process. With the implementation of REAP in 2002, HUD changed how it  estimated its FTE needs by engaging both headquarters and field staff in  the process. The most recent REAP estimation study was conducted in  2009 and included all work completed by headquarters and field  operations staff, as well as work completed by contractors. As part of  the estimation studies, the REAP working teams typically surveyed HUD  staff across six field offices to collect information on how many hours it  should take to perform their duties. At the completion of the estimation  study, program coordinators reviewed the data for accuracy and  compared current entries with the prior entries reported by HUD  employees.the validation process. Officials from the three HUD program offices we  met with reported they selectively used data from REAP’s validation  component, known as the Total Estimation and Allocation Mechanism  (TEAM), as a starting point for budget formulation and staff allocation  decisions. TEAM compares actual staff time to estimated staff time. As  previously discussed, HUD hired a contractor in September 2012 to  review its resource estimation and workforce planning processes and   HUD continues to accumulate staffing information through  assess whether the resource estimation process enables the field offices  to use it for the distribution of FTEs and workload.
Link workload and resources so that GPRA-required performance  goals can be matched with resources to accomplish the goals, and  measure how resources used are related to results. HUD has made  efforts to link its performance goals with the resources needed to achieve  them and has planned additional actions related to strategic human  capital and workforce planning that should enable it to measure how  resources used are related to results. GPRA requires an agency to create  an annual performance plan that establishes goals and performance  measures.providing updates at least annually. As part of these updates, agencies  are to compare actual performance achieved with the performance goals  established in the agency’s annual performance plan. These updates also  are to include a review of the performance goals and an evaluation of the  performance plan as it relates to the agency’s strategic human capital  management. In its annual performance plan for fiscal years 2012 to  2013, HUD linked the department’s resources to the goals and subgoals  in its strategic plan for fiscal years 2010 to 2015. For example, according  to the annual performance plan, to meet HUD’s strategic goal of  transforming the way HUD does business, HUD established a  performance management and accountability process that is meant to  align HUD’s program and support functions with its strategic goals and  mission. In the past, program areas provided detailed data that was not in  a format that facilitated management’s understanding of how resources  related to results. Moreover, data focused on personnel costs. According  to a HUD official, for fiscal year 2014, at the direction of the Deputy  Secretary, HUD plans to organize budget information in a format that  facilitates management review and that encompasses both personnel  (e.g., FTE) and nonpersonnel (e.g., travel and training) costs with results.
Further, agencies are to report on their performance,  Create incentives for staff to report accurate data for the system.  HUD does not have an incentive structure to encourage staff to report  accurate data into its resource management system. As a result, resource  management decisions may not be based on full and complete  information. As previously discussed, HUD’s program offices selectively  use REAP to help define workload and estimate resources. Data are  generated with the support of all HUD staff who enter their workload into  REAP’s validation component, TEAM, each quarter, during a randomly  selected 2-week period. The validation data are verified by the system  coordinator against the time and attendance system. For the first 5 years  of REAP’s implementation, HUD provided funding and designated staff to  maintain the system. Subsequently, such support diminished and officials  from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer told us that the data are no  longer consistently used to make final decisions.
Moreover, there are no routine data reliability checks on the information  REAP produces and there is no widespread agreement that REAP  produces the quality of data needed to accurately determine resource  needs. For example, Office of Community Planning and Development  officials told us that the work categories in TEAM are either too narrowly  defined, resulting in too large a number of categories to choose from  overall, or too broad to be meaningful. Similarly, the Office of Public and  Indian Housing reported that REAP studies are performed infrequently  and often do not account for near-term and future changes in workload.  Additionally, Office of Public and Indian Housing officials told us that  REAP’s data collection through TEAM for a 2-week period every quarter  yields data that is of little value since, in their opinion, it is not  representative of all work performed throughout the year. As a result, staff  are entering information into TEAM on an inconsistent basis and  information is often not used to inform decisionmaking. Finally, HUD  officials told us that management did not implement the third component  of REAP, the allocation module, because they believed that the system  did not track the program workload accurately and often negatively  affected FTE requests.
section_title: HUD’s Budget Submission Could More Clearly Explain the Underlying Rationale for Its Request
paragraphs: Primary users of the congressional budget justification (CBJ) have raised  questions about HUD’s budget presentation. The primary users of the  CBJ are appropriations subcommittee staff. They said that CBJs from  fiscal years 2008 through 2012 generally contained data tables for some  program offices and did not always contain narrative that explained or  justified the FTE request. According to HUD officials, HUD provided data  tables because prior submissions with more detail did not prompt  questions from Congress. However, for fiscal year 2012, Congress  directed HUD to prepare detailed budget justifications for each office  within the department, including an organizational chart for each  operating area within the department. These justifications were required  to include a detailed justification for existing staff and for the incremental  funding increases, decreases, and FTE fluctuations being requested by  program, project, or activity. HUD was also directed to include more  detailed information on its salaries and expenses costs, as well as  nonpersonnel related expenses, including travel by program office, and  that any significant deviations from prior budgets be fully explained and  justified. Further, HUD was directed to modify or improve REAP or other  resource management systems or processes.
Some of the users we interviewed said that HUD’s CBJs have improved  over the years and include sufficient information for their purposes. When  HUD submitted the CBJ for fiscal year 2013 it provided more detailed  explanations about the changes in FTE requests. For example, the Office  of Public and Indian Housing specified in its request that an increase of  48.7 FTEs will target particular priority areas such as the prevention of  homelessness, among other select areas. In addition, these users  explained that with any CBJ process there is negotiation between the  committee and HUD over FTE decisions. But overall, the users report that  there has been an improvement in the quality of information HUD  submits.
Although primary users of the CBJs agree that the fiscal year 2013  changes improved the clarity and utility of the justifications, some have  raised additional questions about the uniformity and reliability of the  information presented. These users said that more organized and  consistent data collection, analysis, and reporting processes are needed  to ensure quality budget submissions. As a result, these users do not feel  that they have adequate, consistent information from HUD that justifies  the budget request.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: HUD has experienced longstanding challenges determining the staff  resources it needs to fulfill its mission and recently took steps to improve  its workforce planning ability. Prior to this latest effort, HUD began  numerous other efforts to establish human capital and workforce plans  and then, due to competing priorities, were unable to complete these  plans. Recently, HUD has renewed efforts to reexamine staff resource  management processes.
HUD has shown it has an understanding of the key principles of human  capital and workforce planning as demonstrated by the concepts outlined  in the contract with the consultant responsible for developing future  human capital and workforce plans. However, because future  deliverables and their timing are not explicit in the contract, the years the  plans will cover are subject to interpretation and portions may not help  HUD plan a path forward  they cover years that have elapsed. It will  be important for HUD to maintain ongoing planning efforts to achieve  its goals.
HUD continues to lack consistent, analytically-based data generated from  an effective resource management system. This is in part because HUD  staff have little incentive to accurately report data that are not routinely  used. As a result, management may not have complete information upon  which to make effective resource estimation and allocation decisions.
While primary users of HUD’s CBJs agree that the fiscal year 2013  changes improved the quality of the justifications, additional questions  remain about the information presented. Without ongoing consultations,  primary users of the CBJ may not have the most relevant information to  facilitate the congressional budget decisionmaking process.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the human capital planning, workforce planning, and resource  management processes at HUD, we recommend that the Secretary of  HUD take the following three actions:  1.  follow through on developing and maintaining strategic human capital  and workforce plans;  2.  ensure that human capital and workforce plans clearly incorporate key  3.  collect data that are used for decision-making, thus creating  incentives for staff to report accurate data for the resource  management system.
To improve the quality of HUD’s CBJ, we further recommend that the  Secretary of HUD take the following action:  4.  consult with users of the CBJ, such as congressional decision  makers, to determine what additional information about resource  decisions should be presented, and how, in its CBJ.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for review and comment. HUD  did not provide formal comments, but agreed with all of our  recommendations. HUD provided technical comments, which we  incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HUD, relevant  congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, this  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at  http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions concerning this report,  please contact me on (202) 512-6806 or by email at sagerm@gao.gov.  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in  appendix IV. Contacts for our office of Congressional Relations and  Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
section_title: Appendix I: Original Design of the Resource Estimation and Allocation Process (REAP)
paragraphs: Appendix I: Original Design of the Resource  Estimation and Allocation Process (REAP)
The following table outlines the processes within each step of REAP as  depicted in figure 1.
section_title: Appendix II: NAPA-Identified Standards for HUD’s Resource Management System
paragraphs: In designing a resource management system, the National Academy of  Public Administration (NAPA) worked with a Department of Housing and  Urban Development (HUD) advisory group to determine what elements  should be included and identified the following.
section_title: Appendix III: HUD Program Office Descriptions
paragraphs: The Office of Public and Indian Housing oversees the administration of  programs that provided affordable housing to approximately 3.2 million  households nationwide in 2012. Congress provides funds to the Office of  Public and Indian housing for the modernization of housing stock,  improvement of program management by approximately 4,100 public  housing authorities, and facilitation of programs to address crime and  security and provide supportive services and tenant opportunities. Office  of Public and Indian Housing programs include Homelessness Initiative  (Families Homelessness), Veterans Homelessness Initiative, and Choice  Neighborhoods, among others.
The Office of Community Planning and Development seeks to develop  viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide  decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic  opportunities for low and moderate income persons. The office operates  through partnerships among all levels of government and the private  sector, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations and supports more  than 1,200 formula grantees through staff-provided technical assistance,  monitoring, and customer service. The Office of Community and Planning  Development’s major programs include the Community Development  Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Homelessness  Assistance Grants, and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS and  Capacity Building.
The Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity administers federal  laws and establishes national policies that ensure that all Americans have  equal access to the housing of their choice. Additionally, the Office of Fair  Housing and Equal Opportunity (1) manages the Fair Housing Assistance  Program; (2) awards and administers Fair Housing Initiatives Program  Grants; (3) interprets policy, processes complaints, and performs  compliance reviews and provides technical assistance to local housing  authorities and community development agencies; and (4) conducts  oversight of the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and  Freddie Mac, to ensure consistency with the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
The Office of Housing provides public services through its nationally  administered programs. It oversees the Federal Housing Administration,  the largest mortgage insurer in the world, as well as regulates housing  industry business. The mission of the Office of Housing is to contribute to  building and preserving healthy neighborhoods and communities;  maintain and expand homeownership, rental housing and healthcare  opportunities; stabilize credit markets in times of economic disruption;  operate with a high degree of public and fiscal accountability; and  recognize and value its customers, staff, constituents and partners. Within  the Office of Housing are four business areas: Single Family Housing,  Multifamily Housing, HealthCare Programs, and Regulatory Programs.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Carol Henn, Assistant Director;  Sonya Phillips, Analyst-in-Charge; and Ulyana Panchishin made key  contributions to this report. Other contributors were Melissa Emery-Arras,  Robert Gebhart, Cindy Gilbert, Robert Robinson, and Sabrina Streagle.