Homelessness: Fragmentation and Overlap in Programs Highlight the Need to Identify, Assess, and Reduce Inefficiencies
Published: 2012-05-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal programs for those experiencing or at risk for homelessness generally are designed to provide housing assistance and other services such as health care, job training, or food assistance. This report responds to the statutory requirement that GAO identify federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives that have duplicative goals or activities and addresses (1) the number of and funding levels for federal homelessness programs and the extent to which fragmentation, overlap, and duplication exists; (2) whether the programs have been evaluated; and (3) actions of the Interagency Council and federal agencies to coordinate efforts and the extent to which the federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness is an effective strategy. To address these objectives, GAO sent questionnaires to10 federal agencies and obtained and analyzed data for a range of programs.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Homelessness programs are fragmented across multiple agencies and some show evidence of overlap. In fiscal year 2010, eight federal agencies obligated roughly $2.8 billion to administer 26 homelessness programs. Three agenciesthe Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Veterans Affairs (VA)are responsible for the majority of programs and dollars, 22 of 26 programs, and 89 percent of total funds. GAO found that these agencies and the Department of Labor (Labor) have multiple programs that offer similar services to similar beneficiaries. Fragmentation of services and overlap in some programs is partly due to their legislative creation and partly due to programs evolving to offer services that meet the variety of needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Fragmentation and overlap can lead to inefficient use of resources. For example, both HHS and VA have programs that provide similar services, but each agency separately manages its programs under different administrative units. In addition, some local service providers told us that managing multiple applications and reporting requirements was burdensome, difficult, and costly. Moreover, according to providers, persons experiencing homelessness have difficulties navigating services that are fragmented across agencies.
While almost all targeted programs maintain performance information (including data on the number of homeless served), few targeted programs have conducted evaluations to assess how effectively the programs are achieving their objectives. While performance information can be helpful for monitoring whether programs were achieving desired results, evaluations allow for comprehensive assessments. According to GAOs questionnaire, 2 of the 26 programs reported they had a program evaluation within the last 5 years. Information from program evaluations can help agencies fully assess what is working and how improvements can be made. Moreover, understanding program performance and effectiveness is key to determining in which programs and interventions to strategically invest limited federal funds.
The U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (Interagency Council) is required to coordinate the federal response to homelessness and has taken several steps to coordinate efforts and promote initiatives across federal agencies. Federal coordination efforts have increased in recent years and included issuing the first federal strategic plan, increasing coordination at the state and local levels by focusing on the creation of state interagency councils on homelessness, and taking steps to develop a common vocabulary for discussing homelessness and related terms. The strategic plan serves as a useful and necessary step in increasing agency coordination and incorporates some elements of an effective strategy, but lacks key characteristics desirable in a national strategy. For example, the plan does not list priorities or milestones and does not discuss resource needs or assign clear roles and responsibilities to federal partners. In order for the Interagency Council and its members to effectively translate the goals and objectives of the plan into actions and measure their own progress in implementing them, these elements must be made transparent to help ensure accountability and measure the plans progress.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: The Interagency Council and the Office of Management and Budgetin conjunction with HHS, HUD, Labor, and VA, should further analyze the degree and effects of overlap and fragmentation. VA agreed with this recommendation. HHS, HUD, Labor, and the Council did not explicitly agree or disagree. We also recommended that the Council incorporate additional elements into updates to the federal strategic plan or in implementation and planning documents. The Council stated it has been setting priorities and measuring progress, but was unable to provide documentation. GAO maintains its position and that the implementation of the federal strategic plan be made more transparent.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the issue of  homelessness, in part because the economic downturn has placed more  individuals and households at risk for homelessness. Evidence suggests  that the number of those entering shelters has remained constant, but  there has been an increase in the number of people living with family or  friends. According to Department of Housing and Urban Development  (HUD) estimates, on a single night in January 2011, approximately  636,000 people experienced homelessness. A number of federal  agencies and programs specifically target assistance for those persons  experiencing homelessness or at risk for homelessness, while other  programs, referred to as “mainstream,” more broadly assist low-income  populations. Both targeted and mainstream programs can offer housing  assistance, and supportive services such as food assistance, health care,  or job training. As we previously reported, the wide range of programs  that federal agencies offer has resulted in a fragmented service system;  that is, more than one federal agency is involved in the same broad area  of national interest. A fragmented service system could lead to some  programs offering similar services and serving similar populations, and  thus to inefficiencies in program administration and service delivery  across the federal government. As a result, effective coordination of  fragmented service systems is essential.
This report responds to the statutory requirement that GAO identify and  annually report on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives that  have duplicative goals or activities. It addresses (1) the number of and  funding levels for federal homelessness programs and the extent to which  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication exists; (2) whether the programs  have been evaluated; and (3) actions of the U.S. Interagency Council on  Homelessness (Interagency Council) and federal agencies to coordinate  federal efforts and the extent to which the federal strategic plan to prevent  and end homelessness is an effective strategy.
We obtained information from eight agencies that administered targeted and mainstream  programs and an additional two agencies that administered only mainstream programs. conducted internal reliability checks, and conducted follow-up as  necessary with agency staff. While we did not verify all responses, we  determined that the data used in our report were sufficiently reliable for  our purposes. We excluded programs that did not meet our definitions; for  example, this report does not include all mainstream programs that can  serve persons experiencing homelessness because they did not meet all  the criteria in our definition. To gather additional information about the  programs, we met with agency officials who oversee the programs and  conducted three site visits to obtain information on how local communities  implement programs and deliver services (New York, New York; San  Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C.). We selected these  locations based on the variety of targeted programs, size of the homeless  population, and geography. Finally, we reviewed relevant federal laws  and regulations as well as our previous work on homelessness  programs. To review the coordination efforts of the Interagency Council  and federal agencies and the extent to which the national strategic plan  addresses the characteristics of an effective national strategy, we  analyzed the council’s coordination responsibilities, obtained examples of  coordination actions from the council and federal agencies, interviewed  agency officials, and analyzed the strategy. We assessed the strategy to  determine how well it addressed the six desirable characteristics of an  effective national strategy that we developed in previous work.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 through May 2012,  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. See appendix I for a more  detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Role of Interagency Council and Recent Changes
paragraphs: Congress established the Interagency Council in 1987 under the  McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act as an independent  establishment to provide federal leadership for activities to assist  homeless families and individuals. Initially the main functions of the  council revolved around using public resources and programs in a more  coordinated manner to meet the needs of those experiencing  homelessness. From 1994 to 2000 the council operated as a working  group of the White House Domestic Policy Council. An executive director,  who is appointed by the council members and reports directly to the  Interagency Council’s chairperson, manages the daily activities of the  council. Since 1987, there have been several executive directors with the  most recent appointed in November 2009. Additionally, the council elects  a chairperson and a vice chairperson from its members and the positions  rotate among member agencies annually. The current members of the  Interagency Council include the heads of 19 departments and agencies.
The most recent reauthorization of the council occurred in 2009 when  Congress enacted the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid  Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act). The HEARTH Act included several new responsibilities and directed the council to coordinate the  federal response to homelessness and create a national partnership at  every level of government and with the private sector to reduce and end  homelessness. The HEARTH Act also requires the council to take several  actions related to coordination and information dissemination, and includes  various reporting requirements. For example, the Interagency Council must develop and annually update a federal strategic plan to end  review all federal activities and programs to assist homeless  individuals;  take actions that may be necessary to reduce duplication among  federal homelessness programs and activities; monitor, evaluate, and recommend improvements in programs and  activities to assist homeless individuals conducted by federal agencies,  state and local governments, and private voluntary organizations; provide professional and technical assistance to states, local  governments, and other public and private nonprofit organizations; encourage the creation of State Interagency Councils on  Homelessness and the formulation of jurisdictional 10-year plans to  end homelessness at state, city, and county levels; obtain from federal agencies resources for which persons  experiencing homelessness may be eligible and improvements to  ensure access and develop mechanisms to ensure access by persons  experiencing homelessness to programs for which they are eligible,  and verify collaboration among entities within communities;  conduct research and evaluation related to its functions; develop joint federal agency and other initiatives to fulfill the goals of  the agency and collect and disseminate information relating to  homeless individuals; prepare annual reports; develop constructive alternatives to criminalizing homelessness; and  convene a meeting of experts to discuss all issues relevant to the  definitions of “homeless” and the extent to which the differences in  such definitions create barriers for individuals in accessing services  and issue transcripts and recommendations.
In fiscal year 2012, Congress appropriated $3.3 million for the Interagency  Council to carry out its responsibilities. In that year, the council had 18 full- time employees, with staff based in Washington, D.C. and four regional  positions.
section_title: Definitions of Homelessness
paragraphs: The HEARTH Act changed the definition of homelessness for several  federal programs. As described in our June 2010 report, federal programs  define homelessness differently. The HEARTH Act broadened the  general definition of homelessness because it expanded who is eligible for  various HUD-funded homeless assistance programs. For example, the act  adds a new category of homelessness, unaccompanied youth and families  with children and youth who are defined as homeless under other federal  statutes (such as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and the Head  Start Act).definitions of homelessness also can be eligible for HUD programs.
section_title: Our Work on Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: In 2010, Congress directed us to identify programs, agencies, offices, and  initiatives with duplicative goals and activities within departments and  governmentwide and report annually to Congress. In March 2011 and  February 2012, we issued our first two annual reports to Congress in  response to this requirement. The annual reports describe areas in  which we found evidence of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among  federal programs. Using the framework established in the reports, the key  terms are defined as follows:
Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more  than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad  area of national interest.
Overlap occurs when multiple programs have similar goals and  activities, and offer similar services to similar beneficiaries.
Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are  engaging in the same activities or providing the same services to the  same beneficiaries.
For homelessness programs, we noted in the March 2011 report that  better coordination of programs could minimize inefficiencies that may  stem from fragmentation and overlap. We discussed the work of the  Interagency Council and noted the development of its strategic plan. We  concluded that while federal agencies have taken some positive steps to  improve coordination of programs and reduce fragmentation and overlap,  more needed to be done.
section_title: Homelessness Programs Address a Variety of Needs, but Result in Fragmentation and Overlap of Services
paragraphs: Eight agencies—HHS, HUD, the Departments of Education (Education),  Labor (Labor), Justice (Justice), Veterans Affairs (VA), the Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the General Services  Administration (GSA)—administered 26 targeted homelessness programs  in fiscal year 2011. That is, they administered programs that exclusively  assisted persons who were homeless or at risk for homelessness (see  table 1). However, three agencies—HHS, HUD, and VA—were responsible  for the majority of these programs (22 of 26). HUD was the primary agency  providing funding for housing, such as emergency shelters, permanent  housing, and transitional housing. HHS and VA typically operated  programs or provided funding for supportive services such as health care,  substance abuse treatment, and employment assistance. However, most  VA programs and services are only available to men and women who have  served in the military and have been discharged under honorable or  general circumstances. Of the 26 programs, three programs provide  surplus federal properties to eligible homeless service providers and one  program provides personal property to veterans experiencing  homelessness.
According to the most recently available data (fiscal year 2010), federal  agencies reported obligations of $2.8 billion for the 26 targeted programs.  Individual program obligations ranged from $475,000 to $1.4 billion (see  table 2). HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants, the largest program,  accounted for 50 percent of overall federal spending commitments. Eight  programs had obligations of more than $100 million each, and 10  programs had obligations between $1 million and $100 million.
The majority of obligations were committed for grants––13 of the 26  programs offered grants, totaling about $2.3 billion in obligations for fiscal  year 2010.project basis. Formula grants are noncompetitive awards based on a  predetermined formula. Project grants award funds for fixed periods of  time for specific projects.
These grants were generally distributed on a formula or a  HUD, HHS, and VA administered most of the targeted programs and  accounted for 89 percent of the federal funds obligated (see fig. 1).
Finally, in addition to targeted programs, several federal agencies provide  assistance through mainstream programs—programs that broadly assist  low-income populations. For example, the Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families, Head Start, and Public Housing programs are designed  for low-income populations but provide services to people experiencing  homelessness as well. See appendix II for a list of mainstream programs,  descriptions, and other information.
subsections: section_title: Evidence Suggests Fragmentation and Some Overlap
paragraphs: Figure 2 shows that multiple agencies manage several similar  homelessness programs, suggesting fragmentation and some overlap.  Further, agencies deliver several different types of services to persons  experiencing homelessness. For example, HUD not only administers  housing assistance, but also provides funding for mental health care,  substance abuse treatment, and employment services. Similarly, HHS  and VA administer programs that provide housing and employment  assistance. Fragmentation and overlap in some programs have been  caused in part by their legislative creation as separate programs under  the jurisdiction of several agencies. This fragmentation of services may  be advantageous because agencies can tailor programs to suit specific  needs of persons experiencing homelessness. Additionally, according to  HHS, fragmented services are the result of providing comprehensive care  to a population with complex, varying needs. However, fragmentation can  also lead to inefficiencies.
Fragmentation of services was most apparent in three agencies––HHS,  HUD, and VA—that administered most of the programs and also offered  the most types of services (see fig. 2). In particular, service fragmentation  was most apparent for transportation and case management. According  to agency staff, case management is necessary in most programs to  provide linkages and referrals to other services as needed. In contrast,  fragmentation was least apparent for permanent housing, income  support, primary health care, and dental care services.
Some programs served the general homeless population while others  assisted specific populations (see fig. 3). For example, 17 of the 26  targeted programs served specific populations, most commonly veterans  (14 programs). According to questionnaire responses, while the programs  exclusively served specific populations, the individuals served also may  have had additional characteristics such as substance abuse disorders or  disabilities. As stated previously, most VA programs and services are only  available to men and women who have served in the military and have  been discharged under honorable or general circumstances.
In addition to fragmentation of services, some degree of overlap in  services occurred for programs serving three distinct homeless  populations––the general homeless or at-risk population, veterans, and  children and youth. We differentiated between two types of services:
Primary services were stated directly within a program’s goals and  objectives.
Other eligible services were indicated by agency staff as services or  activities the program is eligible to provide.
More specifically, we found two different types of overlap––instances  when programs offered the same primary service to a similar population  and instances when programs offered other eligible services to a similar  population. Overlap tended to be more prevalent for the “other eligible  services” category. However, the scope of this report did not allow us to  gather enough information to fully discuss the degree of overlap among  homelessness programs. Agency officials provided explanations about  why persons experiencing homelessness often need assistance in areas  other than housing, such as health care and employment. For example,  HHS staff told us that it was necessary for programs to offer several  services—in particular, case management services that provide linkages  and referrals to other services as needed. In addition to case  management services, agency staff told us it was important for programs  to conduct outreach efforts because the population was difficult to reach  and the outreach helped ensure access to services. HHS staff also told  us that while persons experiencing homelessness may be eligible for  services provided by specific programs, resource constraints limit the  availability of services. For some programs, such as HUD’s Homeless  Assistance Grants or HHS’s Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs,  meeting the definition of homelessness does not entitle individuals to  benefits because these programs are limited by the amount of funds  appropriated for them.
We found program overlap in three HHS programs that provide mental  health care and substance abuse treatment as primary services (see fig. 4).  According to HHS staff, the three programs have distinct differences, such  as their statutory authorities, subpopulations served, or living situations.
Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness provides  services including case management, outreach, community mental  health, and substance abuse treatment services to persons typically  living on the street with serious mental illnesses or co-occurring  disorders (such as substance abuse disorders).
Services in Supportive Housing Grants primarily provides mental  health care and substance abuse treatment to individuals and families  living in HUD-funded and other permanent supportive housing units.
Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals provides services to  individuals with mental health disorders, substance use disorders, or   co-occurring mental and substance use disorders  and links  individuals to stable housing.
Overlapping programs can lead to individuals being eligible for similar  services in multiple programs––as is the case with these three HHS  programs. According to the Interagency Council, while it is possible that  individuals may be eligible for multiple programs, it is unlikely that there is  a high occurrence of individuals actually being served by multiple  programs. The scope of this report did not allow us to assess whether  individuals were accessing multiple programs. According to HHS staff, the  agency coordinates its homelessness programs and activities with  biweekly meetings that serve to update and share homelessness program  information across the agency and to discuss new initiatives. According to  the staff, the meetings are one way to help to ensure that HHS’s  homelessness programs complement rather than duplicate one another.
The services of several programs for veterans overlapped (see fig. 5).  According to agency staff, the programs are distinct in that they serve  different subpopulations, in different settings.
Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans Program offers mental health  care and substance abuse treatment. The program is an intensive  residential treatment program that targets veterans with severe  medical conditions and psychiatric needs and operates at 44 sites  across the country. As part of its services, the program assists  veterans in finding transitional or permanent housing options.
Homeless Providers Grants and Per Diem Program is a transitional  housing program that provides supportive services for veterans living  in the community and operates at roughly 600 sites and veterans may  reside for up to 24 months. Veterans participating in the Homeless  Providers Grants and Per Diem Program are connected with VA  Medical Center services such as primary health care and other clinical  services.
Health Care for Homeless Veterans Program helps get homeless  veterans off the streets and connects them to VA Medical Center  services such as primary health care and other clinical services.
Homeless Veteran Supported Employment Program uses homeless  veterans, formerly homeless veterans, or those at risk for  homelessness to provide rapid, individualized, competitive community  job placement for currently homeless veterans. These services occur  within a health care delivery system, which includes assessment of  employment barriers such as medical, psychiatric, and substance  abuse.
Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program offers employment  assistance as a primary service. The Labor program offers classroom  training and job placement with the goal of placing veterans in direct  employment.
The two programs serving homeless children and youth did not offer the  same primary services, but there is some overlap in other eligible  services offered by these two programs (see fig. 6). Education’s program  focused on offering educational services and case management to  school-age children, while HHS’s Runaway and Homeless Youth  Programs provided housing, case management, and outreach efforts to  youth who run away from home and are living in at-risk situations. The  Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs provide services for severely  at-risk youth, including pregnant and parenting teens who may not be  able to receive services through many other homelessness programs due  to their age.  According to HHS, the programs that support youth  homelessness are an attempt to address the needs of this specific  population.
Inefficiencies as a result of fragmentation and overlap can result at  multiple levels. Our body of work on fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication has found that agencies often can realize a range of benefits,  such as improved customer service and decreased administrative  burdens and cost savings from addressing issues related to  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. However, these cost savings can  be difficult to estimate in some cases because the portion of agency  budgets devoted to certain programs or activities is not clear. In addition,  the implementation costs that might be associated with consolidating  programs, establishing collaboration mechanisms, or reducing activities,  facilities, or personnel (among other variables) are difficult to estimate, or  needed information on program performance or costs is not readily  available.
For this report, we identified some inefficiencies that result from  fragmentation and overlap, such as increased administrative costs,  additional work for providers, and a confusing service delivery system for  those needing help. Federal agencies dedicate staff time and resources  to separately manage overlapping programs, which may increase  administrative costs. For example, while HUD has taken steps to manage  most of its homelessness programs under the same administrative unit  and limit the amount of supportive services it provides, HHS and VA  separately manage programs that provide similar services under different  units.
Further, fragmentation creates additional work for providers because  each agency has its own application and reporting requirements. During  our site visits, several local providers told us that managing multiple  applications and reporting requirements was burdensome, difficult, and  costly. The views of these service providers were consistent with  information about administrative burden, for example, that we gathered in   Some providers told us it was especially difficult to  our previous work. manage some homelessness programs because they required funding  streams from various agencies, each with various reporting requirements.  Moreover, according to providers, persons experiencing homelessness  have difficulties navigating services that are fragmented across agencies.  As a result of this, many targeted programs provide case management  services because of the difficulty their clients have in identifying and  accessing various services available to them due to their multiple needs.
See GAO-10-724. particular client. HHS staff told us overlapping programs helps ensure  access to services because persons experiencing homelessness are not  steered toward one point of entry and in contrast can access services  through several points of entry. Another provider stated that it was  important for persons experiencing homelessness to receive services  from both targeted and mainstream programs because the ultimate goal  was to house clients and have them live independently (that is, not be in  need of homeless services).
Ultimately, fragmentation across agencies can create an environment in  which persons experiencing homelessness are not served as efficiently  and effectively as possible, making coordination across government  essential. By addressing inefficiencies that result from fragmentation and  overlap, agencies will be able to better leverage government resources,  decrease administrative burdens, and assist persons experiencing  homelessness more effectively.
section_title: Programs Maintain Performance Information, but Program Evaluations Are Limited
subsections: section_title: Targeted Programs Have Performance Data, and Efforts to Increase Information from Mainstream Programs Have Begun
paragraphs: The majority of targeted programs maintain performance data, which is  an important component for measuring program performance.  Performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of  program accomplishments, particularly progress toward pre-established  goals. Performance measures may address the type or level of program  activities conducted (process), the direct products and services a program  delivers (outputs), or the results of those products and services  (outcomes). According to the questionnaire responses, 25 of 26 targeted  programs reported that they maintained performance information such as  metrics and targets for the level of performance to be achieved, or report  the actual level of performance achieved (see app. III).respondents to provide examples of the types and uses of performance  information collected. For instance, HHS’s Services in Supportive  Housing Grants program responded that it collects various data related to  mental health when an individual enters the program, at 6 months into the  program, and again when the individual is discharged, which enables the  program to measure performance and report outcomes. VA’s Domiciliary  Care for Homeless Veterans Program responded that it uses a monitoring  system that includes baseline information about veterans at admittance to  the program and their clinical outcomes at the time of discharge.
A majority (24 of 26) of the targeted programs reported that they collected  data on the number of homeless served, which is a measure of program  output. Emergency Food and Shelter Program—collects information on services  such as meals provided or nights of lodging but not the number of  homeless served. The other program—the Acquired Property Sales for  Homeless Providers—did not collect data on the number of homeless  served because the program transfers government properties to nonprofit  organizations or other entities, which in turn provide services to persons  experiencing homelessness. The program tracks the number of  properties transferred.
The data for numbers of homeless served are not comparable across programs  because program staff used different approaches and reporting periods to collect this  information. For example, some programs reported actual data according to annual  reports from grant recipients, while others estimated the expected number of participants  or reported frequency of services. Some programs collect data by fiscal year (October 1  through September 30) while other programs collect data by program year (July 1 through  June 30) or other reporting period. Additionally, some programs indicated concerns with  the reliability of the data for reasons such as the lack of independent verification of  grantee-generated data, the possibility that the data included multiple visits by a homeless  individual, or the process for collecting and submitting information. (see app. II for more detail). We asked respondents who indicated their  programs did not collect data on homelessness to explain why not. Some  responded that they did not collect data on persons experiencing  homelessness because their programs did not target this population  specifically. For instance, some stated that eligibility for the program was  based on income levels, which would not necessarily identify persons  experiencing homelessness. Other programs did not collect information  on homelessness because they had a different focus such as food  nutrition and collected information such as meals served instead. Also,  other programs indicated that they were not required by law to collect  information on an individual’s housing status. For example, HHS told us  by law, they cannot ask Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  grantees to report on certain information, including housing status.
However, respondents for 29 of 62 programs reported that their programs  had taken steps to increase the participation of persons experiencing  homelessness (see app. II for more detail). For instance, the Department  of Agriculture’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,  Infants, and Children includes outreach to homeless shelters, social  service departments, or other agencies that serve persons experiencing  homelessness. HHS’s Child Support Enforcement Program has  collaborated with VA to increase participation of homeless veterans.  Finally, HHS’s Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program requires grantees to have  a public planning process to prioritize services. The homeless population  is included in the planning process.
As we have discussed in a previous report, collecting consistent,  comprehensive, and accurate data on persons experiencing  homelessness presents numerous challenges. Such efforts could be  difficult and costly. But we also noted that several mainstream programs  already collect information on the housing status of individuals, and  opportunities exist for building on existing systems and procedures. If  collected, the more comprehensive data then could potentially be used to  identify areas for increased coordination between targeted and  mainstream programs and help increase the effectiveness of  homelessness programs. We made recommendations to federal agencies  and the Interagency Council that addressed consistent data collection  and a related issue—developing a common vocabulary for homelessness  programs.
As GAO recommended, the Interagency Council has begun facilitating  discussions with federal agencies about the feasibility of creating a  common data standard in relation to housing status across relevant  federal programs. According to the Interagency Council’s strategic plan,  this effort will facilitate data exchanges and comparisons between  targeted and mainstream programs and improve identification of people  experiencing or at risk of homelessness. We discuss the Interagency  Council’s efforts later in this report.
section_title: Few Efficiency or Effectiveness Evaluations of Targeted Programs Exist
paragraphs: Limited information exists about program efficiency or effectiveness  because the majority of targeted programs have not conducted a program  evaluation recently. According to our questionnaire results, 2 of 26  targeted programs reported having a program evaluation to assess  efficiency or effectiveness within the last 5 years. We define “evaluation”  as an individual systematic study conducted periodically or on an ad hoc  basis to assess how well a program is working, typically relative to its  objectives.that may improve results.
Program evaluations also allow for identification of actions  The two completed program evaluations looked at the following:
Labor’s Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. The study  examined how well the program was accomplishing its mission and  meeting its goals and provided data to inform future program  decisions. The evaluation focused on four main issues: (1) how  common measures impacted grantee performance; (2) how Labor- funded staff positions influence grantee processes, performance, and  outcomes; (3) how performance results differ across grantee types;  and (4) the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful homeless  veteran job seekers in relation to employment and retention  outcomes. Labor officials told us that as a result of the study, the  agency clarified the role of Labor- funded staff who work with program  grantees, strengthened the language in the program application to  emphasize building relationships and partnerships with local agencies  that employ Labor staff, and changed the language in the program  guidance to emphasize to state workforce agencies the need to  provide services to homeless veterans.
HHS’s Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness.
According to this evaluation, the legislation for this program requires  that the expenditures of program grantees are evaluated at least once  every 3 years to ensure they are consistent with legislative  requirements and to recommend changes to program design or  operations. The objectives for the evaluation were to determine if (1)  services were appropriate, (2) services were well administered, and  (3) outcome and process goals were achieved. The evaluation found  that the program was meeting its objectives. HHS officials told us that  evaluation findings are used to improve program performance,  monitor, and identify trends among grant recipients and clients.
Additionally, agency staff from two other programs indicated that the  agency either had an evaluation under way or was planning an  evaluation. For instance, Education officials told us that a program  evaluation has been under way for the Education for Homeless Children  and Youths program, with the study expected to be completed in 2013.  HHS officials stated that they were in the early planning stages for an  evaluation of one of the components of the Runaway and Homeless  Youth Programs (Transitional Living Program). The officials estimated  that the evaluation would begin in fiscal year 2012 and include an  analysis of 5 years of program data to determine program performance  and success.
MANILA Consulting Group, Inc., The 2005 National Evaluation of the Projects for  Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) Formula Grant Program, Final  Report, a report prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services (April 2009).
Although program evaluations were limited, some agencies have  conducted general research on the issue of homelessness. For example,
HHS’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation is  responsible for policy research, evaluation, and economic analysis.  According to HHS officials, the office oversees various research  projects including homelessness. For instance, in fiscal year 2011 the  office conducted two homelessness research projects. One project  focused on Medicaid and permanent supportive housing services for  individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. The other project  focused on linking services and housing assistance for homeless  families and those at risk of homelessness.
HUD’s Office of Policy, Development, and Research is responsible for  maintaining information on housing needs and existing programs and  also addresses the efficacy and cost of different homeless  interventions such as transitional housing and emergency shelter.  According to HUD, the office plays a policy advisory role in preparing  HUD’s regulatory, budget, and legislative proposals and in activities  such as assessing the economic effect of HUD’s regulations and  setting performance goals and measures.
VA’s Northeast Performance Evaluation Center performs program  evaluation on specialized mental health care provided through VA  nationally. These specialized programs include services for homeless  veterans, resident treatment, work therapy programs, post-traumatic  stress disorder programs, and intensive case management  programs. Additionally, VA’s National Center on Homelessness  Among Veterans has a primary goal to develop, promote, and  enhance policy, clinical care research, and education to improve and  integrate homeless services.
The Interagency Council maintains homelessness research and  evaluation information from across the federal government and  throughout the country on its website, but does not conduct research  itself. According to Interagency Council staff, the council does not have  the resources or the expertise to conduct research. Instead, the  Interagency Council’s strategic plan calls for collaborating and compiling  research to better understand best practices, the cost-effectiveness of  various interventions, metrics to measure outcomes, and the gaps in  homelessness research. According to the 2011 update to the strategic  plan, the council convened a federal interagency research group to share  research information and has compiled research on its website to make  information more accessible to state, local, and private sector partners.
While performance information can be helpful for monitoring whether  programs were achieving desired results, program evaluations allow for  comprehensive assessments. Thus, the limited evaluations of recent  years make it difficult to fully assess what is working and how  improvements can be made in programs addressing homelessness. It is  critical for the federal agencies that carry out these programs to identify  which programs are more effective in addressing the needs of persons  experiencing homelessness. Understanding program performance and  effectiveness is key to determining in which programs and interventions to  strategically invest limited federal funds.
section_title: While Federal Coordination Efforts Have Increased, Strategic Plan Could Be Improved
subsections: section_title: Interagency Council Has Taken Steps to Enhance Coordination
paragraphs: The Interagency Council has taken several actions to enhance  coordination and promote initiatives across government agencies. As  previously discussed, the HEARTH Act, which was enacted in May 2009,  directs the Interagency Council to coordinate the federal response to  homelessness and create national partnerships at every level of  government and with the private sector to reduce and end  homelessness. The act contains statutory functions and requirements  for the council, some of which relate to coordination, while others relate to  monitoring or reporting requirements. While the HEARTH Act also  requires the Interagency Council to take actions as necessary to reduce  duplication among programs, council staff told us they do not view  duplication among programs as the problem. Rather, they regard  fragmentation in delivery of services at the local level and a mismatch  between need and resources as the most significant issues. Therefore,  the council focuses its attention on coordination efforts among its member  agencies.
Based on our review of documents and discussions with council and  other agency staff, the Interagency Council’s actions in response to  HEARTH Act requirements include the following:
Convened federal partners and issued a federal strategy. Since May  2009, the Interagency Council appointed a new executive director and  convened 10 full council meetings where participants focused  discussions around the development and implementation of a federal  strategy. In June 2010, the council issued the first federal strategic  plan. According to the HEARTH Act, the council must update the  plan annually and the first update was issued in October 2011.Agencies have taken steps to adopt the strategy and incorporate it  into their own efforts. HUD told us they incorporated the strategic  plan’s goals, objectives, and strategies into its annual budget process;  Agency Performance Goals; and its strategic plan and performance  management process. VA officials told us they developed an  operating plan to help implement and incorporate the plan into their  own efforts. HHS and Council officials told us plans specific to  homeless children and youth are under development and expected to  be discussed in June and September 2012 at Council meetings.  Some member agencies do not operate homelessness programs, or  administer relatively few, and therefore would not be expected to  develop plans to implement the federal strategic plan.
Distributed information about federal programs and resources and  provided professional and technical assistance. In May 2011, the  Interagency Council launched a redesign of its website and  implemented a broader communication strategy that included  updating newsletters and implementing a webinar series. The  redesigned website includes information about programs, funding  opportunities, and federal technical assistance available; abstracts of  relevant research conducted in the past 10 years; and a series of fact  sheets. Additionally, council staff provided professional and technical  assistance through a series of webinars.
Coordinated at the state and local levels. The Interagency Council has  developed several resources to help states and local communities  implement strategic plans tailored to prevent and end homelessness  or realign existing plans. To this end, the council issued guidance to  assist local governments and communities. The Interagency Council  also has encouraged the creation of state interagency councils on  homelessness––a requirement of the HEARTH Act––by issuing a fact  sheet and toolkit about how to start and develop these councils. An  interactive state map with key facts and contacts for federal, state,  and local officials is available on the Interagency Council website.  Additionally, the council will have four regional coordinators  throughout the country to provide professional and technical  assistance to states and local communities beginning in May 2012.  The regional coordinators will also participate in local, state, and  regional meetings and workshops as necessary.
Took steps to develop a common vocabulary. The Interagency  Council has taken initial steps to develop a common vocabulary for  discussing homelessness and related terms, as recommended in our  June 2010 report. In January 2011, the council held a meeting with  85 participants from stakeholder organizations and issued a report to  Congress in June 2011 that summarized feedback received during the  meeting. The report notes that a common vocabulary would allow  federal agencies to better measure the scope and dimensions of  homelessness, and may ease program implementation and  coordination. Additionally, the council held three meetings in 2011 (in  August, September, and October) to discuss implementation of a  common vocabulary with key federal agencies. The Interagency  Council has stated implementation of a common vocabulary among its  member agencies would require long-term efforts.
Developed joint federal agency initiatives. The Interagency Council  organized a work group, known as the Council Policy Group, which  provides a regular forum for coordinating policies, programs, data,  and other initiatives among council members. HHS, HUD, VA, and the  Interagency Council issued joint guidance and hosted a webinar on  strategies to improve the accuracy of HUD’s point-in-time counts of  people experiencing homelessness. HHS and VA also have been  working with HUD and the Interagency Council to determine the  feasibility of entering data from their respective programs into HUD’s  data system (Homelessness Management Information Systems, or  HMIS). According to VA officials, three VA programs input data into  HMIS and officials told us they were in the early stages of determining  the feasibility of entering data from additional programs into HMIS.  Additionally, HHS officials told us they have been working to  determine the feasibility of having all grantees in the Runaway and  Homeless Youth Programs enter data into HMIS. As we reported in  the past, a common vocabulary would allow agencies to collect  consistent data that agencies could compile to better understand the  nature of homelessness.
Developed performance goals and metrics related to coordination. In  fiscal year 2011, the Interagency Council worked with the Office of  Management and Budget to develop specific performance goals.  However, more time is needed to assess the council’s progress in  meeting its performance goals because the council put the goals in  place in fiscal year 2012. One of the council’s two performance goals  relates to coordination of federal resources; that is, coordinating the  federal government’s response to homelessness to maximize the  reach and impact of federal resources. Additionally, the council  established two strategies and five metrics to help accomplish the  coordination goal.
Several federal agency officials told us that the Interagency Council has  been effective in coordinating the federal response to homelessness  across agencies. For instance, HUD officials told us that the council  effectively disseminates information, lessons learned, and best practices.  HHS told us that the council has led efforts to obtain a better  understanding of homeless youth by convening a workgroup to determine  gaps in services and resources for this population.
While federal coordination efforts have increased or were under way,  local service providers with whom we spoke during our site visits said  greater coordination still was needed, providers suggested activities such  as promoting the movement toward permanent supportive housing,  providing more technical assistance, having a greater role in promoting  research around prevention methods, and increasing attention around  how changes in federal health care will impact local communities.  Interagency Council staff told us resource constraints have affected their  ability to coordinate the federal response to homelessness and fulfill  HEARTH Act requirements. They noted that improving coordination would  be a long-term effort.
section_title: Opportunities Exist to Further Improve the National Strategy
paragraphs: The federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness has served  as a useful and necessary first step in increasing agency coordination  and focusing attention on ending homelessness, but lacks some key  characteristics desirable in a national strategy. In previous work, we  identified six characteristics desirable for an effective national strategy.  (See table 3 in app. I for a detailed description of each characteristic.)
The federal strategic plan and its update fully address two characteristics  of an effective national strategy and partially address the remaining four  (see fig. 7).
More specifically, the plan addresses the following characteristics:
Clear purpose, scope, and methodology. The strategy effectively  addresses why it was produced, the scope of its coverage, and the  process by which it was developed. For example, the HEARTH Act  mandated that the Interagency Council develop the federal strategic  plan and update it annually. The council worked with its 19 member  agencies and state, local, and private sector partners to develop the  strategy. The plan clearly articulates the methodology and states that  the council held meetings with representatives of several  organizations, mayors, and congressional staff, and also received  input from leaders of state and regional interagency councils, and  thousands of comments from the public, as part of the process of  developing the plan.
Detailed discussion of problems and risks. The strategy provides a  detailed discussion of problems and risks, including national data  points, relating to homelessness in the United States. The Interagency  Council primarily used data from HUD and Education to provide  statistics and information about the number of persons experiencing  homelessness. Additionally, in terms of risks, the plan includes a  discussion about the consequences of homelessness. For example,  the plan states that children in families experiencing homelessness  have high rates of acute and chronic health problems and a majority  of them were exposed to violence.
The strategic plan partially addresses the following characteristics:
Desired goals, objectives, activities, and performance measures. The  strategy effectively describes the desired overall goal, which is to  prevent and end homelessness. It includes four key goals: (1) finish  the job of ending chronic homelessness in 5 years; (2) prevent and  end homelessness among veterans in 5 years; (3) prevent and end  homelessness for families, youth, and children in 10 years; and (4) set  a path to ending all types of homelessness. Additionally, the strategy  includes 10 objectives and 52 strategies that align with the four goals.  However, the strategy does not discuss or identify priorities and  milestones that would help translate the goals and objectives into  action. For example, it does not rank or prioritize which objectives or  strategies need greater attention and focus. While the plan does align  the objectives with federal agencies, it does not identify specific  activities for each member agency to implement. Although the  Interagency Council’s implementation plan for the strategic plan  assigns the plan’s 10 objectives and 52 strategies to specific council  staff, it does not set priorities, milestones, or differentiate which  objectives and strategies require greater focus by specific member  agencies. Additionally, while the strategy includes six performance  measures that align well with the goals and objectives, the plan lacks  specific activities and corresponding performance metrics that the  council and member agencies could use to measure their progress in  taking actions to implement the plan.not describe the overall framework for accountability and oversight,  such as how federal agencies would be held accountable for  implementing the plan and taking actions. Without additional  performance metrics corresponding to actions taken to implement the  plan, the Interagency Council, federal agencies, and Congress may   Furthermore, the strategy does  face difficultly in measuring incremental progress and ultimately  determining whether the strategic plan was successful in terms of  helping coordinate federal efforts.
Description of future costs and resources needed. The plan generally  identifies numerous resource and investment needs, but lacks a  discussion of the costs and resources needed to help achieve the 10  objectives and put into action the 52 strategies. For instance, it does  not discuss the costs, sources of investment, and types of resources  needed. Further, an effective strategy would provide guidance to  implementing parties about how to manage resources and  investments accordingly—and begin to address difficult but critical  issues of who pays, and how such efforts will be funded and  sustained in the future. For instance, an effective strategy would help  prioritize future costs and resources for research and program  evaluations. Some budget figures are included in the October 2011  update to the strategic plan. For example, the update includes  information about enacted appropriations for targeted homelessness  programs; however, it does not discuss in detail the costs and sources  of investments needed in the future to help implement objectives such  as providing affordable or permanent supportive housing or improving  access to mainstream programs. The strategy states the development  of the plan was guided by key principles, including cost-effectiveness,  but contains relatively little discussion about the cost-effectiveness of  specific federal programs. Program evaluations can help identify  which programs are most effective in addressing the needs of persons  experiencing homelessness and better target federal resources.  Without a discussion of resources, investments, and priorities, the  Interagency Council, federal agencies, and Congress could face  difficulties in focusing scarce resources on the most cost-effective  programs and initiatives.
Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination and integration  with other entities. The strategy specifically states that the Interagency  Council will provide federal leadership coordinating homelessness  efforts and that the council’s staff should work in partnership with the  19 member agencies. For each of the objectives, the plan identifies  federal leadership, but does not include priorities for each agency and  does not provide actions or activities that the agencies should take to  help achieve the goals and objectives. Without discussion and  delineation of which entities will implement the strategy, their roles  and responsibilities, and mechanisms for coordinating efforts, the  ability of agencies to implement the goals and objectives of the  strategy will be diminished.
Overall, the plan effectively describes goals and objectives. In  discussions with council staff they told us in implementing the strategic  plan the council is setting priorities, determining how to measure  programs and results, and identifying mechanisms to hold federal and  nonfederal partners accountable. However, these efforts need to be  transparent to ensure accountability, inform Congress, and enhance  federal efforts to prevent and end homelessness.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The economic downturn and governmental resource constraints of recent  years have focused attention on the problem of homelessness and on  ways to help ensure that federal programs efficiently and effectively use  their resources to address that problem. But the wide range of federal  homelessness programs has resulted in some degree of fragmentation and  overlap of services provided and populations served. Specifically, we found  that HUD, HHS, Labor, and VA have multiple programs that offer similar  services to similar beneficiaries. The VA offers multiple programs to  veterans that are eligible for receiving these services as a result of military  service. While there may be advantages to fragmentation and overlap, they  also entail inefficiencies that programs may not be able to afford in an era  of resource constraints and ongoing coverage gaps. Our work has shown  that fragmented and overlapping federal programs result in administrative  burdens, additional work for local service providers, and a confusing  service delivery system for beneficiaries. However, because our work  identified specific areas of fragmentation and overlap among targeted  homelessness programs, it also suggests that agencies can use this and  other information to better target their efforts and coordinate to help reduce  or eliminate inefficiencies that result from fragmentation and overlap.  Additionally, limited performance evaluations make it difficult to fully assess  what is working and how improvements can be made in programs  addressing homelessness. While such evaluations can be resource- intensive, their benefits include helping agencies identify how to better  structure or operate programs more efficiently, which in turn may help  realize cost savings.
Since 2009, one entity––the Interagency Council––has had an explicit  mandate to coordinate the federal response to homelessness. The  council has taken several actions to increase coordination across federal  agencies, and its issuance of the first national strategic plan to prevent  and end homelessness was a positive first step in improving coordination  across agencies. The strategy is important because it broadly describes  the federal approach to preventing and ending homelessness. The  strategy sets goals and is an evolving effort, as the HEARTH Act requires  that it be updated annually. However, the plan does not specifically  address priorities, milestones, resources, and a clear delineation of roles  and responsibilities for federal agencies to help achieve results. Without a  detailed and transparent discussion of these elements, the plan’s  usefulness as a management tool for ensuring accountability and  achieving results is diminished. In addition, without descriptions of the  resources needed to achieve the goals, policymakers lack information  that would be helpful in allocating resources.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: Based on our review, we are making two recommendations:  The Interagency Council and the Office of Management and Budget––in  conjunction with the Secretaries of HHS, HUD, Labor, and VA––should  consider examining inefficiencies that may result from overlap and  fragmentation in their programs for persons experiencing homelessness.  As a starting point, the agencies could use the program information from  this report to further analyze the degree and effects of overlap and  fragmentation. The results of this assessment could be used to take  actions to reduce any identified inefficiencies and therefore better  leverage their resources. Actions may include streamlining services  offered within specific programs or by agencies, identifying programs that  could benefit from further research or evaluations, or consolidating  programs or services to reduce administrative costs.
To help prioritize, clarify, and refine efforts to improve coordination across  agencies, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal  homelessness programs, the Interagency Council, in consultation with its  member agencies, should incorporate additional elements into updates to  the national strategic plan or other planning and implementation  documents to help set priorities, measure results, and ensure  accountability. Such elements should be transparent and may include  milestones, a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities as related to  the plan’s objectives, and corresponding performance metrics.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and  Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; the Acting  Administrator of the General Services Administration; the Commissioner  of the Social Security Administration; and the Executive Director of the  Interagency Council for comment. We provided an informational copy to  the Office of Management and Budget. We received comments from  HHS, Homeland Security, HUD, Labor, VA, and the Interagency Council  that are reproduced in appendixes IV through IX, respectively. HHS,  Justice, VA, and the Interagency Council provided technical comments  that were incorporated, as appropriate. The Departments of Agriculture  and Education, GSA, and the Social Security Administration did not  provide any comments.
VA explicitly agreed with our first recommendation to work with the  Interagency Council and other federal agencies that provide services to  homeless veterans to identify opportunities to streamline programs and  services. HHS, HUD, and Labor did not explicitly agree or disagree with  this recommendation. They offered additional comments, which are  reproduced in appendixes IV, VI, and VII, respectively. HHS stated there  currently are not enough federal resources to meet the needs of the  homeless population and close the services gap, especially for those with  substance use and mental health disorders. While this report identified  federal funding for homelessness programs in fiscal year 2010, we did not  assess the availability of federal funding compared to the overall need.  The identification of overlap or fragmentation in this report does not mean  that funds to existing homelessness programs should be cut or eliminated  but raises questions about whether existing funds are being used  efficiently.  HHS also commented about the importance of a “no wrong  door” approach that enables people to access needed services and  supports through multiple entry points. While this report suggests some  evidence of overlapping services, the report also acknowledges that  overlapping programs help ensure access to services because persons  experiencing homelessness are not steered toward one point of entry.  HUD disagreed with our assertion about the extent of fragmentation  across federal programs that serve the homeless. As a result of this  comment, we clarified in the report that evidence suggests fragmentation  and some overlap. As previously defined, fragmentation is more than one  agency involved in the same broad area of national interest (i.e.,  homelessness). This report identified multiple agencies managing several  similar homelessness programs, suggesting fragmentation. Additionally,  we acknowledge that federal agencies have taken steps to enhance  coordination, which we have previously stated is important to help  minimize inefficiencies. Labor offered additional comments about its  efforts in relation to employment of homeless veterans and stated it will  continue to work closely with the Interagency Council and other federal  partners.
The Interagency Council did not explicitly agree or disagree with the first  or second recommendations. However, it provided additional comments  about each. Regarding the first recommendation, the Council stated it is  not within the agency’s authority to streamline overlapping services.  However, our recommendation states the Council should work in  conjunction with key agencies and as a starting point use the program  information from this report to further analyze the degree and effects of  overlap and fragmentation. Streamlining services is one of several  potential actions that agencies could take after further analyzing the  degree and effects of overlap and fragmentation. As the entity mandated  to coordinate the federal response to homelessness, the Interagency  Council has an important role in facilitating the efforts of member  agencies to address potential inefficiencies related to fragmentation and  overlap. Regarding the second recommendation, the Council stated that  in implementing the federal strategic plan it has been setting priorities,  determining how to measure progress and results, and identifying  mechanisms to hold federal and nonfederal partners accountable.  However, the council was unable to provide us with documentation that  these activities were occurring. Therefore, we did not revise our second  recommendation because these additional implementation efforts must  also be transparent to help ensure accountability and measure the plan’s  progress. The Interagency Council made additional points, including commenting that our report did not reflect the strong commitment  to research and to implement innovative practices across  member agencies. Our report acknowledges that some agencies  have conducted general research on the issue of homelessness,  including specific research offices at HHS, HUD, and VA. The  focus of our work was to identify whether programs had been  evaluated and specifically whether program evaluations had  occurred in the last 5 years. questioning whether there was a specific understanding of “at  risk” for homelessness in determining whether two programs met  the criteria we used for targeted programs. In identifying  programs, we defined a targeted program as one that (1) was in  operation as of fiscal year 2011 and (2) provided assistance  exclusively to those persons experiencing homelessness or at  risk for homelessness. While we agree there may be subjectivity  in interpreting “at risk” for homelessness, we shared our list of  programs with agency officials and they agreed the programs  met the criteria for a targeted program. asserting that property disposition programs would be better  examined separately from targeted programs. The council further  stated that including more programs in our review made it appear  that there is more fragmentation and overlap than actually exists  and they disagreed with our assertion about the extent of  fragmentation. As previously stated, we clarified in the report that  evidence suggests fragmentation and some overlap. This report  states that 3 of 26 targeted programs provide federal surplus  properties to eligible homelessness service providers and one  program provides excess personal property to homeless  veterans. In assessing the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication of federal homelessness programs, we did not  distinguish between different types of federal assistance and  therefore included programs providing grants; direct assistance;  or the sale, exchange, or donation of property or goods.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and  Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs; the Acting  Administrator of the General Services Administration; the Commissioner  of the Social Security Administration; the Executive Director of the  Interagency Council; the Office of Management and Budget; and  appropriate congressional committees. In addition, the report is available  at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix X.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our report were to determine (1) the number of and  funding levels for federal homelessness programs and the extent to which  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication exists; (2) whether the programs  have been evaluated; and (3) actions of the U.S. Interagency Council on  Homelessness (Interagency Council) and federal agencies to coordinate  federal efforts and the extent to which the federal strategic plan to prevent  and end homelessness is an effective strategy.
Overall, we reviewed relevant laws and regulations, particularly the  McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act and the Homeless Emergency  Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act (HEARTH Act). We  reviewed relevant literature and past reports on federal homelessness  programs, including the Congressional Research Service’s report on  targeted federal homelessness programs and recent legislation. We  interviewed federal agency officials and staff from the Interagency Council  to gather information on federal homelessness programs and information  about coordinating homelessness efforts. We reviewed documents  related to the programs and the council’s coordination efforts and national  strategic plan. We also conducted site visits to New York, New York; San  Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C. We selected these locations  based on the variety of targeted programs, size of the homeless  population, and geography. In all three locations, we interviewed  stakeholders, including local government officials; federal agency officials;  and representatives of local service providers that offer services to  homeless veterans, children and youth, women and families, and the  general homeless population. While the number of site visits was too  small to generalize information about the programs or assess the  Interagency Council’s overall efforts to coordinate a federal response to  homelessness, the observations and perspectives the various  stakeholders expressed were sufficient to provide examples about the  programs and suggest that the Interagency Council has begun to take  steps to coordinate federal responses to homelessness.
subsections: section_title: Federal Homelessness Programs and the Extent of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
subsections: section_title: Program Identification
paragraphs: To identify both targeted and mainstream federal homelessness  programs, we developed a comprehensive list of programs based on  legislative and agency information. First, through several searches, we  identified programs that potentially met our definitions of targeted and  mainstream. We defined a targeted program as one that (1) was in  operation as of fiscal year 2011 and (2) provided assistance exclusively to  those persons experiencing homelessness or at risk for homelessness.  We defined a mainstream program as one that (1) was in operation as of  fiscal year 2011, (2) included persons experiencing homelessness or at  risk for homelessness as part of the population served, (3) provided  services that benefit the homeless similar or complementary to those  offered by targeted programs, and that (4) agency officials identified to be  critical in meeting the needs of the homeless. We excluded programs that  did not directly help persons experiencing homelessness, such as those  that exclusively provided technical assistance, referrals, or administrative  functions. In developing our comprehensive list, we reviewed the Catalog  of Federal Domestic Assistance, the Interagency Council’s previous  reports and information, and previous GAO and Congressional Research  Service reports on homelessness, and searched the websites of the 19  member agencies of the Interagency Council. Our initial review revealed  that 5 of the 19 member agencies did not operate any targeted or  mainstream programs. As a result, we excluded these five agencies from  our study. In total, our initial search identified more than 150 potential  programs (48 targeted and 106 mainstream) that 14 federal agencies  administered.
Second, we excluded 4 of the 19 member agencies and their mainstream  programs because they were not deemed critical to meeting the needs of  the homeless. Thus, the number of agencies in the scope of this study  decreased from 14 to 10. Next, we shared our comprehensive list of  programs with agency officials and asked officials to explain why  programs should remain on the list and if any should be added or deleted.  For example, some programs were removed from the list because they  were not in operation in fiscal year 2011 or were part of a larger program  already listed. During the initial meetings with agency officials, we asked  officials to clarify program names, descriptions, and services offered. To  obtain program-specific information, we sent a total of 105 (35 targeted,  70 mainstream) structured questionnaires to the 10 agencies. These  questionnaires are described in detail below. Our refined list included 100  unique programs of which three were jointly administered by two or more  agencies.mainstream programs based on questionnaire responses. For instance,  we excluded additional programs or characterized them differently from  our initial list based on the program official’s input on whether the  programs met the criteria for targeted or mainstream. As a result, we  identified a total of 26 targeted and 62 mainstream programs.
More specifically, we developed two different questionnaires, one for  targeted programs and one for mainstream programs. The targeted  questionnaire was lengthier and included more in-depth questions about  program information and funding levels (for example, about program  goals and objectives, target populations, services offered, performance  information and evaluations, numbers of homeless served, and funding  information). The mainstream questionnaire included questions about  services offered, target populations, whether the programs collect data on  the number of persons experiencing homelessness or at risk for  homelessness, and whether steps had been taken to increase  participation of persons experiencing homelessness in mainstream  programs. To minimize errors arising from differences in how questions  might be interpreted and to reduce variability in responses, we conducted  pretests with two different agencies in September 2011. We obtained  feedback during the pretests and revised the questionnaires to improve  organization and clarity. We then used the revised instrument to conduct  a second round of pretests in October 2011 with the same two agencies.
We sent the questionnaires to the relevant agency contacts in November  2011 as attachments to an e-mail message, which provided instructions,  contact information for GAO staff, and the time frame for completing the  questionnaire. Most of the questions required close-ended responses,  such as checking boxes that best fit a description of the populations  served by each program. Some questions were open-ended, allowing the  officials to provide more in-depth details on program objectives, eligibility  criteria, and beneficiary eligibility. Respondents returned completed  questionnaires by e-mail, and we reviewed each program’s questionnaire  to ensure agency staff had provided complete and consistent responses.  From November 2011 through January 2012, we made telephone calls to  agency staff and sent follow-up e-mails, as necessary, to clarify  responses. We received completed questionnaires for 26 targeted and 62  mainstream programs.
For the 26 targeted programs, we also collected obligations and enacted  appropriations data, as available. We asked the agency staff to report on  obligations—defined as definite commitments that create a legal liability  of the government for the payment of goods and services ordered or  received. Each of the 26 targeted programs provided obligations data for  fiscal years 2008 through 2010, as available. A few programs were new  or had not obligated any funds in fiscal years 2008 through 2010;  therefore, they reported zero obligation dollars. We also collected enacted  appropriations data for fiscal years 2008 through 2011. In several cases,  programs were not able to provide enacted appropriations data because  agency staff told us the program did not have a specific appropriation and  funding for the program originated in a larger appropriation line item. As a  result of not having complete enacted appropriations data, we excluded  such data from this report. We did not collect funding-level information on  mainstream programs because the programs serve the general low- income population, not solely persons experiencing homelessness, and  therefore funding for mainstream programs is not an appropriate estimate  of federal funding spent on persons experiencing homelessness.
We used an independent contractor to keypunch the questionnaire data  and provide us with a comprehensive data file. We verified a selected  sample of keypunched records with their corresponding questionnaires  and found that less than 0.5 percent of the data items had random  keypunch errors that were not corrected during data processing. We used  standard descriptive statistics to analyze responses. We performed data  checks to identify missing fields, outliers, and inappropriate answers, and  followed up with agency staff as necessary. To assess the reliability of  data provided in the questionnaires, we incorporated questions about the  reliability of the programs’ data and financial systems, conducted internal  reliability checks, and conducted follow-up as necessary. While we did  not verify all responses or have access to each agency’s data and  financial systems to fully assess the reliability of the data provided or the  systems themselves, on the basis of our questionnaire design and follow- up procedures, we determined that the data used in this report were  sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Finally, GAO data analysts  independently verified all data analysis programs and calculations for  accuracy.
To determine the extent of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication we  compared data from the 26 targeted programs to comprehensively look at  homelessness programs across the federal government and used the  following definitions:
Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more  than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad  area of national interest.
Overlap occurs when multiple programs have similar goals and  activities, and offer similar services to similar target populations.
Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are  engaging in the same activities or providing the same services to the  same beneficiaries.
We previously had reported that the wide range of homelessness  programs that federal agencies offer resulted in a fragmented service  system. To further determine the extent of fragmentation, we used the  questionnaire data to identify the number of agencies that deliver similar  or the same services. For example, five federal agencies each administer  programs that offer transitional housing assistance. To determine overlap,  we identified the number of programs with similar services (such as  housing or employment assistance) to similar populations (such as the  general homeless population, homeless veterans, or homeless children  and youth). To further determine overlap, we then used the services  offered to determine each program’s “primary services” and other eligible  services. We designated those services stated within a program’s goals  and objectives, as reported in the Catalog of Federal Domestic  Assistance or in the questionnaire, as primary services. In instances of  overlapping primary and other eligible services to similar target  populations, we reviewed the data with agency officials and asked  clarifying questions about each program’s primary and other eligible  services and obtained information about differences between programs.  However, the scope of this report did not allow us to gather enough  information to fully discuss the degree of overlap among homelessness  programs. To determine the extent of duplication, in instances when two  or more programs engaged in the same primary service to similar target  populations, we reviewed programmatic information, statutory authorities,  and held meetings with program staff to determine whether the programs  were providing the same services to the same beneficiaries.
section_title: Performance Information and Program Evaluations
paragraphs: We also used the targeted questionnaire discussed above to obtain  information to answer our second objective about performance  information and program evaluations. For the 26 targeted programs, we  collected performance information and asked agency staff if a program  evaluation had been conducted in the past 5 years. For instance, the  questionnaire asked whether the programs had performance metrics,  targets for the level of performance to be achieved, reporting of actual  level of performance achieved, and what other data the agency collected  on program performance. Additionally, the questionnaire asked program  staff to describe the performance metrics, targets, reporting, or other data  and submit relevant documentation (that is, submit documents to us  describing the performance information and the program’s success in  meeting any performance metrics within the last 3 years). Further, the  questionnaire asked whether targeted programs had an efficiency or  effectiveness evaluation completed within the past 5 years and to submit  documents to us about any evaluation’s findings. We generally defined  “evaluation” as an individual systematic study conducted periodically or  on an ad hoc basis to assess how well a program was working.
For the two programs that reported having had an evaluation within the  past 5 years, we reviewed each report’s objectives, scope, key findings  and recommendations made. However, we did not independently assess  the quality of these reviews. Finally, we interviewed program staff to  obtain information on how the agency uses performance information and  program evaluation findings, as appropriate. We did not collect  performance information or program evaluations for mainstream  programs because these programs were designed to assist the general  low-income population and would not necessarily track or monitor  program performance or outcomes related to persons experiencing  homelessness.
section_title: Coordination Actions and the National Strategy
paragraphs: To review the actions of the Interagency Council and federal agencies to  coordinate federal efforts, we analyzed the council’s coordination  responsibilities, obtained examples of coordination actions and activities  from the council and key federal agencies, and interviewed agency  officials. We reviewed the HEARTH Act and identified functions and  duties as they relate to coordinating the federal response to  homelessness. For instance, coordination refers to a joint activity bringing  together two or more agencies or entities. We identified actions such as  issuing and updating the federal strategic plan to end homelessness;  providing assistance to states, local governments, and nonprofit  organizations; and developing joint federal agency and other initiatives to  fulfill the goals of the Interagency Council, as coordination duties. We  interviewed Interagency Council staff and asked them to provide evidence  of actions taken to fulfill requirements of the HEARTH Act. We reviewed  relevant documents such as a report to Congress on developing a  common vocabulary, congressional budget justifications, performance  and accountability reports, guidance on creating effective state  interagency councils, and agendas for various meetings held by the  council. Additionally, our questionnaire to targeted programs asked  agency staff whether the agency or program offices coordinated or  collaborated with other federal agencies or programs to plan, facilitate, or  implement programs and examples of how this was done. Finally, during  our site visits, we asked local service providers, local officials, and federal  program staff to provide examples of coordination activities the  Interagency Council and federal agencies have undertaken.
To determine the extent to which the national strategic plan to prevent  and end homelessness is an effective strategy, we analyzed the national  strategy and gathered feedback on it from federal agencies. We obtained  copies of the 2010 national strategy, the 2011 update to the national  strategy, and an implementation plan that indicates which Interagency  Council staff were responsible for specific items within the strategy. We  assessed the strategy by benchmarking it against our prior work  identifying the six desirable characteristics of an effective national  strategy (see table 3). We have used this methodology in several past  reports.
We assessed the federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness  according to the six characteristics and provided a rating for each  characteristic. Similar to our other reports that used these six  characteristics, we gave ratings of “addresses,” “partially addresses,” or  “does not address.” According to our methodology, a strategy addresses  a characteristic when it explicitly cites all, or nearly all, elements of the  characteristic, and has sufficient specificity and detail. A strategy partially  addresses a characteristic when it explicitly cites one or a few of the  elements of a characteristic, and the documents have sufficient specificity  and detail. It should be noted that the partially addresses category  includes a range that varies from explicitly citing most, but not all, of the  elements to citing as few as one of the elements of a characteristic. A  strategy does not address a characteristic when it does not explicitly cite  or discuss any element of a characteristic, any references are either too  vague or general to be useful, or both.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to May 2012 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: Appendix II: Mainstream Programs That Persons Experiencing Homelessness Can Access
paragraphs: Persons experiencing homelessness may receive assistance through  mainstream programs that are designed for low-income people generally.  We defined a mainstream program as one that (1) was in operation as of  fiscal year 2011, (2) included persons experiencing homelessness or at  risk for homelessness as part of the population served, (3) provided  services that benefit the homeless similar or complementary to those  offered by targeted programs, and that (4) agency officials identified to be  critical in meeting the needs of the homeless. This report does not include  all programs that can serve persons experiencing or at risk for  homelessness because some programs that can do so did not meet all  the criteria in our definition. Table 4 summarizes 62 mainstream programs  that met the above definition. In response to our questionnaire (see  appendix I), mainstream programs reported whether they collected data  on the number served and steps taken to increase participation of  persons experiencing homelessness.
section_title: Appendix III: Performance Information for 26 Targeted Programs
paragraphs: In their responses to our questionnaire (see app. I), almost all of the  targeted programs (25 of 26) replied they maintained performance  information such as metrics and targets for the level of performance to be  achieved, or reported the actual level of performance achieved for their  respective programs (see table 5). The specific type of performance  measures they maintained varied. More than half of the programs  maintained performance metrics information (15 of 26), and almost half  maintained targets for the level of performance (12 of 26). And almost all  indicated that they reported information on actual performance (23 of 26).
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Paul Schmidt (Assistant  Director), Elizabeth Curda, Beth Faraguna, Janet Fong, Jill Lacey, Marc  Molino, John McGrail, Barbara Roesmann, Christine San, and Brian  Schwartz made key contributions to this report.