final w sig research evaluation ddau 4.6.15.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Research and Evaluation, Demonstrations, and Data Analysis and Utilization

FR-5800-N-26

Katherine M. O'Regan Date Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

H48838 Stamp

Research and Evaluation, Demonstrations, and Data Analysis and Utilization

FR-5800-N-26

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Funding Opportunity Description. I.

Award Information. II.

Eligibility Information.

Eligible Applicants. A.

Cost Sharing or Matching. B.

Other. C.

III.

Application and Submission Information.

Obtaining an Application Package. A.

Content and Form of Application Submission. B.

Application Submission Dates and Times. C.

Intergovernmental Review. D.

Funding Restrictions. E.

Other Submission Requirements. F.

IV.

Application Review Information.

Criteria. A.

Review and Selection Process. B.

Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates. C.

V.

Award Administration Information.

Award Notices. A.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements. B.

Reporting. C.

VI.

Agency Contact(s). VII.

Other Information. VIII.

Appendix. IX.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research Research and Evaluation, Demonstrations, and Data Analysis and Utilization Initial

FR-5800-N-26

14.536 April 30, 2015

This is a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) of up to $5.20 million in Fiscal Year 2013 and 2014 funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for research and evaluations. The awards will be managed by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research and provided from the Transformation Initiative appropriations account. Funds will be awarded in the form of cooperative agreements.

Additional Overview Information:

1. Incorporation of the General Section. HUD publishes a General Section each fiscal year that contains mandatory requirements for all applicants to HUD’s competitive grant programs including this NOFA.

Applicants must meet all of the requirements of the General Section in addition to the requirements of this NOFA to be considered and to receive funding. The full title of the General Section is General Section for Fiscal Year 2014 Discretionary Programs. It can be found on Grants.gov and on HUD's Funds Available webpage at http://portal.hud.gov /hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices /administration/grants /fundsavail.

2. OMB Approval Number(s): 2528-0299

FAQs will be posted on the HUD Funds Available webpage http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src =/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail and will be updated periodically.

I. Funding Opportunity Description.

A. Program Description and Requirements.

1. Program Description.

The Research and Evaluation, Demonstrations, and Data Analysis and Utilization program (referred to as "HUDRD") is managed by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Through this NOFA, HUD is announcing the availability of up to $5.20 million in FY 2013 and 2014 funding.

The following projects are eligible for award, in the amounts listed:

Moving To Work Evaluation (1 award up to $2,175,000) Jobs Plus Evaluation (1 award; up to $1,475,000) Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Evaluation (1 award up to $850,000) Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency Program (ROSS) Evaluation (1 award up to $700,000)

Eligible applicants include: public or private non-profit organizations or intermediaries, including

Program Office:

Funding Opportunity Title:

Announcement Type:

Funding Opportunity Number:

Primary CFDA Number:

Due Date for Applications:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail

Eligible applicants include: public or private non-profit organizations or intermediaries, including institutions of higher education and area-wide planning organizations; for profit organizations; States, units of general local government, or Indian tribes; public housing authorities; and small businesses.

Applicants must meet the specific requirements and qualifications specified in the NOFA including having expertise in housing and service programs for low-income persons in general, and the specific HUD programs and activities to be studied as well as the specific research methods needed to undertake the study.

For the purposes of this NOFA the term, "research and evaluations" are defined as structured efforts to establish or confirm facts, develop or support scientific theories, or otherwise build useful knowledge for developing, implementing, and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of programs administered by HUD and state and local partners. Research and evaluation projects examine current HUD programs and their operating environments to determine their effectiveness and to provide critical information for improving them. Program evaluation is critical to ensuring that HUD programs have desired impacts and deploy scarce resources cost-effectively. The research and evaluation completed under HUDRD will continue to strengthen HUD’s capabilities for evaluating and improving program effectiveness and efficiency. “Research and Evaluations” also encompasses evaluations of current programs to provide policy guidance and/or improve public accountability.

2. Objectives and Eligible HUDRD Activities

a. Objectives

HUDRD seeks to further PD&R’s mission to inform policy development and implementation to improve life in American communities through conducting, supporting, and sharing research, surveys, demonstrations, program evaluations, and best practices. This broad mission addresses the following Strategic Goals contained in HUD’s Strategic Plan:

(1) Strengthen the Nation’s Housing Market to Bolster the Economy and Protect Consumers;

(2) Meet the Need for Quality Affordable Rental Homes;

(3) Use Housing as a Platform to Improve Quality of Life; and

(4) Build Strong, Resilient, and Inclusive Communities.

b. Eligible Activities

In support of the above objectives, awardees may be asked to undertake a variety of research and evaluation activities, from articulating research questions to conducting the research itself and culminating in communicating research findings. Eligible activities are outlined here.

(a) Design research and develop work plans. Developing research designs and work plans will determine the nature and scope of the research needed to answer the research question identified by HUD. The development of these materials would be done in close consultation with the HUD Government Technical Representative (GTR) or Government Technical Monitor (GTM) other staff and other experts as the HUD GTR directs.

This activity includes:

Articulating research questions and explaining their significance;

Conducting a literature review;

Expert consultation, including reasonable consultation fees;

Comparison of costs and benefits of different approaches;

Developing a Research design;

Formulating a data collection plan, including sampling plans, surveys and pre testing of survey instruments, detailed data system design and testing, and matching of administrative data across data sets held by different agencies, as applicable;

Developing a work plan, including task budgets, a time line, and allocation of staff by task ;

Developing a work plan, including task budgets, a time line, and allocation of staff by task ;

Completing OMB Paperwork Reduction Act, Privacy Impact Assessment, and System of Record Notification documentation, as applicable; and Obtaining Institutional Review Board approval as needed to ensure human subjects research protections in accordance with federal requirements (see http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/commonrule).

(b) Data Collection. This work likely would include data collection using qualitative and/or quantitative methods that may be in-person, by mail, by phone, or via the Internet if appropriate and may also use existing data (e.g., Census data) and administrative data as appropriate. If the research design and work plan identify circumstances requiring use of incentive payments to achieve a satisfactory response rate, the awardee may use funds from this award to pay those incentive payments. The awardee would undertake analysis of data to answer the research question(s).

(c) Data analysis. This activity includes:

Merging, tabulating, analyzing, modeling, validating and presenting data from surveys (if applicable) and existing administrative data sources (if applicable, including third-party sources) to answer the questions as stated in the research design and work plan; and Using data visualization tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), business intelligence reporting and dashboard systems as appropriate to present the data.

3. Projects.

Applicants are required to identify one of the following projects that they are applying for. Applicants may elect to submit additional applications for different projects (limit of one application per project).

a. Project 1: Evaluation of Moving to Work (MTW): Activities, Outcomes and Impacts, and Program Performance (1 award, up to $2,175,000)

(1) The research questions/objectives of the project

HUD envisions a comprehensive evaluation guided by the overarching questions: What can we learn from MTW initiatives about how to deliver federal housing assistance to achieve goals of cost efficiency, client self-sufficiency, and increasing housing choice? What are the risks and opportunities inherent in MTW flexibilities (i.e., the specific exceptions from the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 Act that allow MTW innovations)? To this end, the evaluation should increase knowledge of selected MTW initiatives in terms of broader applicability, costs and benefits, and positive and negative impacts on target populations, clients and communities and describe the demonstration overall, including documenting how housing assistance at MTW agencies has changed over time, who is being served, at what level of affordability, for how long, and at what cost. The evaluation will include several descriptive components and at least two rigorous studies of impacts and/or outcomes of selected types of MTW activities (listed below as “topical areas”).

The project goals can be achieved by meeting the more specific objectives detailed below. Objectives 1, 2, and 3 are of interest in themselves but also as preparation for the outcome and impact studies called for in objective 4. It is expected that this cooperative agreement will be for a three-year period of performance.

Objective 1. MTW Flexibility Inventory: Create a taxonomy - i.e., a scheme of classification - to capture MTW flexibilities (i.e., specific exceptions from the 1937 Act) and associated activities based on a complete inventory of the MTW activities recorded in current MTW Plans and Reports. The taxonomy will be a tool for describing MTW activities consistently across the demonstration despite the many ways that participating agencies conceptualize MTW activities. This information may be captured in a simple relational database, which may also include information on available data discovered under objective 2.

To meet this objective HUD envisions a report on the taxonomy and a simple relational data base to capture current activities and associated authorizations from the MTW Agreement. This work should build on other published classifications of MTW activities where possible. Work to meet this objective should be a small part of the overall evaluation.

Objective 2. Data and Information Gathering on MTW Outcomes and Impacts to Date: In consultation with HUD, determine the outcomes and impacts that need to be measured in each of the topical areas listed in objective 4. Throughout the taxonomy process (described in objective 1) and the research conducted about the block grant approach (described in objective 3), determine the data and information available at the local level and assess the extent to which local data may be standardized across the demonstration to measure outcomes and impacts. Examine other data sources at HUD and at the municipal, state, and federal levels for usefulness in measuring MTW outcomes and impacts. Assess the usefulness of the local and other data sources for rigorous research on the outcomes and impacts of interest. To meet this objective HUD envisions a report listing agreed on outcomes and impacts and describing how to measure them with available data sources.

Objective 3. Applications and Value of the Block Grant Approach: Produce evidence about the risks and opportunities inherent to the block grant approach established under the MTW demonstration. Specific questions to be answered include:

How do MTW agencies use block grant flexibility? How have MTW agencies implemented block grant flexibility? How have MTW agencies altered the proportion of funds to major program areas?

How do MTW agencies use single-fund flexibility - alone and in conjunction with other MTW flexibilities - to provide innovative modes of housing assistance outside the traditional models?

Do MTW flexibilities allow a PHA to be more responsive to local needs, e.g., as measured by characterizing the partnerships between the agency and local entities in terms of quantity, intent, and dollar value?

Has the block grant approach allowed MTW agencies to leverage alternate forms of financing and conduct enhanced long-term planning with regard to capital improvement and development?

HUD envisions answering these questions based on analysis of documents, financial data, and key informant interviews for a sample of MTW agencies selected because of their active and innovative use of block grant flexibilities. In addition to descriptive analysis, the research must include a credible counter factual such as comparison of selected quantitative indicators across MTW and non-MTW agencies.

Meeting this objective requires both a research proposal and management plan to be approved by HUD and comprehensive final research report including research questions, methods, and findings.

Objective 4. Outcome Analyses by Topical Area: After determining the prevalence of particular flexibilities and activities (and the data and information available), recommend the feasibility of conducting rigorous studies in each of the topical areas listed below. After consultation with HUD on feasibility, develop proposals for two or more rigorous studies that examine outcomes and/or impacts and conduct the research, producing final reports on findings. These studies may include the whole demonstration, or be based on a subsample of MTW agencies (with or without comparison non-MTW agencies), and/or take advantage of excellent data and research opportunities in particular MTW agencies.

These studies should assess selected MTW initiatives in terms of broader applicability, costs and benefits, and positive and negative impacts on target populations, clients, and communities. The intent is to show as rigorously as possible the positive and/or negative outcomes associated with the selected topical area flexibilities. The research proposals must articulate clear, testable hypotheses about outcomes and/or impacts related to the demonstration’s statutory goals and propose valid research designs. They must detail the MTW agencies involved and the level at which they must be engaged. They must outline a feasible data collection plan established in consultation with HUD. They must include a budget. Possible topics include:

Occupancy Requirements (with a focus on time limits and/or work requirements) Efforts to promote self-sufficiency Alternative Rent Policies (with consideration not to duplicate HUD’s current Rent Reform Demonstration) Deconcentration Strategies Specific to the MTW Demonstration

Deconcentration Strategies Specific to the MTW Demonstration Supportive Housing Models (including sponsor-based housing) Rapid Re-housing and Other Forms of Transitional Housing Assistance Policies Affecting Mobility (both enhancements and restrictions) Inspections Policies and Ensuring Housing Quality Project-Basing Flexibilities Targeting Homelessness

Possible research approaches and data sources include:

Retrospective research designs (prospective research designs may be considered to the extent they meet HUD’s evaluative needs and timelines);

Utilizing historical data to create treatment and control groups;

Aggregating outcome data across MTW agencies that have implemented similar flexibilities;

Longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis of available data sources, including those held at an MTW agency, at HUD, and at municipal, state, and federal levels.

Surveys, interviews, and focus groups with current and former participant households, as well as tracking client outcomes through other available data sources.

Upon approval by HUD at least one and up to three studies must be implemented per the proposals and reported on in final research reports. Expected deliverables to meet this objective include research design proposals as described above, management plans for the agreed upon studies, and comprehensive final research reports. Each research proposal,management plan, and final report will need to be reviewed and commented on in draft form by HUD and the Expert Reviewers (as required in the award Terms and Conditions) at key points in the project schedule.

Objectives 5, 6, and 7 are intended to summarize quantitatively the program as a whole. Key questions here include: What level of affordability is being provided, for how long, for whom, and at what cost?

Objective 5. Capturing the Picture of Assistance: To the extent possible with existing data, describe how assistance has evolved program-wide in terms of types of housing offered and types of households served. Analysis should capture changes in the number and types of units (including public housing, vouchers, and local, non-traditional housing types detailed in PIH Notice 2011-45) by mode of assistance, size, geographical area, accessibility features, and targeted and served populations. To meet this objective expected deliverables include an analysis proposal to be approved by HUD, one or more visual representations of change over time and a narrative report describing the changes. Reporting findings under this objective may, if deemed appropriate by HUD and the awardee, be combined with reporting under objective 6.

Objective 6. Performance Under Obligations and Statutory Objectives of the Demonstration: Assess the extent to which current MTW agencies are meeting the statutory obligations of the demonstration.

Answer the questions: Do MTW agencies serve the same number and a comparable mix of families? Are at least 75% of the families MTW agencies serve very low income, earning less than 50% of the area median income? What challenges, if any, do MTW agencies face in meeting these obligations? Work under this objective should incorporate data and processes that are already a part of HUD’s monitoring efforts. Whether MTW agencies serve the same number of families is currently monitored under PIH Notice 2013-02 and whether MTW agencies serve a comparable mix of families and that at least 75% of families served are very low income is currently monitored under the reporting portion of the HUD Form 50900. Insofar as possible and not redundant with other studies, document and aggregate data to measure the effectiveness of MTW agencies in furthering each of the demonstration’s statutory objectives of reducing cost and achieving greater cost effectiveness; assisting families in becoming economically self-sufficient; and increasing housing choice for low-income families. Meeting this objective requires a comprehensive report answering the listed questions.

Objective 7. Comparative Cost Analysis of the Demonstration: Model per household spending - and/or other cost measures to be agreed upon with HUD - among MTW agencies and normalize for influencing factors. This may involve multivariate models for a set of MTW and non-MTW agencies to identify factors that influence MTW agency cost outcomes. In conjunction with this analysis, consider the level of subsidy (from shallow to deep rental subsidy in traditional and non-traditional housing models, capital contributions, funds leveraged through partnerships, etc.) and compare the outcomes of MTW and non-MTW agencies, with consideration of how well those outcomes reflect local needs. To meet this objective, expected deliverables include a proposal for designing and testing such a model, including variables, measures, and modeling approach to be reviewed by HUD and the Expert Reviewers, followed by a draft report for review and a final report explaining the objective of the modeling, justifying the selected variables, measures, and modeling methods, and the results of implementing the model with real data.

(2) Expected Deliverables

Under objective 4: As described above, reports for each of the critical steps of design and implementation of at least two rigorous studies, from proposal through full implementation, on MTW flexibilities in selected topical areas (chosen from those listed), including comprehensive final research reports conveying findings.

Under each of the other objectives one or more reports as described above and the following types of deliverables: taxonomy and relational database; timeline and/or visual representation of changes in housing assistance over time at MTW agencies; a transparent method and relevant statistical information associated with the cost analysis, transferable to HUD upon completion of the grant.

Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, HUD will be substantially involved in all decisions about the substance of the work, which, in practical terms means that the schedule in the Management and Work Plan must include drafts of all deliverables for review and comment by HUD and the Expert Reviewers before submission of final deliverables. As required by the terms and conditions, there will also be a kick-off meeting at grant initiation and interim and final report briefings to be scheduled in consultation with the HUD GTR.

For information on MTW and previous research studies, please consult the following:

Innovation in Public Housing: The Moving to Work Demonstration (Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Jan 2015) https://www.housingcenter.com/sites /default/files/Innovations%20in%20the%20Moving%20To%20Work%20Demonstration_Full %20Report.pdf

Innovations in the Moving to Work Demonstration (Abt, December 2014) https://curs.unc.edu/files /2015/01/The-Moving-to-Work-Demonstration-Center-for-Urban-and-Regional-Studies-Report.pdf

Urban Institute’s Assessment of MTW (2004): http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw /pdfs/prom/mtwui.pdf MTW case studies, completed by Abt Associates Inc. (2000-2002): http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih /programs/ph/mtw/casestudies.cfm Urban Institute’s report on time limit policies carried out by MTW agencies (2007): http://www .urban.org/UploadedPDF/411701_mtw_demonstration.pdf MTW promising practices for each participating agency (2008-2009): http://www.hud.gov/offices /pih/programs/ph/mtw/promisingpractices.cfm Spotlight on the experiences of two MTW agencies that converted to project-based management (2004): http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/phastories.cfm Spotlight on the Keene Housing Authority’s Employment Retention Program: http://www.hud.gov /offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/keenestory.cfm Moving to Work: Interim Policy Applications and the Future of the Demonstration (2010): http ://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/report-to-congress.pdf

b. Project 2: Jobs Plus Evaluation (1 award; up to $1,475,000) https://www.housingcenter.com/sites/default/files/Innovations%20in%20the%20Moving%20To%20Work%20Demonstration_Full%20Report.pdf https://www.housingcenter.com/sites/default/files/Innovations%20in%20the%20Moving%20To%20Work%20Demonstration_Full%20Report.pdf https://www.housingcenter.com/sites/default/files/Innovations%20in%20the%20Moving%20To%20Work%20Demonstration_Full%20Report.pdf https://curs.unc.edu/files/2015/01/The-Moving-to-Work-Demonstration-Center-for-Urban-and-Regional-Studies-Report.pdf https://curs.unc.edu/files/2015/01/The-Moving-to-Work-Demonstration-Center-for-Urban-and-Regional-Studies-Report.pdf http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/pdfs/prom/mtwui.pdf http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/pdfs/prom/mtwui.pdf http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/casestudies.cfm http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/casestudies.cfm http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411701_mtw_demonstration.pdf http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411701_mtw_demonstration.pdf http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/promisingpractices.cfm http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/promisingpractices.cfm http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/phastories.cfm http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/keenestory.cfm http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/keenestory.cfm http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/report-to-congress.pdf http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/mtw/report-to-congress.pdf

(1) The research question/objectives of the project.

HUD’s 2014 Appropriations included funding to support the implementation of the Jobs Plus Pilot Program, a place-based program designed to increase work and earnings among public housing residents.

A total of $24 million has been made available through a NOFA-- $15 million from the Jobs Plus Pilot Program Appropriation and an additional $9 million from the ROSS program. These funds will support up to 8 grantees to implement the Jobs Plus Pilot Program. The program as designed includes three core components: 1) employment-related services, 2) financial incentives – the Jobs Plus Earned Income Disregard (JPEID), and 3) community supports for work. It is expected that this cooperative agreement will support the first phase of a multi-phase evaluation. The purpose of this first phase is to carefully document the programs established by the Jobs Plus Pilot Program grantees and lay the groundwork for a future outcomes evaluation that will seek to understand the impact of the program, both on the program participants, as well as the entire target development. Specific research objectives include, but are not limited to: describing the set of activities and partnerships established by grantees under core program components 1 and 3; describing the amount and type of leveraged resources accessed by each grantee;

describing the extent to which grantees are successful at engaging a high percentage of residents in some aspect of program participation, as well as a description of the outreach efforts employed; documenting the ease with which PHAs implemented the JPEID, and the extent to which residents utilized and benefited from this program component; documenting the costs of implementing and operating the Jobs Plus program; and describing the extent to which HUD might be able to utilize existing administrative data already maintained by the Department and other agencies to understand rudimentary program outcomes.

(2) The methods HUD is expecting to be used.

In this first phase of the evaluation, the focus will be on the design and implementation of a process study that will comprehensively document the programs implemented by all Jobs Plus Pilot program grantees, the enrollment of program participants into an outcomes evaluation that would allow HUD to understand the impact of program participation, and a review of existing administrative data to assess the content, quality, and coverage of data in order to assess the extent to which HUD might be able to utilize existing administrative data already maintained by the Department and other agencies to understand rudimentary program outcomes. It is expected that the process study will require the research team to build relationships with the grantees. Specific activities may include: site visits to grantees, focus groups with program participants, conversations with program staff, administrators, and community partners, document review, and the establishment of a mechanism for the research team to convey study progress and observations back to the grantees, such as regular conference calls or webinars. Because a subsequent phase of research may include the use of non-HUD administrative data, as well as a survey of program participants, it is expected that the enrollment of program participants will include, at a minimum:

participant recruitment into the evaluation, administration of informed consent, and the establishment of procedures for the safe collection and storage of personally identifying participant data. It is expected that the data collection instruments and protocols for both the process study as well as enrollment of program participants into the outcomes evaluation will require OMB approval and be fully compliant with the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. HUD will partner with the research team to ensure maximum access to HUD-controlled data, including grantee applications and reports and data available through HUD’s Inventory Management System/PIH Information Center (IMS/PIC).

(3) The deliverables HUD is expecting.

HUD expects to work closely with the cooperative awardee, and anticipates the opportunity to review and comment on the following documents, at a minimum:

Management & Work Plan that will depict the overall strategy for completing this research effort within the budget and timeframe allotted, including a description of the research activities to be undertaken, the sequence of tasks, key milestone dates, and key staff engaging in each research activity.

Research Design describing the key elements and approach for data collection related to the process study, data collection instruments, the procedures for enrolling program participants into the evaluation, the strategy for administering informed consent to potential evaluation participants, and the mechanism for securely collecting and storing evaluation participant data.

Information Collection Review (ICR) documents (more commonly known as an OMB package) which will consist of the Supporting Statement, Parts A and B as needed, and all relevant appendices required for submission to OMB in order to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Interim report that describes observations of grantees’ progress during the first 12-18 months of program implementation, and an assessment of what can be learned about program outcomes via HUD and other administrative data.

Final report documenting the complete findings from the process study.

Data collected, data documentation, and code used for analysis.

Monthly progress reports

c. Project 3: Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Evaluation (1 award, up to $850,000)

(1) The research question/objectives of the project.

A four-year Small Area Fair Market Rent (SAFMR) Demonstration program began in fiscal year (FY) 2013 with five public housing authorities (PHAs), (Housing Authority of the City of Laredo, TX; Housing Authority of the City of Long Beach, CA; Housing Authority of the County of Cook, IL; Chattanooga, TN Housing Authority, and the Town of Mamaroneck Housing Authority, NY). In addition, SAFMRs were imposed on all PHAs operating within the Dallas HUD metropolitan FMR area in a legal settlement in FY 2011. The experiences of PHAs operating in Dallas, as well as the other five PHAs in the demonstration, and all Section 8 Voucher tenants in these areas will be evaluated. This evaluation will determine the effectiveness of SAFMRs in providing a feasible and cost effective way of helping voucher tenants reach communities of opportunity relative to metro-wide FMRs and will evaluate the impact of SAFMRs on PHA program management and costs. This study will examine the impact of SAFMRs on existing and new Section 8 voucher tenants for these areas.

(2) The methods HUD is expecting to be used.

The research design shall include in its work plan an examination of tenant locations relative to measures of opportunity both before and after the change to SAFMRs and compared with a control set of PHAs that do not have SAFMRs. The work plan shall also include the demographic factors of all tenants in the voucher program for both the SAFMR PHAs and the control PHAs, the number of tenants who move, the time taken to move, the difference in the payment standard, and reason given for the move.

All participating PHAs received supplemental administrative fees for the purposes of upgrading the computer software used to administer the Section 8 Voucher program and other necessary expenses.

The PHAs are expected to use the funds for additional outreach and briefings for families and landlords on the SAFMRs, assistance with relocation issues resulting from the use of SAFMRs, changes to rent reasonableness determinations, and additional training and hiring of staff. The research design shall also include in its work plan an analysis of the use of the incremental administrative expenses incurred by the PHAs in implementing SAFMRs; a description of additional administrative activities undertaken to support the implementation of SAFMRs; and an assessment of the overall subsidy cost impact of SAFMRs on the participating PHAs.

The success rate for the new housing choice vouchers and the lease-up rate compared with the measures before the use of SAFMRs and compared with the control PHAs shall also be included. Other issues may be included in the work plan and there should be the ability to add issues as they arise in discussions with PHAs and tenants. HUD administrative data will be used for some demographic and cost data for the Section 8 Voucher program and guidelines for the use of this data will be part of this cooperative agreement. In addition, data will be collected directly from tenants and PHAs, which will require clearance from the Office of Management and Budget to collect this data under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This cooperative agreement is for a maximum period of three years.

(3) The deliverables HUD is expecting. The contractor and HUD will negotiate a specific timetable for all deliverables.

Management & Work Plan that will depict the overall strategy for completing this research effort within the budget and timeframe allotted, including a description of the research activities to be undertaken, the sequence of tasks, key milestone dates, and key staff engaging in each research activity.

Research Design describing the key elements and approach for data collection related to the process study, data collection instruments, the procedures for enrolling program participants into the evaluation, the strategy for administering informed consent to potential evaluation participants, and the mechanism for securely collecting and storing evaluation participant data.

Information Collection Review (ICR) documents (more commonly known as an OMB package) which will consist of the Supporting Statement, Parts A and B as needed, and all relevant appendices required for submission to OMB in order to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Interim report that describes observations of grantees’ progress during the first 12-18 months of program implementation, and an assessment of what can be learned about program outcomes via HUD and other administrative data.

Final report documenting the complete findings from the process study.

Data collected, data documentation, and code used for analysis.

Monthly progress reports

d. Project 4. Evaluation of the Public and Indian Housing Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators (ROSS-SC) Program (1 award, up to $700,000)

(1) The research question/objectives of the project.

HUD’s 2014 Appropriation included funding to support an evaluation of the Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators (ROSS-SC) Program. Eligible grantees for ROSS-SC funds include public housing agencies (PHAs), tribes/Tribally-designated housing entities (TDHEs), Resident Associations (RAs), and tax-exempt nonprofit organizations. ROSS-SC funding can be used by awardees to hire and maintain service coordinators, whose role is to assess the needs of public housing residents and to coordinate supportive services and other activities designed to help residents attain economic and housing self-sufficiency or to age-in-place and maintain independent living. Grantees can choose to target service coordination efforts towards families, elderly and disabled households, or both. HUD is interested in improving the Department’s understanding of the programs that have been established by ROSS-SC grantees, the role and activities of the service coordinators themselves (including service coordinators’ case management system), and the breadth of activities that service coordinators have accessed for the benefit of program participants. This evaluation will be an exploratory look into the operations and activities undertaken by the approximately 200 service coordinators supported by the roughly 100 grantees that are expected to be funded under the FY 2014 ROSS-SC funding opportunity (see: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2014ROSS-SCnofa.pdf). ROSS-SC grant awards are expected to be made in early 2015. It is expected that this cooperative agreement will be for an approximate three year period.

(2) The methods HUD is expecting to be used.

This research effort is expected to have three main components: 1) development of a taxonomy of the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees, 2) administration of a survey of service coordinators employed by the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees, and 3) a review of the first two years of annual reports submitted by the full set of FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees. The taxonomy of the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees will be conducted by reviewing the applications submitted by the grantees that were funded under the FY 2014 NOFA. The taxonomy should enable HUD to assess the commonalities and differences across grantees. HUD is also http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=2014ROSS-SCnofa.pdf interested in understanding more about the service coordinators themselves, as well as their role within the development in which they operate. HUD anticipates that the best way to gather this information may be the administration of a survey, likely web-based, of the roughly 200 service coordinators that are expected to be funded under the FY 14 NOFA. Finally, with the FY14 NOFA, HUD has established streamlined reporting requirements that reduce the burden on grantees and enhance the utility of the information collected by HUD. The research team will be expected to review the annual reports submitted by the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees following the first and second years of grant operations (first year reports expected to be available Spring 2016). These submissions will be reviewed and analyzed for their utility in understanding grantee activities and performance outcomes, and recommendations for modifying reporting metrics should be developed. It is expected that any data collection instruments and protocols for collecting data from more than nine individuals will require OMB approval and be fully compliant with the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. HUD will partner with the research team to ensure maximum access to HUD-controlled data, including grantee applications and reports.

(3) The deliverables HUD is expecting.

HUD expects to work closely with the cooperative awardee, and anticipates the opportunity to review and comment on the following documents, at a minimum:

Management & Work Plan that will depict the overall strategy for completing this research effort within the budget and timeframe allotted, including a description of the research activities to be undertaken, the sequence of tasks, key milestone dates, and key staff engaging in each research activity.

Research Design describing the key elements and approach for each of the three study components (development of a taxonomy of the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees, administration of a survey of service coordinators employed by the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees, and a review of at least one round of annual reports submitted by the full set of FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees). The research design should elucidate any anticipated challenges in accomplishing any of the three components, and strategies to overcome these challenges.

Survey Instrument(s) that will be used to collect data from service coordinators.

Information Collection Review (ICR) documents (more commonly known as an OMB package) which will consist of the Supporting Statement, Parts A and B as needed, and all relevant appendices required for submission to OMB in order to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Five short papers- the first will document the taxonomy and overview of the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees, the second will document the findings from the data collection effort targeting service coordinators, the third will document the review and analysis of the annual reports submitted by the FY 2014 ROSS-SC grantees, and the final two short papers will focus on topics to be developed in partnership with key HUD staff and the research team.

Data collected, data documentation, and code used for analysis.

Monthly progress reports

4. Program Requirements.

Applicants for HUDRD must follow all of the program requirements listed in paragraphs a through j below.

a. Reporting and Presentations. Awardees will communicate findings in a variety of formats and venues to be determined by HUD as appropriate for the project, including, but not limited to, comprehensive written reports, presentations and briefings, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and/or other outlets. HUD may request the awardee to make one or more presentation of the findings in a variety of settings. HUD staff will receive interim, draft and final versions of all research products and provide meaningful, timely feedback. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, HUD staff will be closely involved with the development of the research design and the final products. Final work products shall be well written and conform to HUD’s formatting requirements. HUD will post all final reports on its HUDUSER website. If HUD and the awardee disagree on the final interpretation of the data and analysis, HUDUSER website. If HUD and the awardee disagree on the final interpretation of the data and analysis, or the quality of the work product, then within 90 days after the submission of the Final Report to HUD, the awardee may proceed with publication of the results and HUD will post the report on the HUDUSER website with a prominent foreword and footnotes approved by the GTR indicating HUD’s disagreement(s).

b. Creation of data files and documentation. Replication of the research team’s analysis is critical to ensuring the validity of findings. Moreover, most data collected have high value to answer other research questions. As such, any research project involving data collection will provide a data set in a non-proprietary format and with complete documentation so that it may be used accurately by other researchers. In addition, any project that creates a new data set through linking or matching of existing data will result in a fully documented dataset, subject to applicable laws and regulations. HUD may require the awardee to provide data in both public use and restricted access forms. Subsequent access to data will be determined by HUD on a case by case basis. The awardee will also provide well documented “code” used to produce the results presented in the report provided to HUD.

c. Section 3. The requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Section

3) do not apply to funding under this NOFA, because no Section 3 covered activity will be undertaken with these HUDRD funds. This does not affect grantees’ existing responsibilities to provide training, employment, and other economic opportunities pursuant to Section 3 that result from their receipt of other HUD funding.

d. Effective Communication. Successful applicants shall take appropriate steps to ensure that all public notices and communications are provided in a manner that is effective for persons with hearing, visual and other communications-related disabilities consistent with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794) (Section 504). See 24 CFR 8.6.

e. Limited English Proficiency. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP).” Executive Order 13166 seeks to improve access to federally assisted programs and activities for individuals who, as a result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency. Applicants obtaining federal financial assistance from HUD shall take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities to LEP individuals. As an aid to recipients, HUD published Final Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients: Tile, VI Prohibition Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons (LEP Guidance) in the Federal Register on January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2732). For assistance and information regarding LEP obligations, go to http://www.justice.gov/crt/lep/guidance/HUD_guidance_Jan07.pdf. For more information on LEP, please visit http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/lep.xml.

f. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Requirements (AFFH). Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act requires the Department to affirmatively further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act in its housing and urban development programs. Accordingly, the Department requires recipients of funds, including those awarded and announced under the Department’s FY 2014 Program NOFAs that are not specifically exempted, to take affirmative steps to further fair housing. An applicant must discuss how it is going to carry out the proposed activities in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing in complete compliance with Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act.

Where appropriate to ensure the soundness of the research approach or in projects that are likely to confer a direct benefit to members of the public through their participation in the project, cooperative agreements may include specific requirements to comply with AFFH, as agreed upon with HUD. For projects which involve community-based or academic research and/or which include enrollment outreach, education and/or training, examples of activities that affirmatively further fair housing include, where appropriate:

(i) designing and implementing the research study so as to maximize communication and participation with, or dissemination of information to, persons unlikely to have access to the study, including persons of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, and persons with disabilities; (ii) to the extent practicable, affirmatively marketing the existence of the study or affirmatively disseminating the results of such studies broadly to persons affected, including protected classes under the Fair Housing Act who are not studies broadly to persons affected, including protected classes under the Fair Housing Act who are not likely to be aware of the study; (iii) conducting such activities in a manner that provides meaningful access to persons with limited English proficiency (LEP); and (iv) targeting the benefits of the research, outreach, or educational activities to vulnerable populations, including, but not limited to, families with children and racial and ethnic minorities.

In addition, applicants are encouraged to review the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, PHA Plan, and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (for example, HUD’s regulations at 24 CFR 91.225 (a)) in the jurisdiction in which their research activities will take place in order, if applicable, to take into account impediments to fair housing choice in their proposed research.

g. Paperwork Reduction Act. Standardized data collection from 10 or more respondents within a 12-month period will require clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Applicants should make themselves familiar with this requirement. This process frequently requires 180 days or more, so all work plans involving such data collection will need to factor in this requirement. Standardized data collection is defined by whether each respondent or group of respondents (e.g. focus group) is being asked to provide the same level of information on the same subject. Questions need not be phrased exactly the same way each time they are asked, nor does each respondent need to be asked the same set of questions for the information collection to be subject to the PRA. A respondent includes an individual; partnership; association; corporation; business trust; legal representative; organized group of individuals; and State, territory, tribal or local government. Surveys of federal employees are exempt from the PRA requirement.

h. Protections for Human Research Subjects. Awardees must comply with requirements of the federal Common Rule (45 CFR Part 46) for protecting human research subjects when applicable. Compliance may require awardees to seek review and approval of research plans by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). For research requiring an IRB review, the work plan shall identify the IRB that the awardee will use and factor in the necessary cost and time involved in that review. HUD will require awardees to provide appropriate assurances and certifications of compliance before human subjects research begins.

i. Privacy laws and data stewardship. For projects involving the use of HUD data that contain personally identifiable information, awardees will be required to enter into a Data License Agreement, a copy of which can be obtained by contacting the person identified in Section…