40%

75%

35%

30%

75%

75%

30%

75%

e. Data Collection Metrics & Products

Data will be collected through the use of an outside contractor, who will be responsible for distribution, marketing and compilation of survey responses.

Metrics include:

• # of surveys distributed (per program/target group)

• % of surveys returned (per program/target group)

• % of surveys returned indicating a positive response to overall satisfaction with program operations

Data collected will be compared to previous results, disseminated to staff for training purposes and utilized to inform the direction of current and future program activities.

f. Authorization Cited

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item B.1.b

g. Agency Required Documentation

Not applicable

Activity #3: Streamlining of Public Housing and Section 8 HCV Forms and Data Processing

a. Description of MTW activity

To meet one of the central goals of the MTW demonstration, KCHA seeks to increase its cost‐effectiveness through streamlined use of forms and data processing. In FY 2010, KCHA will complete a review of forms used and processing linked to the application and waiting list system such as those to verify and document data and determine program eligibility. KCHA will also review forms and processes utilized to document and verify data reported by current program participants in order to identify how additional savings could result from changes in forms and processes utilized during continued occupancy. Processing will be streamlined through this activity as KCHA exercises its ability to implement new guidelines and processes in lieu of HUD requirements. Under this initiative, KCHA may choose to eliminate a number of HUD forms – replacing them with new, streamlined documents that continue to ensure program integrity while conforming to KCHA’s MTW modified documentation requirements.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed activity increases administrative efficiency and cost savings by reducing administrative red tape – meeting the MTW statutory objective to reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in federal expenditures.

c. Anticipated Impacts

By streamlining this process, KCHA will increase staff productivity and reduce total administrative costs relative to intake and continued occupancy. Although not a targeted goal of the initiative, KCHA also anticipates streamlined processing may lead to increased understanding of program requirements.

d. Baseline and Benchmarks

The baselines for this activity include:

• Staff hours spent on paperwork processing

• # of forms needed to process and track applications for housing programs and maintain occupancy eligibility information of assisted households

• The benchmarks to measure performance and progress include:
• 10% reduction in staff time spent on paperwork processing

• 10% reduction in forms used in the application process and to maintain occupancy eligibility of assisted households

e. Data Collection Metrics & Products

Data will be collected from the following:

• KCHA established baseline for time spent processing forms through interviews of staff responsible for administering the Public Housing and Section 8 programs

• KCHA database and forms catalog – analyzing current total number of forms before and after any changes

• Metrics will include:
• Comparison of staff hours spent on current processes pre‐and post implementation of the streamlined processes

• Comparison/count of forms used pre‐and post implementation of streamlined processes and costs associated with their use

f. Authorization Cited

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item C.4 (Public Housing) and item D.3.b (Section 8)

g. Agency Required Documentation

Not applicable

Activity #4: Using MTW reserves to fund Resident Incentives

a. Description of MTW activity

KCHA proposes to use MTW funds to provide incentives to residents as an innovative means of increasing compliance with lease and program requirements. For example, KCHA often experiences significant obstacles in moving over‐housed residents to appropriate sized units due to their reluctance to relocate to a smaller unit and/or site, even though their lease would require them to do so. An over‐housed tenant who refuses to move to an appropriate unit when available is subject to lease termination. Regardless, the resident will often avail themselves of every opportunity to delay the eventual transfer – whether through repeated requests for reasonable accommodation or by using the legal process as a delaying mechanism. KCHA expense in handling this situation is significant – involving increased staff time, unit turnover time and legal expenses. Thus, in FY 2010 KCHA will pilot this initiative by developing policies that encourage resident cooperation with established occupancy policies. Using a risk/reward approach, “over‐housed” tenants will receive a small monetary incentive to move to the first unit available. At the same time, tenants who refuse the available unit will face strict lease enforcement and monetary penalty.

KCHA will utilize the results of this initial pilot to determine the viability for expansion during FY 2010 and beyond to other areas. For example, if results indicate the approach leads to favorable outcomes, KCHA may consider offering residents a small monetary reward for not owning a car or choosing to park off‐site at developments where parking is limited.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed MTW activity achieves greater cost effectiveness and reduces administrative burdens.

c. Anticipated Impacts

KCHA anticipates that offering a resident incentive in this manner will reduce program administration through reductions in staff time to process requests/complaints/paperwork and legal expenses. An ancillary impact may be an increase in resident satisfaction levels as residents feel more in control of their environment.

d. Baseline and Benchmarks

The baselines for this activity include:

Baselines will be attributed to the individual targeted administrative policy for which the incentive is directed. For example:

• Total costs to process/track over‐housed transfers in prior year

• # of over‐housed families who accepted the first available unit in prior year

The proposed benchmarks are:

Benchmarks will be attributed to the individual targeted administrative policy for which the incentive is directed. For example:

• 10% reduction in costs dedicated to processing transfers for over‐housed residents

• 25% increase in number of over‐housed households who accept the first available unit

e. Data Collection Metrics & Products

Data Collection and Metrics will be attributed to the individual targeted administrative policy for which the incentive is directed. For example:

Data collection for an incentive to over‐housed families to accept the first available unit will include the following sources:

• Quarterly Transfer Report detailing transfers completed and staff hours dedicated to processing transfers for over‐housed households

• KCHA financial reports detailing fees charged and incentives paid

Metrics used to analyze impact of providing an incentive to over‐housed families who accept the first available unit will include:

• The total # of over‐housed households who accept the first available unit, vs. those who do not

• The staff hours and costs utilized to assign an over‐housed household to an appropriate sized unit

f. Authorization Cited

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item B.1.b

g. Agency Required Documentation

Not applicable

Activity #5: Modified Section 8 and Public Housing HQS Inspection process

a. Description of MTW activity

In FY 2010, KCHA intends to adopt modified Housing Quality Standards (HQS) inspection protocols for units leased under its Section 8 and Public Housing subsidy programs. Through a risk‐based approach, KCHA seeks to modify policies in a manner that reduces the number and frequency of inspections completed, without having an adverse impact on the quality or condition of units leased. Current policy revisions under consideration include:

• Random sampling of units selected for inspection each year. (Section 8 program only) For owners with twenty or more units under lease in the same complex and a two‐year history of excellent HQS performance, KCHA may select a random sample of units to be inspected each year. If all units in the inspected sample meet HQS standards, the owner will be

• able to self‐certify that remaining units meet the same standard and no further inspections will be performed in that year. If units in the sample fail to meet HQS standards the owner will have 30 days in which to make the necessary repairs and the units will be re‐inspected in accordance with existing policy. If all the repairs are completed, the owner can self‐certify that the remaining units meet the same standards and no further inspections will be performed in that year.
• Altering the frequency of inspections required. (Public Housing and Section 8) Using a biennial inspections system KCHA would continue to complete an initial inspection as participants move‐in to the subsidized unit. Absent requests or need for special inspections, KCHA will consider modifying HUD regulations to allow all or segments of units to undergo their next inspection up to two years following the client’s move‐in date. To further increase savings, current participants may be rolled into a biennial system based on their most recent HQS inspection results.

• Use of inspections from qualified outside entities to certify unit condition. Increasingly, units subsidized under the Section 8 and Public Housing program undergo multiple inspections by varying agencies throughout the course of the year. For example, mixed finance units – in which Public Housing is supported with Tax Credit financing, are dually inspected by KCHA staff and the Tax Credit entity each year. In most cases, outside entities operating in KCHA properties utilize inspection standards at least equal to that of KCHA. Under this initiative, KCHA will seek to reduce the frequency of inspections through modified policies that allow another entity’s inspection record to serve as documentation that the unit meets KCHA’s established HQS requirements.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed MTW activity reduces administrative burden and achieves greater cost effectiveness by reducing the number of inspections to be done annually.

c. Anticipated Impacts

KCHA anticipates savings in staff time, travel and administrative expenses. Reduced site inspections also benefit tenants and owners as they are less intrusive and require a lower time commitment from owners and tenants. As a result, modifications could result in increased satisfaction with program operations. KCHA does not anticipate that the modification will have an adverse impact upon the quality of units under the program or cause an increase in the number or percent of units that fail to meet HQS requirements. Rather, KCHA anticipates that some of the time savings created by reducing the number of inspections would be allocated to educating the owners and tenants of how they can keep their units in compliance – this should result in improving the quality and pass rate of units in the program. However, overall quality of KCHA’s unit inventory will be included as a program measurement to allow quick program modification if such an adverse impact does occur.

d. Baseline and Benchmarks

The baselines for this activity are:

• # of inspections completed annually

• Cost to inspect all units in the subject group: staff hrs, travel, administrative expenses

• Overall quality of inventory

The proposed benchmarks include:

• 20% reduction in inspection costs

• 30% reduction in inspections completed under the program

• 0% changes in the overall quality of inventory

e. Data Collection Metrics & Products

Data will be collected by program staff through reports that track the number and type of inspections and those passing/failing for major and minor items.

Metrics will include:

• # of inspections completed (by program)

• $ cost to KCHA to complete HQS inspections (by program)

• Assessment of overall quality of units

Comparison will be made to 2009 baseline data.

f.

Authorization Cited

g.

Agency Required Documentation

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item D.5

Not applicable

Activity #6: Simplify Verification Process for Section 8 and Public Housing

a. Description of MTW activity

To meet one of the central goals of the MTW demonstration, KCHA seeks to increase its cost‐effectiveness by streamlining the tenant and applicant verification process. The current method for verification requires virtually every income and allowance source to be third‐party verified, requiring a mailing directly to the verifying entity. This is an expensive and time‐consuming process that invites discrepancies, adds little value to the accuracy of the resulting information, and has limited effect on the calculation of housing assistance. The time spent to follow‐up and track third‐party verification requests is significant. Yet, the end result is often no more reliable than information documents that tenant could provide directly to KCHA or through other forms of verification. In addition, the third‐party verification process is intrusive for the participants as other parties are unnecessarily made aware of the tenant or applicant’s participation in the Section 8 program through the process. The advent of alternate check and balance systems at KCHA’s disposal, such as HUD’s Electronic Income Verification (EIV) system, which allows for the validation of tenant reported income, makes the need to follow strict third‐party verification procedures obsolete. As a result, during FY 2010 KCHA will review and implement alternate verification strategies for its Public Housing and Section 8 operations that protect the integrity of the program, while significantly reducing overall administrative expense.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed activity increases administrative efficiency and cost savings.

c. Anticipated Impacts

By streamlining this process, KCHA will increase staff productivity, reduce total administrative costs of the verification processes, and make its programs less intrusive for the participants.

d. Baseline and Benchmarks

The baselines for this activity include:

• KCHA costs incurred verifying incomes through third‐party sources: staff hours and administrative expenses

• Information on processing times to complete initial, interim and periodic recertification of tenant information

• Annual # of fraud cases identified

The benchmarks for this activity include:

• 10% decrease in processing time for re‐certifications, resulting from reduced need to request and wait for responses from third‐party sources

• 10% reduction in costs associated with collection of third party verifications

• 0% increase in findings of fraud and/or misrepresentation

e. Data Collection Metrics & Products

Data will be collected from the following:

• Staff interviews to calculate time spent processing verifications and to complete certification reviews

• HUD’s EIV system and/or Quality Control audits showing received income that was not previously reported (income threshold report)

• Quality control audits comparing independent third‐party sources with tenant‐provided documentation and/or upfront verification systems

• KCHA reports and database used to track reviews completed – including those resulting in loss recovery

Metrics will include:

• # Staff hours spent on the activity under the current process versus the proposed process

• Annual administrative costs ‐mailing expenses, printing, etc. ‐for activity under the current process versus the proposed process

• # of incidents of fraud discovered through EIV and Quality Control audits

f.

Authorization Cited

g.

Agency Required Documentation

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item C.4 (Public Housing) and item D.1.c (Section 8)

Not applicable

Activity #7: 30‐Day Referral for Project‐based Units

a. Description of MTW activity

KCHA proposes to allow direct owner referrals of applicants after 30 days of unsuccessful attempts by KCHA staff to fill a vacant Project‐based unit. Typically, for certain Project‐based units, numerous applicants from the Project‐based waiting list are contacted before at least one interested applicant is submitted to the owner. To reduce program administrative costs, shorten lease‐up time for Project‐based units and improve owner satisfaction, KCHA will fill vacant units through direct owner referral after KCHA has attempted for at least 30 days to find a suitable applicant to fill the vacant unit. Applicants placed in the Project‐based unit by the owner must be otherwise qualified to participate in the program. Final Rule requirements that owners provide written documentation of their reason for rejection of any legitimate referral from KCHA would still apply.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed MTW activity will reduce administrative burden and achieve greater cost effectiveness by reducing staff time and expense spent locating a suitable and interested applicant on the Project‐based waiting list to fill a vacant unit.

c. Anticipated Impacts

The activity will reduce costs associated with administration of the Project‐based program by reducing extensive search efforts to a more reasonable level and reducing the time needed to fill vacant units. In addition, KCHA anticipates that owner satisfaction with the program will improve, meaning less time spent by staff and supervisors dealing with complaint calls and visits and an increased likelihood that the owner will continue offering their units to low‐income households over the long‐term, thereby increasing housing choice.

d. Baseline and Benchmarks

The baselines for this activity are:

• # of days spent to fill a vacant project‐based unit

• Administrative costs to fill a vacant project‐based unit

• # of owner refusals to accept KCHA referred applicants

• The proposed benchmarks are:
• 5% reduction in staff hours associated with filling Project‐based units.

• 10% reduction in average days to fill vacancies

• 0% increase in owner refusal to accept KCHA referred applicants

e. Data Collection Metrics & Products

Data will be collected from the following:

• Project‐based Vacancy Log which tracks the start and end dates of vacancies processing time

• Wait list outreach records – recording owner referrals and acceptance

• Staff interviews to report time spent to fill vacant project‐based units

• Metrics will include:
• Staff hrs/min to fill project‐based unit vacancy – current vs. following implementation

• # of days to fill project‐based vacancy

• Change in # of owner refusals to accept KCHA referred client

f. Authorization Cited

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item D.4 and Attachment D, item E

g. Agency Required Documentation

Not applicable

Activity #8: Revision to Interim Review Process – Public Housing and Section 8 Programs

a. Description of MTW activity

KCHA proposes to streamline its current interim review process. Currently an interim review is performed whenever a client reports a decrease in income or has an increase in income if on a zero or credit rent. Unfortunately, even within this limited scope, the list of interim reviews processed annually is extensive. At the same time, the current policy limits the Housing Authority’s ability to increase rent between recertifications which can increase the number of residents who do not pay rent commensurate with current income. Options for potential policy changes include but are not limited to:

• Limiting the circumstances under which interim decreases in rent will be completed – either by requiring an income decrease above an established threshold or restricting the number of interim decreases available to a household over time

• Requiring completion of interim reviews for increases in income when the income increase exceeds an established threshold

• Requiring an interim review for any increase in income when a previous interim decrease has been completed

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed MTW activity achieves greater cost effectiveness by picking up additional income while still limiting staff time allocated to performing interim reviews.

c. Anticipated Impacts

By revising this process, KCHA will increase staff productivity, reduce housing assistance costs to the Housing Authority, and make its programs less intrusive for the participants since fewer changes in rent will occur.

d. Baseline and Benchmarks

The baselines for this activity are:

• Total # of interim reviews performed each year ‐by those that resulted in increased rent and decreased rent

• Total annual cost to the KCHA to complete interim reviews

• The proposed benchmarks are:
• 5% reduction Housing Authority costs to complete interim reviews

• 5% reduction in the number of interim reviews conducted annually

e.

Data Collection Metrics & Products

• KCHA database and staff log sheets listing number of interims reviews completed

• Check runs detailing housing assistance paid

• Staff interviews detailing time needed to complete interim reviews

• Metrics will include:
• Staff hours to complete interim reviews vs. time spent under the proposed interim review policies

• Annual administrative costs attributed to completion of interim reviews

• Annual change in rent /HAP as a result of interim review processing

f.

Authorization Cited

Data will be collected from the following: MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item 4 (Public Housing) and item D.1.c (Section 8)

g. Agency Required Documentation

A hardship policy will be developed for those who have changes that significantly impact their ability to remain in their current housing.

Activity #9: Limit on number of moves by a Section 8 participant family

a. Description of MTW activity

KCHA proposes to limit the number of moves a family can make to one every two years. Currently families can move once a year and many take advantage of this flexibility despite undue financial and social burdens each time they move. KCHA staff believes a limit on the number of moves would provide a more stable environment for the clients and their families, while also saving the costs associated with moving from unit to unit. Hardship policies will be developed to allow for more frequent moves in such cases as unusually high rent costs, domestic violence, problems with the units, or changes in family income or composition.

This change is not expected to impact tenant rent and would not require development of a hardship policy. Regardless, KCHA will develop a hardship policy in concert with this change to ensure that households with documented urgent need (such as victims of domestic violence, families residing in units that have become uninhabitable, etc.) continue to be eligible to move to a new unit with Section 8 assistance.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed MTW activity achieves a decrease in administrative burden while assisting families to become more self‐sufficient through creation of a more stable housing environment.

c. Anticipated Impacts

By limiting the number of moves a family can make, KCHA anticipates a decrease in the amount of administrative time and expense attributed to processing HAP contracts and associated paperwork required when a family moves to a new unit under the program. Staff also believes families who remain in their units may develop ties to the neighborhood creating a more stable environment for their family.

d. Baseline and Benchmarks

The baselines for this activity are:

• Total # of moves processed each year by the Housing Authority

• Staff hours spent processing “movers” on the program

• The proposed benchmarks are:
• 30% reduction in the number of moves processed by the Housing Authority

• 25% reduction in staff hours processing “movers” on the program

e. Data Collection Metrics & Products

Data will be collected from the following:

• Staff daily log sheets listing number of mover vouchers issued

• Staff interviews to determine time needed to assist households and process “movers” on the program

• Metrics will include:
• Total hours spent processing movers

• # of households who move to a new Section 8 unit

f. Authorization Cited

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item D.1.b

g. Agency Required Documentation

Not applicable

Activity #10: Implement a Maximum Asset Threshold for Public Housing and Section 8 households

a. Description of MTW activity

KCHA proposes to establish a maximum asset threshold of $100,000 for initial and continued occupancy in its Public Housing and Section 8 programs. In addition, KCHA may develop policies that deny eligibility to current homeowners who are not participants in any homeownership program sponsored by KCHA. Currently, regulations do not limit the total asset amount that may be held by an applicant or participant. In addition, current regulations allow homeowners to remain eligible for housing assistance – even though they could choose to reside in their own unit. Realistically, this allows families with significant assets to receive housing assistance when they have sufficient resources to support self‐sufficiency. KCHA may establish policies under this initiative that exempt certain groups, such as elderly and disabled households, from established asset limits where determined appropriate.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed MTW activity achieves greater housing choice for Public Housing Section 8 participants by ensuring eligibility for KCHA Public Housing and Section 8 assistance is limited to those most in need.

c. Anticipated Impacts

KCHA anticipates it may see a slight decrease in income and rent and/or increase in HAP as a result of this change, along with a slight decrease in administrative expense; however amounts are expected to be negligible. KCHA anticipates little impact upon applicants or residents as the number of households expected to be impacted is minimal.

d.

Baseline and Benchmarks The baseline for this activity is:

• The # of (non‐exempt) families in occupancy and on KCHA’s waiting list with assets above established threshold

• The proposed benchmarks are:
• 100% of applicants on KCHA’s waiting list and in occupancy (not exempted from established limits) have assets below established thresholds.

e.

Data Collection Metrics & Products Data will be collected from the following:

• KCHA’s applicant and tenant database Metrics will include:

• # of applicants and program participants with assets below the established thresholds

f.

Authorization Cited

MTW Restated and Amended Agreement: Attachment C, item C.2 (Public Housing) and item D.3.b (Section 8)

g. Agency Required Documentation

Not applicable

Activity #11: Offer incentive payment to Section 8 families ready to leave the program

a. Description of MTW activity

Currently KCHA has about 140 Section 8 program participant households who receive less than $100 in monthly Housing Assistance Payments (HAP). This activity will utilize MTW resources to fund a cash incentive for households among this group who elect to give up their Housing Choice Voucher in lieu of continued program participation. Providing households a bonus to take the next step toward self‐sufficiency helps ensure KCHA’s scarce resources are available to those most in need. For every voucher relinquished, KCHA is able to help another family from the Section 8 waiting list. At the same time, the incentive payment provides a “safety net” to assist the household with moving or other expenses that may occur as they transition to market rate housing.

b. MTW Statutory Objective

The proposed MTW activity promotes greater self‐sufficiency for Section 8 participants by encouraging graduation from subsidized housing into the private market.

c. Anticipated Impacts

KCHA anticipates this activity will increase the number of positive graduates from the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program by encouraging households to take the next step toward self‐sufficiency. However, increased graduation of upper income households may impact the overall KCHA total HAP payments and funding availability as graduating low‐HAP families will be replaced with lower income households requiring greater HAP assistance.

d.

Baseline and Benchmarks

• # of vouchers turned by households receiving $100 or less HAP annually

• The proposed benchmarks are:
• 20% increase in number of vouchers turned annually by households receiving $100 or less HAP

e.

Data Collection Metrics & Products

The baselines for this activity are:

Data will be collected from the following:

• KCHA’s Section 8 HCV program database