Brief: Homelessness services

Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22.

Measures funders require

Illinois Department of Human Services, Homeless Youth (NOFO 26-444-80-0711-02)

Percent of approved/funded service slots available.

Code: HY-1
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 100 Percent of approved /funded service slots were available at any given time throughout the year.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of youth with a completed Safety Assessment.

Code: HY-2
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 80 Percent of youth will have a completed Safety Assessment.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of youth with an Emergency Care Plan implemented.

Code: HY-3
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 95 Percent of youth with a completed safety assessment that required immediate attention will have an Emergency Care Plan implemented.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of youth with a completed Ansell Casey Assessment.

Code: HY-4
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 70 Percent of youth will have a completed Casey Assessment. (Excludes Outreach Brief Contacts.)
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of youth with a Case Management Plan developed.

Code: HY-5
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 90 Percent of youth with a completed Casey Assessment will have a Case Management Plan developed.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of youth with a Case Management Plan Implemented.

Code: HY-6
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 90 Percent of youth will have a Case Management Plan Implemented. (Considers only youth with a case plan developed. Considers those with the case plan 50% or more completed upon exit)
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of Case Management Plans that include strategies to encourage employment and/or education (High School, GED, Vocational etc.)

Code: HY-7
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 90 Percent of Case Management Plans will include strategies to encourage employment and/or education (High School, GED, Vocational etc.)
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of Case Management Plans that include the strategies to increase life skills.

Code: HY-8
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 90 Percent of Case Management Plans will include the strategies to increase life skills.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of Emergency Shelter Youth who exited the program to stable housing

Code: HY-9
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 70 Percent of Emergency Shelter Youth will exit the program to stable housing.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of Transitional Living Youth who exited the program to stable housing

Code: HY-10
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 80 Percent of Transitional Living Youth will exit the program to stable housing.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of Transitional Living Youth who exited the program employed and/or enrolled in educational program

Code: HY-11
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 80 Percent of Transitional Living Youth will exit the program employed and/or enrolled in educational program.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of pregnant youth that received prenatal care

Code: HY-12
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 95 Percent of pregnant youth will receive prenatal care.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of parenting Transitional Living Youth that receive parenting skills education

Code: HY-13
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 95 Percent of parenting Transitional Living Youth will receive parenting skills education.
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

Percent of eligible youth acquiring one or more new mainstream benefits (SSI, Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, WIC)

Code: HY-14
Requirement: required
Definition: Program Performance Standard: 65 Percent of eligible youth will acquire one or more new mainstream benefits (SSI, Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, WIC).
Instrument: IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report
Reporting frequency: quarterly, plus year-end
Target rule: Funder sets the target
Source: State agency funding notices, HTML section 'Performance Measures and Standards', https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=172784

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Continuum of Care System Performance Measures

Measure 1a: Length of Time Persons Experience Homelessness

Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: The measures are the number of clients active in the report date range along with their average and median length of time experiencing homelessness across the relevant universe of projects. This includes time experiencing homelessness during the report date range as well as prior to the report start date. Measure 1a This measure uses each client’s start, exit, and bed night dates strictly as entered in HMIS, going back no further than the [lookback stop date] or the client’s [date of birth], whichever is later. Measure 1b This measure includes data from each client’s [living situation] (Data Standards element 3.917) response as well as time spent in permanent housing projects between [project start date] and [housing move-in date]. Measure 1b can include time experiencing homelessness prior to the [lookback stop date] under some circumstances but should never count a client’s time experiencing homelessness before their [date of birth]. Each of the two measures is divided into two rows as shown in the table above, each row being a different universe of clients as described in the detailed instructions below.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 9 (contents); introduction p. 10, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Measure 1b: Length of Time Persons Experience Homelessness

Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: The measures are the number of clients active in the report date range along with their average and median length of time experiencing homelessness across the relevant universe of projects. This includes time experiencing homelessness during the report date range as well as prior to the report start date. Measure 1a This measure uses each client’s start, exit, and bed night dates strictly as entered in HMIS, going back no further than the [lookback stop date] or the client’s [date of birth], whichever is later. Measure 1b This measure includes data from each client’s [living situation] (Data Standards element 3.917) response as well as time spent in permanent housing projects between [project start date] and [housing move-in date]. Measure 1b can include time experiencing homelessness prior to the [lookback stop date] under some circumstances but should never count a client’s time experiencing homelessness before their [date of birth]. Each of the two measures is divided into two rows as shown in the table above, each row being a different universe of clients as described in the detailed instructions below.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 9 (contents); introduction p. 10, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Measure 2a and 2b: The Extent to which Persons Who Exit Homelessness to Permanent Housing Destinations Return to Homelessness within 6, 12, and 24 months

Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure begins with clients who exited to a permanent housing destination in the date range two years prior to the report date range. Of those clients, the measure reports on how many of them returned to homelessness as indicated in HMIS for up to two years after their initial exit.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 22 (contents); introduction p. 22, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 3.1 – Change in PIT counts of sheltered and unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness

Code: No. 3.1
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided in two tables: 1. Metric 3.1 - Counts of clients using PIT count data. This data should be manually entered from the appropriate PIT count data previously submitted. Due to ever-changing data, it is often difficult or impossible to run the same query months later and return the same results. Thus, this metric is not intended to be programmed into the HMIS as part of the System Performance Measures report.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 27 (contents); introduction p. 27, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 3.2 – Change in annual counts of persons experiencing sheltered homelessness in HMIS

Code: No. 3.2
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided in two tables: 1. Metric 3.1 - Counts of clients using PIT count data. This data should be manually entered from the appropriate PIT count data previously submitted. Due to ever-changing data, it is often difficult or impossible to run the same query months later and return the same results. Thus, this metric is not intended to be programmed into the HMIS as part of the System Performance Measures report.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 27 (contents); introduction p. 27, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 4.1 – Change in earned income for adult system stayers during the reporting period

Code: No. 4.1
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided into six tables as shown above. The project types reported in these metrics are the same for all metrics, but the type of income and universe of clients differs. Equally important, the projects reported on are limited to CoC-funded projects, and only adult clients are included. For system stayers (metrics 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) 1. A “system stayer” is an adult client active in any one or more of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. 2. The client must have at least 365 days in latest stay to be included in this measure. 3. Use data from each system stayer’s latest assessment up to or on the [report end date] and compare this data to the client’s most recent assessment prior to that one. This may be either an annual assessment or project start data, whichever is later. For system leavers (metrics 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6) 1. A “system leaver” is any adult client who has exited from one or more of the relevant projects between [report start date] and [report end date] and who is not active in any of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. Use data from each system leaver’s income assessment at project exit and compare this data to the client’s income assessment at project start.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 29 (contents); introduction p. 31, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 4.2 – Change in non-employment cash income for adult system stayers during the reporting period

Code: No. 4.2
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided into six tables as shown above. The project types reported in these metrics are the same for all metrics, but the type of income and universe of clients differs. Equally important, the projects reported on are limited to CoC-funded projects, and only adult clients are included. For system stayers (metrics 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) 1. A “system stayer” is an adult client active in any one or more of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. 2. The client must have at least 365 days in latest stay to be included in this measure. 3. Use data from each system stayer’s latest assessment up to or on the [report end date] and compare this data to the client’s most recent assessment prior to that one. This may be either an annual assessment or project start data, whichever is later. For system leavers (metrics 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6) 1. A “system leaver” is any adult client who has exited from one or more of the relevant projects between [report start date] and [report end date] and who is not active in any of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. Use data from each system leaver’s income assessment at project exit and compare this data to the client’s income assessment at project start.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 29 (contents); introduction p. 31, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 4.3 – Change in total income for adult system stayers during the reporting period

Code: No. 4.3
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided into six tables as shown above. The project types reported in these metrics are the same for all metrics, but the type of income and universe of clients differs. Equally important, the projects reported on are limited to CoC-funded projects, and only adult clients are included. For system stayers (metrics 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) 1. A “system stayer” is an adult client active in any one or more of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. 2. The client must have at least 365 days in latest stay to be included in this measure. 3. Use data from each system stayer’s latest assessment up to or on the [report end date] and compare this data to the client’s most recent assessment prior to that one. This may be either an annual assessment or project start data, whichever is later. For system leavers (metrics 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6) 1. A “system leaver” is any adult client who has exited from one or more of the relevant projects between [report start date] and [report end date] and who is not active in any of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. Use data from each system leaver’s income assessment at project exit and compare this data to the client’s income assessment at project start.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 30 (contents); introduction p. 31, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 4.4 – Change in earned income for adult system leavers

Code: No. 4.4
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided into six tables as shown above. The project types reported in these metrics are the same for all metrics, but the type of income and universe of clients differs. Equally important, the projects reported on are limited to CoC-funded projects, and only adult clients are included. For system stayers (metrics 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) 1. A “system stayer” is an adult client active in any one or more of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. 2. The client must have at least 365 days in latest stay to be included in this measure. 3. Use data from each system stayer’s latest assessment up to or on the [report end date] and compare this data to the client’s most recent assessment prior to that one. This may be either an annual assessment or project start data, whichever is later. For system leavers (metrics 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6) 1. A “system leaver” is any adult client who has exited from one or more of the relevant projects between [report start date] and [report end date] and who is not active in any of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. Use data from each system leaver’s income assessment at project exit and compare this data to the client’s income assessment at project start.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 30 (contents); introduction p. 31, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 4.5 – Change in non-employment cash income for adult system leavers

Code: No. 4.5
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided into six tables as shown above. The project types reported in these metrics are the same for all metrics, but the type of income and universe of clients differs. Equally important, the projects reported on are limited to CoC-funded projects, and only adult clients are included. For system stayers (metrics 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) 1. A “system stayer” is an adult client active in any one or more of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. 2. The client must have at least 365 days in latest stay to be included in this measure. 3. Use data from each system stayer’s latest assessment up to or on the [report end date] and compare this data to the client’s most recent assessment prior to that one. This may be either an annual assessment or project start data, whichever is later. For system leavers (metrics 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6) 1. A “system leaver” is any adult client who has exited from one or more of the relevant projects between [report start date] and [report end date] and who is not active in any of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. Use data from each system leaver’s income assessment at project exit and compare this data to the client’s income assessment at project start.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 30 (contents); introduction p. 31, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 4.6 – Change in total income for adult system leavers

Code: No. 4.6
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided into six tables as shown above. The project types reported in these metrics are the same for all metrics, but the type of income and universe of clients differs. Equally important, the projects reported on are limited to CoC-funded projects, and only adult clients are included. For system stayers (metrics 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) 1. A “system stayer” is an adult client active in any one or more of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. 2. The client must have at least 365 days in latest stay to be included in this measure. 3. Use data from each system stayer’s latest assessment up to or on the [report end date] and compare this data to the client’s most recent assessment prior to that one. This may be either an annual assessment or project start data, whichever is later. For system leavers (metrics 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6) 1. A “system leaver” is any adult client who has exited from one or more of the relevant projects between [report start date] and [report end date] and who is not active in any of the relevant projects as of the [report end date]. Use data from each system leaver’s income assessment at project exit and compare this data to the client’s income assessment at project start.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 31 (contents); introduction p. 31, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 5.1 – Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, and TH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS

Code: No. 5.1
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided in two tables: 1. Metric 5.1 – Clients entering in Emergency Shelter – Entry Exit, Emergency Shelter – Night-by-Night, Safe Haven, and Transitional Housing. 2. Metric 5.2 – Clients entering in Emergency Shelter – Entry Exit, Emergency Shelter – Night-by-Night, Safe Haven, Transitional Housing, and Permanent Housing. For both measures, start with the client’s earliest start date in any of the relevant project types during the report date range. Working backwards in time, determine if the client was active in any shelter (ES-EE, ES-NbN, SH, or TH) or housing project within 24 months prior to their earliest start date. If so, then the client is not newly homeless (cell C3). If not, then the client is newly homeless (cell C4).
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 37 (contents); introduction p. 38, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 5.2 – Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, TH, and PH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS

Code: No. 5.2
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided in two tables: 1. Metric 5.1 – Clients entering in Emergency Shelter – Entry Exit, Emergency Shelter – Night-by-Night, Safe Haven, and Transitional Housing. 2. Metric 5.2 – Clients entering in Emergency Shelter – Entry Exit, Emergency Shelter – Night-by-Night, Safe Haven, Transitional Housing, and Permanent Housing. For both measures, start with the client’s earliest start date in any of the relevant project types during the report date range. Working backwards in time, determine if the client was active in any shelter (ES-EE, ES-NbN, SH, or TH) or housing project within 24 months prior to their earliest start date. If so, then the client is not newly homeless (cell C3). If not, then the client is newly homeless (cell C4).
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 37 (contents); introduction p. 38, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metrics 6a.1 and 6b.1 – Returns to ES, SH, TH, and PH projects after exits to permanent housing destinations within 6 and 12 months (and 24 months in a separate calculation)

Code: 6a.1 and 6b.1
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: Metrics 6a.1 and 6b.1 mirror Measure 2 but with a universe of Category 3 persons. Metric 6c.1 mirrors Measure 7b.1 but with a universe of Category 3 SH, TH, PH – RRH, and PH (without a housing move-in date as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary) system leavers in the current reporting year. Metric 6c.2 mirrors Measure 7b.2 but with a universe of Category 3 PH-PSH system stayers and leavers in the current reporting year, with a housing move-in date as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 40 (contents); introduction p. 41, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 6c.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations

Code: 6c.1
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: Metrics 6a.1 and 6b.1 mirror Measure 2 but with a universe of Category 3 persons. Metric 6c.1 mirrors Measure 7b.1 but with a universe of Category 3 SH, TH, PH – RRH, and PH (without a housing move-in date as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary) system leavers in the current reporting year. Metric 6c.2 mirrors Measure 7b.2 but with a universe of Category 3 PH-PSH system stayers and leavers in the current reporting year, with a housing move-in date as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 41 (contents); introduction p. 41, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 6c.2 – Change in exit to or retention of permanent housing

Code: 6c.2
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: Metrics 6a.1 and 6b.1 mirror Measure 2 but with a universe of Category 3 persons. Metric 6c.1 mirrors Measure 7b.1 but with a universe of Category 3 SH, TH, PH – RRH, and PH (without a housing move-in date as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary) system leavers in the current reporting year. Metric 6c.2 mirrors Measure 7b.2 but with a universe of Category 3 PH-PSH system stayers and leavers in the current reporting year, with a housing move-in date as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 41 (contents); introduction p. 41, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 7a.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations

Code: 7a.1
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided in three tables: 1. Metric 7a.1 – Counts leavers who exited Street Outreach (SO) during the report date range and how many of those exited to an acceptable destination. 2. Metric 7b.1 – Counts leavers who exited ES-EE, ES-NbN, SH, TH, PH – RRH, and PH (for any non-RRH PH type, must be without moving into housing) during the report range and how many of those exited to permanent housing destinations. 3. Metric 7b.2 – Counts stayers and leavers with a housing move-in date (as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary) in all PH projects except PH-RRH and how many of those were stayers or leavers who exited to permanent housing destinations.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 43 (contents); introduction p. 44, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 7b.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations

Code: 7b.1
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided in three tables: 1. Metric 7a.1 – Counts leavers who exited Street Outreach (SO) during the report date range and how many of those exited to an acceptable destination. 2. Metric 7b.1 – Counts leavers who exited ES-EE, ES-NbN, SH, TH, PH – RRH, and PH (for any non-RRH PH type, must be without moving into housing) during the report range and how many of those exited to permanent housing destinations. 3. Metric 7b.2 – Counts stayers and leavers with a housing move-in date (as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary) in all PH projects except PH-RRH and how many of those were stayers or leavers who exited to permanent housing destinations.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 43 (contents); introduction p. 44, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

Metric 7b.2 – Change in exit to or retention of permanent housing

Code: 7b.2
Requirement: program-level target, not a recipient obligation
Definition: This measure is divided in three tables: 1. Metric 7a.1 – Counts leavers who exited Street Outreach (SO) during the report date range and how many of those exited to an acceptable destination. 2. Metric 7b.1 – Counts leavers who exited ES-EE, ES-NbN, SH, TH, PH – RRH, and PH (for any non-RRH PH type, must be without moving into housing) during the report range and how many of those exited to permanent housing destinations. 3. Metric 7b.2 – Counts stayers and leavers with a housing move-in date (as defined by the Handling Housing Move-In Dates section of the HMIS Standard Reporting Terminology Glossary) in all PH projects except PH-RRH and how many of those were stayers or leavers who exited to permanent housing destinations.
Instrument: System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026)
Target rule: No target rule stated
Source: HUD performance measures, 44 (contents); introduction p. 44, https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/System-Performance-Measures-HMIS-Programming-Specifications.pdf

What you can collect, and how

Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier.

Tier 1: Collect today from your own records

Percent of approved/funded service slots available.

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Percent of youth with a completed Safety Assessment.

Collect today from your own records. A share computed from the organization’s own records.

Percent of youth with an Emergency Care Plan implemented.

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Percent of youth with a completed Ansell Casey Assessment.

Collect today from your own records. A share computed from the organization’s own records.

Percent of youth with a Case Management Plan developed.

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Percent of youth with a Case Management Plan Implemented.

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Percent of Case Management Plans that include strategies to encourage employment and/or education (High School, GED, Vocational etc.)

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Percent of Case Management Plans that include the strategies to increase life skills.

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Percent of pregnant youth that received prenatal care

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Percent of parenting Transitional Living Youth that receive parenting skills education

Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity.

Tier 3: Needs a partner under an agreement

Measure 1a: Length of Time Persons Experience Homelessness

Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Measure 1b: Length of Time Persons Experience Homelessness

Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Measure 2a and 2b: The Extent to which Persons Who Exit Homelessness to Permanent Housing Destinations Return to Homelessness within 6, 12, and 24 months

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.
Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 3.1 – Change in PIT counts of sheltered and unsheltered persons experiencing homelessness

Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 3.2 – Change in annual counts of persons experiencing sheltered homelessness in HMIS

Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 5.1 – Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, and TH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS

Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 5.2 – Change in the number of persons entering ES, SH, TH, and PH projects with no prior enrollments in HMIS

Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metrics 6a.1 and 6b.1 – Returns to ES, SH, TH, and PH projects after exits to permanent housing destinations within 6 and 12 months (and 24 months in a separate calculation)

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.
Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 6c.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.
Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 6c.2 – Change in exit to or retention of permanent housing

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.
Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 7a.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.
Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 7b.1 – Change in exits to permanent housing destinations

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.
Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Metric 7b.2 – Change in exit to or retention of permanent housing

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.
Partner route: IL: housing exits, destinations and returns recorded in HMIS, held by Chicago CoC HMIS; All Chicago is the HMIS lead. Lag: Event lag and fulfillment SLA NR; requests are prioritized. Request: https://allchicago.org/hmis/data-request
Partner route: UT: housing move-in, exits, destinations and longitudinal service records, held by Utah HMIS and participating contributing organizations. Lag: Event lag NR; depends on provider entry and reporting. Request: https://utahhmis.org/forms/
Caveat: HMIS exit data has an observation boundary.

Tier not determined

Percent of Emergency Shelter Youth who exited the program to stable housing

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.

Percent of Transitional Living Youth who exited the program to stable housing

No cleared, validated, free outcome instrument exists for housing stability. The funder's own item (SAMHSA SUPRT-C client form, item A2d), an HMIS exit destination, or a partner record is the substitute.

Percent of Transitional Living Youth who exited the program employed and/or enrolled in educational program

Percent of eligible youth acquiring one or more new mainstream benefits (SSI, Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, WIC)

Metric 4.1 – Change in earned income for adult system stayers during the reporting period

Metric 4.2 – Change in non-employment cash income for adult system stayers during the reporting period

Metric 4.3 – Change in total income for adult system stayers during the reporting period

Metric 4.4 – Change in earned income for adult system leavers

Metric 4.5 – Change in non-employment cash income for adult system leavers

Metric 4.6 – Change in total income for adult system leavers

What grantees achieved

1 grantee of Economic Self-Sufficiency - Homeless Support reported 3 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 105% of target (middle half 93% to 165%), and 67% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

HOPE South Florida (FY2024-25): Percentage of participants placed in approved shelter/housing options; promised 25%, actual 56% (224% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf

1 grantee of Economic Self-Sufficiency – Homeless reported 3 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 66% to 115%), and 67% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

HOPE South Florida Homeless Support (FY2021-22): Participants placed in approved shelter/housing options.; promised 25%, actual 8% (32% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf

1 grantee of Emergency Shelter & Community Based Housing reported 1 result against targets over 1 period; the median result was 144% of target (middle half 144% to 144%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

Community Action Stops Abuse, Inc. (FY2024): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 870, actual 1257 (144% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/VII.D.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf

Economic Self-Sufficiency – Homeless Prevention Program: the source lists 3 rows for this program but none carries both a target and a result, so no attainment is computed. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

Economic Self-Sufficiency – Homeless – Center For Working Families: the source lists 3 rows for this program but none carries both a target and a result, so no attainment is computed. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Prince Homeless Program in Manteno reported 132 results against targets over 9 periods; the median result was 86% of target (middle half 59% to 100%), and 27% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

Department of Veterans' Affairs (FY2024): Total number of veterans impacted with supplemental support services (advocacy and after-care follow-up); promised 15.0, actual 9.0 (60% of target); unit: count. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=497&FiscalYear=2024&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=10&UniqueProgramID=49710

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Prince Homeless Program at Manteno reported 42 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 69% of target (middle half 40% to 82%), and 19% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

Department of Veterans' Affairs (FY2015): Total expenditures - all sources (in thousands); promised $ 1,011.9, actual $ 165.2 (16% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=497&FiscalYear=2015&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=10&UniqueProgramID=49710

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Homeless Assistance Grants (Competitive) reported 21 results against targets over 6 periods; the median result was 101% of target (middle half 100% to 103%), and 90% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

Homeless Assistance Grants (Competitive) (2007): The percentage of homeless persons who have moved from HUD transitional housing into permanent housing will be 65 percent in 2009, and will increase each year.; promised 61.5%, actual 66.6% (108% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10001234.2005.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness reported 20 results against targets over 8 periods; the median result was 94% of target (middle half 88% to 101%), and 35% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (2006): Increase number of homeless persons contacted; promised 157,000, actual 148,655 (95% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10000300.2002.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Runaway and Homeless Youth reported 18 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 104% of target (middle half 101% to 105%), and 78% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

Runaway and Homeless Youth (2004): Increase funding efficiency by increasing the percent/number of youth who complete the transitional living program (TLP) by graduating or who leave ahead of schedule based on a positive opportunity.; promised 43.6%, actual 45.6% (105% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10001064.2006.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Education for Homeless Children and Youths reported 12 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 105% of target (middle half 102% to 130%), and 75% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

Education for Homeless Children and Youths (2006): The number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits.; promised 44, actual 43 (98% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003325.2006.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program reported 9 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 105% of target (middle half 100% to 109%), and 78% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (2005): Cost per Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP) Placement; promised $2,150, actual $2,150 (100% of target); unit: $. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003912.2006.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness reported 9 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 124% of target (middle half 112% to 148%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (2007): Number of key Federal agencies that have endorsed a federal plan to end chronic homelessness and have implemented internal working groups to forward their agency's participation.; promised 9, actual 9 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10006246.2006.html

Target-setting language with precedent

Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.

No target-setting clause from Illinois Department of Human Services and HUD in the library yet; the items below are the nearest precedent.

CDC DP-23-0002 applicant FAQ (2023): Quote: “you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan” — https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/healthyschools/nofo/nofo.htm
EDGAR, 34 CFR 75.110(c) (2024): Paraphrase: An applicant that lacks a baseline explains how and when it will establish one. — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-08-29/html/2024-17239.htm
Senior Community Service Employment Program, 20 CFR 641.720(b),(d) (current text): Paraphrase: Targets for program years 3 and 4 are negotiated before the third program year and adjusted by DOL's model. — https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-641/subpart-G/section-641.720
SAMHSA CMHS Infrastructure, Prevention and Promotion Overview Guide, v2.0, p. 9 (2022): Quote: “grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year” — https://spars.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/OE%20SPARS%20CMHS%20IPP%20Overview%20Guide.pdf
Promise Neighborhoods guidance document, third edition (2025): Quote: “target setting will be an iterative process throughout implementation as more performance data is available” — https://promiseneighborhoods.ed.gov/pdf/Promise_Neighborhoods_Guidance_Document_508c.pdf
HRSA-26-057 ECCS SEED applicant FAQs, p. 6 (2026): Paraphrase: Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award. — https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/45e009d7-46ed-482f-8aa7-02812f207f71/attachments/54ad1b19-2651-43c7-8ade-76203c7770d7/HRSA-26-057_ECCS_SEED_Applicant_FAQs.pdf
DOL Training and Employment Guidance Letter 10-21 (2022): Quote: “if a grantee wishes to negotiate their performance targets” — https://www.dol.gov/node/165731
NIH PAR-25-383, Section VI (2025): Paraphrase: Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data. — https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-383.html
Arizona Rural Health Transformation, approved program narrative, pp. 20-22 (2026): Paraphrase: A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it. — https://www.azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/RHTP/Arizona%27sApprovedProgramNarrative.pdf
HRSA Health Center Program (H80) patient targets, Primary Health Care Digest (2022): Quote: “confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email” — https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USHHSHRSA/bulletins/3120df3

What reviewers penalize

These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment.

Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29
Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6
Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5
Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4
Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4
Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14
Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4
Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10
Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19
Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24

Protocol skeleton

Draft text, edit before use

Measures: Percent of approved/funded service slots available.; Percent of youth with a completed Safety Assessment.; Percent of youth with an Emergency Care Plan implemented.; Percent of youth with a completed Ansell Casey Assessment.; Percent of youth with a Case Management Plan developed.; Percent of youth with a Case Management Plan Implemented.; Percent of Case Management Plans that include strategies to encourage employment and/or education (High School, GED, Vocational etc.); Percent of Case Management Plans that include the strategies to increase life skills.; Percent of Emergency Shelter Youth who exited the program to stable housing; Percent of Transitional Living Youth who exited the program to stable housing; Percent of Transitional Living Youth who exited the program employed and/or enrolled in educational program; Percent of pregnant youth that received prenatal care; and 21 more listed above. Baseline: ____ months from award, using IDHS quarterly program performance report and year-end performance measures and outcomes report; System Performance Measures HMIS Programming Specifications V1.0 (HMIS Data Standards FY2026). Targets: set from the observed baseline at month ____, or committed now as a change of ____ percentage points from baseline (see the SCSEP precedent above).

Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): ____

Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): ____

Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: ____

Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): ____

Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: ____

Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): ____

Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): ____

Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): ____

Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): ____

Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): ____

The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.