Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 120 / Friday, June 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations proposed rule rely on performance measures based on data from the Department of Housing and Urban Developments Homeless Management Information System HMIS and not solely from the VA Homeless Operations Management and Evaluation System HOMES program.
We do not believe it is necessary for there to be additional mechanisms for recipients to challenge the accuracy of VAs data in HOMES. Grantees provide outcome data to VA Liaisons detailing the effects of moving veterans to permanent housing or discharging them for rule violations. We continue this practice under VA HOMES. VA uses HOMES to record information on every veteran entering and exiting GPDs nationally funded projects. From this system, VA is able to provide monthly performance data based on the technical specifications of each metric. The GPD
program educates grantees on reading and using the data in practical ways and has used this information to understand performance and promote improvement.
VA maintains rigorous methodologies which are reviewed and updated as needed. When grantees have questions about such data or its role in their performance, answers continue to be provided through the normal communication channels available among grantees, VA medical centers and the GPD national office.
As VA is standardizing performance outcomes for all of its transitional housing, we are able to produce these reports for each funded project and distinguish between GPD transitional housing models. Additionally, we have the opportunity to take into consideration the various operational definitions that make up each metric.
The reports produced from HOMES
provide results on national, regional i.e., Veteran Integrated Service Network, medical center, and GPD
funded projects. While we commend the commenters participation in the HMIS
locally, the aforementioned capability is unavailable to VA at this time due to concerns about undue financial burden for grantees and the protection of confidential and clinical information about Veterans. HMIS participation involves grantees paying for several costs e.g. access, training, staffing, usage. The cost is locally determined and is not necessarily able to be supported by grant funds. That said, the GPD program has encouraged, but does not require, participation among grantees in HMIS, and continues to collaborate with HMIS about options for the future.
Moreover, we have eliminated the reporting requirements for several types
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Jun 24, 2021

Jkt 253001

of grant project goals and objectives that were previously necessary. VA
eliminated these reporting requirements in our efforts to grant flexibility for recipients in developing project goals based on the recipients experience with specific populations, services, and the recipients geographic location. The changes in 38 CFR 61.80c utilize metrics that lead to empirical comparisons, such as outcome measures for homeless program success, which are consistent with VAs national goal of ending homelessness. Historically, the selected data points within in the metrics have been used to report homeless program data within VA and to Congress. The use of common metrics is an effective method to determine success across different GPD program methodologies. Both VA and the recipients are linked as VA must also meet the very same metrics. We believe this will lead to better outcomes and strengthen community partnerships in the battle against homelessness. The amendments in this rulemaking are consistent with current VA policy and practice.
VA amends references to a Corrective Action Plan CAP to refer instead to a Performance Improvement Plan PIP.
One commenter remarked on the use of CAPs now PIPs listed in proposed 38
CFR 61.80. We proposed in 38 CFR
61.80c3v through vii that if after reviewing a recipients assessment, VA
determines that it falls more than five percent below any performance goal, then VA may revise the award by withholding placements or payment, suspending payment, and terminating the grant agreement. While the five percent rather than fifteen percent would be a new standard, the four listed potential remedies remain unchanged from then-current paragraph c6. The commenter stated that the proposed changes suggest that at any time VA
could enact any options, regardless of the PIP. That is not VAs intent, and we amend the proposed language to clarify the issue. We are amending proposed 38
CFR 61.80c3v to explain that VA
could avail itself to more than one, or a combination of, enforcement actions in 38 CFR 61.80c3vAD. VA
seeks to reserve its discretion to apply any combination or permutation of enforcement actions it deems fit. We amend 38 CFR 61.80c3v to read as follows: If, after reviewing a recipients assessment, VA determines that it falls more than five percent below any performance goal, then VA may require the recipient to create and follow a performance improvement plan PIP as outlined in 38 CFR 61.80cvi. We are
PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33521

moving the second part of proposed 38
CFR 61.80c3v and numbering it as new 38 CFR 61.80c3vii. We believe that this move will provide a more sequential process for the PIP.
Therefore, new paragraph c3vii will state that if the recipient is not compliant with the PIP, VA may impose any combination of the following enforcement actions by award revision:
A Withhold placements; B Withhold payment; C Suspend payment; and D
Terminate the grant agreement, as outlined in this part or other applicable federal statutes and regulations.
Other commenters expressed concern with the threshold VA selected to trigger a PIP in proposed 38 CFR 61.80c3v.
One commenter stated that the proposed change in threshold for action to a deviation of more than five percent from a performance goal will have a greater negative impact on smaller programs than larger programs, with service issues related to only one or two veterans resulting in imposition of a PIP. As an example, the commenter stated that if a recipient serves ten veterans, this means that it cannot possess serious deficiencies or service issues for more than one veteran i.e., five percent of the recipients veteran population or it will trigger a PIP.
Similarly, other commenters stated that the changes may have unintended effects on recipients that would disproportionately affect small and rural programs. In particular, the commenters express concerns in situations where failure to meet their goals with small populations would give rise to the appearance that the program is substandard or failing.
We agree with the commenters that slight deviations in meeting goals successfully could give the appearance of program mismanagement or failure.
Also, we agree that smaller programs with fewer veterans could appear unsuccessful if only one or two veterans do not exit successfully from the program. However, VA believes that the changes to 38 CFR 61.80c3v and vi provide an adequate solution to tighten the performance metrics as well as provide relief from the disproportionate impact the changes would have on small and rural programs.
With respect to when VA may initiate a PIP, we believe the more than five percent deviation is the threshold where recipients should adjust their efforts to improve their outcomes in order to comply with the established GPD
performance goals. This does not mean that VA will initiate imminent enforcement actions once a deviation greater than five percent is reached. VA
will only take enforcement actions in
E:FRFM25JNR1.SGM

25JNR1