FY 1998 - 2003 Strategic Plan
Strategic Performance System/Process and
Consultation Process

The Strategic Performance System

As part of the "reinventing HUD" process, a Strategic Performance System (SPS) was developed. The SPS is not static, but rather a set of interrelated activities that provide continuous direction to the Department. Comprehensive management planning is inherent in the SPS and relies on four key functions: development of management plans, development of management control plans, oversight by the Management Committee, and performance reporting. These four functions became fully operational in October of 1994. The SPS is built upon commitments made by the Department and the Administration in Presidential Performance Agreements and Community Empowerment Principles.

The SPS was critical to the Deputy Secretary's decision to require more formal monitoring mechanisms be in place for program implementation and systems development. It has also been used in the training of both Headquarters and Field Office personnel involved in developing management plans and management control plans.

The objectives of the SPS are:
  • accelerating the development of useful measures;

  • ensuring performance measurement is effectively incorporated into the Department's budget process, program management and information systems; and

  • developing quantifiable measures of performance for each major program and a process for setting benchmarks for program recipients.

Strategic Planning Process

After the passage of the Government Performance and Results Act in August 1993, the Department started the process of identifying strategic objectives and performance measures. The Secretary sets the priorities for the Department at the beginning of his term and then reaffirms those priorities in August for each fiscal year. Each Assistant Secretary and equivalent then develops management plans and, if appropriate, management control plans, to accomplish the Secretary's priorities. These plans contain the goals and objectives, performance measures and indicators, and timetables for task completion.

This process has resulted in greater management accountability and helps to ensure that the resources needed to accomplish goals are obtained. Since implementation of this process in FY 1994, the Department has accomplished 80 percent of its goals.


  • Congressional Consultation

    An initial meeting was held with representatives of various House Committees on April 11, 1997. Coordinated through Joseph Ventrone of the House Committee on Banking, this approach enabled HUD to meet with all of the committees at one time and enabled the committees to jointly express their concerns. At that meeting, HUD discussed the strategic planning process which has been evolving since January 1994. The application of Lotus Notes software, which produces the Secretary's Performance Report, and the OMB Spring Review process were discussed at length.

    On July 11, 1997, the draft Strategic Plan was delivered to the Congress and GAO for review and comment. On August 4, representatives from GAO and HUD met to discuss GAO's draft findings. On August 7, HUD met with staff from both the Senate and House to discuss GAO's findings and the final "score" given to HUD by the House staff.

    The following is a summary of comments from GAO and the Hill and HUD's response to each one.

    GAO Recommendations implemented as suggested

    Comment: The plan is missing one of the required components - a description of how program evaluations were used in establishing the strategic objectives, as well as a future evaluation schedule.

      Response: We agree. The language as to utilization is included in the revised final plan. However, evaluation schedules are determined on an annual, not a multi-year, basis.

    Comment: ... does not cover the timeframes specified by the Results Act.

      Response: The revised final Strategic Plan utilizes FY 1998 as the "groundwork" - management reforms, program restructuring and baseline development.

    Comment: The first strategic objective - to empower communities to meet local needs - does not clearly describe how HUD can empower communities, what local needs HUD can help communities meet through its array of core programs or how the results will be measured.

      Response: An in-depth discussion of Consolidated Planning Process is included in the revised final plan.

    Comment: (Regarding the Public Housing survey ("PHMAP")) However, the discussion under this same objective indicates HUD intends to replace that program with a better assessment method.

      Meeting: Language in strategic plan has been changed. PHMAP is being improved and new data needs being addressed, but it is not being replaced.

    GAO Recommendations implemented, but differently from original suggestion

    Comment: HUD's two mission statements do not define the basic purpose of the agency or focus on the core programs and are not fully supported by the strategic objectives.

      Note: GAO clarified their comments stating that if HUD continues to have as a mission the restoration of public trust, there needs to be an objective or, alternatively, a further clarification of the activities under the Management Reform Plan that impact on the objectives as currently listed. The primary mission does not reflect the objectives. GAO said that the "acid test" is if the mission statement were by itself, would a reader know what agency it belonged to.

      The House staff, however, went further and stated that HUD needed to reflect the language in the authorizing legislation.

      Response: Since there are actually three pieces of legislation that impact on our mission, we have integrated those into the revised final plan.

    Comments: Having the Key External Factors as a separate section did not allow for clear linkage to the strategic objectives.

      Response: HUD has reservations about repetitive language that makes the plan unnecessarily long. Cross-referencing is used in the revised final plan to avoid repetition.

    GAO Recommendations which need to be implemented as the document evolves

    Comments: Section entitled HUD's Strategic Plan does not yet indicate significant interagency coordination

      Response: Interagency activities are ongoing - and will continue to evolve during the coming months. It is difficult to accomplish during the time frame while agencies are focused on budget and individual Strategic Plans.

    • HHS, Labor, Transportation and HUD will meet during the first quarter of FY 1998. An initial meeting was held August 4.

    • Discussions ongoing with Justice and EPA
    • Consultation between HUD and other agencies has been ongoing throughout the planning process. The draft Strategic Plan was made available on HUD's Home Page on July 14. A total of 3,761 hits were recorded on the Strategic Plan between July 14 and July 31. Comments have been received as a result of review by other agencies and their comments are reflected in the final Strategic Plan. The final plan will also be available on HUD's Home Page.

    Comment: ... (1) the draft strategic plan has not yet been developed sufficiently to identify all of the data needed and (2) HUD has had and continues to have significant problems with its financial and management information systems ...

      Response: HUD required program quality assurance plans of each program as of FY 1998. These plans will be discussed in detail in the Annual Performance Plan, which also identifies the data sources. However, the issue of data integrity and quality assurance must remain a key issue as the document evolves over the coming years. It cannot be a one time exercise - but rather an integral part of the annual planning process.

    Comment: ... the discussions of HUD's strategies to achieve its objectives and relationship of performance goals to the strategic objectives do not fully reflect the requirements of the Results Act.

      Response: HUD acknowledges that it needs to improve linkage between goals, resources and strategic objectives. HUD is working with OMB on the best way to do this. The Program and Financing schedules will be linked to the Annual Performance Plan measures, as recommended in the OMB guidance on A-11 (Part II). Most of the Management Reform activities which impact program administration will take place in FY 1998. These actions have been listed at the end of Appendix I. The relationship of these measures and annual performance goals to the strategic objectives is discussed in the Strategic Plan.

  • Stakeholder Consultation by Programs

    Housing requested comments on the Plan from major trade groups with whom it routinely deals such as the National Association of Homebuilders, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors. In addition, Housing shared the Plan with various working groups with whom it has forged a working relationship over the past few years. (See the Housing section under Partnerships for a description of the working groups.)

    Although comments were requested from various groups, no substantive comments have been received to date.

    Public and Indian Housing (PIH) requested comments on the draft Strategic Plan from:

    • Public Housing Authorities
    • State, city and local Government agencies
    • Public, assisted housing, and Native American industry and interest groups

    PIH acknowledges the comments received on the plan from the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) and the Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA).

    In summary, CLPHA expressed concern that the plan did not address how to prevent marginal PHAs from becoming troubled. HUD is addressing the marginal PHAs in the HUD 2020 Management Reform plan. The new Troubled Agency Recovery Centers (TARCs) will devote their resources to the those PHAs designated as troubled, this will allow the PIH Field Office staff to focus on working with these marginal PHAs. CLPHA also recommended that more specific objectives should be developed linking community revitalization efforts, under Strategic Objective 4, with the Department's public housing revitalization strategies. PIH concurs with this recommendation and will work with CPD and Housing to address this recommendation.

    PHADA expressed concern that the Strategic Plan does not adequately address HUD's limitations, especially at the same time that the HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan is being implemented. The Department's HUD 2020 Management Plan and this Strategic Plan build on the foundation of programmatic, legislative and organizational changes which will vastly improve program delivery to the PHAs.

    Both CLPHA and PHADA commented that ongoing working groups are needed in the consultation process in the development of the Strategic Plan. PIH concurs with this observation and will facilitate partnerships with the stakeholder in the ongoing implementation of the Strategic Plan.

    Community Planning and Development (CPD) requested comments on the draft Strategic Plan from:

    • State, city and local Government agencies
    • Community Interest Groups

    Although comments were requested from various groups, no substantive comments have been received to date.

    Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) requested comments on the draft Strategic Plan from:

    • Fair Housing Organizations
    • Financial Institutions involved in real estate financing
    • State, city and local Government agencies
    • Housing industry groups
    • Civil rights groups

    Although comments were requested from various groups, no substantive comments have been received to date.

  • Department-wide Consultation Efforts

    In addition to all the above efforts, the Department requested comments from the general public through the World Wide Web (the "Web") Home Page. This also allowed for review and comment by HUD employees, both at Headquarters and in the Field Offices.

    Comments were received not only from individuals, but also from other US agencies and the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom. Some of the comments paralleled those of GAO, especially the need for explaining the relationship between the performance measures and the strategic objectives. Both the Canadian and UK governments were positive in their review, although both questioned how we would validate our data. It is, apparently, an issue with which they, too, are struggling.

    HHS, as a Federal agency, has provided the most in-depth comments and we will be working with them to coordinate our efforts as we move forward in the strategic planning process. Their comments are reflected under Strategic Objectives 2, 4 and 5.

    Individual comments vary from substantive to editorial but, in general, were minor. The most detailed comments did not come from outside HUD, but rather, from HUD employees with many years experience. Their historical perspective and suggestions for text changes have been included, where appropriate.

    Table Of Contents


    Content Archived: December 12, 2011