States Working Group

Information by State  Print version   Working Groups   States   Consortia   Counties   Cities (CDBG-only)   Cities (multi-funded)   Technology   Steering Committee Want More Information?   States Working Group Membership List Jump To...   July 16, 2002   June 28, 2002 Related Information   Summary List of Ideas   Ideas for Pilots

Summaries of ConPlan Improvement Initiative States Working Group Meetings

Washington Marriott Hotel, Washington, DC - July 16, 2002

Attendees: HUD: Jim Barnes, Eva Fontheim, Laura Marin, Steve Rhodeside, Sal Sclafani; Stakeholders: Martha Baumgart, Tom Brennan, Steve Busbaum, Vaughn Clark, Debra Franklin, John Greiner, Suzie Elkins, Sally Hemingway, Dave McNamee, Gloria Nance-Sims, Tom Pierce, Bill Pluta, Bill Shelton, Marcia Sigal, Dottie Tapscott, Judy Wilcox, Via conference call: Linda Nicols, Mike Tondra.

Meeting Objective: To come up with meaningful examples of items that could be changed in the Consolidated Plan process, including 1) administrative; 2) regulatory; or 3) statutory.

HUD made the point that 1) changes may be slow to enact; 2) many will come down to dealing with statutory issues; and 3) if we make changes, ensure they are substantive changes.

Meeting Outcome:

1. Application vs. Plan - States suggest ConPlan should be 1) an application for federal funds; 2) for HUD-funded programs only; 3) related to general categories only, with mention of other non-HUD resources; 4) of a 10-year term-tied to census data-with mid-term progress report submitted at five years, and one-year action plans updating a) State method of distribution, b) numbers / data; and c) the SF 424 form. Discussion: As grantor agency, States cannot show statewide needs or place-based data, which is too broad-based to be meaningful. States want ConPlan submission to relate only to those items for which State will provide funding, e.g., rural development; water projects; environmental.
   
   

2. One state commented that you cannot report "improving quality of life" in IDIS!

   Focus of ConPlan - HUD must rethink ultimate focus of ConPlan process. Especially appropriate as it relates to reporting accomplishments, which too often focus on outputs in a disjointed way-'x' funds expended on <80% median income families-versus quality of life improvement to program beneficiaries. Discussion: ConPlan's original intent was to meet the needs of program beneficiaries, and to aggregate results of grantee accomplishments into a national data roll-up. Results-oriented reporting is a major shift in the way HUD wants grantee accomplishments reported, as it has been output-oriented since 1974.
   
   

3. Results reporting should be on a State level, and HUD should work with a public interest group to survey grantees to report HUD's national goals to Congress. Do not attempt to capture through HUD program reporting requirements.

   ConPlan Reporting - States would report on those activities for which only HUD funded, and can report on achieving overall statewide goals using all resources per State's strategic plan. Discussion: redefine reporting requirements to be more meaningful. Use reporting characteristics used by HUD to report to Congress. For example, savings achieved in grantee program highlighted in #10 below providing more affordable utilities to LMI beneficiary vs. grantee agency installing 15' of sewer line. Do not report on broader societal goals over which States have little/no control over outcome measure. As such, focus on 'results reporting' vs. 'performance reporting'. States want to get back to reporting against original statutes/goals of four formula grant programs. For example, HOME program goal is increase the supply of affordable housing stock for LMI persons.State would report on creation / preservation of 50,000 affordable

   Question: Are states reporting properly and accomplishments not getting to Congress and OMB, or are States not reporting properly?

   units over ten-year ConPlan term, and each year report on progress made toward achieving that goal in Annual Action Plan. Example provided below of possible performance indicators for State reporting to HUD.

4. Interagency Coordination - eliminate requirement, as lead agency that prepares ConPlan finds it nearly impossible to get interagency coordination for program areas other than to submit the ConPlan.
   
   
5. HUD Definitions - HUD must provide further guidance on definitions, including:
   1. Families vs. Households
   2. Units vs. Beds
   3. Income categories, e.g. low-income
   4. Chronic homelessness

6. Citizen Participation - allow States to substitute advisory committees in lieu of public hearing requirement held at State level.
   
   
7. Supportive Housing- substitute Continuum of Care information for required narrative for supportive housing activities.
   
   
8. Data Collection - reduce burden placed on States to collect data on planning (front-end) and reporting stages (back-end).
   
   
9. Flexibility of HUD Funds - maintain program flexibility, which is greatest asset of HUD funds. Discussion: by its nature, flexibility makes it difficult to precisely define performance indicators, however. Example provided of two local utility companies joining together to become regional company, thereby creating economy of scale to save public funds on program efficiencies and operating savings, which turned into lower utility bills for LMI customers.
   
   
10. Consistency with Public Housing Agency Plans - Eliminate
    Anti-Poverty Strategy - Eliminate
    Lead-Based Paint Certification - Eliminate

Next Steps - July 30, 2002 conference call from 1:00 - 3:00 PM. Focus: to bring closure to ideas coming out of July 16 meeting.