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

Letter

Background

Role of Interagency Council and Recent Changes

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.

Definitions of Homelessness

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.

Our Work on Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication

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.

Homelessness Programs Address a Variety of Needs, but Result in Fragmentation and Overlap of Services

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.

Evidence Suggests Fragmentation and Some Overlap

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.

Programs Maintain Performance Information, but Program Evaluations Are Limited

Targeted Programs Have Performance Data, and Efforts to Increase Information from Mainstream Programs Have Begun

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.

Few Efficiency or Effectiveness Evaluations of Targeted Programs Exist

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.

While Federal Coordination Efforts Have Increased, Strategic Plan Could Be Improved

Interagency Council Has Taken Steps to Enhance Coordination

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.

Opportunities Exist to Further Improve the National Strategy

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Federal Homelessness Programs and the Extent of Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication

Program Identification

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.

Performance Information and Program Evaluations

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.

Coordination Actions and the National Strategy

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.

Appendix II: Mainstream Programs That Persons Experiencing Homelessness Can Access

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.

Appendix III: Performance Information for 26 Targeted Programs

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).

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs

Appendix IX: Comments from the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Alicia Puente Cackley, (202) 512-8678 or cackleya@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

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.