Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program PERFORMANCE MEASURES

1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ProgramPERFORMANCE MEASURES

2. Accept that Resistance to Change Is Natural 1. I like the way my program is running, why do I have to change? 2. If it isn’t broken, why fix it? 3. I already have way to much to do, I couldn’t possibly do anything more. 4. It seems much too complicated. 5. I don’t see that its going to help me run or improve my program.

3. Common Performance Measurement Terms • Goals are the proposed solutions to problems or needs identified by the grantee. • Inputs include resources dedicated to or consumed by the program such as money, staff, equipment, and supplies • Activities are what the program does with inputs to fulfill its mission. Activities include the strategies, techniques, and types of treatment that comprise the program’s production process or service methodology.

4. Common Performance Measure Terms (cont.) • Outputs are the direct products of a program’s activities. They are usually measured in terms of the volume of work accomplished, such as number of low-income households served, number of loan applications processed, number of units constructed or rehabilitated, linear feet of curbs and gutters installed, or numbers of jobs created or retained.

5. Common Performance Measure Terms (cont.) • Outcomes are qualitative benefits that result from a program. Outcomes typically relate to a change in conditions, status, attitudes, skills, knowledge, or behavior. Common outcomes could include improved quality of life for program participants, improved quality of local housing stock, or revitalization of a neighborhood.

6. GOALS Proposed solutions to problems or needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. • Preserve existing housing stock • Increase property values/tax base • Improve neighborhood stability

7. INPUTS • Resources dedicated to or consumed by the program. • Staff/Staff time • $$$$ • Contractors • Facilities • Equipment

8. ACTIVITIES What the program does with the inputs to fulfill its mission. • Intake/loan screening • Initial inspection • Verify contractor eligibility and cost reasonableness • Prepare construction specifications • Underwrite loans • Loan approval • Progress inspections

9. OUTPUTS • The direct products of program activities • Number of customers served • Number of loans processed • Number of homes rehabilitated

10. OUTCOMES • Benefits that result from the program. • Increased percentage of housing units that are standard • Improved quality of life for program participants • Revitalization of the neighborhood

11. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended: An element of the OMB PART review asked what’s the purpose of the CDBG program? HUD responded: “Development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income … .”

12. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKING GROUP COSCDA NCDA NACEED NAHRO OMB HUD

13. Performance Measurement Working Group (cont.) Grew out of an on-going effort by COSCDA to try to identify a series of performance measures for HUD’s/CPD’s four formula programs.

14. Performance Measurement Working Group (cont.) Process is currently vetting various proposals among a number of constituent members. The process so far has identified several key performance measurement areas:

15. Performance Measurement Working Group (cont.) 1. Affordable housing outcome measures. 2. Promoting Livable or viable communities 3. Enhancing individual, household health/safety and general welfare 4. Providing economic opportunity 5. Expanding availability/accessibility of basic services, infrastructure, or other basic needs not previously available to lower income persons.

16. Performance Measurement Working Group (cont.) • Criteria for evaluating measures: 1. What benefit to communities or low income people does the measure represent? 2. Does this measure represent a positive result of the program, and if so, why? 3. Is the information that can be obtained or inferred from this measure an important result of the program that we want to tell Congress about? Why?

17. Performance Measurement Working Group (cont.) • Criteria for evaluating measures: • 4. Is the measure qualitative or quantitative in nature? If qualitative, describe how the measure describes the quality of life difference that is being measured? • 5. Is the information/data required to report on this measure already available? Is “yes”, how and where is it available?

18. Performance Measurement Working Group (cont.) • Criteria for evaluating measures: • 6. If the data required for this measure is not already available, can it easily be obtained by subgrantees, sub-recipients or grantees? Which of the three would have the most burden to provide this information? • 7. Can this information be aggregated or rolled up in a meaningful way? Can the information be aggregated?

19. Performance Measurement Working Group (cont.) • Criteria for evaluating measures: • 8. Does HUD collect this data now using existing information systems? If not, when would HUD be able to collect this data? Is it worth waiting for?

20. Collecting Data • Collection of performance measurement outcome information is most likely not to occur prior to improvements to IDIS.

21. Other Work • HUD is also in the process of trying to operationalize an Urban Institute research study that evaluated levels of CDBG expenditures in target neighborhoods and improvements in quality of life indicators. • Such an approach would be seamless for grantees and would use current information entered by grantees in IDIS.

22. QUESTIONS?