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.
Consultation
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.
![[logo: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity]](/images/fheo50.gif){kind=small}