Notice2026-19528
HUD Evaluation Policy
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 24, 2026
Effective
September 24, 2026
Issuing agencies
Housing and Urban Development Department
Abstract
This policy articulates the core principles of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's evaluation and research activities. This notice updates the Department's Evaluation Policy and reaffirms HUD's commitment to conducting rigorous, relevant evaluations, adhering to the tenets of Executive Order 14303, "Restoring Gold Standard Science," and using evidence from evaluations to inform policy and practice.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 184 (Thursday, September 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 184 (Thursday, September 24, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60638-60639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19528]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. 6620-N-01]
HUD Evaluation Policy
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and
Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This policy articulates the core principles of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development's evaluation and research activities.
This notice updates the Department's Evaluation Policy and reaffirms
HUD's commitment to conducting rigorous, relevant evaluations, adhering
to the tenets of Executive Order 14303, ``Restoring Gold Standard
Science,'' and using evidence from evaluations to inform policy and
practice.
DATES: Effective date of this notice: September 24, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this notice,
contact Jennifer Turnham, Evaluation Officer, Office of Policy
Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410, email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8e8fceae8cddad4d1dbfbd7d5d5ddd6cccbf8d0cddc96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bdbcfd9dbfee9e7e2e8c8e4e6e6eee5fff8cbe3feefa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>, or telephone (202) 402-6021. The listed
telephone number is not a toll-free number. HUD welcomes and is
prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing, as well as individuals with speech and communication
disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone
call, please visit <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs">https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Evaluation activity occurs in several offices at HUD, but the
special mission of HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research
(PD&R) is to improve life in American communities by building evidence
to inform and strengthen housing and community development policy and
practice and accelerate progress on HUD's priorities. PD&R builds
evidence by conducting, supporting, and sharing research, surveys,
demonstrations, program evaluations, and best practices. Within HUD,
PD&R is responsible for most, but not all, program evaluations. The
office also conducts regulatory impact analyses that accompany
regulations proposed by the Department.
In 2016, PD&R published its first Evaluation Policy describing the
core standards guiding its evaluation and research activities.\1\ In
2021, PD&R revised the Evaluation Policy to align with the Foundations
for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (``Evidence Act''),\2\
expand the scope of the policy to include all of HUD, and reflect
PD&R's experience since publishing its initial policy.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PD&R's 2016 Evaluation Policy can be found here: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/06/2016-29215/hud-program-evaluation-policy-policy-statement">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/06/2016-29215/hud-program-evaluation-policy-policy-statement</a>.
\2\ Public Law 115-435, January 14, 2019.
\3\ HUD's 2021 Evaluation Policy can be found here: <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/13/2021-17339/hud-program-evaluation-policy-policy-statement">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/08/13/2021-17339/hud-program-evaluation-policy-policy-statement</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This 2026 revision reaffirms HUD's commitment to the program
evaluation standards required by OMB Circular A-11 Section 290.5,
consistent with the Evidence Act \4\--rigor; relevance and utility;
transparency; independence and objectivity; and ethics--and affirms
HUD's commitment to the tenets of Gold Standard Science (GSS) in
producing and communicating evidence, consistent with Executive Order
14303, ``Restoring Gold Standard Science'' (May 23, 2025). Executive
Order 14303 seeks to ensure that federally-funded research is
transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are
informed by reliable scientific evidence. The Executive Order requires
federal agencies to conduct scientific activities in a manner that is:
reproducible; transparent; communicative of error and uncertainty;
collaborative and interdisciplinary; skeptical of findings and
assumptions; structured for falsifiability of hypotheses; subject to
unbiased peer review; accepting of negative results as positive
outcomes; and without conflicts of interest. HUD reports annually on
its efforts to implement Executive Order 14303.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The standards are set forth in Section 290.5 of the Office
of Management and Budget's Circular No. A-11, August 2025. See
<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/a11.pdf">https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/a11.pdf</a>.
\5\ See <a href="http://www.hud.gov/gss">www.hud.gov/gss</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. HUD Evaluation Policy
The Evaluation Policy covers evaluation, as defined by the Evidence
Act,\6\ as well as other research and evidence building projects and
regulatory impact analyses. The policy applies to HUD's contractors,
grantees, and staff involved in these activities and affirms HUD's
commitment to federal evaluation standards (rigor, relevance and
utility, transparency, independence and objectivity, and ethics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 101 of the Evidence Act defines evaluation as ``an
assessment using systematic data collection and analysis of one or
more programs, policies, and organizations intended to assess their
effectiveness and efficiency.'' See <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174/text">https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4174/text</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigor
HUD is committed to using the most rigorous methods appropriate to
the research questions and feasible within budget and other
constraints. Rigor is necessary in all types of evaluations (impact
evaluations, implementation or process evaluations, outcome
evaluations, formative evaluations, and other types of scientific
research) and applies to both qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Rigor requires identifying well-founded inferences about cause and
effect; understanding and correcting for bias in research questions and
methods; using measures that capture the intended information; and
clarity about the generalizability of findings. Where feasible and
appropriate, rigorous research uses experimental or quasi-experimental
methods to enable the falsification of hypotheses and assignment of
causation, aligning with the GSS tenet of structuring (science) for the
falsifiability of hypotheses.
HUD ensures that contractors and grantees conducting evaluations
have appropriate expertise to apply rigor by evaluating applicants'
experience and the skillsets of the proposed team members. HUD employs
staff from a range of disciplines to ensure they have the technical and
subject matter expertise to develop, oversee, and conduct high-quality
evaluations that advance the agency's mission. HUD staff critically
review all steps in the research and evaluation process, question
findings, and assess underlying assumptions, consistent with the GSS
tenet of skepticism of findings and assumptions. Evaluations must also
clearly communicate uncertainty, margins of error, and limitations in
findings, consistent with the GSS tenet of communicating error and
uncertainty.
Relevance and Utility
HUD's evaluation and research activities reflect legislative
requirements and HUD policy priorities. Relevance and utility are key
considerations at all stages of the research process. Early input from
stakeholders on research topics and questions helps ensure that
[[Page 60639]]
final products are relevant and useful to their audiences. Expert
panels, including researchers and other subject matter experts, can
also provide strategic guidance at key junctures over the course of the
study. By incorporating a range of expertise and perspectives into the
research and evaluation process, HUD ensures that resulting policy
recommendations are actionable and reflect the GSS tenet of promoting
collaborative and interdisciplinary research.
Once research is complete, ensuring its relevance and utility
requires sharing findings with the public and key stakeholders in an
accessible manner. HUD seeks to disseminate research and evaluation
findings in ways that are useful to policymakers, practitioners, and
communities affected by HUD programs and policies. This includes
providing policy briefs, infographics, webinars, and/or stakeholder
briefings to complement traditional research and evaluation reports.
Transparency
HUD strives for transparency in all phases of the research process.
Each year, HUD communicates its research agenda through the annual
Agency Evidence Plan.\7\ When it undertakes a methodologically complex
project, HUD will publish the research design to provide transparency
to the research community and ensure that the researchers are
accountable to the original design, explaining any deviations if
necessary. Requirements for researchers regarding the use of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) in producing or informing evaluation findings and
regarding the disclosure of AI use in published reports are
communicated through grant agreements, contract documents, or
publication guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Evidence Plan and related documents can be found at
<a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/about/pdr_agenda.html">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/about/pdr_agenda.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent possible, HUD shares all interim and final reports
within six months of completion and typically permits contractors to
publish their findings within six months of the contract ending (if HUD
has not already published them). Reports must present comprehensive
results (including favorable, unfavorable, and null findings) and
clearly communicate caveats and areas of uncertainty, reinforcing the
GSS tenet of accepting negative results as positive outcomes.
To aid in the replication and verification of findings, HUD
publishes final datasets, analytic code, and model documentation to the
extent feasible. HUD also archives administrative and evaluation data
for secondary use by interested researchers where possible, including
working with the U.S. Census Bureau to store datasets from major
research studies. External researchers may access these data through
data licenses, data use agreements, inter-agency agreements, and/or
formal research agreements with relevant entities. These practices
support the GSS tenets of reproducibility and transparency.
Independence and Objectivity
Independence and objectivity are core principles of evaluation. HUD
seeks input into its research agenda from a broad range of stakeholders
and conducts most of its research and evaluation through competitively
awarded grants and contracts with external experts. Reflecting the GSS
tenet of unbiased peer review, HUD ensures all sponsored research and
evaluation projects are conducted without undue influence, including
the appearance or reality of bias. All applicants must document that
they are free from conflicts of interest related to the research
subject. During the application review process, HUD reviewers also
disclose any conflicts of interest with applicants and recuse
themselves if a conflict exists, consistent with the GSS tenet of
science without conflicts of interest. Once a study is underway, HUD
staff and expert panel members review study designs and findings for
objectivity.
Ethics
HUD-sponsored evaluations must be conducted in an ethical manner
and safeguard the dignity, rights, safety, and privacy of participants.
Evaluations must comply with relevant regulations, such as those
governing human subjects research. HUD is a signatory to the Federal
Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, generally known as the
``Common Rule.'' 24 CFR part 60 includes its own requirements for
protecting the privacy of human research subjects.\8\ In addition, PD&R
protects the privacy of individuals through the Rule of Eleven,\9\
which prohibits disaggregated disclosure of data for any group of
individuals or households numbering less than eleven. The Rule of
Eleven applies to all research conducted by PD&R staff, contractors,
grantees, or data license recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?n=pt24.1.60">https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?n=pt24.1.60</a>.
\9\ <a href="https://www.huduser.gov/portal/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/PDR-Privacy-Rule-of-Eleven.pdf">https://www.huduser.gov/portal/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/PDR-Privacy-Rule-of-Eleven.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUD does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication, or deliberate
mischaracterization of data by staff, contractors, grantees, or data
licensees engaged in any evaluation activity. In all cases, HUD expects
evaluations and studies to reflect the expertise and original thought
of the researchers.
Application of these Principles to Economic Analysis of Regulations
Economic analysis of both existing and proposed regulations,
properly conducted, is a critical tool in improving public policy.
Economists at HUD rely on the insights, data, and empirical estimates
from rigorous program evaluations when predicting the economic impact
of an incremental change to the program. In any HUD regulatory impact
analysis:
<bullet> HUD analyzes whether the issues addressed by the
regulation stem from a market failure, government failure, or other
systemic problem, and whether the regulation addresses the root causes
of those problems.
<bullet> HUD uses and as necessary produces the best objective
estimates of the benefits, costs, and transfers resulting from the
regulation, taking into account gaps and uncertainties in the available
data and methodologies.
<bullet> HUD assesses the economic benefits, costs, and transfers
of proposed regulatory actions as required by Executive Order
12866.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See <a href="https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf">https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf</a> for the original order, and see is
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/william-j-clinton/1993">https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/william-j-clinton/1993</a> for citations of, and links to, other
executive orders that amended or supplemented this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Where clear alternatives to the regulatory actions exist,
HUD objectively estimates, where feasible, the benefits, costs, and
transfers of those alternatives as well.
Reid Wilson,
Deputy Chief of Staff, performing the Delegable Duties of the Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
[FR Doc. 2026-19528 Filed 9-23-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 24, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.