Brief: Disaster recovery housing

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

Measures funders require

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.

What grantees achieved

1,403 grantees of CDBG-DR 2008 Hurricane Ike and Other Events reported 15,402 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 16% to 100%), and 64% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• Town of Waterproof (as of 2026-10-20): # of public facilities [Total]; promised 3, actual 9 (300% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC) (as of 2026-10-20): # of Households [Total]; promised 100, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• City of Rushville (as of 2026-10-20): # Owner Households [Low income]; promised 1, actual 1 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Cedar Rapids (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Mod income]; promised 23777, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Des Moines County (as of 2026-10-20): Activity funds eligible for DREF (Ike Only) [Total]; promised 35397, actual 35397 (100% of target); unit: $. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

633 grantees of CDBG-DR 2011-2013 Hurricane Sandy and Other Events reported 11,361 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 0% of target (middle half 0% to 100%), and 41% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• Town of Hardenburgh (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Mod income]; promised 65, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• New Brunswick City (as of 2026-10-20): # of Properties [Total]; promised 2, actual 2 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Garrett County (as of 2026-10-20): # of Households [Total]; promised 167, actual 91 (54% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Palo Park Community, LLLP (as of 2026-10-20): # of Multifamily Units [Total]; promised 18, actual 18 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Town of Oyster Bay (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Total]; promised 58885, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

378 grantees of CDBG-DR 2005 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma reported 5,285 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 0% to 106%), and 60% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• Cypress Manor I, LP (as of 2026-10-20): # of Households [Low income]; promised 11, actual 22 (200% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Village Place Apartments (as of 2026-10-20): # Renter Households [Low income]; promised 24, actual 20 (83% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Southern States Housing Group, LLC. (as of 2026-10-20): # of Households [Mod income]; promised 5, actual 5 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Newhaven Court, LLC (as of 2026-10-20): # of Properties [Total]; promised 1, actual 1 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• On Iberville Phase I, LLC (as of 2026-10-20): # Renter Households [Mod income]; promised 22, actual 44 (200% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

262 grantees of CDBG-DR 2017 Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria reported 4,099 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 0% of target (middle half 0% to 0%), and 7% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• Edgewater (as of 2026-10-20): # of public facilities [Total]; promised 1, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Port Lavaca (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Low income]; promised 300, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Jasper County (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Mod income]; promised 156, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Wharton, County of (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Mod income]; promised 64, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Victoria County (as of 2026-10-20): # Owner Households [Mod income]; promised 3, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

343 grantees of CDBG-DR 2015-2018 Mitigation reported 2,817 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 0% of target (middle half 0% to 0%), and 4% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• SPENCER, CITY OF (as of 2026-10-20): % reduction of sanitary sewer overflows [Total]; promised 100, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: %. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Edgewater (as of 2026-10-20): # of public facilities [Total]; promised 1, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Kirbyville (as of 2026-10-20): # of Targeted Section 3 Labor Hours [Total]; promised 1, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Vidor (as of 2026-10-20): # of Section 3 Labor Hours [Total]; promised 1, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• REGION 4 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (as of 2026-10-20): # of community engagement meetings/events [Total]; promised 2, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

142 grantees of CDBG-DR 2011 Multiple Disasters reported 2,426 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 0% of target (middle half 0% to 100%), and 33% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• Town of Catskill (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Mod income]; promised 6547, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Lackawanna County (as of 2026-10-20): # of Linear feet of Public Improvement [Total]; promised 80, actual 60 (75% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Village of Owego (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Low income]; promised 860, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Town of Hackleburg (as of 2026-10-20): # of Permanent Jobs Created [Low income]; promised 13, actual 13 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Tuscaloosa Housing Authority (as of 2026-10-20): # of Households [Mod income]; promised 50, actual 50 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

88 grantees of CDBG-DR 2018 Disasters reported 1,305 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 0% of target (middle half 0% to 0%), and 4% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• Greenville, City of (as of 2026-10-20): # of Housing Units [Total]; promised 180, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• State of California (as of 2026-10-20): # Renter Households [Mod income]; promised 112, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• City of Chico (as of 2026-10-20): # ELI Households (0-30% AMI) [Total]; promised 37, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (as of 2026-10-20): # Renter Households [Low income]; promised 29, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Department of Economic Opportunity (as of 2026-10-20): # of Households [Mod income]; promised 2046, actual 62 (3% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

90 grantees of CDBG-DR 2016 Louisiana Floods and Other Events reported 1,276 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 0% of target (middle half 0% to 53%), and 17% met or exceeded the target. Source: HUD CDBG-DR performance by activity (DRGR), https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx.

• Cross Plains, City of (as of 2026-10-20): # Renter Households [Total]; promised 4, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Jasper County (as of 2026-10-20): # of Persons [Mod income]; promised 227, actual 227 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• Harris, County (as of 2026-10-20): # of Linear feet of Public Improvement [Total]; promised 13093, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• West Virginia Development Office (as of 2026-10-20): # Owner Households [Total]; promised 15, actual 15 (100% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx
• North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (as of 2026-10-20): # Renter Households [Low income]; promised 22, actual 0 (0% of target); unit: count. Source: https://drgr.hud.gov/public/downloads/DR-CDBG/CDBG-DR%20Performance%20by%20Activity.xlsx

8 of 21 matched precedent programs shown, largest first.

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 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
• USDA FAS Food for Progress FY2025, applicant Q&A, questions 72-73 (2025): Paraphrase: Yearly targets may be written as percentage-point change when the baseline value is not known. — https://apply07.grants.gov/grantsws/rest/opportunity/att/download/348844
• 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
• AmeriCorps performance measures, 45 CFR 2522.640(a)(1) (current text): Quote: “Adjust your performance measure or target based on experience” — https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cfr/45/2522?link-type=pdf&sectionnum=630&year=mostrecent
• 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: # of Businesses; # of Cases closed; # of Cases opened; # of Distributed Materials; # of Households; # of Housing Units; # of Linear feet of Public Improvement; # of Linear miles of Public Improvement; # of Multifamily Units; # of Non-business Organizations benefitting; # of Permanent Jobs Created; # of Persons; and 38 more listed above. Baseline: ____ months from award, using DRGR (Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System), CDBG-DR Performance by Activity. Targets: set from the observed baseline at month ____, or committed now as a change of ____ percentage points from baseline (see the USDA FAS and SCSEP precedents 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.