oversight

       HUD’s explanation for revising or eliminating performance measures and targets is
        reasonable.1

       HUD’s report reflected the data output generated by a methodology approved by
        ONDCP.

Each National Drug Control Program agency must submit to the director of ONDCP, not later
than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds spent by the agency for National
Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year (21 U.S.C. (United States Code)
1704(d)(A)). In addition, the accounting must be “authenticated by the Inspector General for
each agency prior to submission to the Director.” The accounting and related assertions are the
responsibility of HUD’s management and were prepared by HUD personnel as specified in the
ONDCP Circular: Accounting of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary, dated
January 18, 2013.

As required by Federal statute (21 U.S.C. 1704(d)(A)), we reviewed HUD’s Report on Drug
Control Accounting, including its written assertions. We conducted our attestation review in
accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA) and the standards applicable to attestation engagements contained in
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Our
responsibility is to express a conclusion on the subject matter or assertion based on our review.
The AICPA standards require that we plan and perform the review to obtain limited assurance
about whether any material modifications should be made to the subject matter in order for it to
be in accordance with (or based on) the criteria. A review is substantially smaller in scope than
an examination, the objective of which is to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the
subject matter is in accordance with (or based on) the criteria in all material respects or the
responsible party’s assertion is fairly stated in all material respects in order to express an opinion.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

We performed review procedures on HUD’s assertions and the accompanying table. In general,
we limited our review procedures to inquiries and analytical procedures appropriate for the
attestation review.

Based upon our review, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that
management’s assertions, referred to above and included in the accompanying submission of this
report, are not fairly stated in all material respects, and the review provides a reasonable basis for
the practitioner’s conclusion, based on the criteria set forth in the ONDCP Circular: Accounting
of Drug Control Funding and Performance Summary. However, we were unable to issue this
attestation report by the due date required by ONDCP because HUD did not complete its final
report by the mandated deadline of February 1, 2018.



1
  HUD’s narrative disclosed changes to performance measures, ongoing efforts to enhance performance data, and
plans to establish performance targets.




                                                       2
While this report is an unrestricted public document, the information it contains is intended
solely for the use of HUD, ONDCP, and Congress. The purpose of this report is to authenticate
HUD’s reporting on national drug control spending to the Director of ONDCP. This report is not
suitable for any other purpose.

Thank you for the cooperation and participation of HUD personnel in completing the attestation
review. If you have any questions or comments to be discussed, please contact me at (202) 402-
8216.

Attachment

cc:
Irving L. Dennis, Chief Financial Officer, F
Neil Rackleff, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, D
Henry Hensley, Director, Office of Strategic Management and Planning, X
Emily Kornegay, Assistant Chief Financial Officer for Budget, FO




                                              3
Appendixes

Appendix A
             HUD’s Office of National Drug Control Program Reporting




                                       4
OTHER DISCLOSURES 
HUD has not identified any other disclosures relating to the fiscal year 2017 drug control funds. 

MANAGEMENT ASSERTIONS 
The management assertions for HUD’s accounting report are found in the attached: Tab A 




                                                5
                      Department of Housing and Urban Development 
                          FY 2017 Performance Summary Report 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES & PRIOR YEARS PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND 
RESULTS 
Information regarding the performance of the drug control efforts of HUD is based on data 
collected from programs receiving funding through the annual CoC program competition.  The 
table and accompanying text below highlight HUD’s drug‐related achievements during fiscal 
year 2016. 


                                             Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs 

 Selected Measures of                         FY 2013  FY 2014  FY 2015  FY 2016  FY 2017 
 Performance                                 Achieved  Achieved  Achieved  Achieved  Achieved 
 » Percentage of participants exiting        N/A       59.4%     52.0%      47.3%      N/A 
     CoC‐funded transitional housing,
     rapid rehousing, and supportive
     services only projects that move
     into permanent housing.*
 »   Percentage of participants in CoC‐      N/A           91.8%         92.9%            93.3%          N/A 
     funded permanent supportive
     housing remaining in or exiting to
     permanent housing.*
 »   Projected number of participants        86,140        87,286        76,390          73,755        68,813 
     who report substance abuse as a
     barrier to housing to be served in
     CoC‐funded projects.
*The data for exits and retention of permanent housing have a 1‐year time lag.  In each CoC Program Competition,
communities report on the performance from the last fiscal year.  Thus, in the FY 2017 CoC Program Competition,
communities reported on their outcomes from FY 2016.

In the first performance measure – exits from transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and 
supportive services only projects to permanent housing destinations – there was a decrease 
between 2015 and 2016 from 52 percent to 47.3 percent. The second measure looks at the 
percent of persons served in CoC‐funded permanent supportive housing projects that remain in 
or exit to permanent housing. The data from 2016 shows a slight increase from last year – an 
increase to 93.3 percent.  Both of the measures reflect the importance for persons who receive 
homeless services through HUD funded programs to exit to a stable housing situation.  

The final measure continues to track the number of persons proposed to be served by HUD’s 
CoC‐funded programs who enter with chronic substance abuse issues. In fiscal year 2017, there 
was a reduction of 4,942 persons with chronic substance abuse that were projected 
to be served. This reduction is due to HUD’s decision to encourage its providers to shift from 




                                                       6
transitional housing projects (many of which serve persons with chronic substance abuse) to 
more permanent housing options. HUD believes that the number of persons with chronic 
substance abuse will likely increase again as other project types are prioritizing the hard to 
house populations, which often include a substance abuse element.  Also, many of the CoCs are 
choosing to fund rapid rehousing projects in lieu of transitional housing and these rapid 
rehousing projects generally have a higher turnover rate, allowing CoCs to serve more people 
experiencing homelessness throughout the year.   

As an additional note on performance, between calendar years 2016 and 2017, HUD saw a 
decline of 5 percent in families experiencing homelessness (27 percent decline since 2010), as 
reported in HUD’s 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR): Part 1 – Point‐in‐Time 
Estimates of Homelessness.   

QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE DATA 
HUD has updated its data collection across CoCs to improve the ability for CoCs to understand 
performance across the entire CoC – not merely at the project level.   HUD has collected data 
across the entire CoC for 2 years now.  This process has not only improved HUD’s knowledge of 
performance across an entire CoC but it also has resulted in higher data quality at the project 
level.  HUD requires CoCs to report to HUD their data quality information.  HUD includes data 
quality in its annual CoC Program Competition to incentivize higher data quality.  HUD has also 
switched its data collection system for its CoC‐funded projects.  This new system requires CoCs 
to upload their data from their local Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS).  This 
improves the data quality because the upload process does not accept imported data that has 
obvious errors.  If an import is not accepted the system alerts the recipient to the specific areas 
of concern and the recipient is required to update their local HMIS to ensure the data is 
accurate.  HUD is confident that this process has forced recipients to clean up their data and 
provide better data at the CoC level and nationally.   

MANAGEMENT ASSERTIONS 
The management assertions on the performance information contained in this report can be 
found in Tab B. 




                                                 7
Appendix B
             Management Representations




                         8
9
10
11