ADMINISTRATION for CHILDREN and FAMILIES

FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan, Revised Final FY 2002 Performance Plan, and FY 2001 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), within the Department of Health and Human Services, administers programs which promote the economic and social well-being of children, youth, and families focusing particular attention on vulnerable populations including low-income children, refugees, Native Americans, and the developmentally disabled.

February 2002

Office of Planning Research and Evaluation
Administration for Children and Families

Contact Person: Mary Ann MacKenzie (202) 401-5272

Web address: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre

�

Preface

Executive Summary

Part I: Agency Context For Performance Measurement

1.1 Agency mission and long term goals

1.2 Organization, Programs, Operations, Strategies and Resources

1.3 Partnerships and coordination

1.4 Summary FY 2001 performance report: accountability through performance measurement

Performance Commitment

Summary of Performance Success

Summary of performance challenges

Part II: Program Planning And Assessment

Strategic Goal 1: Increase Economic Independence And Productivity For Families

1.��Increase employment

1.1 TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES

1.2 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (GENERAL)

1.3 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EMPLOYMENT)

1.4 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

1.5 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

2.��Increase independent living

2.1 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HOUSING)

2.2 ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE (Individual Development Accounts)

3.��Increase parental responsibility

3.1 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

4.��Increase affordable child care

4.1 CHILD CARE: AFFORDABILITY

Strategic Goal 2:Improve Healthy Development, Safety And Well-Being Of Children And Youth

5.�� promote Early childhood development

5.1 CHILD CARE: QUALITY

5.2 HEAD START

6.�� Improve The Health Status Of Children

6.1 HEAD START: HEALTH STATUS

7.�� Increase Safety, Permanency, And Well-Being Of Children And Youth

7.1 CHILD WELFARE

7.2 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EDUCATION)

7.3 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HEALTH)

7.4 YOUTH PROGRAMS

Strategic Goal 3: Increase The Health And Prosperity Of Communities And Tribes

8.�� Build healthy, safe and supportive communities and Tribes

8.1 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

8.2 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM

8.3 LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE (LIHEAP)

8.4 NATIVE AMERICANS PROGRAMS

Strategic Goal 4: Build A Results-Oriented Organization

9.��Develop and retain a highly skilled, strongly motivated staff

10.�� Improve automated data and management systems

11.�� Streamline ACF organizational layers

12.�� Ensure financial management accountability

APPENDICES To The PERFORMANCE PLAN

A.1Approach to performance measurement

Methodology and rationale

Data verification and validation and other data issues

A.2Changes and improvements over previous year

A.3 Linkage to DHHS and OPDIV strategic plans

A.4Performance Measurement Linkages

Information technology planning

Cost accounting

Workforce analysis plan

Program evaluation

Linkage with budget

A.5FY 2000 Performance Data not Reported (Previously Unavailable)

FY 1999 Performance Data not Reported (Previously Unavailable)

A.6Status of FY 2001 Data and Detailed Changes between the Final FY 2002 Plan and the Revised Final FY 2002 Plan

A.7AVAILABILITY OF STATE And GRANTEE ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

A.8Budget Linkage Table

Cross walk of ACF goals and objectives with the budget:

Preface

The Administration for Children and Families is committed to managing for results. Five years ago, we published our first performance plan for fiscal year FY 1999. and In FY 2001last year, we published our first combined performance plan and report. This combined plan and report gives us the ability to display the achievements of past years with future strategic planning and resource decisions. By combining this information in one document, we have created a tool that is useful to ACF management, our partners and stakeholders to begin integrating budget and performance management systems.

The performance information that follows is consistent with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requirements and supports ACF’s four goals and related strategic objectives. Our ability to report on actual performance for FY 2001 is dependent on the availability and reliability of administrative performance data submitted by our partners. Over time, we will be better able to analyze annual trends, adjust targets and distribute resources, which in turn will improve our ability to integrate budget with performance information. we will be able to analyze annual trends and adjust targets and distribution of resources accordingly. Currently our targets for FY 2003 are projections of incremental improvement or maintenance of effort.ACF is encouraging programs to set more aggressive targets that will in turn drive improved performance at the State and community levels.

This combined corporate plan and report is the result of lengthy conversations, negotiations and collaborative efforts among our fourteen program areas and our partners. The accomplishment of these results is dependent upon the joint efforts of ACF, its partners and coordination with other Federal agencies. The diversity of programs, target populations, levels of government, and range of partners make efforts to establish and achieve goals and outcome measures extremely challenging.

In FY 2001, ACF placed special emphasis on developing priority work plans that were aligned with the annual performance plan results. This effort required both central and regional office staff to identify cross-cuttingcross-cutting strategies and activities in collaboration with their partners. These work plans providedinclude more detailed strategies and activities covering ten cross-cutting program areas: welfare reform, child support, child care, infants and toddlers, Head Start, child welfare, youth, Tribal programs, domestic violence and ACF reinvention efforts.

�

Executive Summary

�

Purpose

The FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan provides a comprehensive set of measures and outcomes for the major programs in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The combined FY 2003 Performance Plan and FY 2001 Performance Report identify the performance measures that we will use to track our progress toward achieving strategic goals. The plan includes linkages of the goals and objectives to the budget (see Budget Linkage Table in Appendix A.86) and to the Department-wide strategic plan (see Appendix A.3).

Role of ACF

With its partners, ACF supports strategies that create opportunities for individuals, families, and communities to be economically and socially productive. Our services and interventions are directed toward improving job skills, access to social services, family and community stability and independent living for low-income families, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and distressed communities. ACF’s role in accomplishing its objectives is to provide leadership, funding and technical assistance to its partners, conduct research, promote best practices, and work to eliminate barriers to access of services.

Sustained commitment to continuous improvement has focused our attention on measurable results. Substantial progress has been made in the past several years in helping welfare recipients move to work, increasing child support payments, and providing child care and early learning services to low and moderate income families.

Status of Children and Families

Our commitment to improving the lives of children and families is the foundation for the series of strategies, goals, objectives, measures and targets included in this plan. Statistics provide evidence for a continued focus on providing assistance to children and families. For example, census data (1999) indicate that 16.9 percent of all children still live in poverty. Only 40 percent of children living in poverty are enrolled in preschool.Preschool enrollment for these children is still at only 40 percent. In 20001999, an average per month ofonly 1.87 million of children in low-income families are receiveding child-care subsidies through the Federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) on an average monthly basis representing 12 percent of the children eligible for these subsidies. More thanOver 8900,000 children were victims of substantiated or indicated child abuse and neglect in 1999. Of children who exit foster care, only one in five have been in care more than three years; 32 percent of the children in care as of March 2000 had been in care for three or more years.substantiated or indicated child abuse or neglect in 1998. Only twenty-one percent of children who exit foster care achieve permanency after three or more years; 33 percent of the children currently in care (as of September 1999) have been in care for three or more years. While the welfare caseload has fallen by 6.68.3 million recipients (from 124.1 million in August 1996January 1993 to 5.48 million in JuneJune 20010, a drop of 5559 percent) and the number of employed recipients has increased, there remains the need to make continued investments in raising wages and other incentives to make rewards of work economically meaningful. Although many families work hard, they struggle financially to support their children.

Vision, Mission and Goals

VISION STATEMENT

We are committed to the vision of strong, healthy, supportive communities where families and individuals are empowered to increase their economic and social well-being and productivity and to programs that contribute to the protection and healthy development of children.

MISSION STATEMENT

The Administration for Children and Families provides national leadership and creates opportunities for low-income, disadvantaged families and individuals to lead economically and socially productive lives, for children to develop into healthy adults, and for communities to become more prosperous and supportive of their members.

ACF STRATEGIC GOALS

• Increase economic independence and productivity for families
• Improve healthy development, safety and well-being of children and youth
• Increase the health and prosperity of communities and Tribes
• Build a results-oriented organization

Organizational Structure and Program Responsibilities

ACF employs 1500 people in Washington, DC and the ten regional offices (five regions also act as hub sites for activities that affect several regions). ACF was established in 1991, bringing together several pre-existing programs; it is organized into eight program offices and five staff offices.

ACF is responsible for over 60 programs that promote the economic and social well being of families, children, individuals and communities. For exampleWith its partners, ACF with its partners administers the State-Federal welfare reform program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) providing assistance to an average of 5.488 million persons monthly as of June 20010. ACF administers the national child support enforcement system collectingg almost $18.9 billion in FY 20010 in payments from non-custodial parents referred for collection follow-up. It also administers the Head Start program serving over 905,000857,664 pre-school children. ACF provides funds to assist low-income families in paying for child carechild care and supports State programs to provide foster care and adoption assistance.

Selection Criteria for How Goals, Outcomes and Measures were Selected

ACF focuses on outcomes because they not only convey a sense of value to the American people, but they provide us with a focus for working with a broad range of partners, including local communities, non-profit organizations and States, to accomplish agreed upon goals. Representative performance measures address activities in each program area. These measures, and the discussion of strategies under each, are generally illustrative of the major activities within ACF.

The targets are based on information, e.g. funding levels,reflect a combination of current funding, past funding, program initiatives, staffing capacity and efforts of and the actions of our partners. We encourage our programs to work with their partners to establishWhile there is a certain aspect of "stretch" in some targets, we are committed to identifying targets that are realistic and challenging and that move results in the right direction.

This is our fifthourth year of performance planning. In a number of cases, we have improved our ability to define measures and, in some cases, we have developed entirely new measures. New strategies and initiatives have been provided for the replacement measures. We will continue to improve and revise measures with the purpose of improving management and accountability. The budgeted resources support the broad range of ACF goals. A detailed budget linkage table in the appendix displays aggregation and consolidation of program activities that have been or consolidated to support our goals and objectives.

Reader’s Guide

ACF has followed a standardized format provided by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Part I provides general information describing the role of ACF in program implementation, coordination and planning and explains how our measuresgoals, targets and levels of performance support the mission and long-term goals. This section includes the context for performance measurement including the mission and long term goals,a description of the organization, programs and strategies supporting the four strategic goals, description of partnerships and a brief summary of the FY 2001 performance report including performance success and challenges.

Part II includes the FY 2003 performance plan and the FY 2001 performance report covering fourteen programs areas as well as management initiatives with the accompanying measures and targets under the appropriate ACF goals and objectives. Each program section includes a narrative description providing (1) the context, legislative intent and broad program goals; (2) program activities, strategies and resources; (3) program coordination, partnerships and cross-cutting issues; and (4) program wide performance and data issues. The programis sections also includes a summary table of measures, targets and performance information forwith FY 1999 --– 2003. targets and performance information for the baseline year. The total program fundingprogram-funding column in the summary table reflects the requesteddollars in the President’s FY 2003 Budget and appropriated funds (aggregated by program area) for FY 1999 – 20022., 2001, 2000 and 1999. (See Detailed Budget Linkage Table in Appendix A.86 for line items included in each program total.) The summary tableis section is followed by a more detailed presentation of performance measures for FY 2003 and the revised final final measures for FY 2002.

The Appendices include sections on ACF’s approach to performance measurement; changes and improvements over the previous year; linkage to the DHHS’ strategic plan; itemization of new data reported for FY 1999, 2000 and 2001; status of FY 2001 data and detailed changes between the FY 2002 plan and the revised final FY 2002 plan; and a chart on the timetable for reporting State and grantee administrative data. The appendices also include sections on a variety of critical performance measurement linkages, e.g., information technology, cost accounting, workforce planning and restructuring, program evaluation and budget.

Highlights of Accomplishments

1. We helped to improve the economic independence of low-income families.

Welfare caseloads have fallen to historic new lows; they are at their lowest level since 1965. As of September 2000, a,t based on the monthly average, welfare recipients represented 2.1 percent of the population as of June 2000, based on the monthly average.

In 1996, a comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, dramatically changed the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for in exchange for time-limited assistance.ed assistance. States, Tribes, and Territories receive block grants from ACF under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program to cover benefits, administrative expenses, and services.

States, Tribes and Territories have wide flexibility under TANF to determine their own eligibility criteria, benefit levels, and the type of services and benefits available to TANF recipients. However, States must maintain a historical level of State spending on behalf of eligible families (the maintenance of effort requirement) and must meet minimum work participation rate requirements. In FY 2000, all fifty States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico met the overall work participation rates for all families.The States, Tribes and Territories have great flexibility to design and implement programs to move clients from welfare to work, including eligibility requirements, benefit levels, and services provided, as long as they are consistent with the purposes of the program.

Additionally one of the purposes is to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Of the 328 States, the District of. Columbia. and Guam that havewith two-parent family programs subject to a work participation rate, 258 States and the District of Columbia met the FY 20001999 target rate for work participation of two-parent families. The legislation established the two-parent participation rate at 75% percent for FY 1998 and 90 percent for FY 1999 and subsequent years. States have the option to move their two-parent cases into a separate State program and thus avoid the two-parent work participation requirements. While some States have exercised this option, the statutory two-parent participation target of 90 percent remains a rigorous standard.

* subject to the two parent families work requirement

There has been a dramatic increase in employment of current and former welfare recipients. The percentage of working recipients remained at an all-time high for the second year in a row. In FY 2000, 33 percent of adult recipients were working, compared to less than 7 percent in FY 1992, and 11 percent in FY 1996. Thus, about one in three recipients was working in a typical month, the highest level ever recorded and nearly a five-fold increase since FY 1992. In FY 2000 the vast majority of recipients who were working were in paid employment (80 percent of those working); others were engaged in work experience and community service.

IIn December 2000, DHHS awarded $200 million in bonuses to 28 states with the best records for FY 1999 (the most recent year for which data is are available) in moving parents on welfare into jobs and assuring their success in the workforce. According to reports filed by the 48 States and the District of Columbia competing for the bonus, more than 1.2 million parents on welfare went to work in the period between October. 1, 1998, and September. 30, 1999. Overall, 43 percent of welfare recipients entered the work force in 1999 in comparison to 39 percent in 1998. Retention rates in FY 1999 were also high: of those who obtained jobs, 77 percent were still working in the next quarter. The States also reported an average increase in earnings of 22 percent from $2,114 in the first quarter of employment to $2,578 in the third quarter for FY 1999. In FY 1998, States reported an average increase of 24 percent.

�

The challenges for TANF will continue in four areas: reaching all families, moving families into work and promoting success at work, transforming the welfare office, and maintaining the investment. ACF continues to implement a wide range of projects to help the States produce the desired outcomes, e.g.,such as training, technical assistance, and sharing of best practices, and sponsoring research.

2. We increased parental involvement and financial support of non-custodial parents in the lives of their children.

The most recent census data show that, in the spring of 1998, 14 million families with children had a parent living elsewhere. These custodial parent families, of which 85 percent were headed by women and 15 percent by men, comprised one fourth of all families with their own, never married children under 21. Of the 14 million custodial parent families, only 7.9 million (56 percent) of the custodial parents had awards or agreements for child support.

To ensure that parents support their children, ACF partners extensively with a range of Federal, State, and local entities and provides funding and technical assistance for identifying parents and assets of non-custodial parents who have not supported their children.

As of January 31, 2001, 52 States and Territories are reportingsubmitted data requests to the Federal Case Registry, which locates absent parents across State lines. The FCR contains 17.45.5 million child support cases. When absent parents are found, ACF promotes State use of the IRS tax refund and administrative offsets for child support. As part of the total $187.9 billion collected for child support in FY 2001 (representing a 100 percent increase since 1992)0, a record $1.64 billion in delinquent child support was collected in taxcalendar year 20010 using the tax refund and administrative offset, representing a 100 percent increase since 1992. More than 2.11.42 million families benefited from these tax collections.

�

As of January 31, 2001, 52 States and 146 agencies are reporting data to the National Directory of New Hires, another tool for identifying absent parents. During FY 200010 more than 879690 million records were posted there that matched child support orders to employment records with a value in excess of $3.1 billion. In addition, to match delinquent parents with financial records, ACF is operating the new multi-State financial institution data match system and is working with States to implement the in-State financial institution data match system.

3. We continued to promote access to quality child carechild care services to help low-income working parents and their children.

In order to break the cycle of poverty and dependency, it is essential to focus on both the parents and the next generation. Parents are more likely to seek employment and maintain jobs if they have access to and confidence in their child care arrangements. According to new State-reported statistics for FY 20001999, 1.87 million children in low-income families are receiving child-care subsidies through the Federal Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) on an average monthly basis. This is an increase of 360,000 overfrom the 1.51 million children served in 1998. A continuing challenge is to reach the estimated remaining 88 percent of the 15 million children who are eligible for child carechild care subsidies under Federal rules.

The quality of child carechild care affects the health and safety, as well as the cognitive, emotional, and social development of children. The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study of early child care, When Child Care Classrooms Meet Recommended Guidelines for Quality (1998), shows that children attending centers meeting professional standards for quality score higher on school-readiness and language tests and have fewer behavioral problems than their peers in centers not meeting such standards.

ACF provides Federal funds through CCDF to States, Territories and Tribes and works with State administrators, professional groups, service providers, and others to promote quality child care. States are required to spend at least four percent of Federal CCDF funds to improve the quality of child carechild care and offer additional services to parents. In addition, funds are earmarked for resource and referral services and school-age care, infant and toddler care, and additional quality improvement activities. States are continuing to expand the innovative ways to improve quality. As an example, several States have already implemented, or are implementing, programs of tiered licensing based on the quality of care.

Based on the combined data of independent national organizations who have information about provider accreditation and certification, there were 9,535 accredited child carechild care facilities nationwide in FY 2000 (reported as of November 2000). The FY 2000 number of accredited facilities will be used as the baseline for tracking future improvements.

On August 30, 2000, DHHS issued final regulations to implement High Performance Bonuses (HPB) under the TANF Program. These regulations included a child carechild care HPB to reward States that effectively support working families with child carechild care assistance.

4. We improved the healthy development and learning readiness of preschool children.

Head Start is a national program that provides comprehensive developmental education, health, mental health, nutrition, and social services for America’s low-income, preschool children ages three to five and their families. The primary goal of Head Start is to promote the social competence and school readiness of low-income children. There are 1,525 community-based organizations which administer Head Start programs.develop unique and innovative programs. In 20010, there were 18,5000 centers and 48,5005,000 classrooms, serving over 905,000857,664 children.

Head Start children have been found to be ready for school, with the cognitive and social skills that indicate readiness to learn more in kindergarten. For example, in an age-appropriate assessment of word knowledge, the percentage of children scoring close to or above the national mean increased from only one in four when they started the program in the fall to more than one in three in the spring -- nearly a 40% percent increase.

As in child carechild care, Head Start children experience better outcomes when they have good classroom quality. Observed classroom quality is good on average with no classrooms scoring below a minimum standard of quality. An element of that quality is the qualification of the teacher. For Head Start, that means classroom teachers who have a degree in early childhood education (ECE), a child development associate credential, a State-awarded preschool certificate, a degree in a field related to ECE plus a State-awarded certificate or who are in CDA training and have been given a 180-day waiver, consistent with the provisions of Section 648A(a)(1) of the Head Start Act.

The target for FY 2000 established in the legislation for qualified teaching staff was 100%; the actual was 94%. This shortfall is due to a combination of staff turnover and/or limited access to training and credentialing opportunities in certain areas of the country. In partnership with institutions of higher education, Head Start is working to ensure that a majority of teachers obtain associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in early childhood education over the next few years.

5. We increased the safety and security of children and youth.

ACF funds a number of programs that focus on preventing maltreatment of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes. Programs such as Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living provide stable environments for those children who cannot remain safely in their homes, assuring the child's safety and well-being while their parents attempt to resolve the problems that led to the out-of-home placement. When the family cannot be reunified, foster care provides a stable environment until the child can be placed permanently with an adoptive family. Adoption Assistance funds are available for a one-time payment for the costs of adopting a child as well as for monthly subsidies to adoptive families for care of the child.

The Adoption Incentives program was enacted into law by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997and Safe Families Act of 1997 enacted the Adoption Incentives program into law. The passage of this incentive program along with State, local and private initiatives focusing attention on the needs of children in foster care awaiting permanent adoptive families, isare resulting in unprecedented increases in the number of children adopted from foster care.

�

Under the law, States may receive incentive funds for each adoption finalized in a fiscal year that exceeds the established baseline number of adoptions. ACF has undertaken a number of activities designed to improve overall performance in child welfare. On January 25, 2000, HHSDHHS published a final rule in the Federal Register to establish new approaches to monitoring State child welfare programs. The new rule plays an important role in improving services to, and outcomes for, abused and neglected children, children in foster care, and children awaiting adoptive families. It promotes increased safety for children who are maltreated,; quicker movement to permanent homes and families for children in foster care; and enhanced well-being for families served by State agencies.

Performance Measures

ACF continues to make improvements in the performance measurement of its programs. For FY 20010, all ACF programs except the Assets for Independence Program Social Services Block Grant program have performance measures. (This programe Assets for Independence Program was first added in the FY 2001 plan.) As ACF continues to gain experience in performance measurement, measures are being refined, added, dropped and replaced. As of this submission, we are able to report on all FY 1999 data. on forty-five of the forty-seven measures. As of February 2002March 2001, we are able to report on forty-fivesixteen of the fifty-twoone FY 2000 targets and fifteen of the sixty-five FY 2001 targets. Most of the measures in our plan rely on State data systems; final data are available nine to twelve months after the end of the fiscal year. Missing FY 2000-2001 data will be reported in subsequent performance reportsreports, as they become available.

Many FY 1999-2000 measures have been replaced and targets adjusted in FY 20021 and FY 20032. In the individual program summary sections, there is a fuller explanation of the difference between targets and actual achievements. As mmore trend data are collected, ACF will be better able to evaluate program strategies and adjust future performance targets.

The FY 20032 performance plan has sixty-fiveeight measures and fourteen developmental measures. Additionally, this plan includesThe Individual Development Accounts program is the only program still lacking performance measures. Additionally, ACF has a number of new initiatives that will require further development and discussions with potential partners before measures or targets can be developedidentified.

Part I: Agency Context For Performance Measurement

1.1 Agency mission and long term goals

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and its partners--other Federal agencies, State, Territorial Territorial, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector--provide national leadership and create opportunities for low-income, disadvantaged families and individuals to lead economically and socially productive lives, for children to develop into healthy adults, and for communities to become more prosperous and supportive of their members. ACF oversees and finances a broad range of programs for children and families, including Native Americans, persons with developmental disabilities, refugees, and legalized aliens, to help them develop and grow toward a more independent, self-reliant life. These programs carried out by State, Territorial, county, city, and Tribal governments, and public and private local agencies,agencies are designed to promote stability, economic security, responsibility and self-sufficiency.

Some ACF programs assist families in financial crisis, emphasizing short-term financial assistance along with assistance in obtaining and maintaining employment. Programs for children and youth focus on those with special problems, including children of low-income families, abused and neglected children, those in institutions or requiring adoption or foster family services, runaway youth, children with disabilities, migrant children, and Native American children. ACF promotes the development of comprehensive, integrated community and home-based service delivery where possible. ACF advises the Secretary on issues pertaining to children and families, including Native Americans, people with developmental disabilities, refugees and legalized aliens.

ACF coordinates development and implementation of family-centered strategies, policies, and linkages among its programs with other programs serving children and families. Our efforts with partners enable families to avoid dependency or move from welfare to work through employment, education, training and quality child care services, coupled with short-term financial aid. ACF enforces child support and provides community development resources and other supports for low income-working families.

Investments in sound growth and development for children, particularly those in low-income families, are basic to productive adulthood and citizenship. Early Head Start, Head Start, and quality child care programs for low-income children are essential to good health, early development and school readiness; before and after-school child care provide high quality programming and support for working families; and youth development programs provide positive growth opportunities for young people.

Communities provide the context within which families may function well or poorly. ACF, along with numerous public and private partners, is committed to economic development, linking community development strategies with comprehensive "people development" strategies to strengthen communities as a positive factor in the lives of residents.

�

1.2 Organization, Programs, Operations, Strategies and Resources

The Administration for Children and Families is responsible for twenty-two legislative programs (which authorize more than sixty different programs) distributed among thirty-five budget activities. These program and budget activities are consolidated into 14 major program areas to meet the requirements of GPRA, the Government Performance and Results Act... The Assets for Independence Demonstration program was first included in the FY 2001 plan. (The consolidation and aggregation scheme and the linkage to the Budget are described in Section A.46 of the Appendix.)

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant promotes work, responsibility and self-sufficiency and strengthens families through funding of State and Tribal-designed and administered programs that provide support to needy children and move their parents into work (administered by Office of Family Assistance and Tribal TANF administered by the Office of Community Services).
• Developmental Disabilities enhances the ability of persons with developmental disabilities to live, work and play in their communities through supporting State and other programs that develop, coordinate and stimulate permanent improvement in service systems, with priority to those whose needs are not otherwise met under other health, education and human services programs (administered by Administration on Developmental Disabilities).
• Refugee Resettlement assists refugees and entrants who are admitted into the United States to become employed and self-sufficient as quickly as possible, providing grants to States and other grantees for employment-related services, social adjustment, transitional cash and medical assistance, and other services (administered by Office of Refugee Resettlement).
• Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) supports a variety of social services tailored to supplement State investments in the self-sufficiency and well being of low-income populations. SSBG funds also help improve and integrate services, create community-based partnerships, and stimulate innovations (administered by Office of Community Services).
• Assets for Independence Demonstration Program establishes demonstration projects to determine the effects of providing an incentive to accumulate assets in individual development accounts to low-income individuals and families to increase their economic self-sufficiency (administered by Office of Community Services).
• Child Support locates parents, establishes paternity and support obligations and modifies and enforces those obligations to assure financial support is available to children. This work is done through State agencies that administer the program (administered by Office of Child Support Enforcement).
• Child Care provides grants to States to assist low-income working families who need child care that is safe, affordable and of high quality (administered by Child Care Bureau).
• Head Start provides comprehensive child development services to children and families, primarily for preschoolers from low-income families through grants to local public and private nonprofit agencies (administered by Head Start Bureau).
• Child Welfare funds State programs that assist at-risk children and their families in achieving safety, permanence, and well-being through preventive interventions to strengthen the family unit; foster care and adoption assistance to move children more rapidly from foster care to safe, permanent homes; and reunification services to return the child to the home if in the child's best interest (administered by Children’s Bureau).
• Youth Programs support local agencies, that provide shelter, improve life prospects, and reduce high-risk behavior and sexual abuse of runaway, homeless and street youth, providing alternative activities, safe passages, and the tools needed to move successfully to adulthood. A major focus is on disseminating best practices and building partnerships in all areas of positive youth development (administered by Family and Youth Services Bureau).
• Community Services Block Grant provides an array of social services and programs through flexible block grant funding at the State and local level to assist low-income individuals and alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty (administered by Office of Community Services).
• Family Violence Prevention Program supports state and local programs and projects to prevent family violence and provides immediate shelter and assistance for the victims of family violence and their dependents through grants to States and State domestic violence coalitions for Battered Women's Shelters; and funds the Domestic Violence Hotline and national resource centers (administered by Office of Community Services).
• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance assists low income households meet the costs of heating and cooling their homes, through block grants and emergency contingency funds to States, Indian Tribes, and insular areas which target assistance to low-income households with high energy burdens and vulnerable members (administered by Office of Community Services).
• Native Americans Programs promote economic and social self-sufficiency of American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native Pacific Islanders by supporting programs and encouraging local strategies in economic and social development (administered by Administration for Native Americans).

The operations of these programs are carried out through central office headquarters staff and through ten regional offices, organized into five major hubs. Providing nearly $45 billion in grants to governmental jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations and technical assistance and oversight delivered by approximately 1500 FTEs, ACF enables its partners to achieve results in the goals and strategies listed below. (Specific operational activities are discussed under each program’s performance planning section, which includes references to budget and other resource management documents.)

ACF’s GPRA performance plan addresses four major agency goals with twelveen strategic objectives. There has been a concerted effort to focus on program outcomes that have meaning at the State and local level. In many instances, programs have deliberately set performance targets high, encouraging both ACF employees and partners to strive for higher achievements. ACF has purposely moved away from developing a measurement system that includes products, services and processes (inputs and outputs) and has embraced a measurement system that emphasizes results. This shift has been central to creating a dynamic collaboration with our partners, fostering joint accountability and allowing for crosscuttingcross-cutting coordination among programs to improve the lives of families and children.

Adopting a results orientation has allowed ACF to complete a cultural transformation in the way we think about program outcomes. Although ACF does not focus on process measures in the annual performance plan, there is a process in place which requires program managers are encouraged toto describe and report on operational strategies, activities, initiatives and management improvement efforts that will be undertaken to accomplish program results. Following is a description of sample strategies and major management improvement efforts that ACF has undertaken to improve overall performance of programs including activities that support the efforts of our partners--States, Tribes, and Territories, and local community organizations -- to achieve these goals and objectives. (Many of these strategies are repeated under the individual program sections.) Because the ability to achieve any and all results identified in this plan depends on the commitment and combined efforts of both ACF and our partners, these activities reflect a true and bold partnership.

Strategic Goal 1: Increase economic independence and productivity for families.

Examples of operational strategies and processes that are critical to reaching this goal include:

10. Moving families into work and promoting success at work after families enter the work force (job retention and earnings progress) by ensuring that needed supports (e.g., training, child care, child support, transportation, health care coverage, and supports for special needs including substance abuse and mental health, disabilities, domestic violence, rural and inner city communities) are available;
11. Rewarding success through the High Performance Bonus (HPB), following up with States awarded HPB to identify promising strategies to improve performance;
12. Providing technical assistance through contracts and grants including a Peer Technical Assistance Network that provides support to States and localities to share expertise and proven experiences;
13. Sponsoring rigorous evaluations to determine what strategies are most effective in moving families to work, sustaining them in work and assisting them to advance; and
14. Collaborating and providing outreach to key Federal partners for improving program integration, e.g., Department of Labor, Department of Education, Internaland Internal Revenue Service.

Working in partnership with States, ACF provides resources and tools to increase parental responsibility through the Child Support Enforcement program. Examples include:

• Providing Federal match for State administrative expenditures and enhanced match for Statewide automated systems;
• Incentive funding provided to States based on a combination of cost effectiveness of programs and levels of paternity establishment, order establishment, current support collections, and payment of arrears cases;
• Providing quality data to enhance the ability of States to pursue cases both within and between States and to report progress more accurately;
• Expanding the Federal Parent Locator Service including a database of new hires and child support cases to assist States in locating parents and obtaining support through wage withholding; and
• Implementing the Federal Tax Refund/Administrative Offset program to offset income tax refunds and selected Federal benefits payments to child support obligors.

Strategic Goal 2: Improve healthy development, safety and well being of children and youth.

In the area of child care, ACF is focusing on systems development (with particular emphasis on helping States meet requirements for reporting); consumer education; assisting States in developing inclusion initiatives (e.g., for children with disabilities); and providing guidance on building successful linkages between child care programs and programs such as health services, early childhood education and Head Start.

Examples of key strategies include:

• Expanding partnerships in support of early care and education to build capacity both in the field and among Federal staff;

• Expanding partnerships with States and among early childhood programs to improve quality in early care and education;
• Expanding the number of infants and toddlers being served by quality early childhood programs; and
• Conducting research to help improve services and demonstrate the impact of quality early care and education programs.

ACF’s improvement efforts for the Head Start program include training and technical assistance to assist local projects in meeting the Head Start program performance standards and in maintaining and improving the quality of local programs; research, demonstration, and evaluation activities to test innovative program models and assess program effectiveness; and the conduct of required monitoring activities.

Examples of key strategies for maintaining and improving the program quality and increasing full-day, full-year Head Start services include:

1. Expanding partnerships with State child care programs, other early childhood programs and other State and local social service agencies;
2. Improving information and management systems, e.g., the annual Program Information Report which tracks program participation statistics such as the age of children, the kind of education program they receive, and medical, dental and mental health services the children receive;
3. Improving Head Start training and technical assistance networks and quality improvement centers which provide support for programs enrolling infants, toddlers, pregnant women and foster collaboration between community agencies, governments, academic institutions and Head Start programs; and
4. Improving evaluation efforts to measure the impact of Head Start and Early Head Start on children and families.

ACF funds a number of programs that focus on preventing maltreatment of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes. Examples of key strategies in support of "increasing safety, permanency, and well being of children and youth" include:

• Implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) to ensure that children are safe and that foster care is viewed as a temporary arrangement. An important provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act is the requirement that the DHHS, in consultation with States and experts in the field, identify a national set of outcome measures that can be used to gauge State and national progress in reaching these goals, and to report on these outcomes in an annual report to the Congress. The Department published the final list of child welfare outcome measures in the Federal Register on August 20, 1999.
• Increasing capacity at the State and Federal levels to improve the safety, permanency and well-being of children through outcome-based monitoring, identification of problems and corrective action;
• Increasing data collection, analysis and reporting to better support policy development and allocation of resources;
• Implementing the new Chaffee Independent Living Program in a way that moves the youth agenda described in the action plan, A National Blueprint for Youth, forward and assists young people in their transition to successful adulthood; and
• Publishing a final rule in the Federal Register in January 2000 to establish new approaches to monitoring State child welfare programs that promote increased safety for children who are maltreated; quicker movement to permanent homes and families for children in foster care; and enhanced well-being for families served by State agencies.

Strategic Goal 3: Increase the health and prosperity of communities and Tribes

Agency investments to meet this goal are focused on improving program performance and outcomes at the State, Tribal and local levels. Key resources designated for training, technical assistance, planning, evaluation and data collection will continue to be awarded to States, Tribes, Territories and localities to accomplish this objective.

Examples of strategies include:

• Matching these funds and others from State and local levels to support training at national, State, Tribal and regional association conferences;
• Development and use of special implementation tools such as manuals and scales for incremental measurement at the individual, family and community levels;
• Using surveys and survey methodology and electronically-provided economic and demographic mapping data at the neighborhood level; and
• Providing reporting tools and specific on-site consultative technical assistance efforts.

Strategic Goal 4: Build a results-oriented organization

ACF has added several objectives and measures in response to the President’s Management Agenda which calls for "active, but limited" government: one that empowers States, cities, and citizens to make decisions; ensures results through accountability; and promotes innovations through competition. ACF is working closely with DHHS to implement five strategic reforms: strategic management of human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial performance, expanded electronic government and budget and performance integration. ACF has focused on improving and expanding our capacity to provide high quality, cost-effective and efficient services to meet customer needs and expectations using state-of-the-art information technology to improve management and data systems. Through our workforce analysis planning and Fair Labor Act initiatives, we anticipate becoming increasingly market-based. Initiatives underway to accomplish these strategies include:

• ACF has two key strategies in place for the next five years to (1) improve and expand our capacity to provide high quality, cost-effective and efficient services to meet customer needs and expectations and (2) use state-of-the-art information technology to improve management and data systems. Initiatives underway to accomplish these strategies include:Partnering with other Federal Agencies to support the Government-wide Federal Commons project where potential grantees will be able to apply for grant funds through a single portal on the Internet;
• Investing in internal systems improvement and technology so that current and potential ACF grantees can apply for grant funds through our On-Line Data Collection Internet access;
• Investing and expanding initiatives in human resources and skill training to replace staff lost to attrition, hiring the most qualified candidates in key programs areas, and aligning the workforce with our goals and priorities;
• Providing support to the agency to implement diversity and minority initiatives that help us achieve diversity objectives that reflect all groups including our most under-represented populations;
• Identifying crosscuttingcross-cutting work processes with needed core and technical competencies for the next three to five years and developing a training strategy to improve the core competency skills through cross-program training and implementation of individual employee training plans; and
• Investing in systems improvement and technology so that ACF staff have the capacity to move forward in a working environment which increasingly requires that all employees have access to and use of the Internet as an integral part of day-to-day agency operations.

1.3 Partnerships and coordination

ACF’s programs are administered in a complex partnership environment in which varying Federal, State, local, non-profit and community-based funding sources and programs develop and carry out programs, deliver services and strive to attain goals. The relationships, funding mechanisms and degrees of autonomy vary from program to program. A primary challenge is to collaborate with partners in crafting effective policies and programs that satisfy mutually agreed-upon objectives. The broad goals of these diverse jurisdictions and organizations are similar to those of ACF, although State and local programs may differ on specific targets and outcomes relevant to the particular needs of the population groups and communities they serve.

States and Local Organizations

ACF programs have worked intensively with their partners and have made substantial progress in recent years towards a measurable results framework with performance measures and outcomes for operating programs. Results-oriented partnership agreements and targets have been negotiated with individual States. Each program has developed an individualized process for engaging partners in goal setting and definition of measures and targets that are meaningful and useful at the State and local community level. For example, ACF undertook a legislatively-mandated, partner-oriented process to develop the measures and funding formula under which we would award TANF high performance bonuses to States. Also,,, the child support program developed with States a national strategic plan, with indicators and targets. The refugee program involved both State refugee programs and community-based service organizations in the development of measures and targets. In some programs, such as child care, which were new but had no mandated requirement for consultation like TANF, a preliminary set of proxy measures was developed for the first GPRA planning years, while the program undertook a consensus-building process with the partnership constituencies.

Collaboration with Federal Partners

Across DHHS, a large number of programs share related objectives. Many DHHS programs also share related goals and responsibilities with other Federal agencies. Therefore, both internal and external coordination is necessary to administer programs effectively. Interagency consultation has taken place across programs within ACF, (e.g., child care and Head Start, child support and TANF) and within DHHS (e.g., between TANF and Medicaid) through seminars and forums convened by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, Technology and Finance (ASMBASBTF) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).

Special efforts have been directed to assure that children have access to health and child development services. ACF programs provide outreach for the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is administered by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Head Start and the Child Care Bureau work with DHHS health agencies e.g. the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Community Health Centers, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to assist with attaining health targets. For example, Child Care and Head Start coordinate with the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health program to improve health and safety in child care by creating strong links with health communities. Increasing the number of women who receive early and comprehensive prenatal care is among the salient goals of the Early Head Start program, which serves low-income families with infants and toddlers. ACF programs provide outreach for the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which is administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Child care and Head Start coordinate with the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health program. Head Start and Child Care jointly sponsor the QUILT (Quality in Linking Together) project that helps Head Start and child care grantees form program partnerships to provide high quality full-day, full-year early childhood services.. Such coordination at the implementation and delivery level iswill producinge significant results., even if strict measurements are not practical.

�

ACF has been an active participant in cross-program efforts to develop broader indicators of child well-being, e.g., Trends in the Well-being of America’s Children and Youth; America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being; Healthy People 2010 and the Children’s Indicators Consortium study. ACF is committed to working collaboratively with its partners in the refinement of these broader performance measures and the identification of annual performance targets.

It has been challenging to identify cross-cuttingcross-cutting performance measures within ACF. Program data systems are operated by a diversity of grantee partners serving distinct populations. However, ACF has created networks, workgroups, and collaborative initiatives and events that cut across program boundaries and make major contributions to GPRA planning. For example, ACF has measures that link child carechild care and Head Start, and Head Start with health outcomes. Additionally, ACF’s Administration on Developmental Disabilities has GPRA measures that relate to housing, health services, employment and education. The Family Violence Prevention program has measures that focus on Tribes and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Given that ACF measures have been developed in collaboration with partners, the consultation process outside of ACF has been extensive, though more so with ACF’s program partners, such as States and grantees, than with other Federal agencies. ACF works closely with Federal Departments such as Labor, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Education and Transportation in implementing, operating and improving welfare reform, early child development, child care, child support, and other programs. Consultation with Federal agencies outside of DHHS on specific GPRA performance plan issues has not been a formal or rigid process. Program-specific data and measurement issues, as well as differing statutes and populations served, make identical performance measures impractical. However, ACF has found that intensive consultation and coordination on program design and objectives provide a climate for close alignment among programs with similar goals. Performance measurement issues are central to cross-agency discussions, e.g., identifying State unemployment records as a data source for TANF performance measures. There has been extensive programmatic collaboration, including TANF and welfare-to-work grants with the Department of Labor; child care and Head Start with the Department of Education; and child support enforcement with the Departments of Justice, Treasury and Defense. These collaborations have helped develop results-oriented strategies that contribute to the success of performance goals.

1.4 Summary FY 2001 performance report: accountability through performance measurement

ACF continues to make improvements in the performance measurement for its programs. For FY 2001, all ACF programs except the Assets for Independence program have performance measures. The number of measures and targets has increased from forty-seven measures in FY 1999 to sixty-fiveone measures in FY 2001. Data for eight additional measures dependent on Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) will be available for the FY 2001/2002 cohort in FY 2002. As ACF continues to gain experience in performance measurement, measures are being refined, added, dropped and replaced. ACF reported FY 1999 data on forty five of the forty-seven measures in the FY 2001 Congressional Justification. (See Appendix A-54 for FY 1999 and 2000 for a summary of newly available performance data available that were). previously omitted in the FY 2000 report.) We still lack data for two FY 1999 CSBG measures.

The table below illustrates ACF GPRA performance progress for FY 1999-2001. In FY 1999 and 2000, the first two years of our performance measurement program, ACF reported a substantial number of differences between targeted and actual performance. As we continue to work with our partners, many of our program measures and targets are being refined or revised.

STATUS OF ACF FY 1999-2001 PERFORMANCE MEASURES

*Note: Includes performance, which is within 5% of estimated target.
**Youth is unable to report on bracketed number of FY 2001 measures because of changes in data systems and definitions of measures.

�

As of February 2002, we are able to report on forty-five of the fifty-two FY 2000 targets and fifteen of the sixty-five FY 2001 targets. Most of the measures in our plan rely on State data systems; final data are available nine to twelve months after the end of the fiscal year. Missing FY 2000 - 2001 data will be included in subsequent performance reportsreports, as they become available.

The reader will note that many FY 1999 and FY 2000 measures have been replaced and targets adjusted in subsequent performance plans. The individual program summary sections explain the difference between targets and actual achievements. As more trend data are collected, ACF will be better able to evaluate program strategies and adjust future performance targets.

Performance Commitment

GPRA has become an integral part of the everyday operation of the agency. ACF has been managing toward results since the early 1990’s. In 1995, it instituted "Achieving Success: Trends and Targets,," an annual report on a number of critical program measures which included goals for major programs, identified data sources and provided initial baselines and trend data later used with partners at the State and local community level in identifying achievable targets. This report, first released in FY 1996 and updated annually through FY 1998, was part of a continuing commitment to share progress with partners, stakeholders, customers and the general public. Although many of these measures and targets have changed as a result of recent legislation and the creation of new programs, this summary data proved useful in assessing past performance.

ACF’s leadership has made a commitment toward to "stretch goals" to encourage programs towards measurably higher achievement, within realistic bounds. As this effort is still in its early stages across government, continued experience should improve the relationship between planned targets and actual results. Over time, ACF will have more trend data, which will help in setting and adjusting targets. In a few programs, such as TANF and child support, goal achievement is linked by program statute to incentives and sanctions. In these cases, the process has been driven by a concern for realistic measures. Where an incentives system is not a factor, programs have been encouraged to identify more ambitious increase targets with the understanding that shortfalls in achievement will be informative for assessing whether the target has been set too aggressively andor what corrective actions should be taken.

Summary of Performance Success

ACF’s performance measures include incentives and increased expectations for single parents to gain employment; initiatives that ensure that children receive the support due from an absent parent; incentives to States to provide necessary supports to families to sustain their participation in the workforce and to provide quality child care; and efforts to find adoptive homes for children who need them. As a result, children and families are achieving greater family stability and economic security.

In 1997, seven priority results were selected from the performance plan to serve as a framework for articulating our mission-critical objectives across organizational boundaries and focusing work to achieve outcomes. These priority results included future-oriented, outcome-driven statements that challenged ACF staff to innovate and collaborate in seven areas: welfare reform, child support, child care, infants and toddlers, Head Start, child welfare and increasing our capacity to work with our partners. These priority results provide senior staff with targeted opportunities to collaborate on a number of selected mission-critical cross-cuttingcross-cutting activities.

In FY 1999, ACF launched a performance-based work planning system that incorporated the collective and individual responsibilities of ACF's leadership team to track agency-wide results. This work planning system linked each senior executive's performance directly to the seven priority areas accomplished under the work plans. The Priority Work Plans (also called Results Maps) wereare based on the outcomes identified in the performance plan for each priority area. ACF executives met as a group and with their staffs to refine targets, strategies and activities and identified clear, distinct roles and responsibilities required for effective accomplishment of each priority result. The Priority Work Plans (Results Maps) providedhave been an invaluable tool for linking operational plans more closely with specific strategies, outcomes and results. In October 2000, three additional priority areas (youth, Tribal programs and domestic violence) were identified.

In FY 2002, ACF leadership identified a number of key priorities to provide targeted opportunities for all programs to collaborate on selected mission-critical cross-cutting activities. Many of these priorities are included in the President’s FY 2003 budget.

• Fatherhood: Helping men become responsible, committed, involved fathers.
• Healthy Marriage: Helping couples who choose marriage for themselves to develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages.
• Faith-based/Community Initiatives: Removing barriers to the full participation of faith-based and other community services in the delivery of social services.
• Positive Youth Development: Promoting ongoing relationships with adult role models; safe places with structured activities, healthy life styles; opportunities to acquire marketable skills and opportunities for commuity service and civic participation.
• Next Phase of Welfare Reform: Expanding welfare reform efforts to meet all four goals of the original legislation; identifying gaps and changes required to move the welfare reform agenda forward.
• Enhancing Early Literacy of Children: Improving the pre-reading and numeracy skills of young children to improve school readiness.
• Rural Initiative: Strengthening rural families and communities.
• Prevention: Dedicating resources to prevent the need for intervention services.
• One Department: Unifying systems, improving management of financial and physical assets, consolidating resources, eliminating duplication and restructuring the workforce to streamline and provide enhanced, citizen-centered services.

The Assistant Secretary for ACF entered into a results-oriented performance agreement with the Secretary of DHHS for FY 2002. Thirty-three measures in the performance agreement are based on the FY 2002 performance plan. The Assistant Secretary will be entering into similar agreements with political and career senior leaders as a way of setting clear expectations and rewarding good performance.

Our focus on crosscuttingcross-cutting program strategies with increased emphasis on performance has produced measurable improvements, such as:

• The number of TANF recipients who have become newly employed has increased; wages have increased (measures 1.1c-e) and child care supports have been developed to enable parents to carry out the dual responsibilities of raising their children and providing economically for their families.
• The Child Care and Development Fund served an additional 36400,000 children since FY 1998 (measures 4.1a and 5.1);
• Forty-one States reported significant improvement in wages for refugees and in percentage of full-time job placements with health benefits (measure 1.43b);
• Child support collections have more than doubled between 1992 and 20010; (measure 3.1c);
• There has been a substantial increase in the number of adoptions since 1996 (measure 7.1f); the proportion of the children being reunified in less than one year is increasing (measure 7.1c); and the FY 2000 target for adoptions by relatives was reached (measure 7.1k); and
• Head Start children are better prepared to enter school (measures 5.2a-e).

Rewarding Performance: The recent legislative environment has supported a focus on results, in part through enactment of statutory bonus provisions based on performance. For example, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 put in place a performance-based incentive system that rewards States for their performance on five measures: paternity establishment, orders obtained, collection of current support, collection of past- due support and cost effectiveness. In addition, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) created the Adoption Incentive program, under which States receive incentive funds tied to their success in increasing the number of children adopted from the foster care system. The TANF statute contains a High Performance Bonus (HPB) provision which rewards States that are most successful in achieving the purposes of the TANF program. Further, the TANF statute rewards up tothe five States with the largest decrease in their ratio of non-marital births to total births, provided that these States also show a decrease in their abortion rate relative to 1995.

Focus on Results: In FY 2000, ACF announced a number of awards to programs and partners which exemplify ACF’s focus on resultspartners, which exemplify ACF’s focus on results, and pursuit of excellence. In February 2000, the Office of Child Support Enforcement received the Hammer Award (given to government agencies that demonstrate innovation) for its success in collecting delinquent child support payments through the National Directory of New Hires. Federal and State child support enforcement programs set new records in nationwide collections in fiscal year 20000, reaching $177.9 billion, more than doubling the amount collected in 1992. The DHHS announced the third annual Adoption 2002 Excellence awards to individuals and organizations for giving abandoned, neglected, or abused children a loving family and a safe and nurturing home. These awards included unprecedented financial incentives to States to increase adoptions, put the safety of children first in placement decisions and set swifter time frames for permanent placement decisions. In December 2000, ACF awarded $200 million in TANF high performance bonuses to the 28 States with the best records in moving parents on welfare into jobs and in sustaining their success in the workforce. This was the second year in which these bonuses were awarded.

ACF selected four core measures as High Impact Agency goals to be achieved byin FY 2000, part of a government-wide effort to focus on results. The establishment of these goals has more intensively focused our efforts with partners and providedhas proven to be an incentive for improving State management and administrative data systems. These four measures included the following target information in the final status report:

1. Increase self-sufficiency for low-income families by moving one million welfare recipients into new employment by FY 2000.

For FY 1998, 46 states reported 1.3 million job entries, substantially exceeding the goal in only one year; and in FY 1999, 48 States and the District of Columbia reported 1.2 million job entries. (completed)

• Increase parents’ financial support for their children by increasing the amount of total child support collections to $20.8 billion by October 2000, an increase of 75% over FY 1996 and 160% over FY 1992.

$17.9 billion in collections were received in total child support for FY 2000. (completed)

• By 2000, consistent with the adoption goal for 2002, increase the number of children who are adopted from the public foster care system to 46,000.

Adoptions increased from 28,000 in FY 1996 to 46,000 in FY 1999. (completed)

• Streamline more than 30 separate grant programs into a single comprehensive system of electronic processing and transfers to benefit grantees by more timely and efficient grants processing, more accurate data, less down time and enabling quicker start-up. This improvement corrected the Year 2000 programming flaw embedded in current grant programs.

Thirty-seven systems were replaced by a single comprehensive system of electronic processing. (completed)

Summary of performance challenges

The diversity of programs, target populations, levels of government, and range of partners make efforts to establish and achieve goals and outcome measures extremely challenging. Over the past several years, ACF changed the way it measures the success of programs and implemented a major shift in the way it does business with partners. A changing role with States and grantees allowed ACF to re-examine the culture of the agency in ways that accelerated major reforms in many programs. In order to focus on results, ACF continues to to work on updateing performance measures, targets and information and strengthening partnerships with States and grantees. by continuing to develop agreed-upon goals, measures and targets. Creating a mature set of performance goals and data collection strategies is a high priority. It takes considerable time to bring partners to the table, develop shared priorities and goals, address weaknesses in data collection and determine an optimum set of measures.

Data Issues: ACF relies on State administrative data systems for performance reporting, because States and local community organizations administer most of our programs. For many programs, final reports are due ninety to 120 days after the fiscal year ends. In some cases, for example, in TANF where earnings gains are measured over a 9-month period after an individual obtains a job, the period is even longer. This time lag in receiving and validating data reports on actual achievements makes it difficult to provide a comprehensive summary of FY 2001 performance until late in FY 2002. The lack of readily available information and the restrictions on data collection inhibit performance measurement. Additionally, many of our programs rely on voluntary data reports, e.g., LIHEAP, Child Care, TANF, CSBG, and ADD. Fluctuations in the number of States and grantees reporting and the flexibility allowed in selecting measures continue to make the collection of consistent, reliable and verifiable data extremely challenging. Detailed information on program-specific data issues and requirements for data validation and verification are addressed in each of the fourteen program sections. Appendix A.7 has detailed information on availability of State and grantee administrative data. ACF is currently working with the DHHS Data Council to assess unmet data needs for our major programs. ACF is committed to making additional investments in data collection and information systems.

�

Part II: Program Planning And Assessment

ACF's program efforts are carried out through partnership with the State, Territorial, local and Tribal governments and non-profit/private sector grantees that implement its programs. Social research, demonstration and evaluation programs are directed at developing reliable knowledge to support program policies, learning about effects on children and families, identifying paths to program quality improvement, and discovering better ways to conduct technical assistance, disseminate information, and deliver effective services.

Performance goals have been stated under the program sections throughout the eight strategic program objectives and fourtwo management improvement objectives in this plan. This approach continues to provide a framework for individual programs and program activities to collaborate and direct their efforts to achieve ACF-wide crosscuttingcross-cutting program goals. This framework enables ACF partners in State, Territorial, Tribal and local governments and nonprofit and private agencies to use the various program resources within ACF to focus on early childhood enrichment and economic and social well-being and productivity of families. "Data sources" under the various measures refer to OMB-approved program data collection instruments. The programs that support each of the goals and objectives are listed below:

Strategic Goal 1: Increase economic independence and productivity for families

2. Increase employment

3. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
   Developmental Disabilities: Employment
   Refugee Resettlement
   Social Services Block Grant

4. Increase independent living

5. Developmental Disabilities: Housing
   Assets for Independence

6. Increase parental responsibility

7. Child Support

8. Increase affordable child care

Child Care: Affordability

Strategic Goal 2: Improve healthy development, safety and well-being of children and youth

6. Increase the quality of child care to promote childhood development

7. Child Care: Quality
   Head Start

8. Improve the health status of children

9. Head Start: Health Status

10. Increase safety, permanency, and well-being of children and youth

Child Welfare
Developmental Disabilities: Education
Developmental Disabilities: Health
Youth Programs

Strategic Goal 3: Increase the health and prosperity of communities and Tribes

9. Build healthy, safe and supportive communities and Tribes

Community Services Block Grant
Family Violence Prevention Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Native Americans Programs

Strategic Goal 4: Build a results-oriented organization

10. Develop and retain a highly skilled, strongly motivated stafff
11. Improve automated data and management systems
12. Streamline ACF organizational layers
13. Ensure financial management accountability

In most cases, baselines have been established in either FY 1998 or FY 1999 for the FY 2003 measures. ACF is largely dependent upon State administrative systems for collecting performance data which results in substantial delay in the availability of data for many of the ACF State grant programs for the current reporting period. ACF is developing a plan to identify the obstacles to publish data in a more timely manner. In Section A.86 of the Appendix, a budget table has been provided in which performance goals and measures for each of the twelveen strategic objectives are included. The relationship between these goals and the mission of DHHS as reflected in the DHHS Strategic Plan is shown in the table in Section A.3 of the Appendix.

Program research and evaluations focus on measuring and understanding the impacts of ACF programs on children and families. They provide information to design and improve the results of those programs, and inform performance measurement methodologies. (A table listing selected evaluations is included in Section A.6 of the Appendix.)

Because ACF is interested in trends of improvement over time, measured against a carefully-chosen starting point, many (though not all) of the baselines in the following section are likely to remain the same in subsequent annual editions of this plan, rather than rolling forward to a new baseline year. Such baseline stability is important sinceif, for example, the baseline year has been selected tobecause it indicates with reliable data when a new program initiative, statute or rule begins to have a measurable effect.

�

Strategic Goal 1: Increase Economic Independence And Productivity For Families

Rationale

Economic independence and self-sufficiency are central to families being able to lead stable and productive lives. Achieving this goal requires assisting welfare-dependent individuals and recently arrived refugees to obtain and maintain employment within the context of work requirements and time-limited assistance. Strategies to increase earnings and income, through activities such as child support enforcement, and supports for work, such as affordable child care, are critical to assuring that children are not living in poverty and that they are adequately cared for while their parent(s) are working.

The job market, economic cycles, changing demographics, and the mores of family formation and child bearing (e.g., rates of divorce which create the need for child support or the incidence of out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies which increase the caseloads of hard-to-serve welfare recipients) influence outcomes under this goal. Such economic and social factors influence parents' ability to find work, meet their family's needs and support obligations, and achieve self-sufficiency.

For nearly all the "economic independence" programs, State welfare reform decisions have had a significant impact on program directions and results. ACF is constantly in dialogue with its partners to learn their objectives and share knowledge about practices that improve results.

The objectives and major program areas under this goal are:

1.Increase employment

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Developmental Disabilities: Employment
Refugee Resettlement
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)

2.Increase independent living2.Increase independent living

Developmental Disabilities: Housing
Assets for Independence

3.Increase parental responsibility

Child Support

4.Increase affordable child care

Child Care

1.Increase employment

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Increase employment and economic independence by reducing reliance on public welfare programs, providing job training and encouraging job creation. Focus on the abilities and skills of individuals, enabling them to move toward self-sufficiency and to pursue jobs in their communities.

1.1 TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

"The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," (PRWORA) was enacted in 1996--a comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform plan that dramatically changed the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program replaced the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) and Emergency Assistance (EA) programs, ending the Federal entitlement to assistance. In TANF, States and Territories operate programs, and Tribes have the option to run their own programs. States, Territories and Tribes each receive a block grant allocation with a requirement on States to maintain a historical level of State spending known as Maintenance of Effort (MOE). The block grant covers benefits, administrative expenses, and services. States, Territories and Tribes determine eligibility and benefit levels and services provided to needy families.

In FY 2003, the Administration seeks to reauthorize and fund the following pre-appropriated activities originally authorized under PRWORA as part of the TANF program at the levels included under current law: Family Assistance Grants to States; Tribes and Territories; Matching Grants to Territories; Bonus to Reward High Performance States; and Tribal Work Programs. Both the Contingency Fund and Supplemental Grants for Population Increases would be reinstated. In addition, a new Technical Assistance, Research and Family Formation Fund would be established. The reauthorization proposal would eliminate the bonus to reward decreases in illegitimacy in order to better focus efforts on the TANF goals addressing family formation and marriage.

The FY 2003 budget includes a request for $100 million to fund a number of activities primarily targeted to the TANF goals of family formation, marriage and illegitimacy reduction. To date, little effort or funding has been devoted to these key TANF goals by the States. Activities would address best practices in family formation including illegitimacy reduction, marriage promotion, marriage counselling, domestic violence prevention, anger management and child well-being.

ACF provides leadership to help States, Territories and Tribes as they design and implement their programs and move families from welfare to work, while protecting the well-being of children through child care and other services. PRWORA gives States great flexibility to design their TANF programs in ways that promote work, responsibility, and self-sufficiency and strengthen families. The law limits the area that the Federal government may regulate. States may use TANF funding in any manner "reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of TANF." These purposes are: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

Changing welfare as we know it has not only meant changing the welfare rules, it has also meant changing the way ACF and State welfare agencies plan and do business. Just as the welfare objective has shifted from income maintenance to work and self-sufficiency, so the way we plan for the welfare program has shifted from oversight of States’ check-producing operations to establishing measures and targets for assessing ACF and our partners' success in achieving our strategic goals. The nation has an enormous stake in this new approach to public assistance. ACF is committed to working with States to promote work, personal responsibility, and self-sufficiency in ways that will strengthen families.

To date, there are many positive results from these changes. Record numbers of people are moving from welfare to work. Retention rates are promising. All States met the overall work participation requirements in FY 2000. Welfare caseloads have fallen to historic new lows. Nationwide the rolls have fallen by more than half, from over 12 million in August 1996 to 5.4 million in June 2001. But the job is far from done. These gains still leave too many clients without work or in entry-wage jobs, with below-poverty incomes that make it difficult to support families. Often, working parents lack the necessary supports that will enable them to succeed in the workforce, such as access to affordable, quality child care, transportation, and training opportunities. Welfare reform has been less effective in addressing the needs of clients with multiple barriers to work such as inadequate fluency in English, mental health problems, addiction to alcohol or drugs, developmental and learning disabilities and domestic violence. Increasingly, State agencies are reporting that the proportion of clients with these barriers is growing.

There are four steps that must be completed before we can claim success in reforming the welfare system. These are:

• Reaching all families. ACF must reach the families that are still on the welfare caseloads, who may have considerable barriers -- substance abuse, domestic violence, disability of a child or of a parent, mental disorders, living in isolated rural or inner city areas without access to transportation, very low skills or education, and language barriers among others.
• Moving families into work and promoting success at work. For parents to succeed at work and provide for their children, we must ensure that they have sufficient family income and basic work supports. Sustained economic growth, reduction in unemployment, expanding employment opportunities and policy changes including expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and increases in the minimum wage have contributed to gains in family income. However, the recent economic downturn, coupled with time limits for assistance, poses new challenges to State and local governments and community-based service providers. The provision of basic supports, such as affordable quality child care, transportation, access to health care, opportunity to move to better jobs, and help in overcoming barriers to work is critical to promoting success at work.
• Transforming the welfare office. The transformation of the welfare system must be accompanied by a transformation of the typical welfare office. States are reorganizing their operations to focus on assisting recipients in finding and retaining employment, rather than on distributing benefit checks.
• Maintaining investment. To accomplish the first three steps, States need to sustain the involvement of all parties in the process of helping people move from welfare to work. States have TANF and MOE dollars not needed for cash assistance that can be reinvested in other critical needs for families.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

A primary goal of the TANF legislation is to move recipients from welfare to work and self-sufficiency. In addition to providing States with flexibility in program design and funding, Congress established work participation performance standards and created a High Performance Bonus (HPB) incentive system to facilitate the achievement of this goal. PRWORA provides States and Territories both financial rewards for high performance and significant improvement and penalties for not meeting the work participation targets. The HPB legislation authorized awards for five years (FY 1999-FY 2003). ACF issued award specifications for FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 through guidance. The first three years focused only on work measures, i.e., rates of newly employed recipients, retention rates and earnings gain rates of employed recipients and former recipients. Final rules were published in August 2000 to cover awards for FY 2002 and FY 2003.

In addition to the work measures, new measures have been included that promote work and provide assistance to needy families, i.e., participation by low-income working families in the Food Stamp Program, participation in the Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance program after leaving TANF, receipt of child care subsidies, as well as a family formation and stability measure. Although participation in HPB is voluntary, most States are participating. Forty-eight States and the District of Columbia competed for the FY 2000 HPB and $200 million in awards were issued to 28 States in December 2000.

Under PRWORA, $100 million in annual bonuses are to be awarded to as many as five States with the largest reduction in the proportion of out-of-wedlock births to total births. These bonuses are an incentive to advance parental responsibility and encourage the formation of two-parent families. ACF compiled the statistics reported by States and compared the proportion for the most recent two-year period to that for the preceding two-year period. For FY 2000, rankings were based on birth statistics from 1996 and 1997 compared to 1998 and 1999. In order to receive the bonuses, the States must also show a decrease in their abortion rate between the most recent year and 1995. Awards of $25 million each were given to Alabama, Michigan, and the District of Columbia in September 2001. As part of the TANF reauthorization, we propose to eliminate these bonuses in order to better focus our efforts on the TANF goals addressing family formation and marriage.

ACF selected outcomes that measure State investment and policy choices directed at providing support for individuals to work and succeed at work. Strategic activities were developed to meet these targets including issuing bonuses to reward States for high performance; an aggressive technical assistance approach using contracts and grants; aggressive outreach and collaboration with key Federal and non-Federal partners; review and analysis of State programs and fiscal data to identify emerging trends; promoting and disseminating research results; and publishing regulations. Attention is being given to removing barriers to work for welfare recipients who are victims of domestic violence or have developmental disabilities or serious personal or family problems, such as substance abuse or mental health problems that interfere with their ability to work.

ACF implements a wide range of projects to help States produce the desired outcomes. These projects include:

1. Convening State leaders to educate them about the specifics of the law and offering them the opportunity to engage other legislators in their State or region in designing their respective programs;
2. Providing technical assistance through contracts and grants, including a Peer Technical Assistance Network that provides support to States and localities to share expertise and proven experiences;
3. Supporting initiatives to increase the availability of jobs for TANF recipients both in the private and public sectors, including Federal entry-level jobs;
4. Developing a catalog and other sources of innovative practices, and convening workshops and conferences to provide targeted technical assistance;
5. Sponsoring research and convening conferences to discuss welfare reform research; and
6. Conducting and encouraging training on the need for welfare agencies to draw on the broader resources of other government agencies, the private sector, and community-based organizations.

To accomplish these strategies, ACF is striving to improve its own performance by training our employees in marketing, negotiating, and consulting; using and improving automated technology, databases, and electronic communication; and by implementing team-based work procedures.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

ACF has vigorously expanded and pursued partnerships since the passage of the PRWORA. The 1996 legislation created a seismic shift throughout the welfare system by focusing on work, transferring authority over specific policies decisions (e.g. eligibility and determining benefits) from the Federal government to the States, creating State accountability through data collection/reporting, penalties and rewards. ACF’s welfare reinvention efforts focused on enabling all families to achieve self-sufficiency through work and supporting working families. ACF shed its traditional Federal regulatory role and forged new partnerships, adopting a customer-driven focus using new tools to underscore State flexibility while reinforcing accountability.

Recognizing our changing role, ACF formed broad-based partnerships with the States, reaching beyond State welfare agencies to State legislatures to help them with their key role as TANF decision-makers. These partnerships are ultimately designed to provide support for State efforts to develop effective services for their TANF recipients through guidance, technical assistance, facilitating communication among States and research. ACF continues to draw in new partners.

ACF worked with the Welfare-to-Work Partnership, supporting an employer forum to promote hiring welfare recipients. We have collaborated with Federal partners, including the Department of Labor, which implements the Welfare-to-Work grants and the Workforce Investment Act, the Department of Transportation, which administers the Access to Jobs programs; the Department of Education, which administers a variety of educational and vocational education programs helping prepare individuals to work; and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provides housing assistance for low-income families and works closely with many low-income communities. These efforts, at both the central and regional office levels, are directed at developing policy and guidance, convening conferences, and sharing resources. These partnerships resulted in joint technical assistance activities and models for States and communities on how to marshal resources across agency lines in support of families.

Within DHHS, ACF works closely with many of its sister agencies. For example, ACF has collaborated with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) for over 2 years on welfare reform issues jointly funding and developing seven conferences, issuing joint guidance and co-sponsoring publications. We are collaborating on 10 targeted technical assistance meetings (one per region). ACF and SAMHSA have undertaken a joint initiative on substance abuse and tribal TANF. ACF has a working relationship with the Department’s Office of Civil Rights and has developed and disseminated guidance on TANF and Disability, as well as guidance on limited English proficiency. We work closely with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) on a variety of research projects.

Program-wide Performance

With the primary responsibility for welfare reform lodged in the States, and in a number of cases in counties and cities, ACF’s ability to affect goal achievement is limited. ACF works in partnership with State and local governments toward achieving the goal of increased employment for TANF recipients.

While the overall health of the economy has a major effect on achieving this goal, traditional business cycles have varying effects across geographic areas and sectors of the economy. Historically, some groups in the labor force (e.g., women who head families, minorities, and women without high school diplomas) are much more vulnerable to unemployment than the population as a whole. Unemployment rates among these groups remain two to three times the overall rate, even during periods of economic recovery.

Employment measures

Congress established the TANF work participation performance targets for FY 1997 through FY 2002. In FY 2000, all fifty States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico met the overall work participation rates for all families. Of the 32 States, the District of Columbia and Guam that have two-parent family programs subject to a work participation rate, 25 States and the District of Columbia met the FY 2000 two-parent work participation rate standard of 90 percent. States have the option to move their two-parent cases into a separate State program thus avoiding the two-parent work participation requirements. Several States exercised this option so there were fewer States with two-parent TANF programs in FY 2000. The statutory two-parent participation target of 90 percent remains a rigorous standard.

Beginning in FY 2003, as part of the reauthorization proposal, a participation standard for all cases with adults would replace the two separate standards currently in existence. At least 50% of all cases receiving TANF that are headed by adults must be participating full-time in a simulated work-week of activities (40 hours per week) and at least 16 hours of these 40 hours must be in a traditional work activity.

Data on the TANF work performance measures (job entry, employment retention, and employment earnings gain rate) were not collected under the TANF predecessor program. In FY 1999 (the most recent year for which data are available), there was a 4.2 percentage point increase in the percent of adult TANF recipients who became newly employed (job entry); a decrease of 3.2 percentage points in the percent of adult TANF recipients employed in one quarter who continued to be employed in the subsequent quarter (employment retention) and a decrease of 2 percentage points in the percent rate of earnings gained between the base quarter and the second subsequent quarter (employment earnings gain rate). FY 2000 performance information for these three measures should be available in March 2002.

We believe that the decline in the job retention and earnings gain rates is, in part, the result of the changing composition of the remaining TANF caseload. The caseload continued to decline between FY 1998 and FY 2000 and there is concern that the remaining TANF recipients are likely to have less job skills and more barriers to employment resulting in less employment stability. We project modest increases in employment targets for FY 2003 discussed in the section Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002.

One of ACF’s initiatives was to increase self-sufficiency for low-income families by moving one million welfare recipients into new employment by 2000. For FY 1998, 46 States reported 1.3 million job entries, substantially exceeding the goal in only one year. These HPB job entry data exceeded the new employment goal by almost 30 percent. In FY 1999, 49 States reported 1.2 million job entries. Some of these jobs entries may have been filled by individuals who had previously been employed in FY 1998, lost their job and acquired a new job in FY 1999.

Data Issues

There are three data sources for reporting on the performance targets. The first is TANF administrative data. The statute directs the Secretary to collect aggregated data (caseload summaries) and disaggregated data (by individual and family) on the TANF program quarterly. ACF has developed an automated TANF data reporting system to collect this information. This system was established to collect data under the TANF final rule effective October 1, 1999. The TANF work participation data are also collected through this system. The consistency and validity of these State-reported data are assessed through system edits and consistency checks, special data computation runs, and data trend analysis. Within limited resources, ACF will be assessing the source data for the information supplied by States.

The second data source is the information in State Unemployment Insurance wage records. With respect to the employment measures, States have been given the option, for the first three years of the HPB, to collect this information through their administrative records or State Unemployment Insurance agency wage records (UI) or both. All States are using UI information with some supplementation of administrative record data. ACF conducted a study using data from ten States to assess the viability of using UI wage data for the HPB performance measures. ACF concluded that this database has a high degree of consistency and reliability across States, the costs are reasonable, and there is sufficient technical support to facilitate the data matches.

Third, under the HPB final rules governing the FY 2002 and FY 2003 bonus awards, we have specified the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) as the sole data source for the HPB work measures. The NDNH contains UI wage data for all State and Federal employment wage data. States will provide recipient identifying information that will be matched against the NDNH database to obtain employment measurement data.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

ACF has consulted extensively with States and other customers/partners to develop regulations on work participation standards, the HPB, and the TANF data collection system. As noted in the section Program Activities, Strategies and Resources, a final rule, covering TANF work participation standards and data-reporting requirements, was published on April 12, 1999. Final rules governing the FY 2002 and 2003 HPB awards were published August 30, 2000.

A primary goal of the TANF statute is to move recipients from welfare to work and self-sufficiency. These five measures taken together measure State success at achieving that goal. Full success requires not only getting recipients into jobs, but also keeping them in those jobs and increasing their earnings in order to reduce dependency and enable families to support themselves. The TANF data collection provisions limit our ability to require States to collect the longitudinal outcome data reflected in measures 1.1c-e. However, these measures reflect critical performance information necessary for States to effectively manage their programs. Many States were already collecting this kind of information before it was incorporated into the HPB system. The HPB provides an additional incentive for States to collect and report this information.

ACF views the work participation rates (measures 1.1a-b) as process measures and the other work measures as interim outcome measures. Although we have some performance data for FY 1998 -2000, we are unable to project performance targets with any certainty given the changing nature of the TANF population.

Achieving economic independence for many TANF families begins with either direct job search or eliminating barriers to employment, e.g., lack of basic skills, and progresses to acquiring job experiences, a private sector job, increased wages, and eventually self-sufficiency. ACF believes that there are three key elements in this process: getting a job, retaining the job, and increased earnings. Therefore, ACF selected the following measures and performance targets:

1.1a.FY 2002: All States meet the TANF all families work participation rates for FY 2002:

-- All families rate: 50%

FY 2003: All States meet the TANF all families work participation rates for FY 2003.

-- All families rate: 50%

1.1b.FY 2002: All States meet the TANF two-parent families work participation rate of 90%.

FY 2003: All States meet the TANF two-parent families work participation rates of 90%.

Congress established the work participation rates (measures 1.1a-b). The statute directs the Secretary to collect aggregated data (caseload summaries) and disaggregated data (by individual and family) on the TANF program quarterly.

Note: The Administration’s reauthorization proposal replaces these two standards with a single participation standard for all cases with adults.

1.1c.FY 2002: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) at 43% the adult TANF recipients who become newly employed.

FY 2003: Increase the percentage to 44% for the adult TANF recipients who become newly employed.

1.1d.FY 2002: Increase (from FY 2000) to 65% the adult TANF recipients/former recipients employed in one quarter of the year who continue to be employed in the next two consecutive quarters.

FY 2003: Increase the percentage to 66% for the adult TANF recipients/former recipients employed in one quarter of the year who continue to be employed in the next two consecutive quarters.

1.1e.FY 2002: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) at 28% the rate of earnings gained by employed adult TANF recipients/former recipients between a base quarter and the second subsequent quarter.

FY 2003: Increase the percentage rate of earnings gained to 29% by employed adult TANF recipients/former recipients between a base quarter and the second subsequent quarter.

Data Sources: see discussion under "Data Issues"

Note: For this rate/measure we look at the earnings of those who are employed in each of the four quarters of the measurement year and determine if they are also employed in the second subsequent quarter. If they are employed in both quarters, we determine the gain in earnings (if any) between the initial quarter and the second subsequent quarter. The sum of these gains in earnings across the four quarters is the numerator. The denominator is the sum of the earnings in each of the four quarters in the measurement year.

The initial targets for the work retention measure (1.1d) were established after the results from the first year of the HPB competititon were calculated (FY 1998 performance data). While we changed the work retention performance measure beginning with the third year of the HPB (FY 2000 performance data) from retention over two quarters to retention over three quarters, we did not change the performance targets. We did recognize that the revised retention measure was somewhat more rigorous but we did not have any data on which to base adjustments to the target.We are making the adjustments to the work retention targets now because we have preliminary data that indicate that the revised retention measure significantly impacts the achievement of the existing performance targets. The preliminary work retention rate, based on FY 2000 performance data, is 62 percent. The performance targets are calculated from that base.

The work performance measures 1.1c-e were developed after extensive consultation with the American Public Human Services Association, the National Governors Association, and States as specified in the HPB statute. In FY 1999, ACF modified the work performance goal specifications to reflect percentage increase in performance rather than numeric changes and established modest increases in target levels for FY 1999 through FY 2001 with the FY 2002 target remaining unchanged from the FY 2001 target.

The performance achieved by States in FY 1998 and FY 1999 under the job entry, retention, and earnings gain rate measures (measures 1.1c-e) reflect a major accomplishment. One factor that may explain the increase in job entry rates (measure 1.1c) over the FY 1998 levels is States may have had access to more complete data in the second year of operating TANF. There is concern that the remaining TANF population may have more barriers to employment jeopardizing our ability to achieve the projected modest increases in performance.

�

Strategic Goal 1: Increase Economic Independence And Productivity For Families

Rationale

Economic independence and self-sufficiency are central to families being able to lead stable and productive lives. Achieving this goal requires assisting welfare-dependent individuals and recently-arrived refugees to obtain sustained employment through appropriate work requirements and time-limited assistance. Strategies to increase earnings and income, through activities such as child support enforcement, and to support work by providing essential services, such as affordable child care, are critical to assuring that children are not living in poverty and that they are adequately cared for while their parent(s) are working.

The job market, economic cycles, changing demographics, and the mores of family formation and child bearing (e.g., rates of divorce, which create the need for child support or the incidence of out-of-wedlock teen pregnancies, which increase the caseloads of hard-to-serve welfare recipients) influence outcomes under this goal. Such economic and social factors influence people's ability to find work, meet their families' needs and support obligations, and achieve self-sufficiency.

For nearly all the "economic independence" programs, State welfare reform decisions have had a significant impact on program directions and results. ACF is constantly in dialogue with its partners to learn their objectives and share knowledge about practices that improve results.

The FY 2002 budget includes a request for $64 million to fund a new initiative to promote responsible fatherhood. Of this request, $60 million would fund faith-based and community organizations that help fathers improve their job skills and establish positive relationships with their children and their children’s mothers and promote marriage among parents. The additional $4 million would fund programs through grants, contracts or cooperative agreements that focus on public education and awareness, the use of mass media campaign, development of best practices, research, and technical assistance.

The objectives and major program areas under this goal are:

1.Increase employment

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Developmental Disabilities: Employment
Refugee Resettlement
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)

Developmental Disabilities: Housing
Assets for Independence

3.Increase parental responsibility

Child Support

4.Increase affordable child care

Child Care

1.Increase employment

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Increase employment and economic independence by reducing reliance on public welfare programs, providing job training and encouraging job creation. Focus on the abilities and skills of individuals, enabling them to be more self-sufficient and to pursue jobs in their communities.

1.1 TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

In 1996, "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," (PRWORA) was enacted--a comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform plan that dramatically changed the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program replaced the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs, ending the Federal entitlement to assistance. In TANF, States and Territories operate programs, and Tribes have the option to run their own programs. States, territories, and Tribes each receive a block grant allocation with a requirement to maintain a historical level of State spending known as maintenance of effort. The block grant covers benefits, administrative expenses, and services. States, Territories, and Tribes determine eligibility and benefit levels and services provided to needy families.

ACF provides leadership to help State and Tribal governments as they design and implement their programs and move clients from welfare to work, while protecting the well-being of children through child care and other services. PRWORA gives States great flexibility to design their TANF programs in ways that promote work, responsibility, and self-sufficiency and strengthen families. Except as expressly provided under the statute, the Federal government may not regulate the conduct of States. States may use TANF funding in any manner "reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of TANF." These purposes are: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

Changing welfare as we know it has not only meant changing the welfare rules, it has also meant changing the way ACF and State welfare agencies plan and do business. Just as the welfare objective has shifted from income maintenance to work and self-sufficiency, so the way we plan for the welfare program has shifted from oversight of States’ check-producing operations to establishing measures and targets for assessing ACF and our partners' success in achieving our strategic goals. The nation has an enormous stake in this new approach to public assistance. ACF is committed to working with States to promote work, personal responsibility, and self-sufficiency in ways that will strengthen families.

There are four steps that must be completed before we can claim success in reforming the welfare system. These are:

• Reaching all families. ACF must reach the families that are still on the welfare caseloads, who may have considerable barriers -- substance abuse, domestic violence, disability of a child or of a parent, mental disorders, living in isolated rural or inner city areas without access to transportation, very low skills or education, and language barriers among others.
• Moving families into work and promoting success at work. For parents to succeed at work and provide for their children, we must ensure that they have sufficient family income and basic work supports. Sustained economic growth, reduction in unemployment, increasing employment opportunities and policy changes including expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, and increases in the minimum wage have contributed to increases in family income. Equally important is the provision of basic supports that all working families need, such as affordable quality child care, transportation, access to health care, opportunity to move to better jobs, and help overcoming barriers to work.
• Transforming the welfare office. The transformation of the welfare system must be accompanied by a transformation of the typical welfare office. States are reorganizing their operations to focus on assisting recipients in finding and retaining employment, rather than on distributing benefit checks.
• Maintaining investment. To accomplish the first three steps, States need to sustain the involvement of all parties in the process of helping people move from welfare to work. States have TANF and Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars, not needed for cash assistance that can be reinvested in other critical needs for families.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

A primary goal of the TANF legislation is to move recipients from welfare to work and self-sufficiency. In addition to providing States with flexibility in program design and funding, Congress established work participation performance standards and created a High Performance Bonus (HPB) incentive system to facilitate the achievement of this goal. PRWORA provides both financial rewards for high performance and significant improvement and also penalties for not meeting the work participation targets. The HPB legislation authorized awards for five years (FY 1999-FY 2003). ACF issued award specifications for FY 1999, FY 2000, and FY 2001 through guidance. The first three years focused only on work measures, i.e., rates of newly-employed recipients, retention rates and earnings gain rates of employed recipients and former recipients. Final rules were published in August 2000 to cover awards for FY 2002 and FY 2003. In addition to the work measures, new measures have been included that promote work and provide assistance to needy families, i.e., participation by low-income working families in the Food Stamp Program, participation in the Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance program after leaving TANF, receipt of child care subsidies, as well as a family formation and stability measure. Although participation in HPB is voluntary, most States are participating. Forty-six States participated in the FY 1999 HPB and $200 million in awards were issued to 27 States. Forty-eight States and the District of Columbia competed for the FY 2000 HPB and $200 million in awards were issued to 28 States in December 2000.

Under PRWORA, $100 million in annual bonuses are to be awarded to as many as five States with the largest reduction in the proportion of out-of-wedlock births to total births. These bonuses are an incentive to advance parental responsibility and encourage the formation of two-parent families. ACF compiled the statistics reported by States and compared the proportion for the most recent two-year period to that for the preceding two-year period. For FY 1999, rankings were based on birth statistics from 1995 and 1996 compared to 1997 and 1998. In order to receive the bonuses, the five States must also show a decrease in their abortion rate between the most recent year and 1995. Awards of $20 million each were given to Alabama, Arizona, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Michigan in September 2000.

ACF selected outcomes that measure State investment and policy choices directed at providing support for individuals to work and succeed at work. Strategic activities were developed to meet these targets including issuing bonuses to reward States for high performance; an aggressive technical assistance approach using contracts and grants; aggressive outreach and collaboration with key Federal and non-Federal partners; review and analysis of State programs and fiscal data to identify emerging trends; promoting and disseminating research results; and publishing regulations. Attention is being given to removing barriers to work for welfare recipients who are victims of domestic violence or have developmental disabilities or serious personal or family problems, such as substance abuse or mental health problems that interfere with their ability to work.

ACF implements a wide range of projects to help States produce the desired outcomes. These projects include:

1. Convening State leaders to educate them about the specifics of the law and offering them the opportunity to engage other legislators in their State or region in designing their respective programs;
2. Providing technical assistance through contracts and grants, including a Peer Technical Assistance Network that provides support to States and localities to share expertise and proven experiences;
3. Supporting initiatives to increase the availability of jobs for TANF recipients both in the private and public sectors, including Federal entry-level jobs;
4. Developing a catalog and other sources of innovative practices, and convening workshops and conferences to provide targeted technical assistance;
5. Sponsoring research and convening conferences to discuss welfare reform research; and
6. Conducting and encouraging training on the need for welfare agencies to draw on the broader resources of other government agencies, the private sector, and community-based organizations.

To accomplish these strategies, ACF is striving to improve its own performance by training our employees in marketing, negotiating, and consulting; using and improving automated technology, databases, and electronic communication; and by implementing team-based work procedures.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues

Extensive coordination is underway throughout DHHS on initiatives concerning welfare and employment. ACF and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation are co-lead agencies. Participating agencies include the Health Care Financing Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Administration on Aging, the Office of Public Health and Science, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation.

In addition to coordinating with DHHS initiatives, ACF will continue to coordinate its efforts with other complementary Federal and national efforts. For example, under the Welfare-to-Work program, administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), DOL awarded grants totaling $3 billion to State and local entities in 1998 and 1999. The program requires that at least 70 percent of the Welfare to Work funds be targeted to current and former long-term TANF recipients and their non-custodial equivalents. Up to 30 percent of the funds may be spent on persons at high risk for long-term dependency and may be used for job creation, wage subsidies, on-the-job training, and employment support and follow-up. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2000, the Department of Labor has sole responsibility for financial and participant reporting. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is a non-partisan non-profit effort created to lead the business community's efforts to help move those on public assistance into jobs in the private sector. DHHS will coordinate these various initiatives in order to ensure the most effective use of resources for those in transition from welfare.

Program-wide Performance

With the primary responsibility for welfare reform lodged in the States, and in a number of cases in counties and cities, ACF’s ability to affect goal achievement is limited. ACF works in partnership with State and local governments toward achieving the goal of increased employment for TANF recipients.

While the overall health of the economy could have a major effect on achieving this goal, traditional business cycles have varying effects across geographic areas and sectors of the economy. Historically, some groups in the labor force (e.g., women who head families, minorities, and women without high school diplomas) are much more vulnerable to unemployment than the population as a whole. Unemployment rates among these groups remain two to three times the overall rate, even during periods of economic recovery.

Employment measures

ACF does not have any FY 2001 performance data to report at this time because States are given up to 11 months to provide data for some measures each quarter. Past performance is not comparable because the performance measures used to track progress in the AFDC program, which was replaced by the TANF program, are substantially different from those ACF established for the TANF program. For example, the JOBS "work participation" measures/standards only applied to about one-half of the AFDC caseload, the activities that counted toward participation were different and the performance standards were less rigorous. In FY 1995, almost all States met the 20 percent all family JOBS participation rate standard. States were less successful with the Unemployed Parent (UP) participation standards under JOBS. The UP participation standards were 50 percent in FY 1995 and 60 percent in FY 1996. Only 24 States met the standard in FY 1995 and 25 States met the UP standard in FY 1996. Since Congress allowed the States to phase in the implementation of the TANF program beginning in FY 1997, ACF does not have AFDC/JOBS performance data for all States for FY 1997.

Congress established the TANF work participation performance targets for FY 1999 through FY 2002. All States met the all-families work participation targets for FY 1998 achieving a national rate of 35 percent (the 1998 target was 30%) and in FY 1999, 38 percent (the 1999 target was 35%). ACF believes that States can continue to meet the higher all-families’ targets in the subsequent years. However, only 29 of 44 States with two-parent family programs met the FY 1998 two-parent target rate of 75 percent and only 28 States of the 36 States, District of Columbia and Guam with two-parent family programs met the FY 1999 two-parent target rate of 90 percent. States have the option to move their two-parent cases into a separate State program thus avoiding the two-parent work participation requirements. Several States exercised this option so there are fewer States with two-parent TANF programs in FY 1999. The statutory two-parent participation target of 90 percent remains a rigorous standard.

The TANF performance measures for job entry, employment retention and employment earnings gain rate were not measures collected under the AFDC program. The AFDC program did collect information on families with earnings. These data indicate an increasing percentage of AFDC/TANF families with earned income. The percentage of TANF families with earnings increased from 9 percent of the caseload in FY 1994 to 28 percent in FY 1999. In FY 1999, there was a 4.2 percentage point increase in the percent of adult TANF recipients who became newly employed (job entry); a decrease of 3.2 percentage points in the percent of adult TANF recipients employed in one quarter who continued to be employed in the subsequent quarter (employment retention) and a decrease of 2 percentage points in the percent rate of earnings gained between the base quarter and the second subsequent quarter (employment earnings gain rate).

We believe that the decline in the job retention and earnings gain rates is, in part, the result of the changing composition of the remaining TANF caseload. The caseload continued to decline between FY 1998 and FY 1999 and there is concern that the remaining TANF recipients are likely to have less job skills and more barriers to employment resulting in less employment stability. We project modest increases in employment targets for FY 2003 discussed in the section Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002.

One of ACF’s initiatives was to increase self-sufficiency for low-income families by moving one million welfare recipients into new employment by 2000. For FY 1998, 46 States reported 1.3 million job entries, substantially exceeding the goal in only one year. This HPB job entry data exceeded the new employment goal by almost 30 percent. In FY 1999, 49 States reported 1.2 million job entries. Some of these jobs entries may have been filled by individuals who had previously been employed in FY 1998, lost their job and acquired a new job in FY 1999.

Data Issues

There are three data sources for reporting on the proposed performance targets. The first is TANF administrative data. The statute directs the Secretary to collect aggregated data (caseload summaries) and disaggregated data (by individual and family) on the TANF program quarterly. ACF has developed an automated TANF data reporting system to collect this information. This system was established to collect data under the TANF final rule effective October 1, 1999. The TANF work participation data is also collected through this system. The consistency and validity of this State-reported data is assessed through system edits and consistency checks, special data computation runs, and data trend analysis. Within limited resources, ACF will be assessing the source data for the information supplied by States.

The second data source is the information in State Unemployment Insurance wage records. With respect to the employment measures, States have been given the option, for the first three years of the HPB, to collect this information through their administrative records or State Unemployment Insurance agency wage records (UI) or both. All States are using UI information with some supplementation of administrative record data. ACF conducted a study using data from ten States to assess the viability of using UI wage data for the HPB performance measures. ACF concluded that this database has a high degree of consistency and reliability across States, the costs are reasonable, and there is sufficient technical support to facilitate the data matches.

Third, under the HPB final rules governing the FY 2002 and FY 2003 bonus awards, we have specified the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) as the sole data source for the HPB work measures. The NDNH contains UI wage data for all State and Federal employment wage data. States will provide recipient identifying information that will be matched against the NDNH database to obtain employment measurement data.

Summary Table

1.2 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (GENERAL)

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

There are nearly four million Americans with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are severe, chronic disabilities attributable to mental and/or physical impairment, which manifest before age 22 and are likely to continue indefinitely. They result in substantial limitations in three or more of the following areas: self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency, as well as the continuous need for individually planned and coordinated services.

The major goal of the Developmental Disabilities program is to assist people with developmental disabilities to reach maximum potential through increased independence, productivity, and community integration. ACF’s partnerships with State governments, local communities, and the private sector are comprehensive: prevention, diagnosis, early intervention, therapy, education, training, employment, and community living and leisure opportunities. Activities are funded in eight areas: quality assurance, education and early intervention, child care, health, employment, housing, transportation and recreation activities.

In ACF, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) and its partners in the developmental disability (DD) community have been participating in the development of the "Roadmap"--six program goals and four program-specific outcome measurement areas. The first goal (employment) is discussed in this section of the GPRA performance plan. The other goals are included in appropriate sections of this plan.

ACF's DD grantee partners fall into four complementary groups. Each provides services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families that are non-duplicative, unique, and interlocking.

• State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) in each State promote--through systemic change, capacity building, and advocacy services--a State-wide, consumer and family-centered, comprehensive system and coordination of services, supports, and other assistance for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families;
• Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems in each State protect the legal and human rights of individuals with developmental disabilities;
• University Centers on Disabilities (UCD) are interdisciplinary education, research and public service units of a university system or are public or not-for-profit entities associated with universities. These Centers provide interdisciplinary pre-service preparation of students and fellows, community service activities, and the dissemination of information and research findings; and
• Projects of National Significance (PNS) is a discretionary program providing funding through grants and contracts to public or private nonprofit entities that create opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities to contribute to, and participate in, all facets of community life. This program supports local implementation of practical solutions and provides results and information for possible national replication. PNS supports technical assistance; research regarding emerging disability issues, conferences and special meetings; and the development of national and State policy to enhance the independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in their communities of individuals with developmental disabilities. Additionally, funding is provided under the Family Support Program for States to create or expand statewide systems change.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

To achieve desired outcomes and meet the Roadmap goals, DD programs use approaches consistent with their missions. Therefore, SCDDs that assist in developing comprehensive and coordinated service delivery systems through systemic change, capacity building, and advocacy activities employ strategies that include demonstration of new approaches, outreach training, public education, and information to policy makers. P&As use strategies that protect the human and legal rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. These include legal, administrative, and other remedies, information and referral, investigating incidents of abuse and neglect, and educating policy makers. UCDs provide interdisciplinary training for professional and direct care personnel, community services, technical assistance, and dissemination of information and research findings. The PNS program provides ACF with the opportunity to focus funds on emerging areas of concern for individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, the DD program components, and other interested public and private non-profit entities.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

To improve and enhance services for children with developmental disabilities and their families, ACF coordinates with the Social Security Administration and the Department of Education and,within DHHS, collaborates with CMS, HRSA, and ACF. In the area of employment for working adults, ACF coordinates with DoL and DoT. In both areas, special committees, such as the President’s Committee on Mental Retardation and the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, participate. State Medicaid and human service agencies, public schools, and community services networks are essential partners. The private sector provides opportunities to employ individuals with disabilities.

Program-wide Performance

With the primary responsibility for developmental disabilities programs lodged in the States, ACF's ability to affect goal achievement is limited. ACF works in partnership with State-level program entities toward achieving the goals they set.

In FY 2001, all appropriated funding was made available to State Councils and P&A systems in the States. UCDs are funded, both for core funding and also for Training Initiative Projects. Under the PNS, funding is provided under the eight areas. Additional projects were funded under the Family Support program. To ensure the quality of programs, ADD has continued to provide technical assistance to its partners.

In FY 2000, the number of adults with developmental disabilities who obtained integrated jobs (measure 1.3a) was below the projected target. State Councils in 45 States and Territories reported 3,788 integrated jobs as a consequence of their intervention, 60 percent below the target of 9,517. States, responding to technical assistance provided by ADD and by their peers, revised their methods of data collection which resulted in the lower number. Interventions by State Councils include promoting job fairs, training job coaches, advocacy to employers to hire more people with developmental disabilities, and creating State-level entities that continue this work on an ongoing basis.

The achievement of the performance targets for measures 1.3a-c is affected by a number of factors, e.g., the impact of the economy on hiring and the perceived cost of implementing accommodations in the workplace; the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for competitive work for people with developmental disabilities; the business and cultural attitudes regarding the desirability of employing persons with developmental disabilities and State allocation of resources to these efforts.

The number of businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities (measure 1.3b) missed the target level by a significant margin. State Councils in 37 States and Territories reported 1,324 employers/businesses employing and supporting people with developmental disabilities, less than the target of 4,353. State Council interventions included educating employers on the benefits of hiring and issues needed to ensure successful employment. Employers were encouraged to hold job fairs targeted to people with developmental disabilities.

In FY 2001, performance for the dollars leveraged from ADD's Federal partners (measure 1.3c) was not met ($1.1 million rather than the projected $2.4 million was leveraged). The FY 2001 performance target was based on prospective funding opportunities that failed to generate the anticipated level of funding. In the future, ADD will seek out more reliable funding sources and will base its performance targets on these sources.

Data Issues

ACF and its DD partners worked together in a consensus-building process to develop a wide range of measures, grouped within agreed-upon categories, that all partners could accept as representative for their programmatic interventions. These measures were incorporated into program reporting instruments to permit national aggregation of targets and actual performance for DD's State-based programs. A few programmatically significant measures were selected for reporting in this performance plan. DD partners in the States are continuing to develop experience with projecting targets and collecting accurate data for performance.

Partners generate both performance targets and data reports. The targets generated by P&As (measure 7.2a) and UCDs (measure 7.3a) are developed in their annual planning process. The targets generated by SCDDs (measures 1.3a-b, and 2.1a) are developed for a five-year period and updated annually. The current State Plans cover the period FY 2002 to 2006. Data on actual performance for a particular fiscal year are reported in annual program performance reports (PPRs), submitted in January of the following fiscal year. University Centers on Disabilities reporting is delayed due to the offset fiscal year for universities.

During the past year, ADD made important steps in data collection by electronically soliciting annual reports with outcome data from its partners regarding their FY 1999 performance and FY 2000 targets. This effort is beginning to facilitate submission and analysis of performance measure data by ADD's geographically dispersed partners. The Electronic Data Submission (EDS) system is now in place and will continue to be used through FY 2002. The system consists of an extranet, using Internet-based technology and password protection. The grantees of ADD submit their reports annually by accessing the Internet, at the following URL: https://extranet.acf.dhhs.gov; where they enter a "Grants Extranet ID" and a password to access their portion of the extranet that contains the necessary data entry forms for their reports. These forms include all the necessary fields for submitting complete reports. Forms completed by a grantee become accessible to reviewers in ADD. When grantees’ reports are approved, they are locked into the ADD Management Information System (MIS). The data in the ADD MIS about ADD grantees and programs are now available to ADD staff through report-generating software and the extranet. Because grantee submissions can be analyzed quickly and accurately, and readily compared with target data, these automated systems enable ADD to more effectively track data and identify anomalies requiring correction by grantees.

The commitment of States, State and local school systems and the network of related services providers is critical to achieving State targets. Each State is responsible for selecting the performance goals that it will target for a particular year. The number of States that project targets and report on performance varies from year to year.

Verification and validation of data will occur through ongoing review and analysis of annual electronic reports, technical assistance site visits, and input from individuals with developmental disabilities, their families and other partners. Interagency agreements and memoranda of understanding provides the data for the last set of measures, (measure 1.3c) "dollars leveraged."

Various data sources are used to report on program targets and program outcomes, such as annual program performance reports, planning reports, and administrative records. These sources are tracked through the EDS system. The ADD MIS system based on the results from the EDS is used to compare targets and actual performance of ADD partners. When anomalies and variations from expected targets occur, ADD will work with individual partners to improve the outcomes reported and gain insight into the reason for an anomaly, both directly and with help from technical assistance contractors. Partners are encouraged to pursue corrective actions to ensure that data are valid.

However, ADD continues to experience challenges in establishing performance targets and measuring results, and as a result significant work must be done to ensure stability and reliability of ADD’s performance information. In FY 2002, ADD along with its State partners will begin a comprehensive process to make necessary changes in the methodology, data collection systems, and performance targets for each of the DD performance measures. The process will build upon the information generated by DHHS in the audit of ADD’s performance data and focus on creating a reliable performance measurement and data collection system.

1.3 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EMPLOYMENT)

The DD employment goal is: "Increase entry into and retention of employment for people with developmental disabilities consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Students with developmental disabilities have vocational supports while in school and on the job, receive assistance in identifying and planning careers, and have access to employment and other work experiences including post-secondary opportunities that accommodate students with disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities have job choices and career opportunities that are integrated, accessible, equitable, and supported. Employers are well informed of the capabilities of individuals with disabilities and about support practices and accommodations."

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

The achievement of the performance targets for measures 1.3a-c is affected by a number of factors, e.g., the impact of the economy on hiring and the perceived cost of implementing accommodations in the workplace; the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for competitive work for people with developmental disabilities; the business and cultural attitudes regarding the desirability of employing persons with developmental disabilities and State allocation of resources to these efforts. Although technical assistance provided by ACF to State programs has focused on improving data stability and programmatic outcomes, the lack of resources for data collection and the difficulties of data collection and interpretation continue to create instability in the data. As mentioned above, ADD will begin a review of the performance measures which may result in changes to its performance system. Targets for FY 2002 and 2003 reflect ADD’s commitment to maintain the previous year’s performance.

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase entry into, and retention of, employment for people with developmental disabilities consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs.

Objective:Increase employment of persons with developmental disabilities

1.3a.FY 2002: Achieve 3,850 adults with developmental disabilities who obtain integrated jobs as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Maintain at 3,850 adults with developmental disabilities who obtain integrated jobs as a result of DD program intervention.

Data Source: DDC annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

This measure focuses on employing persons with developmental disabilities. Because waiting lists for employment related services in many States are substantial and perceived costs of overcoming the barriers that create those waiting lists are significant, it is difficult to project performance. Still, we hope to achieve gradual improvement over time.

The programs in the States include three different approaches. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) works to create systems change within the employment service systems. Simultaneously public and business opinions and attitudes concerning employment of persons with disabilities are improved through educational efforts, involving both the State Council and the Centers on Disabilities/University Affiliated Programs. Protection and Advocacy Programs have worked to ensure that the rights of workers with developmental disabilities are not reduced.

Objective:Increase number of businesses/employers that employ persons with developmental disabilities

1.3b.FY 2002: Achieve 1,400 businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Maintain at 1,400 businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

Data Source: DDC annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

This measure focuses on the willingness of employers to hire and support the work of persons with developmental disabilities. The DD employment goal is: "Increase entry into and retention of employment for people with developmental disabilities consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs." Meeting this goal requires that employers are well informed of the capabilities of individuals with disabilities and support practices and accommodations. Public and private employment organizations vary in size. The perceived costs of providing accessibility by eliminating physical and structural barriers and accommodations (such as hearing and visual impairment aids) in a volatile economy militate against an employer hiring persons with developmental disabilities.

Three differing program approaches combine to create a comprehensive approach dealing with this issue. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) works to create systems change by providing better support for workers and ensuring that support is available to employers. Public and business opinions on employing persons with disabilities are improved through educational efforts, involving both the State Council and the Centers on Disabilities/University Affiliated Programs. The Centers on Disabilities and the State Councils are involved in researching improved models of support. Protection and Advocacy Programs work to ensure that employers are aware of the rights of workers with developmental disabilities.

Objective:Maintain the Federal dollars leveraged across the spectrum of Federal programs to benefit persons with developmental disabilities

1.3c.FY 2002: Leverage $2.4 million from ADD's Federal partners to support positive outcomes for people with developmental disabilities in terms of employment, housing, education, health, and community support as a result of ADD intervention.

FY 2003: Leverage $2.4 million from ADD's Federal partners to support positive outcomes for people with developmental disabilities in terms of employment, housing, education, health, and community support as a result of ADD intervention.

Data Source: ADD administrative records

This measure focuses on engaging numerous programs within the Federal government to collaborate with ACF to ensure that persons with developmental disabilities receive the support they need. This support includes helping individuals to live lives that are independent, productive, and integrated in their communities. ACF promotes increasing the number of formal agreements with other Federal programs to meet this goal.

ACF staff continue their efforts to develop and maintain contacts with other Federal programs which impact on persons with developmental disabilities. Memoranda of Understanding are developed, which often include the co-funding of projects. The need to meet programmatic and legislative requirements makes increasing these collaborative efforts challenging.Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

ACF has consulted extensively with States and other customers/partners to develop regulations on work participation standards, the HPB, and the TANF data collection system. As noted in the section Program Activities, Strategies and Resources, a final rule, covering TANF work participation standards and data reporting requirements, was published on April 12, 1999. Final rules governing the FY 2002 and 2003 HPB awards were published August 30, 2000.

A primary goal of the TANF statute is to move recipients from welfare to work and self-sufficiency. These five measures taken together measure State success at achieving that goal. Full success requires not only getting recipients into jobs, but also keeping them in those jobs and increasing their earnings in order to reduce dependency and enable families to support themselves. The TANF data collection provisions limit our ability to require States to collect the longitudinal outcome data reflected in measures 1.1c-e. However, these measures reflect critical performance information necessary for States to effectively manage their programs. Many States were already collecting this kind of information before it was incorporated into the High Performance Bonus (HPB) system. The HPB provides an additional incentive for States to collect and report this information.

ACF views the work participation rates (measures 1.1a-b) as process measures and the other work measures as interim outcome measures. While we have performance data for FY 1998 and FY 1999, the projected performance targets remain somewhat speculative given the changing nature of the TANF population.

Achieving economic independence for many TANF families begins with either direct job search or eliminating barriers to employment, e.g., lack of basic skills, and progresses to acquiring job experiences, a private sector job, increased wages, and eventually self-sufficiency. ACF believes that there are three key elements in this process: getting a job, retaining the job, and increased earnings. Therefore, ACF selected the following measures and performance targets:

1.1a.FY 2002: All States meet the TANF all families work participation rates for FY 2002:

-- All families rate: 50%

FY 2003: All States meet the TANF all families work participation rates for FY 2003.

-- All families rate: 50%

1.1b.FY 2002: All States meet the TANF two-parent families work participation rate of 90%.

FY 2003: All States meet the TANF two-parent families work participation rates of 90%.

The work participation rates, measures 1.1a-b, were established by Congress. The statute directs the Secretary to collect aggregated data (caseload summaries) and disaggregated data (by individual and family) on the TANF program quarterly.

1.1c.FY 2002: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) at 43% the adult TANF recipients who become newly employed.

FY 2003: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) in the percentage of adult TANF recipients who become newly employed.

1.1d.FY 2002: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) at 84% the adult TANF recipients/former recipients employed in one quarter of the year who continue to be employed in the next two consecutive quarters.

FY 2003: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) in the percentage of adult TANF recipients/former recipients employed in one quarter of the year who continue to be employed in the next two consecutive quarters.

1.1e.FY 2002: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) at 28% the rate of earnings gained by employed adult TANF recipients/former recipients between a base quarter and the second subsequent quarter.

FY 2003: Maintain the increase (from the baseline year) in the percentage rate of earnings gained by employed adult TANF recipients/former recipients between a base quarter and the second subsequent quarter.

Data Sources: see discussion under "Data Issues"

Note: For this rate/measure we look at the earnings of those who are employed in each of the four quarters of the measurement year and determine if they are also employed in the second subsequent quarter. If they are employed in both quarters, we determine the gain in earnings (if any) between the initial quarter and the second subsequent quarter. The sum of these gains in earnings across the four quarters is the numerator. The denominator is the sum of the earnings in each of the four quarters in the measurement year.

The work performance measures 1.1c-e were developed after extensive consultation with the American Public Human Services Association, the National Governors Association, and States as specified in the HPB statute. In FY 1999, ACF modified the work performance goal specifications to reflect percentage increase in performance rather than numeric changes and established modest increases in target levels for FY 1999 through FY 2001 with the FY 2002 target remaining unchanged from the FY 2001 target. These actions were taken for the following reasons. The performance achieved by States in FY 1998 and FY 1999 under the job entry, retention, and earnings gain rate measures (measures 1.1c-e) reflect a major accomplishment. One factor that may explain the increase in job entry rates (measure 1.1c) over the FY 1998 levels is States may have had access to more complete data in the second year of operating TANF. In addition, because there is concern that the remaining TANF population has more barriers to employment, it is not clear that the projected modest increases in performance will be achievable.

1.2 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (GENERAL)

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

There are nearly four million Americans with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are severe, chronic disabilities attributable to mental and/or physical impairment which manifest before age 22 and are likely to continue indefinitely. They result in substantial limitations in three or more of the following areas: self-care, receptive and expressive language, learning, mobility, self-direction, capacity for independent living, and economic self-sufficiency, as well as the continuous need for individually planned and coordinated services.

The major goal of the Developmental Disabilities program is to assist people with developmental disabilities to reach maximum potential through increased independence, productivity, and community integration. ACF’s partnerships with State governments, local communities, and the private sector are comprehensive: prevention, diagnosis, early intervention, therapy, education, training, employment, and community living and leisure opportunities.

In ACF, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) and its partners in the developmental disability (DD) community have been participating in the development of the "Roadmap"--six program goals and four program-specific outcome measurement areas. The first goal (employment) is discussed in this section of the GPRA performance plan. Other goals appear in appropriate sections later in this plan.

ACF's DD grantee partners fall into four complementary groups. Each serves individuals with developmental disabilities and their families in a non-duplicating, unique, and interlocking way:

• Developmental Disability Councils (DDC) in each State promote--through systemic change, capacity building, and advocacy services--in a State-wide, consumer and family-centered, comprehensive system and a coordinated array of services, supports, and other assistance for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families;
• Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems in each State protect the legal and human rights of individuals with developmental disabilities;
• University Affiliated Programs (UAP) provide interdisciplinary pre-service preparation of students and fellows, community service activities, and the dissemination of information and research findings; and
• Projects of National Significance (PNS) provide funding through grants and contracts to support the development of national and State policy to enhance the independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in their communities of individuals with developmental disabilities. Additionally, funding is provided under the Family Support Program for States to create or expand statewide systems change.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

To achieve desired outcomes and meet the Roadmap goals, DD programs and ACF will use approaches consistent with their complementary missions. Therefore, DDCs that assist in developing comprehensive and coordinated service delivery systems through systemic change, capacity building, and advocacy activities will employ strategies that include demonstration of new approaches, outreach training, public education, and informing policy makers. P&As will use strategies that protect the human and legal rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. These include legal, administrative, and other remedies, information and referral, investigating incidents of abuse and neglect, and educating policy makers. UAPs will provide interdisciplinary training for professional and direct care personnel, community services, technical assistance, and will disseminate information and research findings. The PNS program provides ACF with the opportunity to focus funds on emerging areas of concern for individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, the DD program components, and other interested public and private non-profit entities.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

To improve and enhance services for children with developmental disabilities and their families, ACF coordinates closely with the Social Security Administration and the Department of Education. Collaboration within DHHS among HCFA, HRSA, and ACF is essential. Regarding employment for working age adults, the same internal partners coordinate with DoL and DoT. In both cases, participation by special committees, such as the President’s Committee on Mental Retardation and the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, will enhance the effort. State Medicaid and human service agencies are essential partners, and the public schools and community services networks assist as well. Finally, the private sector has the potential to employ individuals with disabilities, to the ultimate advantage of both employees and employers.

Program-wide Performance

With the primary responsibility for developmental disabilities programs lodged in the States, ACF's ability to affect goal achievement is limited. ACF works in partnership with State-level program entities toward achieving the goals they set.

In FY 2001, all appropriated funding was made available to DD Councils andb> P&A systems in the States. UAPs are funded, both for core funding and also for Training Initiative Projects. Under the PNS, funding is provided under three priority areas. The three priorities are "Mobilizing for Change/Rapid Deployment of Good Ideas," "Bridging the Digital Divide: Building Content," and "Managing our Program Knowledge through Web Improvement." Additionally, projects were funded under the Family Support program. In FY 2001, ADD set a target to leverage $2.4 million from its Federal partners in support of positive outcomes for people with developmental disabilities in terms of employment, housing, education, health, and community support as a result of ADD intervention. To ensure the quality of programs, ADD has continued to provide technical assistance to its partners.

In FY 2000, the number of adults with developmental disabilities who obtained integrated jobs (measure 1.2a) was below the projected target. DD Councils in 45 States and Territories reported 3,788 integrated jobs as a consequence of their intervention, 60% below the target of 9,517. States, responding to technical assistance provided by ADD and by their peers, revised their methods of data collection resulting in the lower number. For this reason, the baseline year has been revised from FY 1999 to FY 2000. Interventions by DD Councils include promoting job fairs, training job coaches, advocacy to employers to hire more people with developmental disabilities, and creating State-level entities that continue this work on an ongoing basis.

The number of businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities (measure 1.2b) missed the target level by a significant margin (similar to the achievement of FY 1999). DD Councils in 37 States and Territories reported 1,324 employers/businesses employing and supporting people with developmental disabilities, less than the target of 4,353. State DD Council interventions included educating employers on the benefits of hiring and issues needed to ensure successful employment. Employers were encouraged to hold job fairs targeted to people with developmental disabilities.

Performance for the dollars leveraged from ADD's Federal partners (measure 1.2c) was met ($2.4 million).

Data Issues

ACF and its DD partners worked together in a consensus-building process to develop a wide range of measures, grouped within agreed-upon categories, that all partners could accept as representative, when taken as a whole, for their programmatic interventions. These numerous measures were incorporated into program reporting instruments to permit national aggregation of future-year targets and past-year actual performance for DD's State-based programs. A few programmatically significant measures were selected for reporting in this performance plan. DD partners in the States are continuing to develop experience with projecting future-year targets and collecting accurate data for past-year performance.

Partners generate both performance targets and data reports. The targets generated by P&As (measure 7.2a) and UAPs (measure 7.3a) are developed in their annual planning process. The targets generated by DDCs (measures 1.2a-b, and 2.1a) are developed for a three-year period and updated annually. The targets for the next triennial report, FY 2001 to 2003, are included in this plan. Data on actual performance for a particular fiscal year are reported in annual program performance reports (PPRs), submitted in January of the following fiscal year. University Affiliated Programs reporting is delayed due to the offset fiscal year for universities.

During the year, ADD achieved a breakthrough in data collection by electronically soliciting annual reports with outcome data from its partners regarding their FY 1999 performance and FY 2000 targets. This greatly facilitated submission and analysis of performance measure data by ADD's geographically dispersed partners. The Electronic Data Submission (EDS) system is now in place and will continue to be used through FY 2002. The system consists of an extranet, using Internet-based technology and password protection. The grantees of ADD submit their reports annually by accessing the Internet, at the following URL: https://extranet.acf.dhhs.gov; where they enter a "Grants Extranet ID" and a password to access their portion of the extranet that contains the necessary data entry forms for their reports. These forms include all the necessary fields for submitting complete reports. Forms completed by a grantee become accessible to reviewers in ADD. When grantees’ reports are approved, they are locked into the ADD Management Information System (MIS). The data in the ADD MIS about ADD grantees and programs is now available to ADD staff through report-generating software and the extranet. Because grantee submissions can be analyzed quickly and accurately, and readily compared with target data, these automated systems enable ADD to more effectively track data and identify anomalies requiring correction by grantees.

States, State and local school systems and the network of related services providers must be able to sustain their commitment if State targets are to be achieved. For example, to meet employment goals (measures 1.2a-b) for working-age adults with developmental disabilities, jobs will need to be available for those who are qualified. This will depend, in large part, on economic conditions in States and localities. (Similar outside influences and constraints apply to health, housing, community support, and education.) Each State is responsible for selecting the performance goals that it will target for a particular year. Therefore, the number of States that project targets and report on performance varies from year to year.

Verification and validation of data will occur through ongoing review and analysis of annual electronic reports, technical assistance site visits, and input from individuals with developmental disabilities, their families and other partners. Interagency agreements and memoranda of understanding will provide the data for the last set of measures, (measure 1.2c) "dollars leveraged".

Various data sources are used to report on program targets and program outcomes, such as annual program performance reports, planning reports, and administrative records. These sources will be tracked through the EDS system. The ADD MIS system based on the results from the EDS will be used to compare targets and actual performance of ADD partners. When anomalies and variations from expected targets occur, ADD will work with individual partners to improve the outcomes reported and gain insight into the reason for an anomaly, both directly and with help from technical assistance contractors. Partners are encouraged to pursue corrective actions to ensure that data are valid.

1.3 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EMPLOYMENT)

The DD employment goal is: "Increase entry into and retention of employment for people with developmental disabilities consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Students with developmental disabilities have vocational supports while in school and on the job, receive assistance in identifying and planning careers, and have access to employment and other work experiences including post-secondary opportunities that accommodate students with disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities have job choices and career opportunities that are integrated, accessible, equitable, and supported. Employers are well informed of the capabilities of individuals with disabilities and about support practices and accommodations."

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

The achievement of the performance targets for measures 1.3a-c is affected by a number of factors, e.g., the impact of the economy on hiring and the perceived cost of implementing accommodations in the workplace; the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for competitive work for people with developmental disabilities; the business and cultural attitudes regarding the desirability of employing persons with developmental disabilities and State allocation of resources to these efforts. Technical assistance provided by ACF to State programs has helped improve data stability and programmatic outcomes; nevertheless the lack of resources for data collection and the difficulties of data collection and interpretation continue to create instability in the data. Projections for FY 2003 are based on the assumption that there will be limited increases in employment or that performance will remain stable.

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase entry into, and retention of, employment for people with developmental disabilities consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs.

Objective:Increase employment of persons with developmental disabilities

1.3a.FY 2002: Increase to 3,850 from the FY 2000 baseline of 3,788 the number of adults with developmental disabilities who obtain integrated jobs as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Increase to xxx from the FY 2000 baseline of 3,788 the number of adults with developmental disabilities who obtain integrated jobs as a result of DD program intervention.

Data source: DDC annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

This measure focuses on employing persons with developmental disabilities. Because waiting lists for employment related services in many States are huge and perceived costs of overcoming the barriers that create those waiting lists are significant, it is difficult to project performance. Still, we hope to achieve gradual improvement over time.

The programs in the States work through three different approaches. The Council on Developmental Disabilities (CDD) works to create systems change within the employment service systems. Simultaneously public and business opinions and attitudes concerning employment of persons with disabilities are improved through educational efforts, involving both the Council and the Centers for Excellence/University Affiliated Programs. Protection and Advocacy Programs have worked to ensure that the rights of workers with developmental disabilities are not reduced.

Objective:Increase number of businesses/employers that employ persons with developmental disabilities

1.3b.FY 2002: Increase to 1,400 from the FY 1999 baseline of 1,113 the number of businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Increase to xxx from the FY 1999 baseline of 1,113 the number of businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

Data source: DDC annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

This measure focuses on the willingness of employers to hire and support the work of persons with developmental disabilities. The DD employment goal is: "Increase entry into and retention of employment for people with developmental disabilities consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs." Meeting this goal requires that employers are well informed of the capabilities of individuals with disabilities and about support practices and accommodations. Public and private employment organizations vary in size, and the perceived costs of providing accessibility by eliminating physical and structural barriers and accommodations (such as hearing and visual impairment aids) in a volatile economy militate against an employer hiring persons with developmental disabilities. While it is difficult to project large increases in performance, we anticipate gradual improvement over time.

Three program approaches combined create a comprehensive approach to dealing with this issue. The Council on Developmental Disabilities (CDD) works to create systems change in providing better support for workers and ensuring that support is available to employers. Public and business opinions on employing persons with disabilities are improved through educational efforts, involving both the Council and the Centers for Excellence/University Affiliated Programs. The Centers for Excellence and the Councils are involved in researching improved models of support. Protection and Advocacy Programs work to ensure that employers are aware of the rights of workers with developmental disabilities.

Objective:Maintain the Federal dollars leveraged across the spectrum of Federal programs to benefit persons with developmental disabilities

1.3c.FY 2002: Maintain at $2.4 million from the FY 1999 baseline the dollars leveraged from ADD's Federal partners to support positive outcomes for people with developmental disabilities in terms of employment, housing, education, health, and community support as a result of ADD intervention.

FY 2003: Maintain at $2.4 million the dollars leveraged from ADD's Federal partners to support positive outcomes for people with developmental disabilities in terms of employment, housing, education, health, and community support as a result of ADD intervention.

Data source: ADD administrative records

This measure focuses on engaging numerous programs within the Federal government to collaborate with ACF to ensure that persons with developmental disabilities receive the support they need. This support includes helping individuals to live lives that are independent, productive, and integrated in their communities. ACF promotes increasing the number of formal agreements with other Federal programs to meet this goal. Maintaining the target level at $2.4 million will require ongoing effort by ACF to develop new formal agreements to replace those that are ending.

ACF staff continue their efforts to develop and maintain contacts with other Federal programs which impact on persons with developmental disabilities. Memoranda of Understanding are developed, which often include the co-funding of projects. The need to meet programmatic and legislative requirements makes increasing these collaborative efforts challenging.1.4 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

ACF provides assistance and services to persons admitted to the United States as refugees, asylees, Cuban or Haitian entrants and Amerasian immigrants. The major program goals are to provide resources and technical assistance to States and other grantees in order to help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency and social adjustment within the shortest time possible following their arrival in the U.S.

Federal resettlement assistance to refugees is provided primarily through a State-administered refugee resettlement program. States provide transitional cash and medical assistance and social services to refugees, and maintain legal responsibility for the care of unaccompanied refugee children.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) provides funding for a broad range of social services to refugees, both through States and through direct service grants, to help refugees obtain employment and achieve economic self-sufficiency and social adjustment as quickly as possible. After deducting set-asides mandated by Congress, ORR, as in previous fiscal years, allocated 85 percent of the social service funds on a formula basis.

In June of FY 2000, ORR changed its policy regarding the start date for eligibility of asylees for ORR benefits and services. This policy change added approximately 37,000 asylees to the ORR caseload eligible to receive cash and services. Adding the asylees to the refugee arrival ceiling (72,000) and entrant arrivals (19,000) increases our total caseload to 128,000.

State Administered Program

Since FY 1995 the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has been working in partnership with States to implement the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) into our State-administered program. Our joint efforts have moved the State-administered program to a focus on results through the process of setting and reporting annual outcome goals.

The State-administered program outcome measure definitions are:

Entered employments -- entered employment (job placements) is defined as the entry of an active participant in employment services into unsubsidized employment for at least one day during any quarter of the Federal fiscal year.

Cash assistance terminations due to earnings -- a cash assistance termination (grant termination) is defined as the closing of a cash assistance case due to earned income in an amount that is predicted to exceed the State’s payment standard for the case based on family size, thereby rendering the case ineligible for cash assistance.

Cash assistance reductions due to earnings -- a cash assistance reduction (grant reduction) is defined as a reduction in the amount of cash assistance that a case receives as a result of earned income from employment. (This outcome measure is not included in this plan.)

Average hourly wage at placement -- average hourly wage at placement (employment entry) is calculated as the sum of the hourly wages for the unduplicated number of full-time placements in employment during the fiscal year divided by the total unduplicated number of individuals placed in full-time employment. (This outcome measure is not included in this plan.)

Ninety-day employment retentions -- this is a measure of continued participation in the labor market, not retention of a specific job. Employed means working for wages on the ninetieth day from placement at any unsubsidized job. Where there have been multiple placements for the same individual within the same Federal fiscal year, the date of the first employment entry is the start date for calculating the 90-day follow-up. An individual who is on strike on the ninetieth day is considered employed. An individual who has been laid off and does not anticipate returning to the same employment within 30 days is considered unemployed, unless the individual has obtained other employment.

Entered employments with health benefits available -- entered employments with health benefits available reflects the availability of health benefits (either at placement, or at any time within 6 months of placement) for those individuals who entered full-time employment. This is not a measure of how many individuals elect to enroll in health benefits, but rather how many jobs offer this option. Benefits should be considered available if self-only coverage is available to the employee, even if coverage is not extended to the employee’s family members. Benefits are considered available without regard to whether the employee must contribute to the premium or whether the employee must wait for coverage.

Matching Grant Program

The Matching Grant program provides an alternative approach to the State-administered resettlement assistance. It provides voluntary agencies the opportunity to use focused intensive employment services, financial incentives, and the flexibility to experiment with creative solutions to the special employment problems of refugees in order to achieve early placements. The program’s goal is to help refugees attain self-sufficiency within four months after arrival, without access to public cash assistance. This program provides more comprehensive supports during intake and is targeted to families with at least one member deemed employable. Both of these features contribute to the high success rate for the CY 2000 performance in this program.

The definition for economic self-sufficiency -- an integral component of the Matching Grant Program -- is earnings/income for the total family at a level that enables a family unit to support itself without receipt of cash assistance.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ORR conducts on-site monitoring of selected States and other grantees to help them achieve improved client employment and self-sufficiency outcomes. ORR targets States that have large refugee populations and that receive significant ACF refugee program funding for monitoring. In monitoring, ORR assists States and grantees to identify strategies to improve outcomes on ORR performance measures and provides technical assistance on implementing program improvements.

Foreign policy decisions and crises affect the Refugee Program. Its ability to quickly resettle new arrivals depends not only on local job markets but also on the rate of influx and refugees' special needs, educational levels, and English proficiency.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

ACF refugee resettlement policies and activities are coordinated with the U.S. Department of State, State and community agencies, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Consumer Service, as well as with TANF, Medicaid and other programs within DHHS.

Program-wide Performance

FY 2000 Performance in the State-Administered Program:

ORR tracked State and county performance throughout the year. The FY 2000 performance was as follows:

Entered Employments: The goal for measure 1.4a was 54,176. The actual totaled 48,820 a 3 percent decline from the number recorded in FY 1999 (50,208).

Terminations due to Earnings: The goal for measure 1.4c was 17,304. The actual totaled 15,539, a 6 percent decline from FY 1999 (16,445).

Employment Retentions: The goal for measure 1.4d was 39,883. The actual totaled 33,626 a 7 percent decline from FY 1999 (36,055).

Entered Employments with Health Benefits: The goal for measure 1.4b was 29,156. The actual totaled 27,080, a 5 percent decrease from FY 1999 (28,425).

CY 2000 Performance in the Matching Grant Voluntary Agency Program:

The Matching Grant Program emphasizes family self-sufficiency (independence from cash assistance) and is characterized by a strong emphasis on early employment and intensive services during the first four months after arrival. The performance measures are focused on the two most critical program goals: entered employments and the proportion of cases that are self-sufficient at four months after arrival in the U.S.

Entered Employments: The goal for measure 1.4e was 9,051. The actual totaled 8,409 a 13% percent decrease from the number recorded in CY 1999 (9,713).

Self-sufficiency at 120 days The goal for measure 1.4f was 5,938. The actual totaled 5,502 cases a 15 percent decrease from CY 1999 (6,497).

Explanations for the shortfalls in performance are as follows:

In FY 2000, 28 States did not meet their projected caseload target. The caseload consists of the number of refugees with whom a service provider had regular and direct involvement during the fiscal year in planned employment-related activities for the purpose of assisting the refugee to find or retain employment. Because States base their employment targets on projected caseloads, an over-estimation results in setting more aggressive targets for all measures relating to employment.

Some clients who request employment assistance receive services and in the midst of services find a job "on their own" but are unavailable or unwilling to share the employment information. Discrepant data are being reported for some cases because States are struggling with identifying numbers of clients being served. For those employable clients receiving cash assistance, sometimes the assistance is reduced instead of terminated. In some States, more of the refugees served under ORR are hard to place and often need extensive assistance to find a job.

Strategies ORR will implement to improve performance:

ORR staff will continue to negotiate the goal setting process with our partners to arrive at mutually acceptable goals and provide technical assistance where needed and program monitoring. Correcting discrepancies in data will be a priority.

Each year States are asked to set goals which represent continuous improvement over the previous year's performance. States that reach a high employment and self-sufficiency rate of 90 percent among employable refugees may establish goals to maintain that level of outcome instead of aiming for continued improvement. While States are encouraged to strive for continuous improvement, goal setting continues to be a negotiation process.

National numbers do not tell the whole story. Many States significantly increased their performance.

Entered employment: The number of job placements decreased by 3 percent in FY 2000. Twenty States and six California counties exceeded their placements from last year. Ten States placed more than 90 percent of their caseload. Thirty-one States increased their FY 2001 target by 5 percent or more than their FY 2000 performance. Nine States met or exceeded the FY 2000 target they established.

Cash Assistance Terminations: Sixteen States and six California counties increased the number of cash assistance terminations over the previous year. Nine States met or exceeded the FY 2000 target they established. Twenty-four States increased their FY 2001 target by 5 percent or more of their FY 2000 performance.

Retentions: Sixty-nine percent of refugees who found employment retained their employment for ninety days. Seventeen States and two California counties improved the job retention rate over the previous year. In 28 States, more than 75 percent of job placements were retained for 90 days or more. Thirteen States met or exceeded the FY 2000 target they established and only five States missed their target by up to 5 percent. Twenty-three States proposed increases in their FY 2001 target by 5 percent over their FY 2000 performance.

Entered Employment with Health Benefits: Sixty-two percent of full-time placements offered health insurance compared with 66 percent the year before. Nineteen States and three California counties increased their rates of health benefit availability over FY 1999. Eighteen States met or exceeded the FY 2000 target they established; twelve States missed their target by 5 percent or less. Eighteen States increased their FY 2001 target by 5 percent or more of their FY 2000 performance.

FY 2000 showed significant improvement in the quality of jobs found for refugees. Forty-one States and all the California counties reported higher wages at placement than in FY 1999. Thirty-six States reported average wage at placement of $7.00 or above, compared with twenty-seven the year before. Average wage at placement in the State-Administered program $7.58, a 6 percent increase from FY 1999 ($7.20).

Data Issues

Data are submitted quarterly by all States participating in the State-administered program via the quarterly performance report (Form ORR-6). Data for the Matching Grant are submitted to ACF three times per year on the Matching Grant Progress Report form. Baseline data for all measures in the State-administered program are derived from FY 1997 annual unduplicated outcome data as reported on the annual Outcome Goal Plans. Baseline data for the Matching Grant program are derived from the Calendar Year 1997 Report. Matching Grant unduplicated annual performance data are submitted to ACF in February of each year.

Desk monitoring and tracking of quarterly performance report data occur quarterly in the State-administered program and 3 times per year in the Matching Grant program. Data are validated by periodic on-site monitoring, in which refugee cases are randomly selected and reviewed. Outcomes reported by service providers are verified with both employers and refugees to ensure accurate reporting of job placements, wages and retentions.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Background for the selection of performance measures: The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) convened a workgroup comprised of State Refugee Coordinators and ORR staff in November 1994 to establish performance measures and annual outcome goals. The workgroup agreed the selection of performance measures would be based on the following criteria: measures must be results-oriented, quantifiable, based on reliable data, stated in terms of positive change in social or economic conditions for the refugees using the services, and they must measure program effectiveness. The targets would measure achievements in a given period of time.

The workgroup also recommended that States be required to establish annual outcome targets aimed at continuous improvement of performance for each of the selected program measures. All performance measures are aimed at increasing refugee early employment and self-sufficiency. The workgroup recommended the following six program measures as most representative and manageable for reporting purposes. Five of the six measures have been incorporated in the ACF annual performance plan.

STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAM

Specific program goals to be achieved in FY 2003 have been set on the four most critical of the six outcome measures. For the FY 1999 - 2003 targets, a common baseline year of 1997 (the earliest year with a complete dataset) was established for both programs serving refugees, replacing the baselines used previously. Baselines for the State-administered program were established using fiscal year data.

1.4a.FY 2002: Increase the number of refugees entering employment through ACF-funded refugee employment services by at least 5% annually from the prior year’s actual performance.

FY 2003: Increase the number of refugees entering employment through ACF-funded refugee employment services by at least 5% annually from the prior year’s actual performance.

1.4b.FY 2002: Increase the number of entered employments with health benefits available as a subset of full-time job placements by 5% annually from the prior year’s actual performance.

FY 2003: Increase the number of entered employments with health benefits available as a subset of full-time job placements by 5% annually from the prior year’s actual performance.

1.4c.FY 2002: Increase the number of refugee cash assistance cases closed due to employment by at least 5% annually as a subset of all entered employments from the prior year’s actual performance.

FY 2003: Increase the number of refugee cash assistance cases closed due to employment by at least 5% annually as a subset of all entered employments from the prior year’s actual performance.

1.4d.FY 2002: Increase the number of 90-day job retentions as a subset of all entered employments by at least 5% annually from the prior year’s actual performance.

FY 2003: Increase the number of 90-day job retentions as a subset of all entered employments by at least 5% annually from the prior year’s actual performance.

Data Sources: ORR-6.

Beginning with FY 1996, States (and California counties) submit an end-of-year report to ORR comparing projected annual targets with actual targets achieved for each of the six measures. States may include a narrative to explain increases or decreases in performance due to local conditions that may have affected performance during the year. This includes labor market conditions or other factors, such as unanticipated reduction in refugee arrivals.

When setting targets for each measure, States are asked to establish targets aimed at improving the previous year’s actual performance. While there are no national performance requirements or formal-comparison of States, each State’s actual annual performance is compared to that State’s projected targets to calculate the level of achievement and to ensure that States strive for continuous improvement in their goal-setting process from year to year. States that reach a high employment and self-sufficiency rate of 90 percent among employable refugees may choose to maintain their target levels rather than increase them. Although there are no monetary punishments or rewards, data on each State’s or county’s annual targets and actual performance for the six measures are published in the Annual Report to Congress. The publicity serves as an incentive for improved performance.

MATCHING GRANT VOLUNTARY AGENCY PROGRAM

ACF requires nonprofit agencies participating in the Matching Grant Voluntary Agency Program to set outcome goals each year on five outcome measures negotiated with the Matching Grant agencies. Only the first two outcome measures are included in this annual performance plan and report.

1. Entered employments (job placements)
2. Self-sufficiency at 120 days (cases and persons)
3. Self-sufficiency at 180 days (cases and persons)
4. Average hourly wage at placement
5. Entered employments with health benefits available

The Matching Grant program baselines use the calendar year to reflect the matching grant program period. The two sets of measures that follow track progress for this program.

1.4e.FY 2002: Increase the number of refugees who enter employment through the Matching Grant program as a subset of all MG employable adults by at least 5% annually from the prior calendar year’s actual performance.

FY 2003: Increase the number of refugees who enter employment through the Matching Grant program as a subset of all MG employable adults by at least 5% annually from the prior calendar year’s actual performance.

1.4f.FY 2002: Increase the number of MG refugee families (cases) that are self-sufficient (not dependent on any cash assistance) within the first 4 months after arrival by at least 4% annually from the prior calendar year’s actual performance.

FY 2003: Increase the number of MG refugee families (cases) that are self-sufficient (not dependent on any cash assistance) within the first 4 months after arrival by at least 4% annually from the prior calendar year’s actual performance.

Data Source: Matching Grant Progress Report

ORR has implemented a number of strategies aimed at challenging States to improve performance for targets that were not achieved. ORR publishes State and Matching Grant performance results in the Annual Report to Congress; certificates of commendation are presented to States with increased performance at the annual ORR national conference; and ORR staff negotiate the targets and provide technical assistance and monitoring to the States and Matching Grant Program grantees to achieve mutually acceptable goals.

Ability to predict future performance: ORR continues to focus on performance and encourages grantees to be courageous in setting goals. ORR negotiates annual goals with each of its grantees and stresses continuous improvement. The extent to which ORR can predict future performance is limited, because of the emergency humanitarian nature of the refugee resettlement program. Response to international mass migrations of persecuted persons, such as the asylees and the "Lost Boys" from Sudan, places additional demands on our domestic resettlement partners by dramatically increasing the numbers of refugees receiving ORR services. However, our service network continues to place additional refugees in jobs each year.

1.4 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

ACF provides assistance and services to persons admitted to the United States as refugees, asylees, Cuban or Haitian entrants and Amerasian immigrants. The major program goals are to provide resources and technical assistance to States and other grantees in order to help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency and social adjustment within the shortest time possible following their arrival in the U.S.

Federal resettlement assistance to refugees is provided primarily through a State-administered refugee resettlement program. States provide transitional cash and medical assistance and social services to refugees, and maintain legal responsibility for the care of unaccompanied refugee children.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) provides funding for a broad range of social services to refugees, both through States and through direct service grants, to help refugees obtain employment and achieve economic self-sufficiency and social adjustment as quickly as possible. After deducting set-asides mandated by Congress, ORR, as in previous fiscal years, allocated 85 percent of the social service funds on a formula basis. The requested increase of $7.121 million will provide transitional and medical services for additional persons that receive asylum status each year. The request for $10 million (an increase of $5 million over the FY 2001 current estimate) will ensure continued administration of a national network for identification, tracking and certification of trafficking victims. There may be as many as 50,000 such victims of trafficking in the U.S. today.

In June of FY 2000, ORR changed its policy regarding the start date for eligibility of asylees for ORR benefits and services. This policy change added approximately 19,000 asylees to the ORR caseload eligible to receive cash and services. Adding the asylees to the anticipated refugee ceiling (85,000) and entrant arrivals (20,000) increases our total caseload to 124,000.

State Administered Program

Since FY 1995 the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has been working in partnership with States to implement the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) into our State-administered program. Our joint efforts have moved the State-administered program to a focus on results through the process of setting and reporting of annual outcome goals.

The State-administered program outcome measure definitions are:

Entered employments (job placements) -- entered employment is defined as the entry of an active participant in employment services into unsubsidized employment for at least one day during any quarter of the Federal fiscal year.

Cash assistance terminations due to earnings -- a cash assistance termination (grant termination) is defined as the closing of a cash assistance case due to earned income in an amount that is predicted to exceed the State’s payment standard for the case based on family size, thereby rendering the case ineligible for cash assistance.

Cash assistance reductions due to earnings -- a cash assistance reduction (grant reduction) is defined as a reduction in the amount of cash assistance that a case receives as a result of earned income from employment.

Average hourly wage at placement -- average hourly wage at placement (employment entry) is calculated as the sum of the hourly wages for the unduplicated number of full-time placements in employment during the fiscal year divided by the total unduplicated number of individuals placed in full-time employment. (This outcome measure is not included in this plan.)

Ninety-day employment retentions -- this is a measure of continued participation in the labor market, not retention of a specific job. Employed means working for wages on the ninetieth day from placement at any unsubsidized job. Where there have been multiple placements for the same individual within the same Federal fiscal year, the date of the first employment entry is the start date for calculating the 90-day follow-up. An individual who is on strike on the ninetieth day is considered employed. An individual who has been laid off and does not anticipate returning to the same employment within 30 days is considered unemployed, unless the individual has obtained other employment.

Entered employments with health benefits available -- entered employments with health benefits available reflects the availability of health benefits (either at placement, or at any time within 6 months of placement) for those individuals who entered full-time employment. This is not a measure of how many individuals elect to enroll in health benefits, but rather how many jobs offer this option. Benefits should be considered available if self-only coverage is available to the employee, even if coverage is not extended to the employee’s family members. Benefits are considered available without regard to whether the employee must contribute to the premium or whether the employee must wait for coverage.

States may include a narrative explanation of local conditions that may have affected performance during the year, such as labor market conditions, or other factors that had an impact on a State’s ability to achieve its goals, such as an unanticipated reduction in refugee arrivals. Four of the above six measures are included in the State Administered program and two are included in the Matching Grants program.

Matching Grant Program

The Matching Grant program provides an alternative approach to the State-administered resettlement assistance. It provides voluntary agencies the opportunity to use focused intensive employment services, financial incentives, and the flexibility to experiment with creative solutions to the special employment problems of refugees in order to achieve early placements. The program’s goal is to help refugees attain self-sufficiency within four months after arrival, without access to public cash assistance. This program provides more comprehensive supports during intake and is targeted to families with at least one member deemed employable. Both of these features contribute to the higher success rate for the CY 1999 performance in this program.

The definition for economic self-sufficiency (an integral component of the Matching Grant Program)-- is earnings/income for the total family at a level that enables a family unit to support itself without receipt of cash assistance.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ORR conducts on-site monitoring of selected States and other grantees to help them achieve improved client employment and self-sufficiency outcomes. ORR targets States that have large refugee populations and that receive significant ACF refugee program funding for monitoring. In monitoring, ORR assists States and grantees to identify strategies to improve outcomes on ORR performance measures and provides technical assistance on implementing program improvements.

The Refugee Program is affected by foreign policy decisions and crises. Its ability to quickly resettle new arrivals depends not only on local job markets but also on the rate of influx and refugees' special needs, educational levels, and English proficiency.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues

ACF refugee resettlement policies and activities are coordinated with the U.S. Department of State, State and community agencies, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Consumer Service, as well as with TANF, Medicaid and other programs within DHHS.

Program-wide Performance

Refugee arrivals in FY 1999 totaled 106,098. ACF experienced a larger than usual bulge in refugee arrivals during the spring and early summer months of FY 1999 due to the Kosovo crisis. Approximately 14,000 Kosovar refugees were brought to the United States and given the right to remain here permanently. The Kosovo situation strained program capability and resources due to the large number of arrivals within a short time. In addition, many of the Kosovars required special services in mental health due to the experiences of torture and persecution.

The Kosovo situation changed dramatically in June and early July of last year. It was announced that if the Kosovar refugees who came to the U.S. by July 31, 1999, decided at a later date that they wished to return to Kosovo, the United States would finance their travel home. The deadline for registration for the funded return home was May 1, 2000. Approximately 11,200 of the 14,000 Kosovar refugees were eligible for the funded return. Approximately 4,000 have registered for the funded return and 3,350 of them have already returned. ACF has no way of knowing how many people have gone back on their own. We assume there have been some and there will likely be others who return to Kosovo on their own.

Outcomes for summer refugee arrivals were not reported until December 1999. ACF is confident that our partners made every effort to meet the established targets, however, at the time that targets were established, our partners were uncertain how many Kosovo refugees would elect to return to Kosovo and how many would stay in the U.S. to participate in our employment programs and services. In addition, our partners were providing services to a group of refugees with compelling special needs, many who were not employment-ready due to trauma. FY 1999 presented a unique set of circumstances and challenges for States with significant numbers of Kosovar refugees. This situation was without precedent in the refugee resettlement program. It was impossible to anticipate the impact that this unique set of circumstances would have when the States were establishing FY 1999 performance targets.

FY 2000 PERFORMANCE IN THE STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAM:

ORR tracked State and county performance throughout the year. The FY 1999 performance was as follows:

Entered Employments The goal for measure 3.1a was 51,597. The actual totaled 50,208 a 4 percent decline from the number recorded in FY 1998 (52,298).

Terminations due to Earnings The goal for measure 1.3c was 16,480. The actual totaled 16,445, a 3 percent decline from FY 1998 (16,978).

Employment Retentions The goal for measure 1.3d was 37,936. The actual totaled 36,055, a 5 percent decline from FY 1998 (38,040).

Entered Employments with Health Benefits The goal for measure 1.3b was 27,767. The actual totaled 28,425, a 5 percent increase from FY 1998 (27,124)

CY 2000 PERFORMANCE IN THE MATCHING GRANT VOLUNTARY AGENCY PROGRAM:

The Matching Grant Program emphasizes family self-sufficiency (independence from cash assistance) and is characterized by a strong emphasis on early employment and intensive services during the first four months after arrival. The performance measures are focused on the two most critical program goals: entered employments and the proportion of cases that are self-sufficient at four months after arrival in the U.S.

Entered Employments The goal for measure 1.3e was 8,620. The actual totaled 9,713, a 17 percent increase from the number recorded in CY 1998 (8,049).

Self-sufficiency at 120 days The goal for measure 1.3f was 5,710. The actual totaled 6,497 cases a 20 percent increase from CY 1998 (5,194).

National numbers do not tell the whole story. Many States significantly increased their performance.

Entered employment: The number of job placements decreased by 4 percent in FY 1999, largely due to the unique set of circumstances caused by the arrival of the Kosovar refugees. Twenty-seven States and two California counties exceeded their placements from last year. Six States placed more than 90% of their caseload. Thirty States increased their FY 2000 target by 5% or more than their FY 1999 performance. Thirteen States met or exceeded the FY 1999 target they established; four States missed their target by 5% or less.

Cash Assistance Terminations: The number of cash assistance terminations increased by 2% in FY 1999. Twenty-seven States and four California counties increased the number of cash assistance terminations over the previous year. Fourteen States met or exceeded the FY 1999 target they established; only one State missed their target by 5% or less. Twenty-eight States increased their FY 2000 target by 5% or more of their FY 1999 performance.

Retentions: Seventy-two percent of refugees who found employment retained their employment for ninety days, consistent with 73% in FY 1998. Twenty-eight States and four California counties improved the job retention rate over the previous year. In 32 States, more than 75% of job placements were retained for 90 days or more. Eighteen States met or exceeded the FY 1999 target they established and only two States missed their target by 5% or less. Thirty-five States increased their FY 2000 target by 5% or more of their FY 1999 performance.

Entered Employment with Health Benefits: Sixty-six percent of full-time placements offered health insurance compared with 57% the year before. Thirty-one States and two California counties increased their rates of health benefit availability over FY 1998. Seventeen States met or exceeded the FY 1999 target they established; only four States missed their target by 5% or less. Thirty-nine States increased their FY 2000 target by 5% or more of their FY 1999 performance.

FY 1999 showed significant improvement in the quality of jobs found for refugees. Forty States and nine California counties reported higher wages at placement than in FY 1998. Twenty-seven other States reported average wage at placement of $7.00 or above, compared with twenty the year before. Refugees found employment not only at higher wages, but also with more benefits. Average wage at placement in the State-Administered program $7.20, a 4% rise from FY 1998 ($6.90). Average wage at placement in the matching grant program was $7.42, an 11% rise from CY 1998 ($6.58).

Data Issues

Data are submitted quarterly by all States participating in the State-administered program via the quarterly performance report (Form ORR-6). Data for the Matching Grant are submitted to ACF three times per year on the Matching Grant Progress Report form. Baseline data for all measures in the State-administered program are derived from FY 1997 annual unduplicated outcome data as reported on the annual Outcome Goal Plans. Baseline data for the Matching Grant program are derived from the Calendar Year 1997 Report. Matching Grant unduplicated annual performance data are submitted to ACF in February of each year.

Desk monitoring and tracking of quarterly performance report data occur quarterly in the State-administered program and 3 times per year in the Matching Grant program. Data are validated by periodic on-site monitoring, in which refugee cases are randomly selected and reviewed. Outcomes reported by service providers are verified with both employers and refugees to ensure accurate reporting of job placements, wages and retentions.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Background for the selection of performance measures: The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) convened a workgroup comprised of State Refugee Coordinators and ORR staff in November 1994 to establish performance measures and annual outcome goals. The workgroup agreed the selection of performance measures would be based on the following criteria: measures must be results-oriented, quantifiable, based on reliable data, stated in terms of positive change in social or economic conditions for the refugees using the services and they must measure program effectiveness. The targets would measure achievements in a given period of time.

The workgroup also recommended that States be required to establish annual outcome targets aimed at continuous improvement of performance for each of the selected program measures. All the performance measures are aimed at increasing refugee early employment and self-sufficiency. The workgroup recommended the following six program measures as most representative and manageable for reporting purposes. Five of the six measures have been incorporated in the ACF annual performance plan.

STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAM

Specific program goals to be achieved in FY 2003 have been set on the four most critical of the six outcome measures. For the FY 1999 - 2003 targets, a common baseline year of 1997 (the earliest year with a complete data set) was established for both programs serving refugees, replacing the baselines used previously. Baselines for the State-administered program were established using fiscal year data.

1.4a.FY 2002: Increase the number of refugees entering employment through ACF-funded refugee employment services by at least 5% annually from the FY 1997 actual performance of 46,800 to 59,730.

FY 2003: Increase the number of refugees entering employment through ACF-funded refugee employment services by at least 5% annually from FY 1997 actual performance of 46,800 to xxx.

1.4b.FY 2002: Increase the number of entered employments with health benefits available as a subset of full-time job placements by 5% annually rom the FY 1997 actual performance of 25,186 to 32,144.

FY 2003: Increase the number of entered employments with health benefits available as a subset of full-time job placements by 5% annually from the FY 1997 actual performance of 25,186 to xxx.

1.4c.FY 2002: Increase the number of refugee cash assistance cases closed due to employment by at least 5% annually as a subset of all entered employments from the FY 1997 actual performance of 14,948 to 19,078.

FY 2003: Increase the number of refugee cash assistance cases closed due to employment by at least 5% annually as a subset of all entered employments from the FY 1997 actual performance of 14,948 to xxx.

1.4d.FY 2002: Increase the number of 90-day job retentions as a subset of all entered employments by at least 5% annually from the FY 1997 actual performance of 34,409 to 43,915.

FY 2003: Increase the number of 90-day job retentions as a subset of all entered employments by at least 5% annually from the FY 1997 actual performance of 34,409 to xxx.

Data sources: ORR-6.

Beginning with FY 1996, States (and California counties) submit an end-of-year report to ORR comparing projected annual targets with actual targets achieved for each of the six measures. States may include a narrative to explain increases or decreases in performance due to local conditions that may have affected performance during the year, such as labor market conditions or other factors, such as unanticipated reduction in refugee arrivals.

When setting targets for each measure, States are asked to establish targets aimed at improving the previous year’s actual performance. While there are no national performance requirements or formal-comparison of States, each State’s actual annual performance is compared to that State’s projected targets to calculate the level of achievement and to ensure that States strive for continuous improvement in their goal-setting process from year to year. States that reach a high employment and self-sufficiency rate of 90% among employable refugees may choose to maintain their target levels rather than increase them. Although there are no monetary punishments or rewards, data on each State’s or county’s annual targets and actual performance for the six measures are published in the Annual Report to Congress. The publicity serves as an incentive for improved performance.

MATCHING GRANT VOLUNTARY AGENCY PROGRAM

ACF requires nonprofit agencies participating in the Matching Grant Voluntary Agency Program to set outcome goals each year on five outcome measures negotiated with the Matching Grant agencies. Only the first two outcome measures are included in this annual performance plan and report.

1. Entered employments (job placements)
2. Self-sufficiency at 120 days (cases and persons)
3. Self-sufficiency at 180 days (cases and persons)
4. Average hourly wage at placement
5. Entered employments with health benefits available

The Matching Grant program baselines use the calendar year to reflect the matching grant program period. The two sets of measures that follow track progress for this program.

1.4e.FY 2002: Increase the number of refugees who enter employment through the Matching Grant program as a subset of all MG employable adults by at least 5% annually from the calendar year 1997 actual performance of 7,819 to 9,979 persons in calendar year 2002.

FY 2003: Increase the number of refugees who enter employment through the Matching Grant program as a subset of all MG employable adults by at least 5% annually from the calendar year 1997 actual performance of 7,819 to xxx persons in calendar year 2003.

1.4f.FY 2002: Increase the number of MG refugee families (cases) that are self-sufficient (not dependent on any cash assistance) within the first 4 months after arrival by at least 4% annually from the calendar year 1997 actual performance of 5,279 cases to 6,423 cases in calendar year 2002.

FY 2003: Increase the number of MG refugee families (cases) that are self-sufficient (not dependent on any cash assistance) within the first 4 months after arrival by at least 4% annually from the calendar year 1997 actual performance of 5,279 cases to xxx cases in calendar year 2003.

Data source: Matching Grant Progress Report

ORR has implemented a number of strategies aimed at challenging States to improve performance for targets that were not achieved. ORR publishes State and Matching Grant performance results in the Annual Report to Congress; certificates of commendation are presented to States with increased performance at the annual ORR national conference; and ORR staff negotiate the targets and provide technical assistance and monitoring to the States and Matching Grant Program grantees to achieve mutually acceptable goals.

Ability to predict future performance: ORR continues to focus on performance and encourages grantees to be courageous in setting goals. ORR negotiates annual goals with each of its grantees and stresses continuous improvement. The extent to which ORR can predict future performance is limited, because of the emergency humanitarian nature of the refugee resettlement program. Response to international mass migrations of persecuted persons, such as the Kosovars, places additional demands on our domestic resettlement partners by dramatically increasing the numbers of refugees receiving ORR services. However, the robust economy has enabled our service network to place additional refugees in jobs each year.

1.5 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds are awarded directly to the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to fund social services tailored to meet the needs of individuals and families residing within the jurisdiction. Grants are determined by a statutory formula based on each State’s population.

States use SSBG funds for a range of services, depending on State and local priorities, such as congregate meals, day care for children and adults, foster care services for adults and children and home-based services. SSBG funds also may help States improve and integrate services, create community-based partnerships, and stimulate innovation.

The SSBG has minimal reporting requirements in the statute and regulations. Beginning with FY 2000 reporting States will be required to submit OMB Standard Form 269A. However, SSBG funds support outcomes across the human service spectrum, and these outcomes are associated with strategic goals and objectives elsewhere in this plan, e.g., employment, child care, child welfare, adoptions, and youth services. The SSBG block grant allows its recipients, in this case, States, to invest the funds flexibly and includes limited oversight and reporting requirements.

The SSBG is based on two fundamental principles: (1) State and local governments and communities are best able to determine the needs of individuals to help them achieve self sufficiency; and (2) social and economic needs are interrelated and must be met simultaneously.

Program-wide Performance

The following chart shows FY 2000 expenditures for Federal dollars in various SSBG service areas as reported by States. The data represent reports from 50 States and the District of Columbia.

States have substantial discretion in their use of funds and may determine what services will be provided, who will be eligible, and how funds will be distributed among the various services. States reported expenditures of nearly $3 billion for services that were funded by SSBG. Twelve and a half million individuals in the country received services that were funded at least partially by the SSBG. Of these service recipients, 6.8 million (54 percent) were children, and 5.7 million (46 percent) were adults. Child day care, with the support of the SSBG, served the largest number of recipients. The second largest amount of SSBG funds was spent on child foster care services. A cluster of services provided primarily to elderly adults (including adult day care, adult protective services, congregate meals, and home-delivered meals) was supported by a high proportion of SSBG funds, relative to other sources of funds.

Data from 2000 are considerably more complete and accurate than data from 1998 and previous years. States have allocated many more of their expenditures to the service categories and have left fewer expenditures "uncategorized." The apparent increase in expenditures for many of the service categories is in part due to these improved data. In order to further improve the data, a revised reporting form is currently being developed. SSBG data for FY 2001 will be available in fall 2002.

Data Issues

SSBG data contain multi-year information and some of the dollars spent on services in FY 2000 may have been transferred from previous years or other programs.

States report both total expenditures and SSBG expenditures. Total expenditures include all other Federal, State and local funds for each service that received SSBG funds. The complexity of many States' financial systems makes it difficult for them to provide accurate data on other sources of funds being applied to each of these services. The SSBG report in FY 2000 includes data from 50 States and the District of Columbia. Although all States submitted post-expenditure reports, many States were unable to provide information on total expenditures in their post-expenditure reports, so including this item would have excluded many more States from the analyses.

During this year, the Office of Community Services (OCS) assisted States in improving data collection and reporting. Data received from States are regularly validated. Problems arising through validation are discussed with States and technical assistance is provided where practical. While several problems exist, considerable improvement has been made to assist more States to report, and continuous progress is being made to increase validation rates and make the data more usable. OCS will continue to coordinate with other agencies and organizations to review and assess shifts in funding priorities in order to project accomplishment of ACF performance targets. The five SSBG performance measures that are in the summary table that follows were first included in the FY 2001 submission of the Performance Plan.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Congress intended that SSBG (initially Title XX) funding be directed at one or more of five legislated national goals. These goals have been selected because of their close alignment with the key priority goals identified in the ACF annual performance plan. Annual shifts in State funding priorities due to economic downturns or changes in available resources in the more than forty service categories make it difficult to project targets with any certainty.

The first goal is to achieve or maintain economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. One of the primary needs of parents who previously relied on welfare support in entering the workforce is affordable child care. States can apply funding from SSBG to child daycare wholly or in part.

1.5a.FY 2002: Increase by 1% the number of child recipients of day care services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year’s performance.

FY 2003: Increase by 1% the number of child recipients of day care services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year’s performance

A second national goal is to prevent or reduce inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care, home-based care or other forms of less intensive care. Several services to which SSBG funding can be applied are intended to increase independent living among disabled or low-income individuals. Such services increase opportunities for individuals to maintain successful and healthy lives within the community, and reduce the need for placement in more restricted environments. These services include independent living services, home-based services, home-delivered meals, housing services, and special services for individuals with disabilities. Data indicate an increasing demand for special services to individuals with disabilities.

1.5b.FY 2002: Increase by 1% the number of adult recipients of home based services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year’s performance.

FY 2003: Increase by 1% the number of adult recipients of home based services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year’s performance.

1.5c.FY 2002: Increase by 1% the number of adult recipients of special services for the disabled funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year.

FY 2003: Increase by 1% the number of adult recipients of special services for the disabled funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year.

NOTE: Increases are anticipated due to the recent (1999) Supreme Court Decision (Olmstead) which essentially asserts the right of persons with disabilities to live in less restricted settings. Secondly, as State TANF programs reach out to more hard-to-serve populations, both demand for child care from mothers who have children with disabilities and the demand for job readiness preparation for persons with mild retardation are expected to increase. A program such as SSBG might be anticipated to help respond to this demand.

A third national goal is to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests and preserve, rehabilitate or reunite families. SSBG funds can be applied to a range of child welfare services and are a valuable source to States of funding for this critical area. These services include child protective services, child foster care services, and adoption services. In addition, prevention and intervention services, special services for individuals with disabilities and special services for youth at risk are very important to the child welfare population. It is anticipated that these critical services will be maintained at the baseline level.

1.5dFY 2002: Maintain the number of recipients of child protective services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 1,302,895.

FY 2003: Maintain the number of recipients of child protective services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 1,302,895.

It is anticipated that as SSBG funds are reduced in other services, I & R services will increase.

1.5e.FY 2002: Increase by 1% the number of recipients of information and referral services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year.

FY 2003: Increase by 1% the number of recipients of information and referral services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over the previous year.

Data Source for measures1.5a-e: SSBG post-expenditure reports from the States.1.5 SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funds are made directly to the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to fund social services tailored to meet the needs of individuals and families residing within the jurisdiction. Grants are determined by a statutory formula based on each State’s population.

States use SSBG funds for a range of services, depending on State and local priorities, such as congregate meals, day care for children and adults, foster care services for adults and children and home-based services. SSBG funds also may help States improve and integrate services, create community-based partnerships, and stimulate innovations.

The SSBG has minimal reporting requirements in the statute and regulations. However, SSBG funds support outcomes across the human service spectrum, and these outcomes are associated with strategic goals and objectives elsewhere in this plan, e.g., employment, child care, child welfare, adoptions, and youth services. The SSBG block grant allows its recipients, in this case, States, to invest the funds flexibly and includes limited oversight and reporting requirements.

The SSBG is based on two fundamental principles: (1) State and local governments and communities are best able to determine the needs of individuals to help them achieve self sufficiency; and (2) social and economic needs are interrelated and must be met simultaneously.

Program-wide Performance

The following chart shows FY 1999 expenditures for Federal dollars in various SSBG service areas as reported by States. The data represent reports from 50 States and the District of Columbia.

Data Issues

SSBG data contain multi-year information and some of the dollars spent on services in FY 1999 may have been transferred from previous years or other programs.

States report both total expenditures and SSBG expenditures. Total expenditures include all other Federal, State and local funds for each service that received SSBG funds. The complexity of many States' financial systems makes it difficult for them to provide accurate data on other sources of funds being applied to each of these services. The SSBG report in FY 1998 included data from 50 States and the District of Columbia. Although all States submitted post-expenditure reports, many States were unable to provide information on total expenditures in their post-expenditure reports, so including this item would have excluded many more States from the analyses.

During this year, the Office of Community Services (OCS) assisted States to improve data collection and reporting. These data received from States are regularly validated. Problems arising through validation are discussed with States and technical assistance is provided where practical. While several problems exist, considerable improvement has been made to assist more States to report, and continuous progress is being made to increase validation rates and make the data more usable. OCS will continue to coordinate with other agencies and organizations to review and assess shifts in funding priorities in order to project accomplishment of ACF performance targets. The five SSBG performance measures that are in the summary table that follows were first included in the FY 2001 submission of the Performance Plan.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Congress intended that SSBG (initially Title XX) funding be directed at one or more of five legislated national goals. These goals are closely aligned with the key priority goals identified in the ACF annual performance plan. The first goal is to achieve or maintain economic self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency. One of the primary needs of parents who previously relied on welfare support in entering the workforce is affordable child care. States can apply funding from SSBG to child day care wholly or in part.

1.5a.FY 2002: Maintain the number of child recipients of day care services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 2,399,827.

FY 2003: Maintain the number of child recipients of day care services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 2,399,827.

A second national goal is to prevent or reduce inappropriate institutional care by providing for community-based care, home-based care or other forms of less intensive care. Several services to which SSBG funding can be applied are intended to increase independent living among disabled or low-income individuals. Such services increase opportunities for individuals to maintain successful and healthy lives within the community, and reduce the need for placement in more restricted environments. These services include independent living services, home-based services, home-delivered meals, housing services, and special services for individuals with disabilities. Data indicates an increasing demand for special services to individuals with disabilities.

1.5b.FY 2002: Maintain the number of adult recipients of home based services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 339,253.

FY 2003: Maintain the number of adult recipients of home based services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 339,253.

1.5c.FY 2002: Increase the number of adult recipients of special services for the disabled funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds by 5% annually from the FY 1998 baseline of 298,167.

FY 2003: Increase the number of adult recipients of special services for the disabled funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds by 5% annually from the FY 1998 baseline of 298,167.

NOTE: Increases are anticipated due to the recent (1999) Supreme Court Decision (Olmstead ) which essentially asserts the right of persons with disabilities to live in less restricted settings. Secondly, as State TANF programs reach out to more hard-to-serve populations, both demand for child care from mothers who have children with special disabilities and the demand for job readiness preparation for persons with mild retardation are expected to increase. A program such as SSBG might be anticipated to help respond to this demand.

A third national goal is to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests and preserve, rehabilitate or reunite families. SSBG funds can be applied to a range of child welfare services and are a valuable source to States of funding for this critical area. These services include child protective services, child foster care services, and adoption services. In addition, prevention and intervention services, special services for individuals with disabilities and special services for youth at risk are very important to the child welfare population. It is anticipated that this critical service will be maintained at the baseline level.

1.5d.FY 2002: Maintain the number of recipients of child protective services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 1,302,895.

FY 2003: Maintain the number of recipients of child protective services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds at the FY 1998 baseline of 1,302,895.

It is anticipated that as SSBG funds are reduced in other services, I & R services will increase.

1.5e.FY 2002: Increase the number of recipients of information and referral services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds by 2% annually from the FY 1998 baseline of 1,295,820.

FY 2003: Increase the number of recipients of information and referral services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds by 2% annually from the FY 1998 baseline of 1,295,820.

Data source for measures1.5a-e: SSBG post-expenditure reports from the States.

2. Increase independent living

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Empower individuals with developmental disabilities to move into their own homes, increasing their personal control and participation in their community.

(Note: Objective 2 does not refer to the "Independent Living Program" for youth aging out of foster care, which is discussed under Objective 7.)

2.1 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HOUSING)

The DD housing goal: "Increase the opportunities of adults with developmental disabilities to choose where and with whom they live and to have the services they need to support these choices" includes the following outcomes: "Individuals with developmental disabilities have opportunities and information needed to make choices about where to live. People with developmental disabilities have the ability to own their own homes. Living in the community is affordable, accessible, and equitable."

(See information on DD partnership process, performance goals, data, and resources under Strategic Objective 1, above.)

Program-wide Performance

The number of people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes (measure 2.1a) significantly exceeded the FY 2000 target but fell short of previous years’ performance. More reliable reporting of data accounts for the decrease in number of adults who own or rent their own homes. State Councils in 35 States and territories reported 7,308 people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes, as a consequence of State Council intervention, which included educating mortgage lenders, training potential homeowners, and funding projects to demonstrate cutting edge practices to achieve improved outcomes. Based on the actual data reported for FY 2000, the target for FY 2001 was increased using FY 2000 data as the revised baseline.

As mentioned above, ADD will begin a review of the performance measures which may result in changes to its performance system. Targets for FY 2002 and 2003 reflect ADD’s commitment to maintain the previous year’s performance.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the opportunities of adults with developmental disabilities to choose where and with whom they live and to have the services they need to support these choices.

Objective: Increase the number of people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes.

2.1a.FY 2002: Achieve 8,000 persons with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Maintain at 8,000 persons with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes as a result of DD program intervention.

Data Source: DDC annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

The achievement of the performance target is affected by a number of factors, e.g. the impact of the economy on the cost of buying or renting housing, the perceived cost of making such housing accessible to people with disabilities, and the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for people with developmental disabilities to live in the community. Additionally, the negative attitudes of businesses and banks regarding making loans, selling housing, or renting housing to persons with developmental disabilities limit the ability of social services programs to promote choice of living in a community for persons with developmental disabilities.

Technical assistance is provided by ACF to State programs to help with improving data stability and programmatic outcomes. The above issues combined with data collection and interpretation difficulties continue to create instability in performance data.

ADD funds three different approaches in the States that contribute to the accomplishment of this objective. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) works to create systems change within the housing and community-based service systems. Educational efforts to improve public and business opinions on financing and housing for persons with disabilities, involving both the State Council and the Centers for Excellence/University Affiliated Programs. Protection and Advocacy Programs work to ensure that the housing and financing rights of people with developmental disabilities are protected.

2.1 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HOUSING)

The DD housing goal: "Increase the opportunities of adults with developmental disabilities to choose where and with whom they live and to have the services they need to support these choices" includes the following outcomes: "Individuals with developmental disabilities have opportunities and information needed to make choices about where to live. People with developmental disabilities have the ability to own their own homes. Living in the community is affordable, accessible, and equitable."

(See information on DD partnership process, performance goals, data, and resources under Strategic Objective 1, above.)

Program-wide Performance

The number of people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes (measure 2.1a) significantly exceeded the FY 2000 target but fell short of previous years’ performance. DD Councils in 35 States and territories reported 7,308 people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes, as a consequence of DD Council intervention, which included educating mortgage lenders, training potential homeowners, and funding projects to demonstrate cutting edge practices to achieve improved outcomes. The targets for FY 1999 and 2000 were significantly underestimated. More conservative reporting of data accounts for the decrease in number of adults who own or rent their own homes.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the opportunities of adults with developmental disabilities to choose where and with whom they live and to have the services they need to support these choices.

Objective: Increase the number of people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes.

2.1a.FY 2002: Increase to 8,000 from the FY 2000 baseline of 7,308 the number of people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Increase to xxx from the FY 2000 baseline of 7,308 the number of people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes as a result of DD program intervention.

Data source: DDC annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

The achievement of the performance target is significantly affected by a number of factors, e.g. the impact of the economy on the cost of buying or renting housing, the perceived cost of making such housing accessible to people with disabilities, and the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for people with developmental disabilities to live in the community. Additionally, the negative attitudes of businesses and banks regarding making loans, selling housing, or renting housing to persons with developmental disabilities limit the ability of social services programs to promote choice of living in a community for persons with developmental disabilities.

Technical assistance is provided by ACF to State programs to help with improving data stability and programmatic outcomes. The above issues combined with data collection and interpretation difficulties continue to create instability in performance data.

ADD funds three different approaches in the States that contribute to the accomplishment of this objective. The Council on Developmental Disabilities (CDD) works to create systems change within the housing and community-based service systems. Educational efforts to improve public and business opinions on financing and housing for persons with disabilities, involving both the Council and the Centers for Excellence/University Affiliated Programs. Protection and Advocacy Programs work to ensure that the housing and financing rights of people with developmental disabilities are protected.2.2 ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE (Individual Development Accounts)

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

The Assets for Independence Demonstration Program was established by the Assets for Independence Act (AFI Act), under title IV of the Community Opportunities, Accountability and Training and Educational Services Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, P.L. 105-285 (also known as Individual Development Accounts or IDA).

The Assets for Independence Demonstration Program is a directed, matched savings/investment program for lower-income individuals and families. Participants enter into a Savings Plan Agreement with the project grantee which establishes a schedule and goal of savings from earned income, to be matched at an agreed rate which can be from one to eight dollars for each dollar saved. Matching contributions are made by the grantee at least quarterly from equal parts of Federal grant funds and non-Federal share contributions to the project. Matched savings may be expended for either (1) the purchase of a principal residence by a first-time homebuyer, (2) the capitalization of a business, or (3) the expenses of post-secondary education.

The major goals of the program are to design demonstration projects that will determine: (1) the social, civic, psychological, and economic effects of providing to individuals and families with limited means an incentive to accumulate assets by saving a portion of their earned income; (2) the extent to which an asset-based policy that promotes saving for post-secondary education, homeownership and small business capitalization may be used to enable individuals and families with limited means to increase their economic self-sufficiency; and (3) the extent to which an asset-based policy stabilizes and improves families and the community in which they live.

Eligible applicants are private, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, or State and local governmental agencies or Tribal governments applying jointly with eligible not-for-profit organizations, Credit Unions that have been designated as Low Income Credit Unions by the National Credit Union Administration, and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI), so designated by the Treasury Department or the CDFI Fund. Grantees are selected competitively based on applications using the following criteria: the background and capabilities of the applicant; the description of the target population; project theory, design, and plan; the plan for providing information needed for program evaluation; additional resources available to support project participants; and the description of the results and benefits expected to result from the project. Applications must include a commitment for a cash non-Federal share equal to the amount of the Federal grant.

The Program Announcement encourages all applicants to agree to use MIS IDA software or a comparable Asset Development Information System that OCS expects to provide to grantees to track participant and account characteristics and experience. Section 412 of the AFIA requires annual reporting by grantees on the basis of these data. The statute requires that at least 2 percent of grant funds be used for data collection. Section 414 requires an annual report to the Congress based on these grantee reports, and calls for an overall evaluation of the program over the five-year duration of the AFIA and its impact on a variety of factors listed in that section, including potential financial returns to the Federal Government and other investors in IDA over a 5-year and 10-year period. Pursuant to these provisions, ACF awarded a contract to evaluate the funded IDA projects and the overall program. The evaluation plan has been approved by the agency.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

This program is entering its fourth year. A first round of forty (40) demonstration grants was funded in August and September 1999 for 5-year demonstration programs. In FY 2000, OCS received another $10 million appropriation with which it made twenty-five (25) new competitive grants to new applicants and seventeen (17) supplementary grants to FY 1999 grantees. These supplementary grants were made to grantees that demonstrated their ability to: raise additional non-Federal share dollars, document successful operation of their project so far, and identify unmet need that could only be met with supplemental funding.

Each of these grantees will produce yearly progress reports within 60 days of completion of the program year. The Secretary will submit interim annual progress reports to Congress using the information in these reports.

A process for developing impact measures based on the three overall goals for the program is part of the evaluation plan developed under a one-year Task Order issued by DHHS. In August 2000, the evaluation contractor submitted the evaluation plan that includes a conceptual framework along with an evaluation design. The research data collection strategies for the impact measures include an interview questionnaire for use with professional staff during on-site visits with selected grantees for the process study. The questionnaire is being modified to include questions from the Survey of Income and Program Participant (SIPP) instrument that attempt to measure economic, civic, psychological, and social effects of asset accumulation. A participant questionnaire for telephone interviews with randomly selected IDA holders will be used as a comparison with non-treatment respondents to the "Assets and Liabilities" module of the SIPP instrument administered by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the non-experimental impact analysis component of the evaluation. The first round of on-site visits has already been carried out.

Amendments to the AFIA, which took effect December 21, 2000 made a number of changes to the original program, including:

• "Qualified Entities" which can apply for grants have been expanded to include Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) designated by the Treasury Department or the CDFI Fund, and Credit Unions designated "low-income" by the National Credit Union Administration, provided they demonstrate a collaborative relationship with a community-based organization whose activities address poverty in the community;
• Eligibility for participation in the program has been expanded to include households below 200 percent of the poverty income guidelines;

• The percentage of grant funds available for data collection, program administration and support has been increased from 9.5 percent to 15 percent; and
• The IDA's, including participant savings, matching contributions, and any income earned thereon, are to be disregarded in determining eligibility to receive, or the amount of, any assistance or benefit authorized under any Federal program requiring an individual’s financial circumstances to be considered in determining such eligibility.

Under special "transitional" provisions in the 2000 amendments to the AFIA, each of the FY 1999 grantees must submit to the Secretary their first year program progress reports within 90 days of the effective date of the amendments, or by March 21, 2001. Using the information obtained from these progress reports, the Secretary will compile and submit the first program progress report to Congress.

This Report to Congress is the first annual report submitted pursuant to the requirements set forth by Section 414(d)(1) of the AFI statute. This report provides data for the AFI projects of the forty (40) entities that received fiscal year (FY) 1999 grants under the Assets for Independence Demonstration Program. This report includes both program and participant information and provides the following information as required by Section 412 of the AFI statute:

• The number and characteristics of individuals making a deposit into an individual development account;
• The amounts in the Reserve Fund established for the project;
• The amounts deposited in the individual development accounts;
• The amounts withdrawn from the individual development accounts and the purposes for which they were withdrawn;
• The balances remaining in the individual development accounts;
• The savings account characteristics (such as threshold amounts and match rates) required to stimulate participation in the demonstration project, and how such characteristics vary among different populations or communities;
• Which service configurations of the qualified entity (such as configurations relating to peer support, structured planning exercises, mentoring and case management) increased the rate and consistency of participation in the demonstration project and how such configurations varied among different populations or communities; and
• Such other information as the Secretary may require in the evaluation of the demonstration project.

The annual reports provide ACF with information critical to developing performance measures and targets. The matched savings/investment program requires lengthy start-up time for grantees to establish the program, identify prospective participants, and establish matched savings plan accounts. Then at least two years are required for investments to mature.

Currently ACF is considering the following areas for performance measures:

• The number of participants that opened IDA accounts
• The number of participants receiving financial literacy and asset-related services

Asset-specific services and resources are designed to increase the likelihood that participants will maximize their ability to leverage additional resources and make well-informed choices as they acquire the asset of their choice. Without these services, many participants would neither be able to assemble adequate resources to purchase the asset, nor plan effectively for the maintenance and accrual of the asset’s value over the long term. The purchase of a major asset may be one of the most significant experiences the average person will face. Furthermore, maintaining the asset and utilizing it to create wealth may also pose a challenge for many low-income people.

The potential positive and/or negative consequences of the asset to the family can create a high level of stress and apprehension. The purchase of the asset represents probably the largest monetary commitment they have ever made. The decision will have major long-term impact on the financial security of the family; the decisions are both technically complex and unfamiliar.

Besides needing to understand investment decision-making, IDA participants often require additional resources to put the asset within their reach. While the participants’ savings and the match are a good start, often they are not enough. The programs inform participants how to leverage their resources to acquire additional funds to purchase the asset.

Asset-specific services and resources related to the savings goal are critical to most participants’ success in attaining the asset and having it contribute to wealth accumulation over the long term. Specialized services offered by IDA programs in this demonstration include: education and/or counseling to assist in determining affordability (short- and long-term); assistance in planning for buying and maintaining the asset; assistance in understanding the process and paperwork involved; and information about avoiding scams. Additional resources offered by IDA programs that help put the asset within reach include: other financial support such as down payment assistance; special financing arrangements; and discounts or free services related to the purchase.

Section 414 of the AFIA requires the Secretary to enter into a contract with an independent research organization to evaluate the demonstration projects conducted pursuant to the act, individually and as a group, and lists the following factors to be addressed:

• The effects of incentives and organizational or institutional support on savings behavior in the demonstration project.
• The savings rates of individuals in the demonstration project based on demographic characteristics including gender, age, family size, race or ethnic background, and income.
• The economic, civic, psychological, and social effects of asset accumulation, and how such effects vary among different populations or communities.
• The effects of individual development accounts on savings rates, homeownership, level of post-secondary education attained, and self-employment, and how such effects vary among different populations or communities.
• The potential financial returns to the Federal Government and to other public and private sector investors in individual development accounts over 5-year and 10-year periods of time.
• The lessons to be learned from the demonstration projects conducted under this title including whether a permanent program of individual development accounts should be established.
• Such other factors as may be prescribed by the Secretary.

The AFIA authorizes annual appropriations of $25 million for the program. Ten million dollars was appropriated for each of the first two years, FY 1999 and FY 2000. Congress appropriated $25 million for each year in FY 2001-2001 based on growing support for the program among practitioners, States, and the financial community. The latter felt that as the program gained experience and momentum in the field, the demand for funding would increase. At the same time, OCS devoted increased resources to technical assistance, both to existing grantees and to prospective applicants. This added assistance, along with the increased funding is expected to enlarge the scope of the evaluation and result in a larger and deeper source of data that will yield more valuable findings.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

ACF continues to work in partnership with selected States and local grantees toward achieving the goals of this program. We have found that a key to successful project implementation is to develop effective, mutually supportive relationships between grantees and their partnering Financial Institutions, and OCS technical assistance efforts are focusing on strengthening these relationships. Other external variables that will continue to influence the achievement of program goals include the health of the local economy and job availability; systemic barriers to low-income employment such as availability of transportation and affordable day care; support of the banking, business, and foundation communities in providing non-Federal matching contributions; and the availability of support structures that enhance job retention and advancement of IDA program participants.

Program-Wide Performance

As of September 2001, grantees for FY 1999 and 2000 reported opening 4,037 IDAs and making a total of $1,639,035 in savings deposits. Financial and asset-related training was provided to 6,546 participants, with 4,453 participants completing their entire training program. Given the fact that the income of most account holders was below 150 percent of poverty, these savings figures represent a substantive achievement by the grantees.

In their applications for funding, the FY 1999 and 2000 grantees cumulatively projected opening 7,584 IDAs during their 5-year project periods. IDAs require extra effort by project staff to fully explain the IDA concept, market the program, recruit participants, and adapt program requirements as they face challenges during the implementation phase. Agencies administering IDA initiatives typically must revise outreach and intake strategies several times in order to find the right "marketing message" for their particular target population. This often entails conducting numerous focus groups and surveys with potential clients to assess the best way to explain to the target audience the IDA account structure, program requirements, and recruitment expectations. Although grantees began the process of opening accounts within the first several years of the project, early research indicates that successful IDA programs generally undertake a thorough planning and preparation process prior to beginning participant recruitment – a process often involving several months from initial outreach to the opening of accounts.

Data Issues

Each grantee must provide: a plan for collecting, validating and providing relevant, accurate and complete data for internal management information, statutory reporting and project evaluation purposes; and a clearly expressed commitment to cooperate with the statutorily mandated evaluation of the national Assets for Independence Demonstration Program. Under the AFI Act, as amended, project grantees are required to use at least 2%, but not more than 15%, of grant funds to provide the research organization evaluating the demonstration project with the information it requires to evaluate the demonstration project.

The Assets for Independence Act allocates a portion of the appropriated funds to evaluate the overall demonstration program, in addition to the funds grantees are required to expend on data collection. The agency requires the grantee to provide a well thought-out plan for collecting, validating and reporting the necessary data in a timely fashion. The grantee is encouraged to identify the kinds of data it believes would facilitate the management information, reporting, and evaluation purposes. The grantee agrees to cooperate with the evaluation of the national program. Grantees are urged to carry out an ongoing assessment of the data and information collected as an effective management/feedback tool in implementing their project. OCS, through its technical assistance contractor, will provide all AFIA grantees with a new Asset Development Information System that will greatly facilitate maintenance, collection, validation, and transmission of project data essential to the program evaluation.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003

In FY 2003, the projects will have progressed sufficiently to provide significant number of achievements in completing IDA accounts. With the completion of IDA accounts, the clients will have sustained themselves through a rigorous savings plan including the depositing of significant amounts of savings and will be primed for moving to the next step in the process of economic self-sufficiency. Account holders will have moved closer to acquiring an appreciable asset -- a first home, a new business, or enrollment in post-secondary education. All these will have long term effects on their futures. We are beginning to have measurable data and information on clients' progress toward these interim goals in their movement out of poverty, i.e.how many clients have completed their IDA accounts and how many have translated that into the acquisition of an appreciable asset. Still, these are interim outcome measures for account holders’achievement of economic self-sufficiency.

PROGRAM GOAL: To assist families with limited means to accumulate assets through a matched savings/investment program to increase their economic self-sufficiency

Objective: Promote savings for post-secondary education, homeownership and small business capitalization

Developmental

2.2a. FY 2002: Increase the number of participants that have opened IDA accounts.

FY 2003: Increase the number of participants that have opened IDA accounts.

Data Source: Program Progress Reports

2.2b. FY 2002: Increase the number of participants receiving financial literacy and asset-related services.

FY 2003: Increase the number of participants receiving financial literacy and asset-related services.

Data Source: Program Progress Reports

The pool of participants and potential number of IDA accounts will increase with each cycle of funding grantees for the 5-year period. The FY 2001 baseline includes the first two years of grantees (two years for the FY 1999 grantees and one year for the FY 2000 grantees). The FY 2002 and 2003 targets are estimates based on calculations from the FY 2001 raw baseline data.

2.2 ASSETS FOR INDEPENDENCE (Individual Development Accounts)

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

The Assets for Independence Demonstration Program was established by the Assets for Independence Act (AFI Act), under title IV of the Community Opportunities, Accountability and Training and Educational Services Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998, P.L. 105-285 (also known as Individual Development Accounts or IDA).

The Assets for Independence Demonstration Program is a directed, matched savings/investment program for lower-income individuals and families. Participants enter into a Savings Plan Agreement with the project grantee which establishes a schedule and goal of savings from earned income, to be matched at an agreed rate which can be from one dollar to eight dollars for each dollar saved. Matching contributions are made by the grantee at least quarterly from equal parts of Federal grant funds and non-Federal share contributions to the project. Matched savings may be expended for either (1) the purchase of a principal residence by a first-time homebuyer, (2) the capitalization of a business, or (3) expenses of post-secondary education.

The major goals of the program are to design demonstration projects that will determine: (1) the social, civic, psychological, and economic effects of providing to individuals and families with limited means an incentive to accumulate assets by saving a portion of their earned income; (2) the extent to which an asset-based policy that promotes saving for post-secondary education, homeownership and small business capitalization may be used to enable individuals and families with limited means to increase their economic self-sufficiency; and (3) the extent to which an asset-based policy stabilizes and improves families and the community in which the families live.

Eligible applicants are private, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organizations, or State and local governmental agencies or Tribal governments applying jointly with eligible not-for-profit organizations, Credit Unions that have been designated as Low Income Credit Unions by the National Credit Union Administration, and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI), so designated by the Treasury Department or the CDFI Fund. Grantees are selected competitively on the basis of applications using the following criteria: the background and capabilities of the applicant; the description of the target population; project theory, design, and plan; the plan for providing information needed for program evaluation; additional resources available to support project participants; and the description of the results and benefits expected to result from the project. Applications must include a commitment for a cash non-Federal share equal to the amount of the Federal grant.

The Program Announcement encourages all applicants to agree to use MIS IDA software or a comparable Asset Development Information System that OCS expects to provide to grantees to track participant and account characteristics and experience. Section 412 of the AFIA requires annual reporting by grantees on the basis of this data. The statute requires that at least 2 percent of grant funds be used for data collection. Section 414 requires an annual report to the Congress based on these grantee reports, and calls for an overall evaluation of the program over the five-year duration of the AFIA and its impact on a variety of factors listed in that section, including potential financial returns to the Federal Government and other investors in IDA over a 5-year and 10-year period. Pursuant to these provisions, ACF awarded a contract to Abt Associates, Inc. of Cambridge, MA to evaluate the funded IDA projects and the overall program; the evaluation plan they developed has been approved by the agency.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

This program is entering its fourth year. A first round of forty (40) demonstration grants was funded in August and September 1999 for 5-year demonstration programs. In FY 2000, OCS received another $10 million appropriation with which it made twenty-five (25) new competitive grants to new applicants and seventeen (17) supplementary grants to FY 1999 grantees. These supplementary grants were made to grantees that demonstrated their ability to raise additional non-Federal share dollars, to document successful operation of their project so far, and identify unmet need that could only be met with supplemental funding.

Each of these grantees will produce yearly progress reports within 60 days of completion of the program year. The Secretary will submit an interim progress report to Congress using the information in these reports.

A process for developing impact measures based on the three overall goals for the program is part of the evaluation plan developed under a one-year Task Order issued by DHHS. In August 2000, the evaluation contractor submitted the evaluation plan that includes a conceptual framework along with an evaluation design. The research data collection strategies for the impact measures include an interview questionnaire for use with professional staff during on-site visits with selected grantees for the process study. A participant questionnaire for telephone interviews with randomly selected IDA holders will be used as a comparison with non-treatment respondents to the "Assets and Liabilities" module of the Survey of Income and Program Participant instrument administered by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the non-experimental impact analysis component of the evaluation.

Amendments to the AFIA, which took effect December 21, 2000 have made a number of changes to the original program, including:

• "Qualified Entities" which can apply for grants have been expanded to include Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) so designated by the Treasury Department or the CDFI Fund, and Credit Unions designated "low-income" by the National Credit Union Administration, provided they can demonstrate a collaborative relationship with a community-based organization whose activities address poverty in the community;
• Eligibility for participation in the program has been expanded to include households whose income falls below 200% of the poverty income guidelines;
• The percentage of grant funds available for data collection, program administration and support has been increased from 9.5% to 15%; and
• The IDA's, including participant savings, matching contributions, and any income earned thereon, are to be disregarded in determining eligibility to receive, or the amount of, any assistance or benefit authorized under any Federal program requiring financial circumstances of an individual to be considered in determining such eligibility.

Under special "transitional" provisions in the 2000 amendments to the AFIA, each of the FY 1999 grantees will produce initial progress reports within 90 days of the effective date of the amendments, or by March 21, 2001, and thereafter within 60 days of the end of each program year. The Secretary will submit a first interim progress report to Congress using the information in these progress reports. Under the 2000 IDA Amendments, the reporting date for first the Interim Report to Congress has also been extended to March 21, 2001.

Section 412 of the AFIA requires that the following information be reported annually by all program grantees:

• The number and characteristics of individuals making a deposit into an individual development account;
• The amounts in the Reserve Fund established with respect to the project;
• The amounts deposited in the individual development accounts;
• The amounts withdrawn from the individual development accounts and the purposes for which such amounts were withdrawn;
• The balances remaining in the individual development accounts;
• The savings account characteristics (such as threshold amounts and match rates) required to stimulate participation in the demonstration project, and how such characteristics vary among different populations or communities;
• Which service configurations of the qualified entity (such as configurations relating to peer support, structured planning exercises, mentoring and case management) increased the rate and consistency of participation in the demonstration project and how such configurations varied among different populations or communities; and
• Such other information as the Secretary may require in the evaluation of the demonstration project.

The annual reports will provide ACF with information critical to the development of performance measures and targets. The matched savings/investment program requires lengthy start-up time for the grantees to establish the program, identify prospective participants, establish matched savings plan accounts and then at least two years are required for investments to mature.

Currently ACF is considering the following areas for performance measures:

• The number of participants that have accrued savings/investment in IDA accounts and have acquired an appreciable asset as a result of the program.
• Improvement in the family’s economic stability as a result of the increased savings and outcomes resulting from the savings/investment in IDA accounts, e.g. educational attainment, owning a profitable business, and improvement in employment (increased income and health benefits).

Section 414 of the AFIA requires that the Secretary enter into a contract with an independent research organization to evaluate the demonstration projects conducted pursuant to the act, individually and as a group, and lists the following factors to be addressed:

• The effects of incentives and organizational or institutional support on savings behavior in the demonstration project.
• The savings rates of individuals in the demonstration project based on demographic characteristics including gender, age, family size, race or ethnic background, and income.
• The economic, civic, psychological, and social effects of asset accumulation, and how such effects vary among different populations or communities.
• The effects of individual development accounts on savings rates, homeownership, level of post-secondary education attained, and self-employment, and how such effects vary among different populations or communities.
• The potential financial returns to the Federal Government and to other public sector and private sector investors in individual development accounts over a 5-year and 10-year period of time.
• The lessons to be learned from the demonstration projects conducted under this title and if a permanent program of individual development accounts should be established.
• Such other factors as may be prescribed by the Secretary.

�

�

The AFIA authorizes annual appropriations of $25 million for the program. $10 million was appropriated for each of the first two years, FY 1999 and FY 2000. For FY 2001 the Congress appropriated $25 million on the basis of growing support for the program among practitioners, States, and the financial community which felt that as the program gained experience and momentum in the field, the demand for funding would increase. At the same time, OCS has devoted increased resources to technical assistance, both to existing grantees and to prospective applicants. We also believe that this added assistance, along with the increased funding will enlarge the scope of the evaluation and result in a larger and deeper source of data that will yield more valuable findings.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues

ACF continues to work in partnership with selected States and local grantees toward achieving the goals of this program. We have found that a key to successful project implementation is the development of effective, mutually supportive relationships between grantees and their partnering Financial Institutions, and OCS technical assistance efforts are focusing on strengthening these relationships. Some of the other external variables that will continue to influence the achievement of program goals include the health of the local economy and the availability of jobs; systemic barriers to low income employment such as availability of transportation and affordable day care; support of the banking, business, and foundation communities in providing non-Federal matching contributions; and the availability of support structures that will enhance job retention and advancement of IDA program participants.

Data Issues

Each grantee must provide a plan for collecting, validating and providing relevant, accurate and complete data for internal management information, statutory reporting and project evaluation purposes; and clear expression of a commitment to cooperation with the statutorily mandated evaluation of the national Assets for Independence Demonstration Program. Under the AFI Act as amended project grantees are required to use at least 2%, but not more than 15%, of grant funds to provide the research organization evaluating the demonstration project with such information as may be required for the evaluation of the demonstration project.

The Assets for Independence Act allocates a portion of the appropriated funds to support an evaluation of the overall demonstration program in addition to the funds grantees are required to expend on data collection. The agency requires the grantee to provide a well thought-out plan for collecting, validating and reporting the necessary data in a timely fashion. The grantee is also encouraged to identify the kinds of data it believes would facilitate the management information, reporting, and evaluation purposes. The grantee also agrees to cooperate with the evaluation of the national program. Grantees are urged to carry out an ongoing assessment of the data and information collected as an effective management/feedback tool in implementing their project. OCS, through its technical assistance contractor, expects shortly to provide all AFIA grantees with a new Asset Development Information System that will greatly facilitate maintenance, collection, validation, and transmission of project data essential to the program evaluation.

3. Increase parental responsibility

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Establish paternities for children born out-of-wedlock and ensure that parents support their children.3. Increase parental responsibility

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Establish paternity for children born out-of-wedlock and ensure that parents support their children.

3.1 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

The mission of ACF’s Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is to assure that assistance in obtaining support is available to children by locating parents, establishing paternity and support obligations, and modifying and enforcing those obligations. The performance targets in this plan are consistent with the DHHS goal of self-sufficiency for low-income families through employment and child support collections. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) works in cooperation with State agencies to achieve these goals.

The FY 2003 President's Budget includes a request for an increase of $31.9 million for increased State child support administrative costs and Fedeal incentive payments to States. The CSE Program is federally funded, i.e., the Federal government pays 66 percent of State administrative costs, 90 percent of paternity laboratory costs, and (subject to a cap and other limitations) 80 percent of approved automation costs, but it is administered by State and local governments. The Federal role is to provide direction, guidance, technical assistance, oversight, and some critical services to States' CSE Programs for activities mandated under title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act provided new and effective tools for enforcing child support. These tools are having a significant impact on our ability to collect support.

The President’s FY 2003 Budget requests an increase of $200,000 in training and technical assistance to support the dissemination of information and technical assistance to the States on child support enforcement activities. It is supported by an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount paid to the Federal government for its share of child support collections during the immediately preceding fiscal year.

The budget request for FY 2003 would provide an increase of $400,000 for the Federal Parent Locator Service- to assist States in locating non-custodial parents. It is supported by an amount equal to 2 percent of the amount paid to the Federal government for its share of child support collections during the immediately preceding fiscal year.

The CSE program was selected as a GPRA pilot for FY 1995 and FY 1996. As a result, a consensus National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan (FY 1995 - 1999) was completed in February 1995 by State and Federal partners. Performance measures for each goal and objective in the plan followed in July 1996. While early GPRA performance plans reported only on paternities established and dollars collected, the additional performance measures jointly developed by State and Federal partners were based on the goals, objectives and performance measures in the strategic plan.

In June 2000, State, Federal, and local partners completed the Strategic Plan for FY 2000-2004. The goals, objectives and performance measures in this performance plan are aligned with the FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan.. The FY 2001 data on the five performance plan measures of paternity establishment, order establishment, collections of current support, collections on past-due support, and cost-effectiveness are preliminary and need to be audited for completeness and reliability. The data reliability audits for FY 2001 have not been completed for all States.

Welfare Reform: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is having a dramatic impact on the child support program. The new law adds major new responsibilities and increases workloads for both State and Federal staff. As described below, the CSE program has been greatly strengthened by the welfare reform law.

The CSE program broke new records in nationwide collections in FY 2001, reaching $18.9 billion. The government collected a record $1.6 billion in overdue child support from Federal income tax refunds for tax year 2000. More than 2.1 million families benefited from these tax collections. In addition, a program to match delinquent parents with financial records found more than 1.5 million accounts belonging to more than 879,000 delinquent non-custodial parents nationwide with a value in excess of $3.1 billion nationwide. The number of paternities established or acknowledged reached almost 1.6 million in FY 2000. Of these, over 689,000 were established through in-hospital acknowledgement programs. A total of 867,000 paternities were established through the Child Support Enforcement IV-D program.

PRWORA provided new tools to the CSE program to secure emotional and financial support for many of our nation's children. Some of the new support enforcement tools are the National Directory of New Hires, the Federal Case Registry, Financial Institution Data Matches, State Disbursement Units, activities in Paternity Establishment, and the Passport Denial program. PRWORA included significant enhancements of State and Federal data systems. States are now required to have a State Directory of New Hires and a State Case Registry for Child Support Enforcement. Together, the NDNH and the FCR give States the ability to track non-custodial parents across State lines using a complete and automated system. These various tools provided by the welfare reform law generate direct collections and also ancillary benefits. Some States are beginning to use matches provided by the system to locate custodial parents to distribute child support payments. The landscape of child support enforcement is changing because of the speed, efficiency, and effectiveness of this new system.

Incentive funding: The CSE program includes an incentive funding system with a formula based in statute. PRWORA required the Secretary to develop a new revenue-neutral, performance-based incentive funding formula in consultation with the States. The old incentive funding system, which pays rewards to States based on cost effectiveness was in effect until FY 2001, when a new system, enacted by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA), was phased in beginning in FY 2000. During FY 2000 and 2001, the old and new incentive formulas were in operation concurrently. For FY 2000, States were able to earn two-thirds of what they earned under the traditional cost-effectiveness formula. One-third of the $422 million FY 2000 incentive pool was available to all States to be shared under the performance-based incentive formula. For FY 2001, States were able to earn one-third of what they earned under the traditional cost-effectiveness formula. Two-thirds of the $429 million FY 2001 incentive pool was available to all States to be shared under the performance-based incentive formula. The formula will be instrumental in driving the CSE program toward achievement of the performance targets in this plan. This performance plan employs the same five performance measures enacted by CSPIA:

• Statewide paternity establishment percentage (PEP)

Number of Children in State with Paternity Established or Acknowledged during the FY
����������Number of Children in State Born Out-of-Wedlock in the Preceding FY

• Percentage of IV-D cases with support orders:

Number of IV-D Cases with Support Orders
����������Number of IV-D Cases

• IV-D collection rate for current support:

Collections on Current Support in IV-D Cases
Current Support Amount Owed in IV-D Cases

• IV-D arrearage cases paying:

Number of IV-D Cases Paying Toward Arrears
�����Number of IV-D Cases with Arrears Due

• Total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures:

Total of IV-D Dollars Collected
Total of IV-D Dollars Expended

To implement the new incentive system, OCSE has trained States on the incentive measures, the formula for calculating payments and revised data reporting. OCSE’s auditors are closely monitoring the ability of States to report reliable data and are also assessing the validity of State-reported data. Data Reliability audits were completed and adjustments to the incentives were made in September 2001.

During FY 2003, ACF will measure the CSE program's success using these outcome measures, part of the new incentive system to gauge the achievement of the goals and objectives of the National CSE Strategic Plan.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ACF will aggressively implement the child support provisions of the law through technical assistance, tracking parents, and helping collect court-ordered support payments. This strategy will be achieved through a variety of means, including implementing Federal policy, technical assistance, training, information dissemination, a more performance-based incentive funding structure, and Federal oversight and assistance with State-based quality assurance.

To facilitate this strategy, ACF and its partners use several reporting systems. First, the Federal Parent Locator Service helps to locate non-custodial parents, as well as their employers and assets. This allows for establishing and enforcing child support orders. Second, the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and Federal Case Registry (FCR) are now operational and help to locate absent parents across State lines. Both of these mechansims already have had an impact. As of January 31, 2001, 52 States and Territories and 146 Federal agencies are reporting data to the NDNH. Since its inception October 1, 1997, and through October 31, 2001, more than 2.47 billion cases have been reported to the NDNH.

ACF works with the Department of State to deny passports to non-custodial parents who are not fulfilling their child support obligations. As many as 60 passports are denied every business day. Since the program's inception in June 1998, the States have collected more than $7.0 million in lump sum payments through the program. This amount does not include collections made through payment plans into which NCPs enter upon denial of their passport.

ACF operates the Multi-State Financial Institution Data Match (MSFIDM) with financial institutions and works with State partners to implement the In-State Financial Institution Data Match that assists in identifying non-custodial parent assets. From July 1, 2001, through September 30, 2001, more than 1.4 million matches were returned from the multi-state financial institutions, based on matching social security numbers. As of December 2001, 4,494 financial institutions are participating in the MSFIDM. States are using arrangements including in-house, consortia, and outsourcing to implement the in-state financial institution data match with local financial institutions.

ACF will continue efforts to broaden parental responsibility, especially the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, through several means: first, by focusing attention on the fathers’ positive role in improving their children’s well-being; second, by ensuring that DHHS research agendas pay adequate attention to the role of fathers in families and the effects of fathering on children’s well-being; third, by using positive messages and language about fathers and fatherhood in publications and announcements; and finally, by ensuring that DHHS’ own workforce policies encourage and enable fathers to balance work and family life responsibilities.

Working in partnership with States, ACF will use the following resources and tools to achieve the FY 2003 performance goals:

1. Federal match of State administrative expenditures (66 percent) and enhanced match for Statewide automated systems (80 percent) ($170 million currently available in unclaimed funds);
2. Data Reliability Audits of performance data and related technical assistance provided to States by Federal auditors;
3. All incentive funding to States will be based on State performance in paternity establishment, order establishment, current support collections, arrears cases paying and cost effectiveness;
4. Section 1115 research grants, 1 percent and 2 percent set-aside funding to provide technical assistance, supportive contracts, and research and demonstration grants;
5. Child access and visitation grants;
6. Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service, including a database of new hires and child support cases to assist States to locate parents and obtain support through wage withholding;
7. Federal Tax Refund/Administrative Offset program to offset income tax refunds and selected Federal benefits payments to child support obligors;
8. ACF central office child support (161) and regional office outstation (64) employees estimated at 225;
9. Central office child support staff are supplemented by approximately 51 contractor staff located both on- and off-site;
10. Self assessments by States to help managers identify cases that need services, thus increasing performance; and
11. Federal staff working collaboratively with State staff to implement new tools and requirements of welfare reform and the National CSE Strategic Plan.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

ACF has instituted several mechanisms to ensure internal and external coordination. Child Support reforms are being coordinated at several levels. The Office of Child Support Enforcement was a GPRA pilot and many PRWORA reforms have been integrated into GPRA project activities. The GPRA process involves extensive consultation and collaboration with the CSE State partners. Additionally, there are child support implementation working groups for all major reform activities under PRWORA. These groups are composed of Federal, State and local agency staff and also involve consultation with advocacy groups and national organizations.

DHHS has coordinated efforts to increase parental responsibility by promoting and encouraging father involvement through a fatherhood initiative that has representatives from all DHHS agencies. Meeting regularly to foster coordination and collaboration across DHHS, this group has established working relationships with many non-governmental groups working to promote fathers' involvement in the lives of children. The faith-based community has been contacted to help spread the word on parental responsibility and child support services.

OCSE has partnered extensively with a range of Federal agencies/programs and State and local entities. The Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service uses data from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor to implement the National Directory of New Hires and Federal Case Registry. Treasury’s Financial Management Service is a partner in the IRS Tax Refund Offset and the Administrative Payment Offset programs. The State Department is a partner in denying and revoking passports of individuals meeting certain delinquency criteria. OCSE has coordinated with numerous multi-state and in-state financial institutions to identify assets of non-custodial parents. OCSE has also collaborated with foundations, community-based organizations and State and local child support programs to launch demonstration projects in 10 sites to promote responsible fatherhood. These three year "fragile family" demonstrations began in March 2000, total $15 million including $10 million in Federal funding. Final evaluations will be completed one or two years after the demonstrations end.

In order to direct more resources to holding non-custodial parents responsible, OCSE's Project Save Our Children (PSOC) partnered with the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the DHHS Inspector General, and numerous State and local law enforcement agencies. OCSE reached out to the Department of Labor’s Welfare to Work program to secure funds to benefit non-custodial parent job training. OCSE enlisted other ACF programs including Head Start, Foster Care and Child Care to educate clients about child support services. OCSE collaborated with the domestic violence community to inform service providers of the importance of child support and to ensure the safety of victims seeking child support services.

Program-wide Performance

The OCSE Audit Office has completed all FY 2000 data reliability audits and issued final reports for all States. As of September 2001, all States have been audited on their FY 2000 performance data. The FY 2000 data shown below are final.

Paternities (measure 3.1a): The number of children born out of wedlock with paternity established or acknowledged in FY 2000 is approximately 1.6 million. ACF will continue to provide technical assistance, early interventions, training and education activities to help individuals better understand their parental responsibilities. States are steadily improving and we expect to reach this goal soon.

Support Orders (measure 3.1b): The number of IV-D cases in FY 2000 is about 17.3 million. There are approximately 10.7 million cases with support orders established in FY 2000. The FY 2001 target was decreased based on the actual performance in FY 1999. PRWORA has given States new tools to establish an order faster, such as administrative authority. More States are moving to agency-based order establishment procedures. Further, PRWORA requires that all States enact the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act which allows them to establish orders against non-residents. These strategies will help OCSE improve performance. State staffing levels remain about the same while the caseload continues to increase, making this measure very difficult to increase. We anticipate conducting research to provide recommendations to States on appropriate staffing levels.

Collections on Current Support (measure 3.1c): The total amount of child support distributed as current support in FY 2000 was $12.9 billion. The total amount of current support due in FY 2000 was $23 billion. The FY 2001 target was decreased based on the actual performance in FY 1999. However, OCSE will work to achieve a higher performance level by focusing on improved enforcement techniques and ensuring more reliable data. Particular emphasis will be placed on automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections, and payments to families. These efforts have been enhanced by PRWORA, which has given States new tools to increase collection of support, such as new hire reporting, uniform procedures for interstate cases, centralized collection and disbursement, and enhanced wage-withholding procedures.

Cases Paying Toward Arrearages (measure 3.1d): There are 9.7 million cases with arrearages due and 5.8 million cases paying toward arrearages in FY 2000. The FY 2001 target was increased based on the actual performance in FY 1999. OCSE will focus on improved enforcement techniques emphasizing automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections, and payments to families. PRWORA has given States new tools to increase collection of support, such as new hire reporting, uniform procedures for interstate cases, centralized collection and disbursement, and license revocation.

Collections (measure 3.1e): In FY 2001, collections reached a record high of $18.9 billion, a 6 percent increase from the previous fiscal year. The collections forwarded to other States are $1.2 billion.

Expenditures (measure 3.1e): In FY 2000, total administrative expenditures were up 18.2 percent to $4.5 billion. This is due to increased automated data processing expenditures that are expected to continue to increase. This yields a cost-effectiveness ratio of $4.21. The FY 2001 target was decreased based on actual performance in previous years. Collections reached a record high in FY 2000. Focus will continue to be placed on increased efficiency of State programs through automated systems. Administrative expenditures will continue to be the focus of federal audits.

In summary, the FY 2000 performance targets were very ambitious. New collection tools and program improvements, such as new hire reporting and increasing statewide automation, have increased collections but they have not been fully implemented in all States. Performance targets for FY 2002 and 2003 for all five measures will increase by a small percentage from FY 2001. The achievement of the performance targets will be greatly affected by a number of factors interacting with the CSE program including the effect of State TANF program structures and policies, the 5-year limit on TANF benefits, the economy's health, and demographic and social trends. States had to increase their computer resources to reprogram their systems to report the accurate data needed for the new incentive system. The cost effectiveness measure is negatively impacted by increases in expenditures. However, increasing the resources spent on program improvements should have positive consequences.

Data Issues

State Automated Systems. States currently maintain information on the necessary data elements for the five program measures. Most States use an automated system to maintain these data, while a few maintain the data manually. All States were required to have a comprehensive, statewide, automated CSE system in place by October 1, 1997. Forty-seven States currently meet this requirement. Continuing implementation of these systems, in conjunction with cleanup of case data, will improve the accuracy and consistency of reporting.

Data Completeness and Reliability. As part of OCSE’s certification of automated systems, their ability to produce valid data will be reviewed. Data reliability audits are conducted annually. Self-evaluation by States and OCSE audits will provide an on-going review of the validity of data input and the ability of automated systems to produce accurate data. There is a substantial time lag in data availability. As of June 2001, all States reported full or partial data on their FY 2000 performance. The Audit Office has completed the FY 2000 audits. A Final Rule published December 27, 2000 covers the requirements for the new performance-based incentive funding system, performance penalties, and standards for certain types of audits.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002.

The achievement of performance targets will be significantly affected by a number of factors interacting with the CSE program in ways that either help or hinder performance goal achievement including: (1) the effect of State Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program structures and policies; (2) the 5-year time limit on TANF benefits which leaves child support as the linchpin for family self-sufficiency; (3) the health of the economy; (4) wage and unemployment rates; and (5) demographic and social trends such as divorce and non-marital birth rates. These and other external factors impact State agency caseloads, paternity establishment workloads, and ability to collect support payments.

States have organized their enforcement systems and infrastructures differently. Through its considerable national and regional technical assistance initiatives, many incorporating State self-assessment and peer technology transfers, ACF is customizing its efforts to individual State needs. Additionally, the new performance-based incentive process will add impetus to those States that may need to assign a higher priority to child support programs.

The program objective statements listed below are part of the OCSE’s multi-year Strategic Plan aimed at increasing overall performance. Annual measures are stated in terms consistent with the expected amount of increased or maintained performance. Performance projections for FY 2003 indicate that all five measures will remain relatively stable. One reason is the development of State automated systems is still underway, especially in States with large caseloads. While systems will allow more effective child support enforcement in most performance areas, they are also likely to result in improved data reporting, which can alter current estimates of performance. In addition, data reliability audits will greatly assist in determining actual performance levels.

We anticipate that performance will improve over time due to the phased-in implementation of incentive legislation, which began in FY 2000. States’ performance should improve as a result of the incentives and the use of more reliable data systems. Almost all States are using automated systems; a few States may be developing their own systems. It is assumed that all States will use the majority of enforcement tools resulting from the enactment of PRWORA.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children have parentage established.

Objective: Increase the number of paternities established, particularly those established within one year of birth.

3.1a.FY 2002: Increase to 97% the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock.

FY 2003: Increase to 98% the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock.

Data Source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing paternities established during the fiscal year with the number of non-marital births during the preceding fiscal year. The statute allows States to use the IV-D PEP or a Statewide PEP. The Statewide PEP was selected because most States indicated they would use the Statewide PEP as well. The rates above include paternities established by both the IV-D program and hospital-based programs. Increasing the target rate in FY 2003 requires States to keep up with establishing paternities on out-of-wedlock births while continuing to handle backlogs of older IV-D cases needing paternity established.

Early interventions will be sought through expanding in-hospital based paternity establishment programs and partnering with birth record agencies, pre-natal clinics and other entities and encouraging voluntary acknowledgments, in accordance with the requirements of PRWORA. Partners will work together, and with customers, to help both parents understand their parental responsibilities and to promote establishing paternity in a non-adversarial manner wherever possible. In collaboration with partners and stakeholders, ACF will explore a variety of activities to help individuals better understand their parental responsibilities, including contributing to direct education programs in high schools, counseling, public awareness campaigns, public service announcements, and brochures about the CSE program. Technical assistance, training and education activities will be increased.

The number of children born out of wedlock with paternity established or acknowledged in FY 2000 is approximately 1.6 million providing a statewide paternity establishment percentage of 95%. FY 2000 data are final and data reliability audits have been completed.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases have financial and medical support orders.

Objective: Increase the percentage of IV-D cases with orders for financial support.

3.1b.FY 2002: Increase to 64% from the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders.

FY 2003: Increase to 65% from the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders.

Data Source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

A support order is needed to collect child support. This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing the number of IV-D cases with support orders with the total number of IV-D cases. We project a slight increase in the target rate for FY 2003 based on the FY 2000 actual of 62%. This will require more effort as new child support cases are added to State workloads each year, increasing the overall caseload needing services.

PRWORA also gives States new tools to establish an order more quickly, such as administrative authority to require genetic testing, subpoena financial and other information, and to access a wide array of records. More States are voluntarily shifting from court-based to agency-based order establishment procedures. PRWORA requires expedited administrative procedures for establishing orders. PRWORA expands paternity acknowledgment programs to birth record agencies, setting the stage for order establishment. PRWORA requires that all States enact the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act which grants States expansive long-arm jurisdiction allowing them to establish support orders against non-residents, thus avoiding the lengthy two-State process.

The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 requires the Secretary of DHHS to recommend a medical support indicator for inclusion in the new incentive system. The Secretary’s report to Congress in June 1999 recommended postponing the development of an indicator. OCSE is working with the States to develop the medical support indicator. The indicator workgroup submitted its recommendations and report in 2001, and these recommendations are currently under review by the Secretary.

Approximately 10.7 million cases with support orders established in FY 2000 reflects a 4 percent increase from FY 1999. The number of IV-D cases in FY 2000, approximately 17.2 million, is approximately the same number for FY 1999.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases receive financial and medical support from both parents.

Objective: Increase the collection rate.

3.1c.FY 2002: Increase to 55% from the FY 1999 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support.

FY 2003: Increase to 56% from the FY 1999 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support.

Data Source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure, a proxy for the regular and timely payment of support, directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing total dollars collected for current support in IV-D cases with total dollars owed for current support in IV-D cases. The performance targets for FY 2002 and 2003 are more conservative due to data reliability issues associated with phasing in the new data systems. For FY 2000 actual data, the reliability standard was 90 percent, but for FY 2001 the standard will increase to 95 percent. We will have greater confidence in the data for actual performance at the higher standard.

Focus will be placed on improved enforcement techniques emphasizing automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections and payments to families. ACF will emphasize improving the numerous processes that result in the support of children. These improvements include: (1) simplifying the payment process; (2) reducing barriers to non-custodial parents providing support payments; (3) increasing the number of cases handled using automated systems; (4) using alternative disposition strategies such as consensual agreements and other non-judicial agreements; (5) improving interstate case processing; (6) increasing coordination and integration of services with other agencies; and (7) increasing access to services.

PRWORA gives States new tools to increase collection of support, such as license revocation, new hire reporting, centralized collection and disbursement, enhancement of wage withholding procedures, and uniform procedures for interstate cases.

The amount collected for current support is $12.9 billion in FY 2000, approximately 9 percent increase from FY 1999. Total current support due for FY 2000 is $23 billion, which is approximately a 2 percent increase from FY 1999.

Objective: Increase paying cases.

3.1d.FY 2002: Increase to 55% the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases.

FY 2003: Increase to 56% the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases.

Data Source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing the total number of IV-D cases paying any amount toward arrears with the total number of IV-D cases with arrears due. More direct measurement of a national arrearage collection rate is impossible because States have laws that count arrears in widely varying ways. Some new cases enter the caseload with arrearages already accrued before the State can take any action. This measure, developed by the State/Federal Incentive Formula effort, has been incorporated into the revised FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan.

Obtaining payment of arrears is often difficult. States must collect both current support and any accrued arrearages. Non-custodial parents often cannot keep up with both current support and arrears, hence arrears payments suffer. Focus will be placed on improved enforcement techniques emphasizing automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections and payments to families. ACF will emphasize improving numerous other processes that result in the support of children, including (1) simplifying the payment process; (2) reducing barriers to non-custodial parents providing support payments; (3) increasing the number of cases handled using automated systems; (4) using alternative disposition strategies such as consensual agreements and other non-judicial agreements; (5) improving interstate case processing; (6) increasing coordination and integration of services with other agencies; and (7) increasing access to services. PRWORA gives States new tools to increase support for collections such as license revocation, new hire reporting, centralized collection and disbursement, and uniform procedures for interstate cases. Other collection techniques aimed at arrears include administrative offset and seizing assets held in financial institutions.

As stated above, performance targets for FY 2002 and 2003 are more conservative due to data reliability issues associated with phasing in the new data systems. For FY 2000 actual data, the reliability standard was 90 percent, but for FY 2001 the standard will increase to 95 percent. We will have greater confidence in the data for actual performance at the higher standard.

Total cases paying toward arrearages is 5.6 million in FY 2000, an 11 percent increase from FY 1999. The 9.9 million cases with arrears due in FY 2000 are an eight- percent increase from fiscal year 1999.

Objective: Make the process more efficient and responsive.

3.1e.FY 2002: Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures) to $4.20.

FY 2003: Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures) to $4.25.

Data Sources: The OCSE Form 34A and 396A are the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing total IV-D dollars collected by States with total IV-D dollars expended by States. Increasing the target rate for FY 2003 requires greater effort because State caseloads and the total amount of child support owed increase each year.

Under current law, cost effectiveness is being phased out as the sole determinant for incentive payments. It is important to monitor the allowable costs of the program in relation to the amount collected. Focus will be placed on increased efficiency of State programs through: automated systems of case management, enforcement, collection and disbursement; staffing, administrative processes and increased collections resulting from approaches described previously under current collections; and arrears cases paying. Federal audits will focus on administrative costs to ensure States do not shift costs from block grants to matching programs.

Under the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act cost effectiveness ratio, the national ratio is $4.21 in fiscal year 2000. The total of the collections distributed ($17.9 billion); collections forwarded to other States ($1.2 billion), and fees retained by other States ($3.7 million) equals $19.0 billion. The total administrative expenditures ($4.5 billion), less the non-IV-D costs ($7.4 million), equal approximately $4.5 billion.

OCSE is continuing an internal tactical planning process to align Federal operations with the National Strategic Plan. OCSE has collaborated with State partners to revise and update the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan for FY 2000-2004. OCSE has employed a partnership approach in all major services it provides to States. For example, the new hire reporting system, incentive funding proposal, and technical assistance and training plans have all been developed collaboratively with State partners through State/Federal work groups.

4. Increase affordable child care

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Increase access to affordable, quality child care for low income, working families.

4.1 CHILD CARE: AFFORDABILITY

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent, and Broad Program Goals

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) was established, under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, to help working low-income families achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency and to improve the overall quality of child care. PRWORA repealed the title IV-A child care programs and replaced them with new funding administered under the revised Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) rules and regulations (Section 418 of the Social Security Act).

CCDF is comprised of three funding streams: Mandatory, Matching, and Discretionary Funds. The Mandatory and Matching Funds are appropriated for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2002 under section 418 of the Social Security Act. A State's share of the Mandatory Funds is tied to its spending under the now-repealed AFDC-related child care programs. The Matching Funds are funds remaining after the Mandatory Funds are allocated according to the statutory formula. To receive its share of the Matching Funds, a State must provide match at the current Medicaid rate, expend its Maintenance of Effort Funds, and obligate its Mandatory Funds. The Discretionary Fund (the Child Care and Development Block Grant fund) is appropriated annually by Congress. Discretionary Funds are allotted to States according to a formula based on the proportion of children under age five, children who receive free or reduced price school lunches, and average per capita income.

States are required to spend at least four percent of their CCDF funds on activities to improve the quality and availability of child care. In addition, Congress earmarked small amounts of the Discretionary Fund to be used by States for school-age care and resource and referral services, improved quality, and expanding the availability of quality infant and toddler care. The funds are provided in formula grants to States, which have the authority to make many decisions about priorities, policies, and expenditures in implementing CCDF within the parameters of Federal statute and regulations. Since there is now a single Federal child care program operating under one set of rules, States have the flexibility to serve all families through a single, integrated child care system.

Under the statute governing CCDF, eligible children are defined as those whose parents are working, or in education or training, or who are in need of protective services. Children must be under the age of 13 and reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) for that size family. States may serve children 13 to 19 years of age who are under court supervision or are mentally or physically incapable of self-care. In addition, under the new school-age certificate program, young people, up to age 19, may be served. States must spend 70 percent of their CCDF monies to provide child care services for families on, or transitioning off, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or at-risk of welfare dependency. States are also required to give priority to children with special needs and children from very low-income families. In their biennial plans to ACF, States must provide information concerning policy issues such as family eligibility limits, sliding fee scales, provider reimbursement rates, provider health and safety requirements, and activities to improve the quality and availability of care.

Access to quality, affordable child care is critical to achieving self-sufficiency by welfare clients. Child care subsidies also help the working poor remain self-sufficient. In Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase the Likelihood that Low-Income Mothers Will Work, GAO analyzed the trade-offs low-income mothers confront when they want to work but face high child care costs. According to that study, child care subsidies are often a strong factor in a parent’s ability to work, and reducing child care costs increases the likelihood that poor and near-poor mothers will be able to work. The GAO observed that affordable child care is a decisive factor that encourages low-income mothers to seek and maintain employment.

Along with other parts of the PRWORA of 1996, the legislative authority for the CCDF expires on September 30, 2002. However, ACF anticipates continuing to promote the availability of child care services as a key element in its strategy for helping families achieve economic independence. In addition, partnerships among child care providers, Head Start, public and private early childhood education, health, nutrition, mental health, and parental employment preparation programs are essential to meeting the needs of young children and their families. To this end, ACF continues to encourage collaboration at the Federal, State, and individual program levels. Doing so will involve working with our partners to increase the supply of child care, to develop measures and supports for child care quality, and to provide information to help parents make sound choices about child care.

Program Activities, Strategies, and Resources

In FY 2000, States spent $5.1 billion in Federal funds for child care and approximately $2 billion of their TANF block grant funds directly for child care services. States transferred significant amounts of TANF funds from their grants to their State Lead CCDF Agencies. In addition, $1.9 million in State funds (i.e., Matching and MOE) were spent under CCDF in FY 1999. A DHHS survey, conducted by Abt Associates, "The National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families, State and Community Substudy," confirms that the 17 States studied spent significantly more for child care in 1999 as compared to 1997 (i.e., the median increase was 78 percent). The study also reported waiting lists in 12 of the 17 States.

On December 6, 2000, DHHS released a report stating that nationally, in an average month in 1999, only 1.8 million children in low-income families received child care through CCDF. Although this was an increase from the 1.5 million children served in FY 1998, it was only 12 percent of the children eligible for Federal child care assistance. If all States and Territories had set their eligibility at 85 percent of the SMI (the maximum allowed under Federal law) an estimated 15 million children would have been eligible for subsidies in 1999. However, only nine States and Territories set their eligibility limits at the maximum eligibility level (i.e., 85 percent of the SMI). Another nine set the maximum eligibility below 50 percent of the SMI.

Many States, confronted with a great need for child care and limited resources, are forced to make policy choices that focus assistance on certain parents while excluding others who may be struggling to hold onto a modest job without turning to welfare for help. As a result, a family of three earning as little as $17,352 a year may have too much income to be eligible for child care assistance. States also stretch dollars by establishing low payment rates to providers, or by setting high co-payment rates that may be difficult for families to afford. Almost one-half of the States allow providers to charge additional out-of-pocket costs to parents to compensate for low reimbursement rates. These measures limit parental choice and curtail the ability of families to access quality care.

Since the passage of PRWORA, one quarter of 1 percent of the CCDF has been set-aside for technical assistance (TA). The ACF Child Care Bureau's (CCB) TA efforts have included targeted TA and support to States in systems development. The CCB has placed particular emphasis on helping States to: collect, report, and manage child care data; to improve its quality; and to meet Federal requirements for reporting and consumer education. Other technical assistance includes assisting States to develop inclusion initiatives for children with disabilities, building partnerships with the private sector, and establishing successful linkages between child care programs and programs such as health services, early childhood education, and Head Start.

The Bureau employs a variety of other methods and processes to support State efforts including: consultation, peer consultation, training opportunities, development of written materials, State child care administrator meetings and leadership forums, conference calls, on-site technical assistance, and distributing information memoranda. Through an email list established by the CCB, State child care administrators communicate with each other, providing peer consultation on emerging child care policy issues.

ACF's Regional Offices continually support State efforts in developing their child care programs. For example, Region III developed a "Back-to-Basics" notebook covering essential aspects of ACF from legislation to State child care statistics. This notebook is used to orient new State child care staff and to reorient current staff. Region VII partnered with Federal, State, and community stakeholders to develop a set of health outcomes and measures for the Region VII States' Healthy Child Care America projects. Region IV developed, distributed, and implemented a strategic plan to increase full-day, year-round services among State child care agencies, Head Start agencies, State pre-K, and private foundations. Region X is developing agreements with, and guidance for, State partners on techniques of blending child care and Head Start funds. With a similar vision, Region VIII also established a Regional Early Childhood Council consisting of approximately 40 child care, Head Start, and other early childhood representatives. All ACF Regional Offices sponsor child care meetings throughout each fiscal year. For example, the Region VI Mid-Winter Leadership Conference focused on enhancing child care quality and quantity, promoting public-private partnerships, and providing child care in rural areas.

With the FY 2000 CCDF set-aside of $10 million for child care research, the Bureau awarded a 30-month contract to develop the National Child Care Research Collaboration and Archive. The archive will help improve the quality of child care research, make data more accessible to researchers for analysis, and assist key constituencies to make better use of research findings.

Through its Child Care Policy Research Consortium, the CCB supports research partnerships composed of State administrators, researchers, and practitioners. The Consortium conducts child care research relating to the many policy decisions States must consider daily. In FY 2000, the Bureau added four new research partnerships to the Consortium, increasing the membership from 13 to 22 States. Studies in progress are examining the duration of subsidies and child care arrangements across eight States; the comparison between child outcomes and parent and expert assessments of quality child care; and the effects of welfare reform on child care supply, parental choice, and economic self-sufficiency of low-income families.

The Bureau awarded 12 grants for field initiated child care research in FY 2000 and a second group of 12 with the FY 2001 appropriation. This research will provide the CCB with critically needed information on child care and its effects on child development and family well-being, and will help to develop innovative strategies to meet the needs of low-income families struggling to afford quality child care. In addition, in FY 2000 the Bureau awarded five grants to individual doctoral students to complete dissertations on child care-related topics, and funded one research fellowship through the Society for Research in Child Development. Four new grants were awarded to support doctoral students in FY 2001. Three State Lead Agencies received grants under a new FY 2001 research priority entitled State Data and Research Capacity. The purpose of these grants is to improve the capacity of States to collect child care data and use them for research purposes.

The CCB, in partnership with the ACF Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, awarded a seven-year contract to work with States on a multi-site evaluation of selected child care subsidy strategies. The long-range intent of this contract is to provide reliable information to local, State, and Federal policy-makers about the efficacy of policies and programs related to child care subsidies in promoting outcomes for children and helping low-income families obtain and retain work. Along with this contract, the Bureau awarded a separate task order to conduct a review, analysis, and synthesis of the subsidy-related research that has been completed in recent years. The resulting product will help stakeholders to better understand child care policies and programs in the post-welfare reform context.

In FY 2001, the Bureau awarded 26 new discretionary grants to local councils under the Early Learning Opportunities Act. Other FY 2001 activities included the awarding of 10 grants for technical assistance to improve child care facilities. In FY 2001, in partnership with the Head Start Bureau, a cooperative agreement was also awarded for the development of the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning.

Program Coordination, Partnerships, and Cross-cutting Issues

Quality early childhood programs provide a crucial linkage for comprehensive, healthy child development to prepare children to be successful in school and later in life. Quality programs also provide needed supports to parents moving toward self-sufficiency through training and work. Recognizing the importance of comprehensive services, ACF encourages its State partners to create linkages between child care and health, family support, early childhood education, and other services at the State and community levels.

ACF continues to collaborate at the Federal level with other agencies to facilitate community-level coordination. This includes coordination within ACF among the Bureau, TANF, Head Start, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. For example, the Child Care and Head Start Bureaus jointly sponsor the QUILT (Quality in Linking Together) project that helps Head Start and child care grantees form program partnerships.

Within DHHS, the Bureau participates with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau to sponsor the Healthy Child Care America Campaign, which aims to improve health and safety in child care by creating strong links between the child care and health communities. Externally, ACF continues to partner with the Department of Labor’s Welfare-to-Work grants program, States (both individually and through national associations such as the American Public Human Services Association and the National Governors’ Association), various national child care associations, and the research community (e.g., the Child Care Research Consortium, funded by DHHS).

Program-wide Performance

The number of children served through the Child Care and Development Fund increased by more than 6 percent from 1.76 million in FY 1999 to 1.87 million in FY 2000 (measure 4.1a). While ACF came within 3 percent of its target, we are analyzing the data to understand why a few States reported fewer children served in FY 2000 than in FY 1999. A more detailed analysis of the data, including breakouts by age and other categories, will be completed after March 2002.

CCDF grantees have many efforts underway to improve access to child care for low-income families. As work continues in partnership with States to improve data collection, a number of indicators, including informal feedback from grantees, indicate that access to child care for low-income children served by CCDF is increasing.

An important access-related measure is the average percentage spent by families for child care co-payments (measure 4.1c). Some States have reduced the level of parent co-payments or have set lower co-payment amounts for the very lowest income families, enabling more families to participate in the program. In their FY 2000-2001 State Plans, 43 States and Territories (86 percent) reported waiving co-pays for some or all families at or below the poverty level. Twelve States said that all families with income at or below the poverty level are exempt from co-pays. An additional 31 States indicated that only some families at or below the poverty level must pay a fee. With the economic slow-down, many States report problems that may require reconsideration of policies that have expanded the availability and affordability of child care for low-income families. In addition, some States indicate that they are having trouble generating the State funds necessary to earn their share of the CCDF Federal Matching Funds.

On July 1, 2001, States submitted their plans for CCDF implementation for the two-year period beginning October 1, 2001. These plans are being analyzed and when completed ACF will have updated information about State child care policies and programs, including eligibility, co-payments, quality activities, and collaboration.

In developing early childhood programs, States and communities, together, craft resources from a variety of sources, including the Child Care and Development Fund, TANF, Head Start, Early Head Start, Social Services Block Grant, Title I, Even Start, the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program, State funded pre-kindergarten programs, other State and local funding sources, foundations, charities, and businesses. Collaboration builds on the strengths of each program and blends them together in a coordinated fashion to benefit both children and their families. Collaboration benefits children by promoting continuity in services from infancy through school age and benefits the parents by ensuring that early childhood programs support work.

In the FY 2000-2001 State Plans, 28 States and territories reported that their Lead Agency partners with the entity responsible for administering State TANF funds. Eleven States indicated that they have developed a single, "seamless" system for administering child care subsidies to all families without regard to eligibility. Seventeen States said they developed initiatives to: promote "one-stop shopping" in which TANF recipients can receive child care and other benefits at a single location and to ensure effective referrals or linkages among the agencies that administer child care and TANF cash benefits.

Twenty-five States report collaborating with the State Education Department or another public or private entity to expand services for school-age children. Thirty-seven States collaborate with their State Health Department. In an increasing number of States, collaboration involves outreach on health and safety issues to child care providers and efforts to inform low-income families about the availability of subsidized health care. In their plans, 46 States described collaboration with Head Start and 25 reported joint efforts to promote early intervention for children with developmental disabilities. Twenty-six State Lead Agencies reported active collaborations with Tribal communities to improve service delivery to dually-eligible children.

As demonstrated in the discussion of child care quality under Strategic Goal 2, Objective 5, States have an exciting array of initiatives in progress to improve the quality of child care, including comprehensive consumer education for parents, grants and loans to expand the supply and quality of child care, efforts to support the professional development and compensation of child care workers, and partnerships with business, health, and education to enhance the availability of quality child care.

Data Issues

The Federal Child Care Information System (FCCIS) collects all aggregate and case-level data from the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Territories of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, as required by CCDF legislation. States are responsible for compiling aggregate data at the State level and transmitting it electronically via the Internet to the FCCIS. (For the majority of States this is done through an automated child care information system). All data received by the FCCIS are stored in a national dataset. Data standards have been set and training and technical assistance provided to all States and Territories on reporting requirements and submission procedures.

Problems with data collection include late submission of data, incomplete data submissions, systems problems, quality controls, and technological delays. Statutory authority limits the type of data the Bureau can collect from States and State flexibility, under the statute governing the CCDF, has led to great variation in State regulations, policies, and standards. This results in numerous challenges for the CCB to produce complete, accurate, and consistent aggregate data. These challenges affect not only the comprehensiveness of the data available, but also data reliability and validity.

Throughout FY 2001, the CCB provided technical assistance (TA) designed to improve data submission and data quality. These TA activities included on-site visits; distribution of documents; enhancements to the TA Tracker software; training workshops; and software to help Tribes collect data and administer their subsidy programs.

One major TA resource, the Child Care Automation Resource Center (CCARC), a component of the Child Care Information System Technical Assistance Project (CCISTAP), is used by the States, Territories, and Tribes for interactive and immediate TA to resolve data collection problems. A unique feature of CCARC is the development of two software utilities (Child Care Data Viewer and Tribal Child Care Data Tracker), which enable States, Territories, and Tribes to use the data submitted to the Bureau for their own (local) purposes.

Other resources for States continuing to experience difficulties collecting and transmitting data are on-site TA visits, training workshops, and presentations at various regional and national meetings. In FY 2001, CCISTAP staff completed six site visits, eight tribal cluster trainings, and made presentations at 14 different conferences.. Two reporting guides were also prepared by CCISTAP to assist States, Territories, and Tribes to meet the technical requirements (e.g., data quality, sampling, optional data elements) of CCDF reporting. In addition, CCB anticipates that its new State Data and Research Capacity Grants will support States in developing their capacity to report accurate data.

Demands for child care subsidies have limited the States’ ability to commit funds for systems development, although there are indications that State expenditures for systems increased in FY 2000, compared to FY 1999. While the Bureau has noted a steady improvement in data quality from the States over the last few years, it is committed to continuing its active role to facilitate States' compliance with CCDF reporting requirements.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) final regulations were released in July 1998. ACF began developing child care performance goals and performance outcome, output, and process measures shortly after the final regulations were released and continued to refine the measures in FY 1999. The Bureau discussed the goals and measures at two national conferences, via 10 telephone conferences, written communications, and in other meetings with its partners in the States, Territories, and Tribes over the past year. The current set of appropriate, achievable program goals and measures was developed through this consensus-building process that incorporated significant opportunities for input from stakeholders. Data for many measures are available through existing reports State grantees are required to submit routinely.

While the number and percentage of potentially eligible children receiving subsidized child care (measure 4.1a) are outputs of the number of budget dollars invested (inputs), these quantities are results-oriented because the availability of child care subsidies directly supports self-sufficiency programs. An adequate supply of child care is an important intermediate stage in improving family economic independence and a continuing necessity for sustaining such independence. ACF also developed outcome measures for both the affordability and the supply of care. The co-payment measure (measure 4.1c) reflects State efforts to support families gradually becoming more self-reliant by assuring that child care costs do not consume an excessive share of family income. Measure 4.1d is an indicator of the general supply of regulated child care available in the market.

The target for measure 4.1a for FY 2002 has been decreased to more closely align with actual performance data in FY 2000 and anticipated performance for FY 2001. Maintaining the FY 2002 target in FY 2003 reflects our desire to postpone estimating growth in this measure until the reauthorization of CCDF is completed.

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of low income working families and families in training and education who have access to affordable child care.

Objective: Increase the use of subsidies for child care services for low-income working families

4.1a.FY 2002: Increase the number of children served by CCDF subsidies to 2.2 million from the FY 1998 baseline of average 1.51 million children served per month.

FY 2003: Maintain the number of children served by CCDF subsidies at 2.2 million.

4.1b.FY 2002: Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies to 14 percent from the 1998 baseline of 10%.

FY 2003: Maintain the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies at 14 percent.

Data Sources: Annual Aggregate Report, ACF-800, Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report, ACF-801.

Performance measure 4.1a is the average number of children served each month. The number of children served is directly related to the funding provided to the State grantees. The FY 2001 target reflects the increased discretionary funding ($817 million) provided by Congress; the projected increase in the FY 2002 target has been reduced to better align with actual performance data for FY 2000 and expected performance for FY 2001. Maintaining the FY 2002 target in FY 2003 reflects our desire to postpone estimating growth in this measure until the reauthorization of CCDF and TANF is completed.

Measure 4.1b indicates the number of children served through CCDF as a percentage of children potentially eligible for services based on family income, child’s age, and parent employment status. Measure 4.1b is inter-related with measures 4.1c-e that track the amount of co-pay charged to parents and other State-determined policies such as eligibility criteria and provider payments. It is also related to quality measures 5.1a-c under Strategic Objective 5 because costs associated with increased quality can reduce the number of children receiving services.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve access to affordable quality child care

Objective: Improve the affordability of quality child care for families through family co-pays that are reasonable.

4.1c.FY 2002: Maintain at 5.8 percent the average percentage of family income spent in assessed child care co-payments among families receiving CCDF subsidies at the FY 1998 level.

FY 2003: Maintain at 5.8 percent the average percentage of family income spent in assessed child care co-payments among families receiving CCDF subsidies.

Data Sources: Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report, ACF-801

The above performance measure calculates the affordability of child care for families served by expressing the out-of-pocket cost as a percentage of family income. While the goal is not the total elimination of family co-payments for child care services for families receiving CCDF subsidies, it is to ensure affordable co-payments for families. The desired outcome is to reduce the average child care co-payment to the FY 1998 level and maintain it at that level. Maintaining the amount of family income spent in child care co-payments at 5.8 percent in an environment of increasing child care costs is an ambitious target.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the availability of child cares facilities.

Objective: Increase the availability of regulated child care.

4.1d.FY 2002: Increase the number of slots in State regulated child care settings. (Developmental--Note: This measure is not limited to subsidized child care slots.)

FY 2003: Increase the number of slots in State regulated child care settings. (Developmental--Note: This measure is not limited to subsidized child care slots.)

Data Source: Under development. The number of regulated child care slots was included for the first time in FY 2000 as an optional data element for the annual aggregate ACF-800 data collection. States were asked to provide this information voluntarily in aggregate reports due December 31, 2000. Because only 30 States voluntarily provided this information in their FY 2000 aggregate reports, the Bureau was unable to establish a national baseline for this measure. The Bureau anticipates that more States will provide this information in their FY 2001 reports. If this occurs, the Bureau will establish a baseline by May 2002.

�

In addition to the issues of whether low-income families can afford child care services, the presence of child care services in the open market is a basic, but important, indicator of accessibility of services. Performance measure 4.1d addresses the availability of regulated child care slots in the market.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve parental ability to work or attend training/education leading to greater economic productivity.

Objective: Increase the use of child care subsidies to assist working families.

4.1e.FY 2002: Increase the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies to 1.2 million from the FY 1998 baseline of 802,000.

FY 2003: Increase the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies to1.2 million from the FY 1998 baseline of 802,000.

Data Source: Child Care Quarterly Case Level Report, ACF 801, Item #6, Response 1, 2, or 3.

A primary goal of CCDF is to assist low-income families to access child care to enable parents to work or attend training/education thereby enabling them to become independent from public assistance. This performance measure targets increasing the numbers of families served. The FY 2003 target is based on the actual FY 2000 performance data and maintains the FY 2002 level.

Strategic Goal 2:Improve Healthy Development, Safety And Well-Being Of Children And Youth

Rationale

The future of the Nation--its democracy, the economy, and the social fabric--depends upon how America protects and nurtures its children. Critical indicators of child well being include health status, educational attainment, economic status, family structure, quality of early childhood development, safety, and stability. Head Start, child care, child welfare, and youth programs together provide a broad range of services that contribute to the economic and emotional security, health, safety, and stability of home environments while providing stimulating learning experiences for children and youth.

This Administration is committed to making responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage national priorities. Nearly 25 million children in the United States are growing up in homes without fathers and the potential impact is troubling. These children face a greater chance of living in poverty, performing poorly in school, and encountering emotional and behavioral problems.

The FY 2003 budget includes a request for $20 million for the responsible fatherhood initiative. To reverse the rise in father absence and its impact on our Nation's children, these funds support grants to faith-based and community organizations, Indian tribes and tribal organizations for demonstration service projects designed to test the effectiveness of various approaches to accomplish the objective of responsible, caring and effective parenting, enhancing the abilities of unemployed and low income fathers to promote material support for their families; improving fathers’ ability to effectively manage family business affairs; encouraging and supporting healthy marriages and married fatherhood. In addition, funds will be used to identify, test, and publicize community-based programs and activities that effectively encourage and support responsible fatherhood and that can be replicated in other communities, including two multi-agency multi-state projects.

In addition to working to ensure safety and security for children served by the child welfare system, ACF will continue to provide leadership and support for public and private nonprofit programs across the Nation that shelter runaway and homeless youth, reuniting them with their families whenever possible, and helping them transition satisfactorily to independence when necessary. ACF is committed to helping these "older children" effectively meet the challenges of adolescence and development into adulthood.

The objectives and major program areas under this goal are:

5.Promote early childhood development

Child Care: Quality
Head Start

6.Improve the health status of children

Head Start: Health Status

7.Increase safety, permanency, and well being of children and youth

Child Welfare
Developmental Disabilities: Education
Developmental Disabilities: Health
Youth Programs

5. promote EARLY childhood development

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Provide high quality early childhood programs, such as Head Start or accredited child care programs, so that early childhood experiences enhance children's development and school readiness.

5.1 CHILD CARE: QUALITY

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

In our efforts to break the cycle of poverty and dependency, it is essential to focus both on parents and the next generation. Parents are more likely to succeed in employment and self-sufficiency if they have confidence in their child care arrangements. Beyond issues of health and safety, child care impacts the cognitive, emotional, and social development of children.

Research has begun to document the most important early influences on children’s development and factors that contribute to the quality of early child care. For example, the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study of early child care, When Child-Care Classrooms Meet Recommended Guidelines for Quality (1998), shows that children attending centers meeting professional standards for quality score higher on school-readiness and language tests and have fewer behavioral problems than their peers in centers not meeting such standards. The study found that children fared better when child-staff ratios were lower and teachers had more training and education. Similarly, a four-year follow-up of children studied in the 1995 Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study, as well as the Carolina Abecedarian Program Study, show positive long-range effects of quality early childhood services.

ACF works with State administrators, professional groups, service providers, and others to identify elements of quality and appropriate measures; inform States, professional organizations, and parents about the constituents of child care quality; influence the training and credentialing of child care workers and accreditation of child care facilities; improve linkages with health care services and with Head Start; and take steps to improve the quality of child care nationally.

(See also information under Strategic Goal 1, Child Care Affordability.)

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

The CCB will work to expand partnerships with States and among early childhood programs to improve quality in early care and education. Close cooperation with Early Head Start is underway to address these populations and increase the number of infants and toddlers served by quality early childhood programs. Other activities will focus on building capacity in the field and among Federal staff. In addition, the results of new research grants awarded by the CCB will be used to improve services for infants and toddlers and to demonstrate the impact of quality early care.

At present, States are required to spend at least four percent of CCDF funds to improve the quality and availability of child care and offer additional services to parents, such as resource and referral counseling on selecting appropriate child care providers. In addition to the four percent, funds earmarked for infant and toddler care, quality improvements, school-age care, and resource and referral, must be targeted by States to improve quality and access.

The CCB awarded $2.5 million in discretionary grants for Technical Assistance to Improve Child Care Facilities in FY 2001. Ten organizations around the country, including one Tribe in Alaska, will provide technical assistance to child care providers to improve the quality and supply of child care facilities, including child care for infants and toddlers and children with disabilities.

A cooperative agreement was awarded to a university and its consortium of universities and early childhood organizations for the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning. The purpose of this five-year project is to support the development of a national center to assist Head Start and child care programs to identify and implement practices that demonstrate effectiveness in promoting children's social and emotional competence.

As described under Strategic Goal 1, Child Care Affordability, the CCB actively provides technical assistance and support to grantees in implementing CCDF. Directly, and through its technical assistance contractors, the CCB informs States about successful programs and models, offers on-site consultation, facilitates exchanges among peers, and sponsors meetings, conference calls, and conferences designed to offer training and peer linkages. In partnership with the DHHS Maternal and Child Health Bureau, the CCB sponsors the Healthy Child Care America campaign to develop and strengthen linkages between child care providers, health professionals, and families, and ultimately to improve the health and safety of children in child care settings. In addition, the Bureau has sponsored national forums on: using technology to support improved quality in child care; collaboration among early childhood programs; building public/private partnerships; and mental health.

Program Coordination, Partnerships, and Cross-cutting Issues

One key strategy for improving the quality of care, as well as its affordability and availability, is to create linkages between CCDF, early childhood programs, and other agencies that provide crucial services to children and families. The CCB has actively promoted collaboration through policy and technical assistance. In their biennial CCDF Plans, States are required to discuss both the coordination and collaboration that occurred in developing their plans and the results of that collaboration. The Bureau will monitor State progress toward the goal of collaboration through the State reports. As indicated in section 4.1, States submitted new plans on July 1, 2001, for the two-year period beginning October 1, 2001.

In addition, the CCB coordinates with partners in ACF, DHHS, and other departments to address barriers impeding States’ efforts to provide quality services to children and families. This coordination includes encouraging grantees to provide high quality full-day, full-year early childhood services by linking CCDFwith Head Start and State pre-kindergarten programs. The DHHS health agencies that assist with attaining health targets include: the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Community Health Centers, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and their constituencies. CCB works with the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council and others to ensure that special needs children eligible for CCDF services also receive assessments and early intervention services.

Program-wide Performance

States continue to expand their innovative uses of CCDF quality improvement funds to assure more children are cared for in environments that support their developmental needs. In their FY 2000-2001 CCDF State Plans, States reported using quality funds to: educate parents about making good child care choices; provide grants and loans to expand the number and quality of child care slots; increase child care provider wages, benefits, and training; and monitor the safety and quality of care.

Approximately 20 States now report offering higher subsidy reimbursement rates to providers demonstrating high quality care. Most States indicated they are working toward a system of professional development for child care providers and workers. Nearly a dozen States have implemented the North Carolina TEACH model combining professional development and training with salary enhancements. State-funded pre-kindergarten programs now exist in 42 States and nearly all States reported efforts to link child care, Head Start, and pre-kindergarten programs more closely together.

With their infant and toddler earmarks, States are recruiting additional caregivers; providing health outreach, including training and consultation; offering incentives for provider accreditation and training; and sponsoring specialized training for infant and toddler caregivers. A number of States implemented initiatives to improve the supply and quality of infant and toddler care -- some through partnerships with Early Head Start. The CCB will continue to work with States to improve the availability of quality infant and toddler care.

With CCDF monies, including funds earmarked for school-age care and resource and referral, States reported efforts to improve both the supply and quality of school-age care. These efforts include incentives for providers seeking accreditation, specialized curriculum development, grants to programs seeking to improve the quality of their services, and development of specialized licensing standards for school-age programs. In many States, efforts to improve the quality and supply of school-age care target low-income neighborhoods, and non-English speaking populations.

A GAO study completed in January 2000 entitled, Child Care: State Efforts to Enforce Safety and Health Requirements, found that States increased the resources for regulation and monitoring in recent years and are more likely to report regular monitoring visits to child care centers and homes. Several States have implemented, or are implementing, tiered licensing programs that pay higher rates for quality. Such programs help parents in making good child care choices and provide an incentive for improved quality of care.

The data needed for reporting performance on two of the three measures related to child care quality, i.e., accreditation of facilities (measure 5.1a) and the awarding of credentials to child care providers and staff (measure 5.1b) are furnished by independent national bodies. These organizations are credible sources of information about provider accreditation and certification. The Bureau established the baseline for measure 5.1a with CY 2000 data from the National Association for Family Child Care, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and the National School-Age Care Alliance. Based on their combined data, there were 9,535 accredited child care facilities nationwide in CY 2000.

It continues to be difficult to provide an accurate count of the total number of child care facilities. Therefore, the language for measure 5.1a has been revised to measure the number of accredited facilities in relationship to the number of regulated child care centers and homes, as reported by the organizations listed above. In February 2000, the Children's Foundation issued a report entitled The 2000 Child Care Center Licensing Study, containing the results of a survey of the regulatory offices of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Data in this report, collected from October 1999 through January 2000, indicate there are 106,246 regulated child care centers. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), one of several accrediting organizations reported 6,830 NAEYC-accredited child care facilities in 1999 and 8,332 in 2000. According to the National School-Age Care Alliance (NSACA), 211 of its member child care facilities were accredited in 2000. Therefore, of an estimated 106,246 regulated child care centers, 8,543 were accredited in 2000 through NAEYC and NSACA. In addition, 992 of the 290,667 regulated family and group child care homes reported by the Children’s Foundation were accredited through the National Association for Family Child Care in 2000.

The NAEYC is revising its accreditation system. The new system will be announced in November 2002 and is scheduled to be operational in 2005. The effects of this new system on measure 5.1a cannot be determined at this time. However, the impact could be substantial because NAEYC accredits a larger proportion of child care facilities annually than do the two other accrediting organizations that are sources of data for measure 5.1a.

Providing an accurate count of the total number of child care workers is also difficult. No reliable estimate of the number of such workers exists. The ability to provide the total number of workers is hampered by several factors; e.g., no common definition exists for the term "child care worker." The Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Industry-Occupation Employment Matrix includes at least three employee categories applicable to child care workers.

The Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition awards Child Development Associate (CDA) credentials to individual child care workers (measure 5.1b). In calendar year (CY) 1999, the Academy reported 112,130 individuals with CDA credentials and 127,893 in CY 2000, an increase of 12,277 or 14.06 percent.

FY 2000 data for the third measure, increasing the number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections of regulated child care providers (measure 5.1c), were included as an optional element for the annual ACF-800 data collection. Although these three performance measures represent outputs or intermediate outcomes, they are critical strategies to measure our ability to assess quality improvements.

Data Issues

As discussed in Strategic Goal 1, Child Care Affordability, the CCB has worked with States and Territories for several years to develop appropriate and achievable program goals and measures. The goals and measures in this document reflect the consensus-building and participatory process.

Some of these child care quality performance measures require new reporting and/or data gathering methods, including obtaining information from national organizations. The CCB intends to address these data issues in several ways. Information relevant to measures already included in State Plans will be used to help tell the performance story. The State Plan Preprint submitted biennially by States has been amended to include additional items related to the Bureau's performance measures.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the quality of child care services

Objective: Increase the number of accredited child care facilities

5.1a. FY 2002: Increase by an additional 1% the number of regulated child care centers and homes nationwide accredited by nationally recognized early childhood development professional organizations and accrediting entities from the CY 2000 baseline.

FY 2003: Increase by an additional 1% the number of regulated child care centers and homes nationwide accredited by nationally recognized early childhood development professional organizations and accrediting entities from the CY 2000 baseline.

Data Source: National Association for Family Child Care, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and the National School-Age Care Alliance.

The above performance goal is an indicator of quality improvement. Accreditation of child care facilities has been linked to better outcomes for children and is increasingly accepted as a marker of good quality care. Several States use CCDF quality improvement funds in various ways to support accreditation for child care centers and homes.

The following performance goals have been developed. Through intense efforts with program stakeholders to explore alternative ways to measure progress toward improving the quality of child care services, These goals address the levels of safety in child care settings necessary to support children’s development and the higher levels of quality achieved by facilities in which staff possess nationally recognized educational credentials.

Objective: Increase the professional capacity of child care workers

5.1b.FY 2002: Increase by 8% over the previous year to 149,175 the number of Child Development Associate credentials awarded nationwide.

FY 2003: Increase by 8% over the previous year to 161,109 the number of Child Development Associate credentials awarded nationwide from the CY 1999 baseline.

Data Source: The Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition.

5.1c.FY 2002: Increase by 10% over the previous year to 47 the number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections of regulated providers from the FY 2000 baseline.

FY 2003: Increase by 10% over the previous year to 51 the number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections of regulated providers from the FY 2000 baseline

Data Source. OMB approved the number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections as an optional data element for the annual aggregate ACF-800 data collection.

3.1 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

The mission of ACF’s Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program is to assure that assistance in obtaining support is available to children by locating parents, establishing paternity and support obligations, and modifying and enforcing those obligations. The performance targets in this plan are consistent with the DHHS goal of self-sufficiency for low-income families through employment and child support collections. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) works in cooperation with State agencies to achieve these goals.

The CSE Program is federally funded, i.e., the Federal government pays 66% of State administrative costs, 90% of paternity laboratory costs, and (subject to a cap and other limitations) 80% of approved automation costs, but it is administered by State and local governments. The Federal role is to provide direction, guidance, technical assistance, oversight, and some critical services to States' CSE Programs for activities mandated under title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The request for an increase of $200 million for State Child Support includes funding Tribal child support programs at 90% and up to $.5 million in start up costs over two years, administrative costs and Federal incentive payments to States for several initiatives to strengthen the child support enforcement program. These proposals reflect investing in families while at the same time addressing existing financing structure and other administrative complexities.

The CSE Program was selected as a GPRA pilot for FY 1995 and FY 1996. As a result, a consensus National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan (FY 1995 - 1999) was completed in February 1995, by State and Federal partners. Performance measures for each goal and objective in the Plan followed in July 1996. The goals, objectives and performance measures in this Performance Plan are aligned with those in the strategic plan. Previous GPRA performance plans reported on paternities established and dollars collected while State and Federal partners jointly developed the CSE program’s performance measures. The FY 1999 data are available; the FY 2000 data on the five performance plan measures of paternity establishment, order establishment, collections of current support, collections on past-due support, and cost-effectiveness, which are audited for completeness and reliability, will be available in late spring 2001. State, Federal, local and tribal partners completed the Strategic Plan for FY 2000-2004 in June 2000. The goals, objectives and performance measures in this Performance Plan are aligned with those in the FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan.

Welfare Reform: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is having a dramatic impact on the child support program. The new law adds major new responsibilities and increases workloads for both State and Federal staff. As described below, the Child Support Enforcement program has been greatly strengthened by the welfare reform law.

The Child Support Enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in FY 2000, reaching $17.9 billion. The government collected a record $1.4 billion in overdue child support from Federal income tax refunds for tax year 2000. More than 1.42 million families benefited from these collections. In addition, a program to match delinquent parents with financial records found more than one million accounts belonging to more than 690,000 delinquent non-custodial parents nationwide with a value in excess of $3 billion. The number of paternities established or acknowledged reached a record 1.6 million in FY 1999. Of these, over 754,000 were established through in-hospital acknowledgement programs. An additional 845,000 paternities were established through the Child Support Enforcement program.

PRWORA provided new tools to the Child Support Enforcement program to secure emotional and financial support for many of our nation's children. Some of the new support enforcement tools are the National Directory of New Hires, the Federal Case Registry, Financial Institution Data Matches, State Disbursement Units, activities in Paternity Establishment, and the Passport Denial program. PRWORA included significant enhancements of State and Federal data systems. States are now required to have a State Directory of New Hires and a State Case Registry for Child Support Enforcement. Together, the NDNH and the FCR give States the ability to track non-custodial parents across State lines using a complete and automated system. These various tools provided by the welfare reform law generate direct collections and also ancillary benefits. Some States are beginning to use matches provided by the system to locate custodial parents to distribute child support payments. The landscape of child support enforcement is changing because of the speed, efficiency, and effectiveness of this new system.

Incentive funding: The CSE program includes an incentive funding system with a formula based in statute. PRWORA required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a new revenue-neutral, performance-based incentive funding formula in consultation with States. This incentive funding system, which pays rewards to States based on cost effectiveness, will remain in effect until FY 2001, while a new system, enacted by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA), is being phased in beginning in FY 2000. The formula will be instrumental in driving the CSE program toward achievement of the performance targets in this plan. This performance plan employs the same five performance measures enacted by CSPIA:

• Statewide paternity establishment percentage (PEP)

Number of Children in State with Paternity Established or Acknowledged during the FY
����������Number of Children in State Born Out-of-Wedlock in the Preceding FY

• Percentage of IV-D cases with support orders:

Number of IV-D Cases with Support Orders
����������Number of IV-D Cases

• IV-D collection rate for current support:

Collections on Current Support in IV-D Cases
Current Support Amount Owed in IV-D Cases

• IV-D arrearage cases paying:

Number of IV-D Cases Paying Toward Arrears
�����Number of IV-D Cases with Arrears Due

• Total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures:

Total of IV-D Dollars Collected
Total of IV-D Dollars Expended

In order to implement the new incentive system, OCSE has been providing training to States on the incentive measures, the formula for calculating payments and revised data reporting. OCSE’s auditors are closely monitoring the ability of States to report reliable data and are also assessing the validity of State-reported data.

During FY 2003, ACF will be measuring the CSE Program's success using these outcome measures which are part of the new incentive system to gauge the achievement of the goals and objectives of the National CSE Strategic Plan.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ACF will aggressively implement the child support provisions of the law through technical assistance, tracking parents, and helping collect court-ordered support payments. This strategy will be achieved through a variety of means, including implementing Federal policy, technical assistance, training, information dissemination, a more performance-based incentive funding structure, and Federal oversight and assistance with State-based quality assurance.

The Federal Parent Locator Service will be expanded to facilitate location of non-custodial parents, their employers and their assets in order to promote the establishment and enforcement of child support orders. The National Directory of New Hires and Federal Case Registry have been implemented and are locating absent parents across State lines. The FCR contains 15.5 million child support cases (6% are non-IV-D) involving 31.7 million unduplicated case participants. As of January 31, 2001, 52 States and Territories (note: Guam and VI are missing) and 146 Federal agencies are reporting data to the NDNH. From Oct. 1, 2000 through Jan. 31, 2001, information was sent to States on more than 3.5 million non-custodial parents or putative fathers who live or work in another State than the one in which their child(ren) reside.

ACF works with the Department of State to deny passports to non-custodial parents who are not fulfilling their child support obligations. As many as 60 passports are denied every business day. Since the program's inception in June 1998, more than $6.5 million in lump sum payments have been collected by the States through the program. This amount does not include collections made through payment plans into which NCPs enter upon denial of their passport.

ACF operates the Multi-State Financial Institution Data Match (MSFIDM) with financial institutions and works with State partners to implement the In-State Financial Institution Data Match that assists in the identification of non-custodial parent assets. From October 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, about 696,000 matches have been returned from the multi-state financial institutions based on matching social security numbers. States are using arrangements including in-house, consortia, and outsourcing to implement the in-state financial institution data match with local financial institutions.

ACF will continue efforts to broaden parental responsibility, especially the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children, through several means. First, by focusing attention on the positive role fathers have in improving their children’s well-being. Second, by ensuring that the DHHS research agendas pay adequate attention to the role of fathers in families and the effects of fathering on children’s well-being. Third, by using positive messages and language regarding fathers and fatherhood in publications and announcements; and finally, by ensuring that DHHS’ own workforce policies encourage and enable fathers to balance work and family life responsibilities.

Working in partnership with States, ACF will use the following resources and tools to achieve the FY 2003 performance goals:

1. Federal match of State administrative expenditures (66%) and enhanced match for Statewide automated systems (80%) ($170 million currently available in unclaimed funds);
2. Data Reliability Audits of performance data and related technical assistance provided to States by Federal auditors;
3. All incentive funding provided to States will be based on paternity establishment, order establishment, current support collections, arrears cases paying and cost effectiveness (incentives capped at $450 million);
4. Section 1115 research grants, 1% and 2% set aside funding to provide technical assistance, supportive contracts, demonstration grants and child access and visitation grants;
5. Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service including a database of new hires and child support cases to assist States in locating parents and obtaining support through wage withholding;
6. Federal Tax Refund/Administrative Offset program to offset income tax refunds and selected Federal benefits payments to child support obligors;
7. ACF central office child support (151) and regional office (74) employees estimated at 225;
8. Central office child support staff are supplemented by approximately 200 contractor staff located both on and off-site;
9. Self assessments by States to help managers identify cases that need services thus increasing performance; and
10. Federal staff working collaboratively with State staff to implement new tools and requirements of welfare reform and the National CSE Strategic Plan.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues

ACF has instituted several mechanisms for ensuring internal and external coordination. Child Support reforms are being coordinated at several levels. The Office of Child Support Enforcement was a GPRA pilot and many of the PRWORA reforms have been integrated into the GPRA project activities. The GPRA process involves extensive consultation and collaboration with the CSE State partners. Additionally, there are child support implementation working groups for all the major reform activities under PRWORA. These groups are composed of Federal, State and local agency staff and also involve consultation with advocacy groups and national organizations.

DHHS has coordinated efforts to increase parental responsibility through promoting and encouraging father involvement through a Fathers’ Initiative that has representatives from all DHHS agencies. Meeting regularly to foster coordination and collaboration across DHHS, this group has developed working relationships with many non-governmental groups working to promote more father involvement in the lives of children. The faith-based community has been contacted to help in spreading the word on parental responsibility and child support services.

OCSE has partnered extensively with a range of Federal agencies/programs and State and local entities. The Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service employs data from the Social Security Administration and the Department of Labor in implementing the National Directory of New Hires and Federal Case Registry. Treasury’s Financial Management Service is a partner in the IRS Tax Refund Offset and the Administrative Payment Offset programs. The State Department is a partner in denying and revoking passports of individuals who meet certain delinquency criteria. OCSE has coordinated with numerous multi-state and in-state financial institutions to identify assets of non-custodial parents. OCSE has also collaborated with foundations, community-based organizations and State and local child support programs to launch demonstration projects in 10 sites to promote responsible fatherhood. These three year "fragile family" demonstrations, beginning in March 2000, will total $15 million including $10 million in Federal funding. Final evaluations will be completed one or two years after the demonstrations end.

In order to bring more resources toward holding non-custodial parents responsible, OCSE's Project Save Our Children (PSOC) has partnered with the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the DHHS Inspector General, and numerous State and local law enforcement agencies. OCSE has reached out to the Department of Labor’s Welfare to Work program in order to secure funds to benefit non-custodial parent job training. OCSE has enlisted other ACF programs including Head Start, Foster Care and Child Care to educate clients about child support services. OCSE has collaborated with the domestic violence community to inform service providers of the importance of child support and to ensure the safety of victims seeking child support services.

Program-wide Performance

The OCSE Audit Office has completed all FY 1999 data reliability audits and issued final reports for all States except one where they issued an interim report. As of February 2001, all States have reported all or partial data on their FY 2000 performance. Data are currently being reviewed.

Collections (measure 3.1c): The total amount of child support distributed as current support in FY 1999 was $11.8 billion. The total amount of current support due in FY 1999 was $22.5 billion.

Expenditures (measure 3.1e): In FY 1999, total administrative expenditures were up 15.9 percent to $4.0 billion. Comparison to total collections of $15.8 billion yields a cost-effectiveness ratio of $3.92, a decrease of 2.0 percent from FY 1998. This is due to increased automated data processing expenditures that are expected to continue to increase.

OCSE has re-evaluated the projections for performance measures. The following circumstances warranted replacing the FY 1996 baseline (with the exception of the cost-effectiveness ratio) and establishing a new baseline using FY 1999 data.

Changes to Reporting System: OCSE recently made significant revisions to its statistical and financial reporting forms to reflect the goals and objectives of the strategic plan and the performance-based incentive funding system enacted by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA). The new forms added new data elements and revised definitions. In addition, Federal auditors have begun to assess the completeness and reliability of State-reported data. Specifically, auditors will review all statistical data used to calculate the measures that gauge State performance in paternities established, orders established, current support collections, and past-due collections. The only performance measure and data elements remaining largely unchanged during the transition from old to new reporting and incentive systems is the cost-effectiveness ratio. In addition, new statewide automated systems in over 44 States now report new data requirements more reliably with fewer errors and duplicated counts. Of the remaining States, Nebraska, Nevada and Ohio have indicated that they are compliant with ADP requirements but OCSE has not yet reviewed the documentation. California, Michigan, and South Carolina are not certified. It will be another two years before Michigan’s system will be completed. California and South Carolina should have their systems operational statewide in FY 2005 or 2006.

Statutory Evolution of the Program: The child support program has never been in a steady state. Significant legislation with new requirements and new collection tools has been enacted every few years through the 29-year history of the program. The capabilities and responsibilities of the program in 2002 are far greater than in 1995, prior to enactment of welfare reform. We believe comparison of past performance on these measures is not possible and would result in a comparison of "apples and oranges". Data definitions for FY 1999 - 2002 differ significantly from the past and have been prescribed by statute. For example, for incentive purposes, States may now exclude cases where they have no jurisdiction, such as those involving foreign countries and Indian tribes. In addition, the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 divides collections into three new categories (current assistance, former assistance, and never assistance) which are integral to the incentive calculation and dramatically alter reporting systems. While the majority of the measures are new, the cost effectiveness ratio has been a traditional measure of the program. State-reported child support collections and program expenditures have been reported consistently and reliably for many years.

The FY 1999 - 2000 performance targets were very ambitious reflecting anticipation of results from a range of new collection tools and program improvements such as new hire reporting and increasing statewide automation. The strong economy augured well for collecting support from more employed non-custodial parents. But because these new collection tools had not been fully implemented, States failed to realize as large an increase in collections as expected, although collections of $17.9 billion were significant. Therefore, the FY 2001 and 2002 targets for measures 3.1b-c and 3.1e for have been adjusted downward from earlier projections based on the actual FY 1999 performance (data were not complete until December 2000).

Data Issues

State Automated Systems. States currently maintain information on the necessary data elements for the five program measures. Most States use an automated system to maintain this data, while a few maintain the data manually. All States were required to have a comprehensive, statewide, automated CSE system in place by October 1, 1997. 44 States currently meet this requirement. Continuing implementation of these systems, in conjunction with cleanup of case data, will improve the accuracy and consistency of reporting.

Data Completeness and Reliability. As part of OCSE’s certification of automated systems, their ability to produce valid data will be reviewed. Data reliability audits are conducted on an annual basis. Self-evaluation by States and OCSE audits will provide an on-going review of the validity of data input and the ability of automated systems to produce accurate data. There is a substantial time lag in data availability. The Audit Office has completed all FY 1999 audits and issued final reports for all States except for one State where they issued an interim report. As of February 2001, all States have reported all or partial data on their FY 2000 performance. The Audit Office has begun the FY 2000 audits and these should be completed during the summer of 2001. A Final Rule was published December 27, 2000 covering the requirements for the new performance-based incentive funding system, performance penalties, and standards for certain types of audits.

Summary Table

5.2 Head Start Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002.

The achievement of the performance targets will be significantly affected by a number of factors interacting with the CSE program in ways that help or hinder achievement of performance goals including: (1) the effect of State Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program structures and policies; (2) the 5-year time limit on TANF benefits which leaves child support as the linchpin for family self-sufficiency; (3) the health of the economy; (4) wage and unemployment rates; and (5) demographic and social trends such as divorce and non-marital birth rates. These, and other external factors, impact State agency caseloads, paternity establishment workloads, and ability to collect support payments.

States have organized their enforcement systems and infrastructures differently. Through its considerable national and regional technical assistance initiatives, many of which incorporate State self-assessment and peer technology transfers, ACF is customizing its efforts to individual State needs. Additionally, the new performance-based incentive process will add impetus to those States that may need to assign a higher priority to their child support programs.

The program objective statements listed below are part of the Office of Child Support’s multi-year Strategic Plan aimed at increasing overall performance. Annual measures are stated in terms consistent with the expected amount of increased or maintained performance. Performance projections for FY 2003 indicate that all five measures will remain relatively stable. One reason is continuing development of State automated systems, especially in States with large caseloads. ACF is unsure of the effect of certified automated systems operating in all 54 jurisdictions. While systems will allow for more effective child support enforcement in most performance areas, they are also likely to result in improved data reporting, which can alter current estimates of performance up or down. In addition, Data Reliability Audits will greatly assist in determining actual performance levels.

We are anticipating that performance will improve over time due to the phased-in implementation of incentives legislation which began in FY 2000. States’ performance should improve as a result of the incentives and the use of more reliable data systems. Almost all States are using automated systems; a few States may be developing their own systems. It is assumed that all States will be using the majority of enforcement tools resulting from enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children have parentage established.

Objective: Increase the number of paternities established, particularly those established within one year of birth.

3.1a.FY 2002: Increase to 97% the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock.

FY 2003: Increase to xx% the paternity establishment percentage (PEP) among children born out of wedlock.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing paternities established during the fiscal year with the number of non-marital births during the preceding fiscal year. The statute allows States to use the IV-D PEP or a Statewide PEP. The Statewide PEP was selected because most States have indicated they will use the Statewide PEP as well. The rates above include paternities established by the IV-D program and paternities established by hospital-based programs. Increasing the target rate in FY 2003 requires States to keep up with establishing paternities on out-of-wedlock births while continuing to handle backlogs of older IV-D cases needing paternity established.

Early interventions will be sought through expanding in-hospital based paternity establishment programs and partnering with birth record agencies, pre-natal clinics and other entities and encouraging voluntary acknowledgments, in accordance with the requirements of PRWORA. Partners will work together and with customers to help both parents understand their parental responsibilities and to promote establishing paternity in a non-adversarial manner wherever possible. In collaboration with partners and stakeholders, ACF will explore a variety of activities to help individuals better understand their parental responsibilities, including contributing to direct education programs in high schools, counseling, public awareness campaigns, public service announcements, and brochures about the CSE program. Technical assistance, training and education activities will be increased.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases have financial and medical support orders.

Objective: Increase the percentage of IV-D cases with orders for financial support.

3.1b.FY 2002: Increase to 64% from the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders.

FY 2003: Increase to xx% from the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of IV-D cases having support orders.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

A support order is needed to collect child support. This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing the number of IV-D cases with support orders with the total number of IV-D cases. The FY 2001 target has been adjusted downward based on the actual performance in FY 1999 of 60%. We are projecting a slight increase in the target rate for FY 2002. This will require more effort as new child support cases are added to State workloads each year, increasing the overall caseload needing services.

PRWORA also gives States new tools to establish an order more quickly, such as administrative authority to require genetic testing, subpoena financial and other information, and to access a wide array of records. More States are voluntarily shifting from court-based to agency-based order establishment procedures. PRWORA requires expedited administrative procedures for the establishment of orders. PRWORA expands paternity acknowledgment programs to birth record agencies, which would set the stage for order establishment. PRWORA requires that all States enact the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act which grants States expansive long-arm jurisdiction allowing them to establish support orders against non-residents, thus avoiding the lengthy two-State process.

The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 requires the Secretary of HHS to recommend a medical support indicator for inclusion in the new incentive system. The Secretary’s report to Congress in June 1999 recommended postponement of the development of an indicator until June 2001. OCSE is currently working with States to develop the medical support indicator.

PROGRAM GOAL: All children in IV-D cases receive financial and medical support from both parents.

Objective: Increase the collection rate.

3.1c.FY 2002: Increase to 55% from the FY 1999 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support.

FY 2003: Increase to xx% from the FY 1999 baseline the IV-D collection rate for current support.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure, a proxy for the regular and timely payment of support, directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing total dollars collected for current support in IV-D cases with total dollars owed for current support in IV-D cases. The FY 2001 target rate has been adjusted downward based on the actual performance in FY 1999. We are projecting a slight increase in the target rate for FY 2003. This represents an increase in effort because State caseloads generally increase every year.

Focus will be placed on improved enforcement techniques emphasizing automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections and payments to families. ACF will emphasize improvement of numerous processes that result in the support of children. These improvements include: (1) simplifying the payment process; (2) reducing barriers to non-custodial parents providing support payments; (3) increasing the number of cases handled using automated systems; (4) using alternative disposition strategies such as consensual agreements and other non-judicial agreements; (5) improving interstate case processing; (6) increasing coordination and integration of services with other agencies; and (7) increasing access to services.

PRWORA gives States new tools to increase collection of support, such as license revocation, new hire reporting, centralized collection and disbursement, enhancement of wage withholding procedures, and uniform procedures for interstate cases.

Objective: Increase paying cases.

3.1d.FY 2002: Increase to 55% the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases.

FY 2003: Increase to xx% the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases.

Data source: The OCSE Form 157 is the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing the total number of IV-D cases paying any amount toward arrears with the total number of IV-D cases with arrears due. More direct measurement of a national arrearage collection rate was not possible because States have laws that count arrears in widely varying ways. Some new cases enter the caseload with arrearages already accrued before the State can take any action. This measure, developed by the State/Federal Incentive Formula effort, has been incorporated into the revised FY 2000-2004 Strategic Plan.

Obtaining payment of arrears is often difficult. States must collect both current support and any accrued arrearages. Non-custodial parents often cannot keep up with both current support and arrears, hence arrears payments suffer. Focus will be placed on improved enforcement techniques emphasizing automated mechanisms for enforcement, collections and payments to families. ACF will emphasize improvement of numerous other processes that result in the support of children, including (1) simplifying the payment process; (2) reducing barriers to non-custodial parents providing support payments; (3) increasing the number of cases handled using automated systems; (4) using alternative disposition strategies such as consensual agreements and other non-judicial agreements; (5) improving interstate case processing; (6) increasing coordination and integration of services with other agencies; and (7) increasing access to services. PRWORA gives States new tools to increase collection of support such as license revocation, new hire reporting, centralized collection and disbursement, and uniform procedures for interstate cases. Other collection techniques aimed at arrears include administrative offset and seizing assets held in financial institutions.

Objective: Make the process more efficient and responsive.

3.1e.FY 2002: Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures) to $4.20.

FY 2003: Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures) to $xxx.

Data sources: The OCSE Form 34A and 396A are the source of data needed to calculate this measure.

This measure directly indicates achievement of the performance target by comparing total IV-D dollars collected by States with total IV-D dollars expended by States. Increasing the target rate for FY 2003 requires more work because State caseloads and the total amount of child support owed increase each year.

Under current law, cost effectiveness is being phased out as the sole determinant for incentive payments. It is important to monitor the allowable costs of the program in relation to the amount collected. Focus will be placed on increased efficiency of State programs through automated systems of case management, enforcement, collection and disbursement, staffing, administrative processes and increased collections resulting from approaches described previously under current collections and arrears cases paying. Federal audits will focus on administrative costs to ensure States do not shift costs from block grants to matching programs.

OCSE is continuing an internal tactical planning process to align Federal operations with the National Strategic Plan. OCSE has collaborated with State partners to revise and update the National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan for FY 2000-2004. OCSE has employed a partnership approach in all major services it provides to States. For example, the development of the new hire reporting system, incentive funding proposal, and technical assistance and training plans have all been developed collaboratively with State partners through State/Federal work groups.

4. Increase affordable child care

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Increase access to affordable, quality child care for low income, working families.

4.1 CHILD CARE: AFFORDABILITY

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent, and Broad Program Goals

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) was established under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 to help working low-income families achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency and to improve the overall quality of child care. PRWORA repealed the three title IV-A child care programs and replaced them with new funding administered under the revised Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) rules and regulations (Section 418 of the Social Security Act).

CCDF is comprised of three funding streams: the mandatory, matching, and discretionary funds. The mandatory and matching funds are appropriated for fiscal years 1997 through 2002 under section 418 of the Social Security Act. A State's share of the mandatory funds is tied to its spending under the now-repealed AFDC-related child care programs. To receive its share of the matching funds, a State must match the matching funds at the current Medicaid rate, demonstrate maintenance of effort (MOE), and obligate its mandatory funds. The discretionary fund, also referred to as the Child Care and Development Block Grant, is appropriated annually by Congress. Discretionary funds are allotted to States based on a formula that takes into account the proportion of children under age five, children who receive free or reduced price school lunches, and per capita income. The FY 2002 request for the Child Care and Development Block Grant includes a request for $200 million increase in CCDBG funds and a new $400 million set aside in the appropriation for use by the States to provide certificates for low-income parents to help defray the costs of after school programs with an education focus. Combined, these funds will provide child care for an estimated 2.6 million low-income children.

States are required to spend at least four percent of their CCDF funds on activities to improve the quality and availability of child care. In addition, Congress has earmarked small amounts of the discretionary fund to be used by States for school-age care and resource and referral services, improved quality, and expanding the availability of quality infant and toddler care. The funds are provided in formula grants to States which have the authority to make many of the decisions about priorities, policies, and expenditures in achieving goals related to improved family access to quality child care within the parameters of the Federal statute and regulations. Since there is now a single Federal child care program operating under one set of rules, States have the flexibility to serve all families through a single, integrated child care system.

Under the statute governing CCDF, eligible children are defined as those whose parents are working or in education or training, or who are in need of protective services. Children must be under age 13 and reside with a family whose income does not exceed 85 percent of the State's median income (SMI) for that size family. States may serve children age 13 and over who are under court supervision or are mentally or physically incapable of self care. States must spend 70 percent of their CCDF monies to provide child care services for families on or transitioning off Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or at-risk of welfare dependency. States are also required to give priority to children with special needs and to children from very low-income families.

In their biennial plans to ACF, States must provide information concerning policy issues such as family eligibility limits, sliding fee scales, provider reimbursement rates, provider health and safety requirements, and activities to improve the quality and availability of care.

Access to quality, affordable child care is critical to achieving self-sufficiency by welfare clients. Child care subsidies also help the working poor remain self-sufficient. In Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase the Likelihood that Low-Income Mothers Will Work, GAO analyzed the trade-offs low-income mothers confront when they want to work but face high child care costs. According to that study, child care subsidies are often a strong factor in a parent’s ability to work, and reducing child care costs increases the likelihood that poor and near-poor mothers will be able to work. The GAO observed that affordable child care is a decisive factor that encourages low-income mothers to seek and maintain employment.

ACF will continue to promote expansion of child care services as a key element in its strategy for helping families achieve economic independence. Doing so will involve working with our partners to increase the supply of child care, to develop measures and supports for child care quality, and to provide information to help parents make sound choices about child care.

In addition, partnerships among child care providers, Head Start, public and private early childhood education, health, nutrition, mental health, and parental employment preparation are essential to meeting the needs of young children and their families. To this end, ACF continues to encourage collaboration at the Federal, State, and individual program levels.

Program Activities, Strategies, and Resources

Child care funding available to States has increased in recent years. In FY 1999, $3.2 billion was available through CCDF. In addition in FY 1999, States transferred a cumulative total of $2.44 billion of Federal funds from the TANF program to the Child Care and Development Fund, more than triple the $802 million transferred in FY 1998. Also in FY 1999, State spending through the TANF program on child care services totaled $1.99 billion, including $1.38 billion maintenance of effort funds and $604 million Federal funds.

Despite increased funding, existing resources are inadequate to meet the growing need for child care assistance. On October 19, 1999, DHHS released a report stating that nationally, in an average month in 1998, only 1.5 million of the 9.9 million low and moderate-income children eligible for CCDF assistance actually received help through the program--just 15 percent of children eligible under State criteria. The gap between eligibility and receipt of services would have been even greater if States had chosen to define the eligible population to include all of the low and moderate-income working families potentially eligible under Federal law. If States had set their eligibility at 85 percent of the SMI, the maximum allowed under Federal law, an estimated 14.7 million children would have been eligible for subsidies in 1999. Of that number, only 1.76 million children (12 percent) eligible under Federal law in FY 1999 were served. A continuing challenge is to reach the remaining 13 million children (88%) who are eligible for child care subsidies under Federal rules.

The recent National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families, State and Community Substudy, confirmed that even when additional State funds are included, many children still go unserved. The study also reported that, with the strong economy and more parents working, States were spending significantly more on child care, with a median increase of 78 percent from 1997 to 1999 in the States studied. Yet, a survey of 17 States showed that those States were only able to serve 15 to 20 percent of federally eligible children in 1999. The study, prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. for DHHS, also reported waiting lists in 12 of the 17 States.

Confronted with great unmet need and finite resources, many States are forced to make policy choices that focus assistance on certain families while excluding other parents who may be struggling to hold onto a modest job without turning to welfare for help. Many States report that due to limited subsidy resources, thousands of low-income working families are on waiting lists for child care subsidies. Only nine States and Territories set their eligibility limits at the maximum allowed under Federal law, while another nine set maximum eligibility below 50 percent of the SMI. As a result, a family of three earning as little as $17,332 a year, may have too much income to be eligible for child care assistance. States also stretch dollars by establishing low payment rates to providers, which can limit families’ ability to access quality care, or by setting high family co-payment rates that may be difficult for families to afford. Almost half of the States allow providers to charge additional out-of-pocket costs to parents to make up for low reimbursement rates.

Since the passage of PRWORA, ACF has spent over $7 million per year in technical assistance to improve grantees' ability to increase the accessibility, affordability, and quality of child care. This includes targeted technical assistance and support to States in systems development, with particular emphasis on helping States meet requirements for Federal reporting and consumer education.

Methods of technical assistance related to systems development include software utilities for data providers, computer-based training, and site visits to "trouble-shoot" systems problems. Other methods include a web site and a toll free hotline, training workshops at regional meetings, and national child care data quality meetings. The Bureau's goal is to support States’ efforts to collect, report, and manage child care data to improve its quality. Despite these intensive technical assistance efforts, States and Territories continue to experience CCDF data reporting problems.

Other technical assistance includes assisting States to develop inclusion initiatives for children with disabilities, building partnerships with the private sector, and establishing successful linkages between child care programs and programs such as health services, early childhood education, and Head Start.

ACF’s Child Care Bureau (CCB) employs a variety of methods and processes to support State efforts including: consultation, peer consultation, training opportunities, development of written materials, State child care administrator meetings and leadership forums, conference calls, on-site technical assistance, and distributing information memoranda. In FY 2000, separate leadership forums have focused on child care issues faced by rural communities and Hispanic families. Memoranda have provided information to States on models for child care, Head Start, pre-kindergarten partnerships, eligibility periods for child care subsidies, and options for expenditure of quality and earmarked funds.

Through a listserv established by the CCB, State child care administrators communicate with each other, providing peer consultation on emerging child care policy issues. There are presently 162 members on the listserv including child care administrators and Federal staff. From April 3 -- February 6, 2001, they exchanged 365 messages. Among topics discussed were: eligibility rates, use of social security numbers, immigrants, special needs children, licensing, interactive websites for subsidy applications, employer contributions and child care subsidies, advance payments to child care providers, slot-based contracts, payment policies related to child absences, State administrative structures, mobile training for providers, and the use of TANF monies for child care.

ACF's Regional Offices support State efforts in developing their child care programs. In connection with its regional child care administrator's meeting, Region III developed a "Back-to-Basics" notebook. The notebook included regional State profiles, CCB information, CCDF Program Instructions and Information Memoranda, policy interpretations, data tables and charts from State annual reports, and a matrix that summarized State policies and practices. Region VIII recently developed a research notebook and distributed it to its six State child care administrators. The notebook includes copies of recent journal and professional articles. Region VIII established a Regional Early Childhood Council (RECC) consisting of approximately 40 child care, Head Start, and other early childhood representatives from the six States. The Council meets quarterly to develop and implement strategies to address issues relevant to Region VIII States. The RECC used ACF's performance outcome measures and the CCB's Results Map (an internal management tool used to guide work and direct resources) to plan its recent regional conference. The Results Map served as a framework to articulate the Bureau's mission-critical objectives and to focus work to achieve outcomes. Included in the Results Map were future-oriented, outcome-driven statements that challenged the Bureau toward innovation and collaboration across organizational boundaries.

All of the ACF Regional Offices sponsor multiple child care meetings throughout each fiscal year. Planning for these meetings involves State child care administrators and CCB regional liaisons and technical assistance specialists. To respond to the emerging needs of States, the focus of regional conferences varies. The Region VI Mid-Winter Leadership Conference included a full day devoted exclusively to State child care administrators who identified and discussed ways to enhance child care quality and quantity. The two primary issues that were discussed were public-private partnerships and providing child care in rural areas.

With the FY 2000 CCDF set-aside of $10 million for child care research, the CCB awarded a 30-month contract to develop the National Child Care Research Collaboration and Archive in September 2000. The archive will help improve the quality of child care research, make data more accessible to researchers for analysis, and assist key constituencies to make better use of research findings. The Bureau is also participating in an interagency collaboration with the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and other Federal partners. This collaboration, referred to as the Science and Ecology of Early Development, brings together interdisciplinary approaches and multiple partners to better understand the earliest years of life.

Through its Child Care Policy Research Consortium, the CCB provides support to research partnerships composed of State administrators, researchers, and practitioners. The Consortium conducts child care research relating to the many policy decisions States must consider on a daily basis. In FY 2000, the CCB added four new research partnerships to the Consortium, increasing the membership from 13 to 22 States. Studies in progress are examining the duration of subsidies and child care arrangements across eight States, the comparison between child outcomes and parent and expert assessments of quality child care, and the effects of welfare reform on child care supply, parental choices, and economic self-sufficiency of low-income families.

The Bureau also awarded twelve grants to conduct field initiated child care research. This research will provide the CCB with critically needed information on child care and its effects on child development and family well-being, and will help to develop innovative strategies to meet the needs of low-income families struggling to afford quality child care for their children. The broad topics of this research include: quality issues, child outcomes, parental choice, cost, welfare and work issues, subsidy use, child care workforce factors, cultural issues, special populations such as infants and toddlers and children with special needs, kith and kin care, family child care, and administrative issues. In addition, the CCB awarded five grants to individual doctoral students to complete their dissertation research in child care and funded one research fellowship through the Society for Research in Child Development.

Congress included a $10 million earmark for child care research in its FY 2001 appropriations. The CCB plans to continue projects initiated in FY 2000 and is exploring the possibility of launching several new projects. These include a national study of child care demand and supply, child care policy demonstrations to examine how State policies are evolving to meet the changing needs of families under welfare reform.

Program Coordination, Partnerships, and Crosscutting Issues

Quality early childhood programs provide a crucial linkage for comprehensive, healthy child development to prepare children to be successful in school and later in life. Quality programs also provide needed supports to parents who are moving toward self-sufficiency through training and work. Recognizing the importance of comprehensive services, ACF encourages its State partners to create linkages between child care and health, family support, early childhood education, and other services at the State and community levels.

ACF continues to collaborate at the Federal level to facilitate community-level coordination. This includes coordination within ACF among the CCB, TANF, Head Start, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Administration on Developmental Disabilities. For example, the Child Care and Head Start Bureaus jointly sponsor the QUILT (Quality in Linking Together) project that provides assistance to Head Start and child care grantees on successful ways to form program partnerships. In addition, the Child Care and Head Start Bureaus worked with the Department of Education to sponsor the first-ever national leadership forum on child care, Head Start, and pre-kindergarten. The forum, designed to promote State and local collaboration among early childhood programs toward full-day, full-year services for children and families, involved teams from 21 States and the District of Columbia.

Within DHHS, CCB participates with the Maternal and Child Health Bureau to sponsor the Healthy Child Care America Campaign, aimed at improving health and safety in child care by creating strong linkages between the child care and health communities. Externally, ACF continues to partner with the Department of Labor’s Welfare-to-Work grants program, States (both individually and through national associations such as the American Public Human Services Association and the National Governors’ Association), various national child care associations, and with the research community (e.g., the Child Care Research Consortium, funded by DHHS). Special efforts are underway to foster partnerships between the private and the public sector. The CCB-sponsored Partnerships Project has provided technical assistance to States and local communities in building coalitions and designing funding strategies involving both public and private entities.

Program-wide Performance

The number of children served through the Child Care and Development Fund will have grown from 1.51 million in FY 1998 to a projected target of 1.92 million in FY 2000 (measure 4.1a). In FY 1999, one-half of the 1.76 million children served were preschoolers between two and six years, 15 percent were infants and toddlers, and 35 percent were school age. Seventy-three percent of the children served were in care regulated under State or local law and 27 percent were in care operating legally without regulation. Relatives cared for 63% of the children in non-regulated care. CCDF regulations require all providers, except certain relatives, to meet basic health and safety standards.

CCDF grantees were to submit final program data reports for FY 1999 by December 31, 1999. While the CCB expected that performance data for FY 1999 would be available by April 30, 2000, two States and three Territories have not yet submitted complete FY 1999 data as of February 2001. California, which receives 11 percent of the CCDF monies and serves an estimated 13 percent of the children served through CCDF, has submitted only three months of FY 1999 data. For purposes of this report, FY 1999 child and family counts for that State have been extrapolated from financial data provided on the ACF-696 reporting form.

The final FY 2000 program data reports were due from the CCDF grantees on December 31, 2000. April 30, 2001 is the Bureau's forecasted date for the availability of the FY 2000 performance data. However, as of February 5, 2001, the CCB has not received final data reports from nine States and five Territories. One of these States, cited above, has not submitted any FY 2000 data. In addition, work is underway to verify the accuracy of the performance data from several other States. For the reasons listed, aggregate FY 2000 data from the CCDF grantees would be unreliable and incomplete.

CCDF grantees have many efforts underway to improve access to child care for low-income families. As work continues in partnership with States to improve data collection, a number of indicators, including informal feedback from grantees, indicate that access to child care for low-income children served by CCDF is increasing. For example, because some States have reduced the level of parent co-payments or have set lower co-payment amounts for the very lowest income families, more families can afford to participate in the program (measure 4.1c). In their FY 2000-2001 State Plans, 43 States and Territories (86 percent) reported waiving co-pays for some or all families at or below the poverty level. Twelve States said that all families with income at or below the poverty level are exempt from co-pays. An additional 31 States indicated that only some families at or below the poverty level must pay a fee.

In developing early childhood programs, States and communities together craft resources from a variety of sources, including the Child Care and Development Fund, TANF, Head Start, Early Head Start, Social Services Block Grant, Title I, Even Start, the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program, State funded pre-kindergarten programs, other State and local funding sources, foundations, charities, and businesses. Collaboration builds on the strengths of each program and blends them together in a coordinated fashion to benefit both children and their families. Collaboration benefits children by promoting continuity in services from infancy through school-age and benefits the parents by ensuring that early childhood programs support work.

In the FY 2000 -- 2001 State Plans, 28 States and territories reported that their Lead Agency works in partnership with the entity responsible for administering State TANF funds. Eleven States indicated that they have developed a single, "seamless" system for administering child care subsidies to all families without regard to their eligibility category. Seventeen States said they have developed initiatives to promote "one-stop shopping" in which TANF recipients can receive child care and other benefits at a single location or to ensure effective referrals or linkages among the agencies that administer child care and TANF cash benefits.

Twenty-five States report collaborating with the State Education Department or another public or private entity to expand services for school-age children. Thirty-seven States work collaboratively with their State Health Department. In an increasing number of States, collaboration involves outreach on health and safety issues to child care providers and efforts to inform low-income families about the availability of subsidized health care. In their plans, 46 States described collaborative efforts with Head Start and 25 reported joint efforts to promote early intervention for children with developmental disabilities. Twenty-six State Lead Agencies reported active collaborations with tribal communities to improve service delivery to dually eligible children.

As demonstrated in the discussion of child care quality under Strategic Goal 2, Objective 5, States have an exciting array of initiatives in progress to improve the quality of child care. States report a range of activities including comprehensive consumer education for parents, grants and loans to expand the supply and quality of child care, efforts to support the professional development and compensation of child care workers, and partnerships with business, health, and education to enhance the availability of quality child care.

Data Issues

The Federal Child Care Information System (FCCIS) collects all aggregate and case-level data from the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Territories of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands as required in the statute for the Child Care and Development Fund program. States are responsible for compiling aggregate data at the State level and transmitting it electronically via the Internet to the FCCIS. (For the majority of States this is done through an automated child care information system).

All data received by the FCCIS are stored in a national data set. Data standards have been set and training and technical assistance has been provided to all States and Territories on reporting requirements and submission procedures. Upon receiving child care data, the FCCIS notifies States that their transmission was successful. It also performs a series of checks to determine whether the data meet data quality standards. A data quality assessment is provided to give feedback on missing, out-of-range, and internally inconsistent data. Data failing to meet quality standards are marked as either suspect or unacceptable and listed in detailed data quality reports sent to States and personnel within ACF. Data marked as unacceptable are cleaned or eliminated from analysis.

Throughout FY 2001, the CCB will continue to expand technical assistance designed to improve data submission and data quality. These activities include: on-site technical assistance visits; distribution of technical assistance documents; enhancements to the TA Tracker software; training workshops; and software to assist Tribes with data collection and administering their subsidy programs.

The Child Care Automation Resource Center (CCARC) is the "user interface" for the Bureau’s CCIS Technical Assistance Project (CCISTAP). States may access the CCARC through a hotline or its website, to obtain assistance such as fixing reporting problems, and locating documents, software, or other materials produced by the Center. All requests for technical assistance are logged and tracked until issues are resolved.

States continuing to experience difficulties collecting and transmitting required data will receive additional on-site technical assistance. State reporting performance will be monitored with the use of historical information. Factors to be examined include: electronic transmission anomalies; timeliness of submissions; data quality reports; adequacy of sample size and sample bias; correspondence between the values reported in the monthly ACF-801 and annual ACF-800 reports, spurious values (e.g., all records report a single value for a given data element); and month-to-month trend data to identify any sudden or significant changes in data characteristics. Candidates for site visits will be selected from States based on need. ACF Regional Offices will actively participate throughout the process. Available financial resources will support on-site technical assistance visits to 10 States.

In FY 2001, enhancements to the existing TA Tracker Software support the transmission of data files. The planned improvements will automate the existing process with results being posted to the CCARC website. States are able to review the results of their data submission at the website to determine whether any transmission difficulties occurred. The TA Tracker automatically generates a message to the CCARC when problems occur with a data file. Technical assistance specialists then investigate the problem and work with the States to solve the transmission problem.

CCB will also sponsor approximately 20 workshops and training sessions for States throughout FY 2001. Presentations will focus on major reporting issues and system problems. In addition, a maximum of five technical papers on data quality, sampling procedures, performance measures, optional data elements, and reporting issues will be written in FY 2001. Five technical briefs will also be written to assist States with automation issues.

While CCB uses data from sources other than its grantees, the majority of the data it collects are from States. CCB faces various data challenges, both internal and external, that include, but are not limited to: late submission of data; incomplete data submissions; systems problems; quality controls; and technological delays. In addition, statutory authority limits the type of data the Bureau is able to collect from States. State flexibility under the statute has led to great variation in State regulations, policies, and standards resulting in challenges for the CCB to produce complete, accurate, and consistent aggregate data. These challenges affect not only the comprehensiveness of the data available for reporting but also the reliability and validity of the data.

Demands for child care subsidies have limited the ability of States to commit funds for systems development. Twenty States have not used any CCDF monies for information systems development. Several States have experienced systems problems that have affected their data submission. Some of these States have experienced total system "crashes" while others are converting to new systems. Other States lack a single integrated system, and, therefore, must collect and aggregate data from several information systems. Some States have no State system and rely solely on local data systems. States with systems problems such as these are often unable to monitor or correct data errors. In addition, due to Y2K priorities, a few States were unable to modify their systems to collect the required CCDF data elements. As stated earlier, CCB continues actively to facilitate States’ compliance with CCDF reporting requirements.

Summary Table

In the performance plan submitted in previous years, ACF identified proxy performance measures addressing the three goals of the CCDF--affordability, availability, and quality of child care. The process of developing actual measures was completed in September 1999 and the current measures listed below replace the proxy measures used as placeholders in earlier reports. Working in partnership with the States, the CCB provided FY 1999 baseline data for these performance measures in December 2000.

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) final regulations were released in July of 1998. ACF began developing child care performance goals and performance outcome, output, and process measures shortly after the final regulations were released and continued to refine the measures in FY 1999. The Child Care Bureau discussed the goals and measures at two national conferences, via 10 telephone conferences, written communications, and in other meetings with its partners in the States, Territories, and Tribes over the past year. The current set of appropriate, achievable program goals and measures was developed through this consensus-building process that incorporated significant opportunities for input from stakeholders. Data for many measures are available through existing reports that State grantees are required to submit on an on-going basis.

With regard to specific performance measures, while the number and percentage of potentially eligible children receiving subsidized child care (measure 4.1a) are outputs of the number of budget dollars invested (inputs), these quantities are results-oriented because the availability of child care subsidies directly supports self-sufficiency programs. An adequate supply of child care is an important intermediate stage to improving family economic independence and a continuing necessity for sustaining such independence. ACF has also worked to develop outcome measures for both the affordability and the supply of care. One is the co-payment measure (measure 4.1c) reflecting State efforts to support families gradually becoming more self-reliant by assuring that child care costs do not consume an excessive share of family income. Measure 4.1d is an indicator of the general supply of regulated child care available in the market.

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of low income working families and families in training and education who have access to affordable child care.

Objective: Increase the use of subsidies for child care services for low-income working families

4.1a.FY 2002: Increase the number of children to 2.6 million served by CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline of average 1.51 million children served per month.

FY 2003: Increase the number of children to xxx million served by CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline of average 1.51 million children served per month.

4.1b.FY 2002: Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies to 13 percent from the 1998 baseline of 10%.

FY 2003: Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies to xx percent from the 1998 baseline of 10%

Data sources: Annual Aggregate Report, ACF-800, Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report, ACF-801.

The performance measure 4.1a is the average number of children receiving services each month. The number of children served is directly related to the funding provided to the State grantees. The FY 2001 target reflects the increased discretionary funding ($817 million) provided by Congress for FY 2001; the projected increase in the FY 2002 target reflects requested increases in matching, mandatory and discretionary funding. Measure 4.1b indicates the number of children served through CCDF as a percentage of those potentially eligible for services based on family income, child’s age, and parent employment status.

Measure 4.1b is inter-related with measures 4.1c-e that track the amount of co-pay charged to parents and other State-determined policies such as eligibility criteria and provider payments. It is also related to quality measures 5.1a-c under Strategic Objective 5 since costs associated with increased quality have the potential to reduce the number of children receiving services.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve access to affordable quality child care

Objective: Improve the affordability of quality child care for families through family co-pays that are reasonable.

4.1c.FY 2002:Maintain at 5.8 percent the average percentage of family income spent in assessed child care co-payments among families receiving CCDF subsidies at the FY 1998 level.

FY 2003: Maintain at 5.8 percent the average percentage of family income spent in assessed child care co-payments among families receiving CCDF subsidies.

Data sources: Child Care Quarterly Case-Level Report, ACF-801

The above performance measure calculates the affordability of child care for families served by expressing the out-of-pocket cost as a percentage of family income. While the goal is not the total elimination of family co-payments for child care services for families receiving CCDF subsidies, it is to ensure that co-payments are affordable for families. The desired outcome is to reduce the average child care co-payment to the FY 1998 level and then to maintain it at that level. Maintaining the amount of family income spent in child care co-payments at 5.8 percent in an environment of increasing child-care costs is an ambitious target.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the availability of child care facilities.

Objective: Increase the availability of regulated child care.

4.1d.FY 2002: Increase the number of slots in state regulated child care setting. (Developmental--Note: This measure is not limited to subsidized child care slots.)

FY 2003: Increase the number of slots in state regulated child care setting. (Developmental--Note: This measure is not limited to subsidized child care slots.)

Data source: Under development. The number of regulated child care slots is included as an optional data element for the annual aggregate ACF-800 data collection. States were asked to provide this information on a voluntary basis in the aggregate reports that were due December 31, 2000. Data should be available April 2001 for this measure.

In addition to the issues of whether low-income families can afford child care services, the presence of child care services in the open market is a basic but important indicator of accessibility of services. Performance measure 4.1d addresses the availability of regulated child care slots in the market.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve parental ability to work or attend training/education leading to greater economic productivity.

Objective: Increase the use of child care subsidies to assist working families.

4.1e.FY 2002: Increase the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies to 1.2 million from the FY 1998 baseline of 802,000.

FY 2003: Increase the number of families working and/or pursuing training/education with support of CCDF subsidies to xxx million from the FY 1998 baseline of 802,000.

Data source: Child Care Quarterly Case Level Report, ACF 801, Item #6, Response 1, 2, or 3.

A primary goal of CCDF is to assist low-income families in accessing child care to enable parents to work or attend training/education enabling them to become independent from public assistance. This performance measure is targeted toward increasing the numbers of families served.

Strategic Goal 2:Improve Healthy Development, Safety And Well-Being Of Children And Youth

Rationale

The future of the Nation--its democracy, the economy, and the social fabric--depends upon how America protects and nurtures its children. Critical indicators of child well being include health status, educational attainment, economic status, family structure, quality of early childhood development experiences, safety, and stability. Head Start, child care, child welfare, and youth programs together provide a broad range of services that contribute to the economic and emotional security, health, safety, and stability of home environments while providing stimulating learning experiences for children and youth. In addition to working to ensure safety and security for children served by the child welfare system, ACF will continue to provide leadership and support for public and private nonprofit programs across the Nation that shelter runaway and homeless youth, reuniting them with their families whenever possible, and assisting them to make satisfactory transitions to independence when necessary. ACF is committed to helping these "older children" effectively meet the challenges of adolescence and development into adulthood.

Increases in foster care placements or the need for child abuse interventions may be associated with increased stresses on families from economic hard times. Certain measures may be affected by national policy and practice debates such as whether family reunification or termination of parental rights is in the best interest of an at-risk child. The ability of families to provide good parenting may also be affected by the availability of resources outside of ACF's purview, such as housing, mental health, or substance abuse services. ACF and its partners depend on other programs to provide ancillary services for low-income families and youth in crisis, but these services are often limited or unavailable.

The objectives and major program areas under this goal are:

5.Increase the quality of child care to promote childhood development

Child Care: Quality
Head Start

6.Improve the health status of children

Head Start: Health Status

7.Increase safety, permanency, and well being of children and youth

Child Welfare
Developmental Disabilities: Education
Developmental Disabilities: Health
Youth Programs

5. Increase the quality of child care to promote childhood development

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Provide high quality early childhood programs, such as Head Start or accredited child care programs, so that early childhood experiences enhance children's development and school readiness.

5.1 CHILD CARE: QUALITY

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

In our efforts to break the cycle of poverty and dependency, it is essential to focus both on parents and the next generation. Parents are more likely to succeed in employment and self-sufficiency if they have confidence in their child care arrangements. Beyond issues of health and safety, child care impacts the cognitive, emotional, and social development of children.

Research has begun to document the most important early influences on children’s development and factors which contribute to the quality of early child care. For example, the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study of early child care, When Child-Care Classrooms Meet Recommended Guidelines for Quality (1998), shows that children attending centers meeting professional standards for quality score higher on school-readiness and language tests and have fewer behavioral problems than their peers in centers not meeting such standards. The study found that children fared better when child-staff ratios were lower and teachers had more training and education. Similarly, a four-year follow-up of children studied in the 1995 Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study, as well as the Carolina Abecedarian Program Study, show positive long-range effects of quality early childhood services.

ACF works with State administrators, professional groups, service providers, and others to identify elements of quality and appropriate measures; to inform States, professional organizations, and parents about the constituents of child care quality; to influence the training and credentialing of child care workers and accreditation of child care facilities; to improve linkages with health care services and with Head Start; and to take steps to improve the quality of child care nationally.

(See also information under Strategic Goal 1, Child Care Affordability.)

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

Infants and toddlers have been specifically designated as a priority for special attention in all ACF programs. The CCB will work to expand partnerships with States and among early childhood programs to improve quality in early care and education. Close cooperation with Early Head Start is underway to address these populations and to increase the number of infants and toddlers being served by quality early childhood programs. Other activities will focus on building capacity in the field and among Federal staff. In addition, the results of new research grants awarded by the CCB will be used to improve services for infants and toddlers and to demonstrate the impact of quality early care.

At present, States are required to spend at least four percent of CCDF funds to improve the quality of child care and offer additional services to parents, such as resource and referral counseling on selecting appropriate child care providers to meet their child's needs. In addition to the four percent, earmarks for infant and toddler care, quality improvements, school-age care, and resource and referral, must be used by States in targeted ways to improve quality and access.

As described under Strategic Goal 1, Child Care Affordability, the CCB actively provides technical assistance and support to grantees in implementing CCDF. Directly, and through its technical assistance contractors, the CCB provides information to States about successful programs and models, offers on-site consultation, facilitates exchanges among peers, and sponsors meetings, conference calls, and conferences designed to offer training and peer linkages. In partnership with DHHS’ Maternal and Child Health Bureau, the CCB sponsors the Healthy Child Care America campaign to develop and strengthen linkages between child care providers, health professionals, and families, and ultimately to improve the health and safety of children in child care settings. In addition, the Bureau has sponsored national forums on using technology to support improved quality in child care, collaboration among early childhood programs, building public/private partnerships, and other related topics.

Program Coordination, Partnerships, and Crosscutting Issues

One key strategy for improving the quality of care, as well as its affordability and availability, is to create linkages between CCDF, early childhood programs, and other agencies that provide crucial services to children and families. The CCB has worked to promote collaboration through policy and technical assistance. In their biennial CCDF Plans, States are required to discuss the coordination and collaboration that occurred in developing their plans, as well as the results of that collaboration. The CCB will monitor State progress toward the goal of collaboration through the State reports.

In addition, the CCB coordinates with partners in ACF, DHHS, and other departments to address barriers that may impede States’ efforts to provide quality services to children and families. This coordination includes initiatives to encourage grantees to provide high quality full-day, full-year early childhood services by linking CCDF monies with those of Head Start and State pre-kindergarten programs. It also includes working with the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council and others to ensure that children with special needs who are eligible for CCDF services also receive assessments and early intervention services.

Through the Bureau’s "Map to Inclusive Child Care" project, 31 States developed strategic plans for improving child care access and quality for children with special needs by linking CCDF and existing systems. Similarly, the CCB’s Partnerships Project provides technical assistance to States and local communities in fostering partnerships with public and private entities. In this effort, the Partnerships Project disseminated written materials including a tool kit for States and a publication on developing results-based coalitions. It has also developed a short video-tape which, against the back-drop of children in care, features Dr. T. Berry Brazelton and others making the case for partnerships toward improving child care quality.

In addition to the partnerships mentioned previously, ACF is working with DHHS health agencies, including Maternal and Child Health, Community Health Centers, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Health Care Financing Administration, and their constituencies, to achieve health targets.

Program-wide Performance

States continue to expand the innovative ways in which they use CCDF quality improvement funds to assure more children are cared for in environments that support their developmental needs. In their FY 2000-2001 CCDF State Plans, States indicated that they are using quality funds to: educate parents about making good child care choices; provide grants and loans to expand the number and quality of child care slots; increase child care provider wages, benefits, and training; and monitor the safety and quality of care.

Close to 20 States now report offering higher subsidy reimbursement rates to providers demonstrating that they provide high quality care. Most States indicated they are working toward a system of professional development for child care providers and workers. Nearly a dozen States have implemented the North Carolina TEACH model combining professional development and training with salary enhancements. State-funded pre-kindergarten programs now exist in 42 States and nearly all States reported efforts to link child care, Head Start, and pre-kindergarten programs more closely together.

With their infant and toddler earmarks, States are recruiting additional caregivers; providing health outreach including training and consultation; offering incentives for provider accreditation and training; and sponsoring specialized training for infant and toddler caregivers. A number of States have implemented initiatives to improve the supply and quality of infant and toddler care--some through partnerships with Early Head Start. Other States have offered grants targeted at increasing the supply of quality care for young children in low-income communities. In at least one instance, State and CCDF monies are being used in partnership with Early Head Start to fund a collaboration involving a variety of existing programs including child care, Parents as Teachers, Healthy Families, the Part C Interagency Coordinating Council, and other agencies assisting young at-risk families. In other States, infant and toddler funds are supporting health insurance for providers who care for very young children; an Infant/Toddler Specialist Healthline that provides expert consultation to providers related to health and developmental issues for children under age three; and incentives for accrediting and certifying providers caring for infants and toddlers.

The CCB will be working with States as they improve the availability of quality infant and toddler care with the increased infant toddler earmark provided in the FY 2001 appropriation. With CCDF monies, including funds earmarked for school-age care and resource and referral, States reported efforts to improve both the supply and quality of school-age care. These efforts include incentives for providers seeking accreditation, specialized curriculum development, grants to programs seeking to improve the quality of their services, and development of specialized licensing standards for school-age programs. In many States, efforts to improve the quality and supply of school-age care target low-income neighborhoods and non-English speaking populations.

A GAO study completed in January 2000 entitled, Child Care: State Efforts to Enforce Safety and Health Requirements, found that States have increased the resources for regulation and monitoring in recent years and are more likely to report regular monitoring visits to child care centers and homes. In their plans, States indicated that they use CCDF monies to enhance licensing and monitoring activities. One State used CCDF funds to sponsor a one-day pre-licensing workshop for more than 800 prospective child care providers. The workshop gave an introduction to State child care regulations and key aspects of operating a child care program. Several other States have implemented, or are implementing, programs of tiered licensing that differentiate child care programs based on quality. Such programs are intended to assist parents in making good child care choices and provide an incentive for improved quality of care.

As stated earlier, States are developing a wide variety of approaches to program coordination, creative partnering, and ways to address crosscutting issues. For example, one State has implemented new State school readiness legislation to ensure that children are emotionally, physically, socially, and intellectually ready to enter school while recognizing that parents are a child's first teachers. The initiative, a collaborative effort between a State council, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health, is administered through local school readiness coalitions toward the goals of blended funding and school readiness programming.

The data needed for reporting performance on the two measures related to child care quality, i.e., accreditation of facilities (measure 5.1a) and the awarding of credentials to child care providers and staff (measure 5.1b) are provided by independent national bodies. These organizations are a credible source of information about provider accreditation and certification. The baseline for measure 5.1a was established with CY 2000 data from the National Association for Family Child Care, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and the National School-Age Care Alliance. Based on their combined data, there were 9,535 accredited child care facilities nationwide in CY 2000.

It continues to be difficult to provide an accurate count for the total number of child care facilities. For that reason, the language for measure 5.1a has been revised to measure the number of regulated child care centers and homes, information which is available from the organizations listed above. In February 2000, the Children's Foundation issued a report entitled The 2000 Child Care Center Licensing Study which contains the results of a survey of the regulatory offices of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Data results in this report, collected during the months of October 1999 through January 2000, indicate there are 106,246 regulated child care centers. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), one of several accrediting organizations, reported 6,830 NAEYC accredited child care facilities in 1999 and 8,332 in 2000. According to the National School-Age Care Alliance (NSACA), 211 of its member child care facilities were accredited in 2000. Therefore, of an estimated 106,246 regulated child care centers, 8,543 were accredited in 2000 through NAEYC and NSACA. In addition, of the 290,667 regulated family and group child care homes reported by the Children’s Foundation, 992 were accredited through the National Association for Family Child Care in 2000.

There is a similar problem in providing an accurate count for the total number of child care workers. No reliable estimate of the number of workers providing child care services exists and the ability to provide the total number of child care workers is hampered by several factors, e.g. is no common definition exists for the term "child care worker." The Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Industry-Occupation Employment Matrix includes at least three employee categories that are applicable to child care workers.

The Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition is the organization that awards Child Development Associate (CDA) credentials to individual child care workers (measure 5.1b). In calendar year (CY) 1999, the Academy reported 112,130 individuals with CDA credentials and 127,893 in CY 2000, an increase of 12,277 or 14.06 percent.

FY 2000 data for the third measure, increasing the number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections of regulated child care providers (measure 5.1c), should be available April 2001. When the baseline data become available, a target percentage increase will be projected. Although these three performance measures represent outputs or intermediate outcomes, they represent critical strategies to measure our ability to assess quality improvements.

Data Issues

As discussed in Strategic Goal 1, Child Care Affordability, the CCB has worked with States and Territories for several years to develop appropriate and achievable program goals and measures. The goals and measures in this document reflect the consensus-building and participatory process.

In some instances, these child care quality performance measures require new reporting and/or data gathering methods, including obtaining information from national organizations. The CCB intends to address these data issues in several ways. Some information relevant to measures is already included in State Plans and will be used to help tell the performance story. The Bureau is working with OMB to amend the State Plan Preprint submitted biennially by States to include additional items related to performance measures. The annual aggregate data report (ACF-800) submitted by States has been revised to include questions to assist in providing baseline and ongoing data on performance.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the quality of child care services

Objective: Increase the number of accredited child care facilities

5.1a. FY 2002: Increase by an additional 1% the number of regulated child care centers and homes nationwide accredited by nationally recognized early childhood development professional organizations and accrediting entities from the CY 2000 baseline.

FY 2003: Increase by an additional 1% the number of regulated child care centers and homes nationwide accredited by nationally recognized early childhood development professional organizations and accrediting entities from the CY 2000 baseline.

Data source: National Association for Family Child Care, the National Association for the Education of Young Children, and the National School-Age Care Alliance.

The above performance goal is an indicator of quality improvement. Accreditation of Child care facilities has been linked to better outcomes for children and is growing in acceptance as a marker of good quality care. Several States use CCDF quality improvement funds in a variety of ways to support accreditation for child care centers and homes.

Through intense efforts with program stakeholders to explore alternative ways to measure progress toward improving the quality of child care services, the following performance goals have been developed. These goals address the levels of safety necessary to support children’s development in child care settings and the higher levels of quality reflected by facilities in which staff have achieved nationally recognized educational credentials.

Objective: Increase the professional capacity of child care workers

5.1b.FY 2002: Increase by 8% over the previous year to 149,175 the number of Child Development Associate credentials awarded nationwide.

FY 2003: Increase by 8% over the previous year to xxx the number of Child Development Associate credentials awarded nationwide from the CY 1999 baseline.

Data source: The Council for Early Childhood Professional Recognition.

5.1c.FY 2002: Increase the number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections of regulated providers from the FY 2000 baseline.

FY 2003: Increase the number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections of regulated providers from the FY 2000 baseline.

Data source. The number of States conducting routine unannounced inspections has been approved by OMB as an optional data element for the annual aggregate ACF-800 data collection. The first collection of this data was due December 31, 2000. We anticipate that aggregate State data will be available by April 30, 2001.

The Bureau will continue to support CCDF Grantees in using the quality set-aside funds for training of child care workers, developing incentive programs for child care facilities to achieve accreditation, and in encouraging providers to obtain CDA credentials. Such efforts will be accomplished through technical assistance services provided through the Bureau's Child Care Technical Assistance Network, national and regional meetings and leadership forums, and information dissemination including best practices and research findings.

Head Start is a national program that provides comprehensive developmental education, health, mental health, nutrition and social services for America's low-income, preschool children ages three to five and their families. The basic philosophy guiding the Head Start program is that children benefit from quality early childhood experiences and that effective intervention can be accomplished through high quality comprehensive services for children, along with family and community involvement. Head Start provides diverse services to meet the goals of three major content areas: early childhood development and health services; family and community partnerships; and program design and management. There are 1,525 community-based organizations, from Florida to Nome Alaska and from Puerto Rico to Micronesia, that develop unique and innovative programs to meet specific needs, following the guidelines of Program Performance Standards, last updated in January 1998.

The budget request for FY 2003 is an increase of approximately $130 million over the FY 2002 appropriation. This increase will be used to maintain current service and enrollment levels. All Head Start programs will be given an increase over their FY 2002 funding level of approximately 2.0 percent to offset inflationary increases and maintain competitive salaries for teachers. A small portion will be used to improve Head Start's training and technical assistance activities.

This request will allow Head Start to continue to provide high quality, comprehensive services to 915,000 Head Start children and families in FY 2003. In addition, it will allow Head Start to continue to strengthen its focus of improving early literacy and continue the funding of two comprehensive evaluation efforts designed to measure Head Start's overall effectiveness -- the Family and Children Experiences Survey and the National Impact Study.

Grants are awarded to local public or private non-profit agencies; the 1998 Head Start Reauthorization made profit-making agencies eligible as well. The communities contribute twenty percent of the total cost of a Head Start program. Head Start provides employment opportunities for children’s parents. Head Start programs employ more than 60,000 parents; parents represent one third of the total paid staff in Head Start.

The 1994 Head Start Reauthorization established a new program, Early Head Start, for low-income pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers. The program was designed with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Services to Families with Infants and Toddlers, established by the Secretary of DHHS. The program focuses on four cornerstones essential to quality programs: child development, family development, community building, and staff development. The program is accompanied by a major research effort to identify, develop, and apply measures of quality and outcomes for children and families. In 2001, Early Head Start served approximately 55,000 children in 650 programs.

The primary goal of Head Start is to promote the social competence and school readiness of low-income children. The program embraces the comprehensive view of school readiness recommended by the National Education Goals Panel (Kagan, Moore & Bredekamp, 1995). This view encompasses five developmental domains key to school readiness: physical well being and motor development; social and emotional development; approaches to learning; language development and emerging literacy; and cognition and general knowledge. To carry out its primary goal, the Head Start Program Performance Measures are organized around five program goals:

• Enhance children's healthy growth and development;
• Strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children;
• Provide children with educational, health, and nutritional services;
• Link children and families to needed community services; and
• Ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision-making.

Each program goal represents a cornerstone of the Head Start program. The child- and family-oriented program goals represent outcomes or results the program is designed to produce. The last three program goals contain the process measures that are key to attaining the first two. Head Start is collecting data on child and family outcomes. This effort is discussed in the Program-Wide Performance section below.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

Head Start sets aside funds for training and technical assistance to help local projects meet the Head Start program performance standards and maintain and improve the quality of local programs. In addition, Head Start conducts research, demonstration, and evaluation activities to test innovative program models and to assess program effectiveness. Head Start also conducts monitoring activities, which are required by the act.

Head Start program monitoring: Head Start's legislation requires a team led by a Federal representative to examine Head Start program compliance at least every three years for each program. ACF regional office and central office staff conduct more than 500 on-site reviews each year.

Other information and management systems: All local programs receiving Head Start funds are required to submit an annual Program Information Report tracking program participation statistics such as the age of children, the kind of education program they receive, and the medical, dental and mental health services the children receive. Annual one-time questions capture information about children's families and the kind of support services required such as job training, education, housing, counseling and other community based services. Head Start's new application includes a component which tracks costs hourly, daily and annually across service components and allows judgements to be made by Federal officials about the reasonableness of a Head Start grantee’s proposed costs.

Head Start training and technical assistance network and quality improvement centers: Head Start makes a substantial annual investment to support regional and sub-regional Head Start quality improvement centers. The national Early Head Start Resource Center for leadership and support provides training and technical assistance for programs enrolling infant, toddlers and pregnant women. All training and technical assistance services foster collaboration between community agencies, governments, academic institutions and Head Start programs.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

Extensive input on future directions for the Head Start Program was gathered in 1993 by the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion. In addition, input specifically about developing Early Head Start was sought through the Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers. Public comment on revised performance standards for the Head Start programs was solicited through focus groups and then through the rulemaking process. In operating local programs, revised Head Start regulations require grantees to coordinate activities on the transition of Head Start children to school and to encourage cooperation between Head Start staff and their counterparts in other preschool and child care programs, particularly those operated through title I funding and Even Start.

Head Start and Department of Education staff have developed strategies to support the attainment of the first Department of Education Goals 2000 Educate America objective that "all children in America will start school ready to learn," and have collaborated on issues arising from the transition of children from Head Start to school programs. Over the past several years, Head Start has increased the attention paid to promoting early language and literacy skills among children enrolled in Head Start and to tracking results in this and other areas of program quality and outcomes.

In 1996, ACF issued revised Performance Standards to guide the delivery of comprehensive Head Start services, including strengthened standards in key areas of curriculum, expectations for programs to foster cognitive development, literacy, numeracy, reasoning, and language development, and highlighted the importance of collaboration between Head Start programs and public schools. The 1998 reauthorization of the Head Start Act further strengthened the focus on children's literacy and language development by mandating more specific performance standards to strengthen classroom practices that support children’s early language and literacy. The National Head Start Child Development Institute, convened in December 2000, provided 3500 local Head Start Education Coordinators cutting edge training on outcomes-based instructional practices in literacy, language development, mathematics, science and social development. Head Start recently awarded a $3 million grant to the National Center for Family Literacy to enhance Head Start family literacy services, including new efforts to encourage parents to read with their children. A "Ready*Set*Read" Early Childhood Learning Kit was developed with America Reads and the Department of Education and disseminated to every Head Start agency to assure that children are read to daily and have access to books and literacy experiences. In addition, National Training Guides on Child and Family Literacy, Assessment, and Transition to School were developed to provide consistent staff training in core areas of education services. These efforts, combined with ongoing research, program improvement, and staff development initiatives, demonstrate Head Start's commitment to improving the school readiness of low-income children.

Extensive consultation and partnership opportunities have continued in the research domain. For example, an Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation was chartered in 1999 in response to the reauthorization of the Head Start Act, in order to make recommendations to the Secretary on Head Start research. The Early Head Start program is pivotal to the ACF "Infants and Toddlers" priority, which requires ACF programs to coordinate research efforts on behalf of this priority. A close working relationship has been established with the child care programs of ACF, NICHD, early childhood researchers at the Department of Education, and others. In addition, Head Start is closely involved with the Department of Education's Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, both the Kindergarten and Birth cohorts.

Head Start has developed strong research linkages with NIH, particularly with NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) and NIMH (National Institute of Mental Health). With NICHD, Head Start has a longstanding interagency agreement to conduct an analysis of the low-income segment of the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. NICHD has provided major support for the Early Head Start Fathers Study, exploring the lives of low-income fathers of infants and toddlers. ACYF/Head Start are partners on the ongoing SEED (Science and Ecology of Early Development) initiative, including workshops and research announcements. Head Start has worked closely with NIMH on a variety of initiatives involving infant mental health, social and emotional school readiness (including the Child Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network), and a consortium of cooperative agreements testing assessments and interventions to improve Head Start practice in mental health.

HRSA and HSB recently signed an Inter-Agency Agreement to support the provision of technical expertise in the area of oral health to both the Head Start Bureau and Regional Offices. Soon to be announced is the awarding of funds to support the establishment of a National Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations of Early Learning. The Head Start Bureau and Child Care Bureau are jointly funding this center. The Head Start Bureau and HRSA Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) recently signed an Inter-Agency Agreement to fund activities of the National Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Technical Assistance Center. The funding is specifically given to test the feasibility of providing early hearing screening, diagnosis, and intervention services for infants, toddlers, and young children attending Migrant, American Indian, and Early Head Start Centers in Utah, Oregon, and Washington state.

The Office of the Inspector General within the Department of Health and Human Services is beginning a study of asthma in Head Start, which will review Head Start grantee efforts to address asthma among children enrolled in Head Start. The study will involve on-site review of a sample of Head Start grantees around the country and will select a sample of children with asthma, examine their health records and talk with parents and Head Start staff.The primary audience for this report is Head Start grantees and delegate agencies that run Head Start programs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also will be interested in the report, because Medicaid covers most Head Start children.

The Head Start Bureau has formed partnerships with the Office of Community Services (OCS) and the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in support of the overall general welfare of Head Start families. Approximately 40 percent of Head Start grantees are community action agencies. Through community partnerships, the Head Start program provides a variety of services to Head Start families, including but not limited to, literacy, substance abuse treatment and prevention, housing and employment. Collaborations at both the national and between local Head Start programs and OCSE has resulted in the establishment of plans to increase the number of voluntary paternity establishments and the number of non custodial parents involved in Head Start programs. A collaborative project between Head Start and OCSE has resulted in approximately 60 Early Head Start Programs receiving Fatherhood Program development training in FY 2001.

Program-wide Performance

In 2001, more than 905,000 children were enrolled in Head Start programs. Head Start programs operated 18,500 centers with 48,500 classrooms. Of the children served, 34.5 percent are African-American; 30.4 percent are White; 28.7 percent are Hispanic; 3.3 percent are American Indian; and 2.0 percent are Asian. Sixty-four percent of all Head Start programs enrolled children from more than one dominant language and 20 percent enrolled children from four or more dominant language groups. Head Start programs endeavor to meet the needs of diverse communities and cultures in America. Head Start programs teach an appreciation of the cultures of all enrolled children and provide culturally relevant classroom and other activities. In 2001 Head Start added approximately 38,000 new Head Start children and 10,000 new Early Head Start children (totalling approximately 55,000 children under the age of three) bringing the national enrollment in Head Start to more than 905,000 children. In FY 2003, Head Start is projecting an increase in enrollment levels to 915,000 children (62,000 in Early Head Start) while maintaining the current service and quality improvements.

Besides staffing Head Start centers with staff speaking the same language as the children enrolled, Head Start provides special programs for special populations. In FY 2001, Head Start served more than 135,000 children with disabilities, 15 percent of the total enrollment. Disabilities included visual, hearing, speech, and health impairments, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbances, specific learning disabilities, and developmental delays. In FY 2001, 93 percent of these children had Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).

For the first time, Head Start is collecting data on child and family outcomes. The Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of 3,200 children and families in 40 Head Start programs. OMB granted approval in July 1997, following a field test of 2,400 children in spring 1997. Full implementation began in fall 1997 and includes assessment of the same children before and after their Head Start experience (whether one or two years), as well as in the spring of kindergarten and the spring of first grade. Data sources include parent interviews, staff interviews, teacher questionnaires, classroom observations, and direct child assessments. FACES, designed as a periodic, longitudinal data collection activity, provided the baseline data for 1999.

Because of the need to collect longitudinal data, (including pre- and post-test and follow-up data on child performance to assess progress), it is not feasible to provide FACES data on an annual basis. However, regular, periodic data collection for additional program quality and outcome measures provided by the Head Start Program Information Report will ensure a regular, national picture of program quality. Current plans project a three-year cycle of FACES data collection. A new cohort of FACES, including a new nationally representative sample of 43 programs, has received OMB approval; data collection began in fall 2000, following children and families for one or two years of program attendance, with a kindergarten follow-up.

The FACES data from the study launched in 1997 have yielded encouraging results. First, Head Start classroom quality is good on average, with approximately 75 percent of over 500 observed classrooms rating good quality or higher on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. No classrooms scored below a minimal level of quality, unlike many studies of other preschool and child care settings. Head Start classroom quality is linked to child outcomes. For example, children score higher on early literacy measures when they experience richer teacher-child interaction, more language learning opportunities, and a classroom well equipped with learning resources.

Head Start children have been found to be ready for school, having many of the cognitive and social skills that indicate readiness to learn more in kindergarten. FACES uses measures of child performance for which national norms are available, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test -- III and subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised. Note that national mean scores are the average scores achieved by children at all levels of income. Head Start works to narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and all children in school readiness skills during the program year. For example, the proportion of Head Start children scoring close to or above the national mean on an assessment of word knowledge (measure 5.2a) increased from only one in four (24 percent) when they began Head Start in the fall of 1997 to one in three (34 percent) in the spring of 1998 -- nearly a 40 percent increase. During the Head Start year, children made significant gains in some areas (i.e., vocabulary and social skills, measures 5.2a and 5.2e), while showing a need for improvement in other areas (i.e., letter recognition, measure 5.2c), suggesting that programs could be doing more. By the end of kindergarten, Head Start children show significant gains in knowing letters, writing letters, and writing their names compared to nationally normed data; in other words, their scores improved more than those of the typical kindergartner. Grantees have maintained a high level of employing parents in the Head Start program (measure 5.2h); nearly 31 percent of present Head Start employees are parents of Head Start children.

The target for FY 2001 established in the legislation for qualified teaching staff (measure 5.2i) was 100 percent; the actual was 86 percent. This shortfall is due to a combination of staff turnover and/or limited access to training and credentialing opportunities in certain areas of the country. In partnership with institutions of higher education, Head Start is working to ensure that a majority of teachers obtain associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in early childhood education over the next few years. More than $80 million in annual funding was earmarked to pay for teacher training and to continue to increase staff compensation. Grantees were required to develop plans for using their allocation from the $80 million to increase the numbers of teachers with degrees. Head Start additionally provided $3 million in funding to 24 higher education training partnership projects, largely to provide training towards degrees at Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HCBU), Hispanic-serving Institutions of Higher Education (HIHE), and Indian-controlled land grant colleges and universities. We also have initiated a new 5-year project at $1 million per year with Wheelock College for higher education faculty development. Teacher’s education level is correlated with classroom quality (classrooms have higher-quality language activities, offer more creative activities to children and have higher overall quality as rated by the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS).

Head Start parents demonstrated remarkable involvement and satisfaction with the program. During 2000, the American Customer Satisfaction Index, an independent study, with follow-up of customer satisfaction among Head Start parents, yielded high ratings of Head Start among programs in the Federal Government. Findings from the Head Start FACES study (see chart under program goal, "Strengthen Families"), based on a national probability sample of parents, confirm these findings. For example, parents in both studies demonstrate a high degree of satisfaction with Head Start's support of their child's growth and development, preparation for kindergarten, and provision of health and other services. They also indicate Head Start's openness to their own cultural backgrounds, ideas, and participation, as well as its fostering their role in the wider community. Taken together, the findings of these two studies amply demonstrate that Head Start's customers are highly satisfied with the quality of the program they receive and support the continued provision of these important benefits to children and families.

Performance-based Budgeting Pilot

The Head Start program has been identified as a first-year pilot to begin the process of providing analyses relating resources, outputs and outcomes using resources and output knowledge to improve and document efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of this pilot is to lay the groundwork for informing management decisions for resource allocation; improving internal management; and providing greater accountability through more integrated financial and performance reporting. Head Start has selected early literacy investments as a beginning step to link resource investments to performance. Because final decisions have not been made for FY 2002, we are unable to provide budgeted amounts for these activities. The table illustrates this effort.

HEAD START EARLY LITERACY INVESTMENTS

Data Issues

The FACES data collection effort requires a data collection site manager, trained field interviewers and child assessment specialists, and, therefore, includes resources for training data collection specialists. On-site quality control visits by trainers occur regularly to maintain reliability of observational assessments. As currently configured, FACES will not provide annual data. ACF anticipates drawing new samples every three years. The initial round of FACES data collection began in the 1997-98 program year, with follow-up for the second program year, 1998-99. This information was used as the baseline data for FY 1999. The second round of FACES data collection began in the fall of 2000 for the FY 2001-2002 reporting period. OMB approval has been granted for this cohort.

Data collection for FACES includes carefully defined collection procedures and methods for maximizing response rates. The methodology includes selecting a nationally representative sample of data collection sites with probability proportional to size; a random selection of a nationally representative sample of Head Start children and families across the country; and a central study processing point for data cleansing, entry and verification. These procedures are specifically noted in Head Start's OMB-approved study design.

For performance measures which are supported, in part, by the Head Start Program Information Report, automated edit checks of most fields are used to ensure accuracy. These data are collected at all sites and there is a 100 percent annual response rate.

Summary Table

The indicators below refer to numerical measures of gain in word knowledge (vocabulary), mathematical skills, letter identification, fine motor skills (e.g., writing, copying designs), and social skills (e.g., classroom social behavior such as following instructions, turn-taking, paying attention).

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Enhance children's growth and development.

Head Start's preschool educational program is designed to meet the needs of three and four-year old children from low-income families. Every child receives a variety of learning experiences to foster intellectual, social, and emotional growth.

Head Start children are likely to face various conditions that put them at risk. The data below are based on a nationally representative sample of Head Start children studied starting in fall 1997. On entry into the preschool program, only 43 percent lived with both parents, and changes in family configuration were common over the year. Seventy percent of mothers had at least a high school diploma or GED, with less than nine percent having an Associate's or higher college degree. Forty-two percent of households reported less than $1,000 in monthly income from all sources, including TANF. Over 85 percent of households received supplemental income from TANF (31 percent) or other sources such as WIC and food stamps. About one-fifth of children were reported to have been exposed to community or domestic violence in their lives. (FACES study, fall 1997)

The measures, baseline data and targets for the following indicators are based on data from FACES, a periodic longitudinal data collection from a nationally representative sample of 3,200 Head Start children and families. The instruments used in FACES were designed to measure school readiness. FACES measured children's cognitive development and early academic skills through a direct child assessment administered by trained assessors. FACES assessed children's developing social skills and approaches to learning by means of standardized scales filled out by teachers and parents and by direct observation of children's social play. It assessed classroom quality through direct observations during the course of the Head Start day by trained observers using tools common to large-scale studies of early educational settings.

Head Start children enter the program with scores below national norms on most measures of school readiness. The targets have been set to be both educationally meaningful and realistically achievable. In some areas, such as word knowledge and early writing, Head Start children are already achieving these improvements, and show more progress over the course of the year than the typical preschool child. Children are also meeting the target in progress on social skills. However, in other areas, such as letter identification, increased programmatic attention to these goals will be required. Our target represents the goal of more than doubling the percentage improvement in this area over what Head Start children currently demonstrate (from 32 to 70 percent). This increased attention is being addressed through multiple approaches at the program level, including new initiatives in family literacy, teacher credentialing, a National Child Development Institute for Head Start managers, and a new emphasis on local program use of child outcome data in self-evaluations. Data for 2003-04 will be based on a new cohort of FACES, collected in fall 2000-spring 2002.

Objectives: Children demonstrate improved emergent literacy, numeracy and language skills. Children demonstrate improved general cognitive skills.

5.2a.FY 2002: Achieve at least an average 32% gain (10 scale points) in word knowledge for children completing the Head Start program. (The average gain among all children during the pre-K year is 19 percent.)

FY 2003: Achieve at least an average 32% gain (10 scale points) in word knowledge for children completing the Head Start program. (The average gain among all children during the pre-K year is 19 percent.)

5.2b.FY 2002: Achieve at least an average 43% gain (3 scale points) in mathematical skills for children completing the Head Start program. (The average gain among all children during the pre-K year is 30 percent.)

FY 2003: Achieve at least an average 43% gain (3 scale points) in mathematical skills for children completing the Head Start program. (The average gain among all children during the pre-K year is 30 percent.)

5.2c. FY 2002: Achieve at least an average 70% gain (3.4 scale points) in letter identification for children completing the Head Start program. (The average gain among all children during the pre-K year is 50 percent.)

FY 2003: Achieve at least an average 70% gain (3.4 scale points) in letter identification for children completing the Head Start program. (The average gain among all children during the pre-K year is 50 percent.)

Objective: Children demonstrate improved gross and fine motor skills.

5.2d.FY 2002: Achieve at least an average 43% gain (1.24 scale points) in fine motor skills for children completing the Head Start program.

FY 2003: Achieve at least an average 43% gain (1.24 scale points) in fine motor skills for children completing the Head Start program.

Objectives: Children demonstrate improved positive attitudes toward learning
Children demonstrate improved social behavior and emotional well being.

5.2e.FY 2002: Achieve at least an average 10% gain (1.4 scale points) in social skills for children completing the Head Start program.

FY 2003: Achieve at least an average 10% gain (1.4 scale points) in social skills for children completing the Head Start program.

Objective: Children demonstrate improved physical health.

5.2f.FY 2002: Achieve goal of at least 80% of children completing the Head Start program rated by parent as being in excellent or very good health.

FY 2003: Achieve goal of at least 80% of children completing the Head Start program rated by parent as being in excellent or very good health.

Data Sources: Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) including child assessments, parent interviews and teacher ratings.

PROGRAM GOAL: Strengthen families

An essential part of Head Start is the involvement of parents in parent education, program planning, and operating activities. Many parents serve as members of policy councils and committees and have a voice in administrative and managerial decisions. Participation in classes and workshops on child development and staff visits to the home allow parents to learn about the needs of their children and about educational activities that can take place at home. Currently, approximately 56,000 parents of Head Start children are employed as paid program staff. Head Start aims to foster family and community partnerships so community resources can be brought to bear in helping families meet their needs. Services are geared to each family after its specific needs are determined, in areas such as education, training and employment services, counseling, and crisis/emergency intervention and services.

FACES included interviews with parents of Head Start children. In the spring of 1998, 2,688 parents interviewed were a nationally representative sample of all those with children enrolled in Head Start. The parents were asked a series of questions about satisfaction with Head Start services and perceptions of their Head Start experiences.

Parents participating in the Head Start FACES study reported very high levels of satisfaction with the program’s performance in each of eight areas. Responses were given on a 5-point scale, ranging from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied."

Additional questions from the FACES parent interview gave a very positive picture of parent attitudes toward their child's and their own experiences with Head Start. For example, 96 percent of parents reported that their child "has been happy in the program" often or always; over 97 percent reported that their child "is treated with respect by teachers"; and nearly 96 percent noted that the teacher is supportive of them as parents. While this information on parent participation and satisfaction is not directly reflected in the GPRA goals, parent involvement with and reliance on the program is believed to be a mediator in obtaining positive outcomes for both children and families.

Objective: Head Start parents demonstrate improved parenting skills.

5.2g.FY 2002: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 66% to 70% the percentage of parents who read to child three times per week or more.

FY 2003: Maintain the increase from the baseline year at 70% the percentage of parents who read to child three times per week or more.

Data Sources: Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) parent interviews

Objectives: Parents improve their self-concept and emotional well being.

Parents make progress toward their educational, literacy and employment goals.

5.2h.FY 2002: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of Head Start employees who are parents of Head Start children.

FY 2003: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline the percentage of Head Start employees who are parents of Head Start children.

Data Sources: Head Start Program Information Report.

PROGRAM GOAL: Children receive educational services.

Objective: Programs provide developmentally appropriate educational environments.

Head Start has devoted quality improvement dollars specifically for the purpose of upgrading teacher qualifications.

5.2i.FY 2002: Maintain at 100% the number of classroom teachers with a degree in early childhood education (ECE), a child development associate credential, a State-awarded preschool certificate, a degree in a field related to ECE plus a State-awarded certificate, or who are in CDA training and have been given a 180 day waiver, consistent with the provisions of Section 648A(a)(2) of the Head Start Act.

FY 2003: Maintain at 100% the number of classroom teachers with a degree in early childhood education (ECE), a child development associate credential, a State-awarded preschool certificate, a degree in a field related to ECE plus a State-awarded certificate, or who are in CDA training and have been given a 180 day waiver, consistent with the provisions of Section 648A(a)(2) of the Head Start Act.

5.2j.FY 2002: Increase the percentage of teachers with an AA, BA, Advanced Degree or a degree in a field related to early childhood education.

FY 2003: Increase the percentage of teachers with an AA, BA, Advanced Degree or a degree in a field related to early childhood education.

Data Sources: PIR

Objective: Staff interact with children in a skilled and sensitive manner.

5.2k.FY 2002: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 73 points the average lead teacher score on an observational measure of teacher-child interaction.

FY 2003: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 73 points the average lead teacher score on an observational measure of teacher-child interaction.

Data Sources: Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) observation of classroom teachers

6. IMPROVE THE HEALTH STATUS OF CHILDREN

Approach for the Strategic Objective: For children enrolled in Head Start, provide access to regular medical and dental examinations, immunizations and required medical and dental treatments.

6.1 HEAD START: HEALTH STATUS

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

Head Start emphasizes the importance of the early identification of health problems. Every child is in a comprehensive health program that includes immunizations, medical, dental, and mental health, and nutritional services.

The Head Start program has made a considerable investment in measuring program outcomes, particularly in the health areas. When this information is analyzed over time, it demonstrates that grantees are maintaining a high level of effort, especially in accomplishing a nearly 100 percent rate for child immunizations and rates approaching 90 percent for health examinations. Head Start sees the need for improvement in the rates of treatment for mental health referrals and receipt of mental health services for children. Basic to the philosophy of the Head Start program is that healthy children will be better able to learn.

Head Start has measured health component outcomes for more than twenty years. Trend data over the past several years show that most Head Start grantees have maintained an acceptable level of performance in the area of health services. While not direct providers of health services, Head Start grantees assist families to access care by identifying health care providers and even providing families with transportation to and from health services. The newly revised Head Start Performance Standards require that every program help every child and family to identify a "medical home" which will provide the child with ongoing sources of medical care.

Every year Head Start polls 1,525 Head Start grantees using the annual Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) survey to measure several health indicators, including immunization rates, screenings for health and dental health conditions, and the rates for accomplishing treatment for identified conditions. During the past several years Head Start has also measured the rate of referral and treatment for mental health conditions. The Summary Table below shows the results reported by all 1,525 reporting grantees since 1998. Generally, Head Start programs are maintaining acceptable results as shown on the table below for indicators measured.

Program-wide Performance

The summary table below compares the actual performance, as reported by 1,525 Head Start and Early Head Start grantees on the Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) for the reporting period ending in June 2001. Head Start devotes considerable time and energy to survey mailing, data collection, and data cleaning, database building and database management. These reports (more than 2400 reports were submitted) tracked performance for over 850,000 children in the FY 2001 reporting period.

Programs reported that 88 percent of enrolled children receive treatment for identified medical conditions. It is important to note that Head Start has a predictable turnover rate; that is, children leave the program during its course for various reasons. So while a referral may have been made, programs may not have follow-up information for children who have left the program.

While performance has remained stable for measures 6.1a and c with a slight decrease in 6.1b; all three Head Start health indicators (measures 6.1a-c) are below the projected target levels. However, the number of children identified as needing treatment has increased for all three measures and the number actually receiving treatment has increased in measures 6.1a and 6.1c. Since Head Start program enrollees rely heavily on Medicaid services, the Head Start Bureau suspects that levels of reimbursements to providers, particularly dental health providers, are not sufficient to encourage the provision of services to Medicaid recipients. The result is that Head Start children experience delays in receiving such services. Dental treatment targets may be difficult to reach in the coming years as dental providers accepting Medicaid are scarce in some communities. This may also be a factor in mental health treatment for young children. The Head Start Bureau is committed to improving performance for these three measures for FY 2003 because health plays such a critical role in the overall positive development of children.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Children in Head Start receive health and nutritional services.

Objective: Children in Head Start receive needed medical, dental and mental health services.

6.1a.FY 2002: Increase from 88% in FY 1998 to 94% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary medical treatment after being identified as needing medical treatment.

FY 2003: Increase from 88% in FY 1998 to 97% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary medical treatment after being identified as needing medical treatment.

6.1b.FY 2002: Maintain at 90% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary dental treatment after being identified as needing dental treatment.

FY 2003: Increase to 95% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary dental treatment after being identified as needing dental treatment.

6.1c.FY 2002: Increase from 75% in FY 1998 to 85% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary treatment for emotional or behavioral problems after being identified as needing such treatment.

FY 2003: Increase from 75% in FY 1998 to 90% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary treatment for emotional or behavioral problems after being identified as needing such treatment

Data Sources: Head Start Program Information Report (PIR).5.2 HEAD START

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

Head Start is a national program that provides comprehensive developmental education, health, mental health, nutrition and social services for America's low-income, preschool children ages three to five and their families. The basic philosophy undergirding the Head Start program is that children benefit from quality early childhood experiences and that effective intervention can be accomplished through high quality comprehensive services for children, along with family and community involvement. Head Start provides diverse services to meet the goals of three major content areas: early childhood development and health services; family and community partnerships; and program design and management. Approximately 1,525 community-based organizations develop unique and innovative programs to meet specific needs, following the guidelines of Program Performance Standards, last updated in January 1998. In 2000, there were 18,000 centers and 45,000 classrooms, in which 857,664 children were served. Of the families served, 34.5 percent are African-American; 30.4 percent are White; 28.7 percent are Hispanic; 3.3 percent are American Indian; and 2.0 percent are Asian.

Head Start programs endeavor to meet the needs of diverse communities and cultures in America. Sixty-four percent of all Head Start programs enrolled children from more than one dominant language, and 20 percent enrolled children from four or more dominant language groups. Head Start programs teach an appreciation of the cultures of all enrolled children and provide culturally relevant classroom and other activities. Besides staffing Head Start centers with staff speaking the same language as the children enrolled, Head Start provides special programs for special populations. In FY 2000, Head Start served more than 115,646 children with disabilities, 13 percent of the total enrollment. Disabilities included visual, hearing, speech, and health impairments, mental retardation, serious emotional disturbances, specific learning disabilities, and developmental delays. In FY 2000, 93 percent of these children had Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).

Head Start is requesting an increase of $125 million to serve a total of 917,000 children including approximately 55,000 children under age three. This increase will be used to maintain current service and enrollment levels and continue quality improvements.

Grants are awarded to local public or private non-profit agencies; the 1998 Head Start Reauthorization made profit-making agencies eligible as well. The community must contribute twenty percent of the total cost of a Head Start program. Head Start programs operate in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories.

The 1994 Head Start Reauthorization established a new program, Early Head Start, for low-income pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers. The program was designed with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Services to Families with Infants and Toddlers, established by the Secretary of DHHS. The program focuses on four cornerstones essential to quality programs: child development, family development, community building, and staff development. The program is accompanied by a major research effort to identify, develop, and apply measures of quality and outcomes for children and families. In 2000, Early Head Start served approximate 45,000 children in 625 programs around the country.

The primary goal of Head Start is to promote the social competence and school readiness of low-income children. The program embraces the comprehensive view of school readiness recommended by the National Education Goals Panel (Kagan, Moore & Bredekamp, 1995). This view encompasses five developmental domains key to school readiness: physical well being and motor development; social and emotional development; approaches to learning; language development and emerging literacy; and cognition and general knowledge. To carry out its primary goal, the Head Start Program Performance Measures are organized around five program goals:

• Enhance children's healthy growth and development;
• Strengthen families as the primary nurturers of their children;
• Provide children with educational, health, and nutritional services;
• Link children and families to needed community services; and
• Ensure well-managed programs that involve parents in decision-making.

Each program goal represents a cornerstone of the Head Start program. The child and family-oriented program goals represent outcomes or results the program is designed to produce. The last three program goals contain the process measures that are key to attaining the first two.

For the first time, Head Start is collecting its own data on child and family outcomes, in addition to the process data long available through program reports and monitoring. The Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of 3,200 children and families in 40 Head Start programs. OMB granted approval in July 1997, following a field test of 2,400 children in spring 1997. Full implementation began in fall 1997 and includes assessment of the same children before and after their Head Start experience (whether one or two years), as well as in the spring of kindergarten and the spring of first grade. Data sources include parent interviews, staff interviews, teacher questionnaires, classroom observations, and direct child assessments. FACES, designed as a periodic, longitudinal data collection activity, is currently yielding baseline data for 1999. Because of the need to collect longitudinal data, including pre- and post-test and follow-up data on child performance to assess progress, it is not feasible to provide FACES data on an annual basis. However, regular, periodic data collection of both program quality and outcome measures will ensure that the Head Start program provides a regular, national picture of program quality. Current plans project a three-year cycle of data collection with new, nationally-representative samples of Head Start programs. A new cohort of FACES, including a new nationally representative sample of 43 programs, has received OMB approval; data collection began in fall 2000, following children and families for one or two years of program attendance, with a kindergarten follow-up. Administrative and process data will continue to be collected annually through the Program Information Report.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

Most of the Head Start program's appropriation funds local Head Start projects. The remainder is used for: training and technical assistance to help local projects meet the Head Start program performance standards and maintain and improve the quality of local programs; research, demonstration, and evaluation activities to test innovative program models and to assess program effectiveness; and required monitoring activities.

Head Start program monitoring: Head Start's legislation requires a team led by a Federal representative to examine Head Start program compliance at least every three years for each program. ACF regional office and central office staff conduct more than 500 on-site reviews each year.

Other information and management systems: All local programs receiving Head Start funds are required to submit an annual Program Information Report tracking program participation statistics such as the age of children, the kind of education program they receive, and the medical, dental and mental health services the children receive. Annual one-time questions capture information about children's families and the kind of support services required such as job training, education, housing, counseling and other community based services. Head Start's new application includes a component which tracks costs hourly, daily and annually across service components and allows judgements to be made by Federal officials about the reasonableness of a Head Start grantee’s proposed costs.

Head Start training and technical assistance network and quality improvement centers: Head Start makes a substantial annual investment to support regional and sub-regional Head Start quality improvement centers. There is a national Early Head Start Resource Center for leadership and support in training and technical assistance for programs enrolling infant, toddlers and pregnant women. All training and technical assistance services foster collaboration between community agencies, governments, academic institutions and Head Start programs.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues

Extensive input on future directions for the Head Start Program was obtained in 1993 by the Advisory Committee on Head Start Quality and Expansion. In addition, input specifically about developing Early Head Start was sought through the Advisory Committee on Services for Families with Infants and Toddlers. Public comment on revised performance standards for the Head Start programs was solicited through focus groups and then through the rulemaking process. In operating local programs, revised Head Start regulations require grantees to coordinate activities on the transition of Head Start children to school and to encourage cooperation between Head Start staff and their counterparts in other preschool and child care programs, particularly those operated through title I funding and Even Start.

Extensive consultation and partnership opportunities have continued in the research domain. For example, an Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation was chartered in 1999 in response to the reauthorization of the Head Start Act, in order to make recommendations to the Secretary on Head Start research. Major interagency partnerships in research include the ACYF/NIMH Head Start Mental Health Research Consortium, begun in 1997; the Head Start sub-study of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care, and the ACYF/NICHD/ASPE/Ford Foundation study of low-income fathers of infants and toddlers. In addition, Head Start is closely involved with the Department of Education's Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, both the Kindergarten and Birth cohorts.

Head Start and Department of Education staff have developed strategies to support the attainment of the first Department of Education Goals 2000 Educate America objective that "all children in America will start school ready to learn," and have collaborated on issues arising from the transition of children from Head Start to school programs. Over the past several years, Head Start has increased the attention paid to promoting early language and literacy skills among children enrolled in Head Start and to tracking results in this and other areas of program quality and outcomes.

In 1996, ACF issued revised Performance Standards to guide the delivery of comprehensive Head Start services, including strengthened standards in key areas of curriculum, expectations for programs to foster cognitive development, literacy, numeracy, reasoning, and language development, and highlighted the importance of collaboration between Head Start programs and public schools. The 1998 reauthorization of the Head Start Act further strengthened the focus on children's literacy and language development by mandating more specific performance standards to strengthen classroom practices that support children’s early language and literacy. The National Head Start Child Development Institute, convened in December 2000, provided 3500 local Head Start Education Coordinators cutting edge training on outcomes-based instructional practices in literacy, language development, mathematics, science and social development. Head Start recently awarded a $3 million grant to the National Center for Family Literacy to enhance Head Start family literacy services, including new efforts to encourage parents to read with their children. A "Ready*Set*Read" Early Childhood Learning Kit was developed with America Reads and the Department of Education and disseminated to every Head Start agency to assure that children are read to daily and have access to books and literacy experiences. In addition, National Training Guides on Child and Family Literacy, Assessment, and Transition to School were developed to provide consistent staff training in core areas of education services. These efforts, combined with ongoing research, program improvement, and staff development initiatives, demonstrate Head Start's commitment to improving the school readiness of low-income children.

Early Head Start is pivotal to the ACF "Infants and Toddlers" priority, which requires ACF programs to coordinate efforts on behalf of this priority. A close working relationship has been established with the child care programs of ACF, NICHD, early childhood researchers at the Department of Education, and others.

Program-wide Performance

The FACES study of a nationally representative sample of Head Start children, families and programs, launched in 1997, has yielded encouraging results. First, Head Start classroom quality is good on average, with approximately 75 percent of over 500 observed classrooms rated good quality or higher on the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. No classrooms scored below a minimal level of quality, unlike many studies of other preschool and child care settings. In addition, Head Start classroom quality is linked to child outcomes. For example, children score higher on early literacy measures when they experience richer teacher-child interaction, more language learning opportunities, and a classroom well equipped with learning resources.

Head Start children have been found to be ready for school, having many of the cognitive and social skills that indicate readiness to learn more in kindergarten. FACES uses measures of child performance for which national norms are available, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test -- III and subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-Revised. Note that national mean scores are the average scores achieved by children at all levels of income. Head Start works to narrow the gap between disadvantaged children and all children in school readiness skills during the program year. For example, the proportion of Head Start children scoring close to or above the national mean on an assessment of word knowledge (measure 5.2a) increased from only one in four (24%) when they began Head Start in the fall of 1997 to one in three (34%) in the spring of 1998 -- nearly a 40% increase. During the Head Start year, children made significant gains in some areas (i.e., vocabulary and social skills, measures 5.2a and 5.2e), while showing a need for improvement in other areas (i.e., letter recognition, measure 5.2c), suggesting that programs could be doing more. By the end of kindergarten, Head Start children show significant gains in knowing letters, writing letters, and writing their names compared to nationally normed data; in other words, their scores improved more than those of the typical kindergartner. Grantees have maintained a high level of employing parents in the Head Start program (measure 5.2h); nearly 31% of present Head Start employees are parents of Head Start children.

The target for FY 2000 established in the legislation for qualified teaching staff (measure 5.2i) was 100%; the actual was 94%. This shortfall is due to a combination of staff turnover and/or limited access to training and credentialing opportunities in certain areas of the country. In partnership with institutions of higher education, Head Start is working to ensure that a majority of teachers obtain associate’s or bachelor’s degrees in early childhood education over the next few years. More than $80 million in annual funding has been earmarked to pay for teacher training and to continue to increase staff compensation. Grantees were required to develop plans for using their allocation from the $80 million to increase the numbers of teachers with degrees. Head Start additionally provided $3 million in funding to 24 higher education training partnership projects, largely to provide training towards degrees at Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HCBU), Hispanic-serving Institutions of Higher Education (HIHE), and Indian-controlled land grant colleges and universities. We also have initiated a new 5-year project at $1 million per year with Wheelock College for higher education faculty development. Teacher’s education level is correlated with classroom quality (classrooms have higher-quality language activities, offer more creative activities to children and have higher overall quality as rated by the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS).

Head Start parents demonstrated remarkable involvement and satisfaction with the program. During 2000, the American Customer Satisfaction Index, an independent study, with follow-up of customer satisfaction among Head Start parents, yielded high ratings of Head Start among programs in the Federal Government. Findings from the Head Start FACES study (see chart on page 119), based on a national probability sample of parents, confirm these findings. For example, parents in both studies demonstrate a high degree of satisfaction with Head Start's support of their child's growth and development, preparation for kindergarten, and provision of health and other services. They also indicate Head Start's openness to their own cultural backgrounds, ideas, and participation, as well as its fostering their role in the wider community. Taken together, the findings of these two studies amply demonstrate that Head Start's customers are highly satisfied with the quality of the program they receive, and support the continued provision of these important benefits to children and families.

Data Issues

The FACES data collection effort requires a data collection site manager, trained field interviewers and child assessment specialists, and, therefore, includes resources for training data collection specialists. On-site quality control visits by trainers occur regularly to maintain reliability of observational assessments. As currently configured, FACES will not provide annual data. ACF anticipates drawing new samples every three years. The initial round of FACES data collection began in the 1997-98 program year, with follow-up for the second program year, 1998-99. This information was used as the baseline data for FY 1999. The second round of FACES data collection began in the fall of 2000 for the FY 2001-2002 reporting period. OMB approval has been granted for this cohort. The third round

Data collection for FACES includes carefully defined collection procedures and methods for maximizing response rates. The methodology includes selecting a nationally representative sample of data collection sites with probability proportional to size; a random selection of a nationally representative sample of Head Start children and families across the country; and a central study processing point for data cleansing, entry and verification. These procedures are specifically noted in Head Start's OMB-approved study design.

For performance measures which are supported, in part, by the Head Start Program Information Report, automated edit checks of most fields are used to ensure accuracy. These data are collected at all sites and there is a 100 percent annual response rate.

Summary Table

The indicators below refer to numerical measures of gain in word knowledge (vocabulary), mathematical skills, letter identification, fine motor skills (e.g., writing, copying designs), and social skills (e.g., classroom social behavior such as following instructions, turntaking, attention).

�

�

�

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Enhance children's growth and development.

Head Start's educational program is designed to meet the needs of each child, and the community served, with attention to ethnic and cultural characteristics. Every child receives a variety of learning experiences to foster intellectual, social, and emotional growth.

Head Start children are likely to face various conditions that put them at risk. On entry into the program in the fall of 1997, only 43 percent lived with both parents, and changes in family configuration were common over the year. Seventy percent of mothers had at least a high school diploma or GED, with less than nine percent having an Associate's or higher college degree. Forty-two percent of households reported less than $1,000 in monthly income from all sources, including TANF. Over 85% of households received supplemental income from TANF (31%) or other sources such as WIC and food stamps. About one-fifth of children were reported to have been exposed to community or domestic violence in their lives. (FACES study, fall 1997)

The measures, baseline data and targets for the following indicators are based on data from FACES, a periodic longitudinal data collection from a nationally representative sample of 3,200 Head Start children and families. The instruments used in FACES were designed to tap the major domains of social competence, also called school readiness. Children's cognitive development and early academic skills were measured through a direct child assessment administered by trained assessors. Children's developing social skills and approaches to learning were assessed by means of standardized scales filled out by teachers and parents and by direct observation of children's social play. Classroom quality was assessed through direct observations during the course of the Head Start day by trained observers using tools common to large-scale studies of early educational settings.

Targets for child outcomes are based on the actual performance of Head Start children during the program year and in kindergarten follow-up. Average scores are calculated for a nationally representative sample of children completing the Head Start program. Scores are generally standardized with regard to nationally normed data based on children at all income levels, with a mean score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 points. Over the course of the Head Start year, on average, children should be expected to demonstrate progress on academic skills that is approximately half that observed during the kindergarten year. The targets have been set to be both educationally meaningful and realistically achievable. In some areas, Head Start children are already meeting this standard, while in other areas, increased programmatic attention to these goals will be required to meet the standard. This increased attention is being addressed through multiple approaches at the program level, including new initiatives in family literacy, teacher credentialing, a National Child Development Institute for Head Start managers, and a new emphasis on local program use of child outcome data in self-evaluations.

Objectives: Children demonstrate improved emergent literacy, numeracy and language skills. Children demonstrate improved general cognitive skills.

5.2a.FY 2001/2002: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 10 scale points the average gain in word knowledge.

FY 2003/2004: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 10 scale points the average gain in word knowledge.

�

5.2b.FY 2001/2002: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 3 scale points the average gain in mathematical skills.

FY 2003/2004: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 3 scale points the average gain in mathematical skills.

5.2c. FY 2001/2002: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 1.5 to 3.4 scale points the average gain in letter identification.

FY 2003/2004: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 1.5 to 3.4 scale points the average gain in letter identification

Objective: Children demonstrate improved gross and fine motor skills.

5.2d.FY 2001/2002: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 1.05 to 1.24 scale points the average gain in fine motor skills.

FY 2003/2004: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 1.05 to xxx scale points the average gain in fine motor skills.

Objectives: Children demonstrate improved positive attitudes toward learning
Children demonstrate improved social behavior and emotional well being.

5.2e.FY 2001/2002: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 1.4 scale points the average gain in social skills.

FY 2003/2004: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 1.4 scale points the average gain in social skills.

Objective: Children demonstrate improved physical health.

5.2f.FY 2001/2002: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 77% to 80% the percentage of children rated by parent as being in excellent or very good health.

FY 2003/2004: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 77% to xx% the percentage of children rated by parent as being in excellent or very good health.

Data sources: Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) including child assessments, parent interviews and teacher ratings.

PROGRAM GOAL: Strengthen families

An essential part of Head Start is the involvement of parents in parent education, program planning, and operating activities. Many parents serve as members of policy councils and committees and have a voice in administrative and managerial decisions. Participation in classes and workshops on child development and staff visits to the home allow parents to learn about the needs of their children and about educational activities that can take place at home. Currently, approximately 55,000 parents of Head Start children are employed as paid program staff. Head Start aims to foster family and community partnerships so community resources can be brought to bear in helping families meet their needs. Services are geared to each family after its specific needs are determined, in areas such as education, training and employment services, counseling, and crisis/emergency intervention and services.

FACES included interviews with parents of Head Start children. In the spring of 1998, 2,688 parents interviewed were a nationally representative sample of all those with children enrolled in Head Start. The parents were asked a series of questions about satisfaction with Head Start services and perceptions of their Head Start experiences.

Parents participating in the Head Start FACES study reported very high levels of satisfaction with the program’s performance in each of eight areas. Responses were given on a 5-point scale, ranging from "very dissatisfied" to "very satisfied."

�

Additional questions from the FACES parent interview gave a very positive picture of parent attitudes toward their child's and their own experiences with Head Start. For example, 96 percent of parents reported that their child "has been happy in the program" often or always; over 97 percent reported that their child "is treated with respect by teachers"; and nearly 96 percent noted that the teacher is supportive of them as parents. While this information on parent participation and satisfaction is not directly reflected in the GPRA goals, parent involvement with and reliance on the program is believed to be a mediator in obtaining positive outcomes for both children and families.

Objective: Head Start parents demonstrate improved parenting skills.

5.2g.FY 2003/2004: Increase from the FY 1999 baseline of 66% to 70% the percentage of parents who read to child three times per week or more.

Data Sources: Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) parent interviews

Objectives: Parents improve their self-concept and emotional well being.

Parents make progress toward their educational, literacy and employment goals.

5.2h.FY 2002: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 30% the number of Head Start parents who are employed as Head Start staff.

FY 2003: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 30% the number of Head Start parents who are employed as Head Start staff.

Data sources: Head Start Program Information Report.

PROGRAM GOAL: Children receive educational services.

Objective: Programs provide developmentally appropriate educational environments.

Head Start has devoted quality improvement dollars specifically for the purpose of upgrading teacher qualifications.

5.2i.FY 2002: Maintain at 100% the number of classroom teachers with a degree in early childhood education (ECE), a child development associate credential, a State-awarded preschool certificate, a degree in a field related to ECE plus a State-awarded certificate, or who are in CDA training and have been given a 180 day waiver, consistent with the provisions of Section 648A(a)(2) of the Head Start Act.

FY 2003: Maintain at 100% the number of classroom teachers with a degree in early childhood education (ECE), a child development associate credential, a State-awarded preschool certificate, a degree in a field related to ECE plus a State-awarded certificate, or who are in CDA training and have been given a 180 day waiver, consistent with the provisions of Section 648A(a)(2) of the Head Start Act.

Data Sources: PIR

Objective: Staff interact with children in a skilled and sensitive manner.

5.2j.FY 2001/2002: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 73 points the average lead teacher score on an observational measure of teacher-child interaction.

FY 2003/2004: Maintain at the FY 1999 baseline of 73 points the average lead teacher score on an observational measure of teacher-child interaction.

Data Sources: Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) observation of classroom teachers

6. IMPROVE THE HEALTH STATUS OF CHILDREN

Approach for the Strategic Objective: For children enrolled in Head Start, provide access to regular medical and dental examinations, immunizations and required medical and dental treatments.

6.1 HEAD START: HEALTH STATUS

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

Head Start emphasizes the importance of the early identification of health problems. Every child is in a comprehensive health program which includes immunizations, medical, dental, and mental health, and nutritional services.

The Head Start program has made a considerable investment in measuring program outcomes, particularly in the health areas. When this information is analyzed over time, it demonstrates that grantees are maintaining a high level of effort, especially in accomplishing a nearly 100% rate for child immunizations and rates approaching 90% or better for health and dental examinations and treatment. Head Start sees the need for improvement in the rates of treatment for mental health referrals and receipt of mental health services for children. Basic to the philosophy of the Head Start program is that healthy children will be better able to learn.

Head Start has measured health component outcomes for more than twenty years. Trend data over the past several years show that most Head Start grantees have maintained an acceptable level of performance in the area of health services. While not direct providers of health services, Head Start grantees assist families to access care by identifying health care providers and even providing families with transportation to and from health services. The newly revised Head Start Performance Standards require that every program help every child and family to identify a "medical home" which will provide the child with ongoing sources of medical care.

Every year Head Start polls approximately 1,525 Head Start grantees using the annual Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) survey to measure several health indicators, including immunization rates, screenings for health and dental health conditions, and the rates for accomplishing treatment for identified conditions. During the past several years Head Start has also measured the rate of referral and treatment for mental health conditions. The Summary Table below shows the results reported by all 1,525 reporting grantees since 1998. Generally, Head Start programs are maintaining acceptable results as shown on the table below for indicators measured.

Program-wide Performance

The summary table below compares the actual performance, as reported by 1,525 Head Start and Early Head Start grantees on the Head Start Program Information Report (PIR) for the reporting period ending in June 2000. Head Start devotes considerable time and energy to survey mailing, data collection, data cleaning, database building and data base management. These reports (more than 2400 reports were submitted) tracked performance for over 850,000 children in the FY 2000 reporting period.

Programs reported that 88% of enrolled children receive treatment for identified medical conditions. It is important to note that Head Start has a predictable turnover rate; that is, children leave the program during its course for various reasons. So while a referral may have been made, programs may not have follow-up information for children who have left the program.

Head Start health indicators (measures 6.1a-c) are below the target levels. Since Head Start program enrollees rely heavily on Medicaid services, the Head Start Bureau suspects that levels of reimbursements to providers, particularly dental health providers, are not sufficient to encourage the provision of services to Medicaid recipients. The result is that Head Start children experience delays in receiving such services. The Head Start Bureau will examine this and other possible causes to determine an appropriate national or local level response.

Dental treatment targets may be difficult to reach in the coming years as dental providers accepting Medicaid are scarce in some communities. This may also be a factor in mental health treatment for young children. Nevertheless, Head Start has chosen to continue target increases for performance indicators (measures 6.1a-c) for FY 2002 because health plays such a critical role in the overall positive development of children. The Bureau will examine the reasons why performance is below target projections and identify strategies and actions that are reasonable on a national level to increase these outcomes.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Children in Head Start receive health and nutritional services.

Objective: Children in Head Start receive needed medical, dental and mental health services.

6.1a.FY 2002: Increase from 88% in FY 1998 to 94 the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary medical treatment after being identified as needing medical treatment.

FY 2003: Increase from 88% in FY 1998 to xx% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary medical treatment after being identified as needing medical treatment.

6.1b.FY 2002: Maintain at 90% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary dental treatment after being identified as needing dental treatment.

FY 2003: Maintain at 90% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary dental treatment after being identified as needing dental treatment.

6.1c.FY 2002: Increase from 75% in FY 1998 to 85% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary treatment for emotional or behavioral problems after being identified as needing such treatment.

FY 2003: Increase from 75% in FY 1998 to xx% the percentage of Head Start children who receive necessary treatment for emotional or behavioral problems after being identified as needing such treatment

Data sources: Head Start Program Information Report (PIR).

7. INCREASE SAFETY, PERMANENCY, AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Approach for the Strategic 1.5: Help children and youth while they are living with their own families, when appropriate. When necessary place children and youth in stable, family-like settings consistent with the needs of each child or youth. Support children and youth with developmental disabilities in individual and small group dwellings that will include them in community life.7. INCREASE SAFETY, PERMANENCY, AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Help children and youth while they are living with their own families, when appropriate. When necessary place children and youth in stable, family-like settings consistent with the needs of each child or youth. Support children and youth with developmental disabilities in individual and small group dwellings that will include them in community life.

7.1 CHILD WELFARE

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

ACF funds a number of programs that focus on preventing maltreatment of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes. Programs such as Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living provide stable environments for those children who cannot remain safely in their homes, assuring the child's safety and well-being while their parents attempt to resolve the problems that led to the out-of-home placement. When the family cannot be reunified, foster care provides a stable environment until the child can be placed permanently with an adoptive family. Adoption Assistance funds are available for a one-time payment for the costs of adopting a child as well as for monthly subsidies to adoptive families for care of the child.

The FY 2003 budget requests an increase in funds of $158.5 million for the Adoption Assistance program to support the adoption of eligible children with special needs. The amount requested, together with amounts requested for child welfare discretionary programs, will assist in achieving the performance goal of providing children with permanency and stability in their living situations and minimizing disruption to the continuity of family and other relationships through increasing the percentage of children who exit the foster care system and are adopted within two years of placement thereby making progress toward doubling the number of adoptions in the public foster care system

The Adoption Incentives program was enacted into law by the bipartisan Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The passage of this incentive program along with State, local and private initiatives focusing attention on the needs of children in foster care awaiting permanent adoptive families, are resulting in unprecedented increases in the number of children adopted from foster care.

The Adoption Opportunities program funds grants and contracts to public and private organizations to facilitate the elimination of barriers to adoption and to provide permanent, loving home environments for children who would benefit from adoption, particularly children with special needs. There are approximately 134,000 children in the public foster care system that cannot return safely to their own homes and parents. About 64,000 of these children are legally free and immediately available for adoption. Such children are typically school-aged, in sibling groups, have experienced neglect or abuse, or have a physical, mental, or emotional disability. While the children are of all ages and races, children of color and older children (over the age of 10) are over-represented. Demonstration grants are awarded through a competitive process to public and private non-profit agencies including State and local governments, universities and voluntary agencies.

The Child Welfare Services program funds grants to States and Indian Tribes to provide services to children and their families without regard to income. Family Preservation and Support Services, renamed Promoting Safe and Stable Families, focuses on strengthening families, preventing abuse, and protecting children. The FY 2003 request for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program is an increase of $130 million over the FY 2002 enacted level. These grants help States and Tribes operate preventive family preservation services and community-based family support services for families at risk or in crisis, family reunification and adoption support services.

The Child Abuse and Neglect program assists States to meet their responsibilities for preventing and intervening in cases of child abuse and neglect. Discretionary funds generate knowledge and research, improve services, collect data, facilitate information dissemination and exchange, and support policy development and the education of professionals in the field. The FY 2003 request for Child Abuse Discretionary Activities is an increase of $201,000 over the FY 2002 appropriation. The additional funds in the FY 2003 request will be used to implement the fourth National Incidence Study on Child Abuse and Neglect. Funds from the Child Abuse Discretionary Activities program are used to conduct activities designed to assist and enhance national, State and community efforts to prevent, identify, and treat child abuse and neglect. The result of these funds will be to spur State and community level approaches to assist fathers to be more actively and productively involved in the lives of their children.

Mentoring children of prisoners, a newly-authorized Administration initiative, would provide $25 million for a discretionary program to provide competitive grants to State and local governments, Tribes and consortia and faith-based and community-based organizations. This new program will help children through the time parents are imprisoned, including efforts to keep children connected to a parent in prison, and increase the chances that the family can come together successfully when the parent is released. The arrest and incarceration of a parent often results in traumatic separations for children, followed frequently by erratic shifts from one caregiver to another. As a group, these children are less likely than their peers to succeed in school and more likely to succumb to substance abuse, gangs, early childbearing, and delinquency. Children of incarcerated mothers are particularly vulnerable, as these children typically come from households where the mother was the sole provider, making placement in foster care more likely when the mother is in prison.

The FY 2003 request of an additional $60 million for the Independent Living program will provide $5,000 vouchers for youth who "age out" of foster care for college tuition or vocational training. These vouchers would provide youth an additional resource to prepare for independent living, increasing the prospect that they will be able to secure work and become contributing members of society. ACF is placing increased emphasis on services for youth in foster care, particularly independent living services. Independent Living assists current or former foster care youths in the transition to independent living, education and employment assistance, training in daily living skills, and individual and group counseling. Nearly 16,000 young people leave foster care each year when they reach age 18 without an adoptive family or other guardian. Research indicates that these young people experience alarming rates of homelessness, early pregnancy, mental illness, unemployment and drug use in the first years after they leave the system. (This program should not be confused with the "Increase Independent Living" included in strategic goal 1 objective 2 in this annual performance plan; 1.2, focuses on achieving independence by helping developmentally disabled individuals rent or own their own homes in the mainstream community.)

The Congress established the Infant Adoption Awareness Program in FY 2001. This program’s major role is to award grants to develop and implement programs to train staff of health centers to provide adoption information and referrals to pregnant women on an equal basis with all other courses of action included in non-directive counseling to pregnant women.

Other ACF programs that address child welfare are: the Abandoned Infants Assistance program, enforcement of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Adoption provisions of 1996, and State Child Welfare Reform Demonstrations (24 Demonstrations in 21 States and the District of Columbia, to date) to test innovative new ways to strengthen the child welfare system.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ACF has undertaken a number of activities designed to improve overall performance in child welfare. Most significant is the publication in January 2000 of final regulations pertaining to aspects of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), including regulations about foster care eligibility reviews and child and family services State plan reviews. Central and Regional Office staff have undertaken a major initiative to provide training and technical assistance to States regarding the regulatory requirements and improvement of their child welfare services systems.

As part of this training and technical assistance, ten Child Welfare Resource Center cooperative agreements focus on providing training and technical assistance to States and local agencies around issues pertaining to the implementation of ASFA. The Resource Centers focus on permanency planning, adoption, family-centered practice, youth development, legal issues, abandoned infants, organizational development, child maltreatment, community-based family resource services, and information technology.

On January 25, 2000, DHHS published a final rule in the Federal Register to establish new approaches to monitoring State child welfare programs. The rule focuses on results in the areas of safety, permanency and child and family well-being; strengthens the penalty and corrective action processes for the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA), as amended, regarding discrimination and adoptive and foster care placements; regulates provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, and the Federal foster care program; and updates the review process for the Federal foster care program. The new rule plays an important role in improving services to, and outcomes for, abused and neglected children, children in foster care, and children awaiting adoptive families. The focus on outcomes in the child and family service reviews builds on the outcome measures developed to meet the requirements of section 479a of title IV-E of the Social Security Act. It will promote increased safety for children who are maltreated; quicker movement to permanent homes and families for children in foster care; and enhanced well-being for families served by State agencies.

The rule addresses two monitoring activities: the Child and Family Services (CFS) review and the title IV-E eligibility review. The CFS review will address two areas: (1) outcomes for children and families in the areas of safety, permanency, and child and family well-being; and (2) systemic factors that directly impact the State's capacity to deliver services leading to improved outcomes. Each outcome is evaluated by using specific performance indicators as follows:

Safety Outcomes:

• Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.
• Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

Permanency Outcomes:

1. Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
2. The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.

Child and Family Well-Being Outcomes:

• Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.
• Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
• Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.

The systemic factors being reviewed are related to the State's ability to deliver services leading to improved outcomes. The systemic factors include: 1) statewide information systems; 2) the case review system; 3) quality assurance system; 4) staff and provider training; 5) service array; 6) agency responsiveness to the community; and 7) foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment and retention.

The new CFS monitoring process is both a substantial improvement and a substantial challenge. While it is much more difficult to determine whether a child is safe than it is to determine, for example, that a date on a court order meets specified time frames, ACF believes the new monitoring process is better and more likely to yield findings that will help States improve those processes where needed. Seventeen States were reviewed in FY 2001. The remaining States will be reviewed by FY 2003.

In FY 2002-2003, ACF will continue to emphasize the improvement of data systems and data reporting in child welfare. ACF plans to increase the number of States with operational Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS). ACF also plans to increase the number of States submitting penalty-free Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System (AFCARS) data from 25 to 35 through the provision of technical assistance. In addition, a number of SACWIS and AFCARS reviews will be completed. Finally, activities are underway for developing performance and outcome measures for the Independent Living Program.

To achieve the results embodied in the performance measures, ACF requires qualified staff knowledgeable about the child protection and child welfare system in the States; data systems, computers, communications technology; statistical staff to monitor progress towards the goals; and ACF regional and central office staff experienced in working with States as partners. To meet the immediate need, ACF hired 22 new staff in FY 2001. Finally, ACF continues to work with the States to conduct various data verification, title IV-E, and child and family services reviews.

States continue to substantially exceed performance expectations in the Adoption Incentive Program. This program, authorized by ASFA, provides incentive funds for each adoption finalized in a fiscal year beyond the established baseline number of adoptions.

Finally, ACF is embarking on a set of activities that will make use of performance-based outcome measures. These include the incorporation of outcome measures into the CFS reviews to determine State compliance with statutory provisions; the publication of the second annual report on Child Welfare Outcomes for the States; and the use of AFCARS data in sampling for both the CFS reviews and the title IV-E reviews. ACF’s achievements in its focus on outcomes in child welfare activities have been recognized through its selection as one of 15 finalists out of 3,000 applicants in Harvard University’s Innovations in American Government competition.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

Ultimately, decisions about placing children are made by judges in juvenile and family court systems throughout the nation. Improved judicial handling of child welfare cases will be essential to achieving permanency goals for children. Children in the child welfare system have many medical and mental health problems, while many of their parents are incapacitated by chronic substance abuse, mental health problems, homelessness, limited education, and other problems. The availability of services from other sectors to meet these needs is uneven. The expansion or contraction of services in various parts of the country will affect our performance. Major changes in assistance programs for low-income families as part of welfare reform will also have an unknown impact on the child welfare system over the next several years.

To ensure that activities are coordinated with Federal partners which provide many of these services, ACF works closely on achieving its goals with the Department of Justice, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and other national agencies and organizations whose responsibilities overlap with child welfare services.

In developing and implementing the Family Preservation and Support Program (now reauthorized as the "Promoting Safe and Stable Families" program), and implementing ASFA, ACF conducted and continues to conduct a broad-based consultation process with a wide range of policy experts, advocates, foster and adoptive parents, and other interested individuals to ground its examination of strategies and issues in the daily experiences of participants in the child welfare system.

An example of the comprehensive approach ACF uses to obtain consultation in the child welfare area is the approach taken to develop performance outcome measures required by ASFA. In August 1998, ACF established a consultation group including representatives from State, Tribal, county, and municipal child welfare agencies; private non-profit child and family services agencies; State legislatures; Governors' offices; juvenile and family courts; local child advocacy organizations; and a national public employees' union. Also invited to serve as resources to the consultation group were representatives from several national organizations including the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, the American Public Human Services Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Child Advocates, the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the National Governors' Association.

Staff from ACF, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (OASPE) were also included in the consultation process. Department staff participating were those with expertise in child welfare services, outcome measurement for assessing system performance, national child welfare databases, and performance-based incentive systems.

As a result of this consultative process, the Department published a preliminary list of child welfare outcomes and measures in the Federal Register for public comment on February 2, 1999. Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department made numerous changes to the preliminary list of outcomes and measures. On August 20, 1999, the Department published a final list of outcomes and measures in the Federal Register.

Program-wide Performance

ACF met the goals for four of the ten measures for which FY 2000 data are currently (December 2001) available. Over 58,000 (67 percent) children who exited the foster care through reunification did so within one year of placement (7.1c). The total number of adoptions continues to increase although at a more moderate rate. The total number of adoptions in FY 2000 was 50,000 which exceeds the target by 4,000 (7.1f). The median time to adoption also dropped to essentially meet the target of 39 months (7.1h). Although entered in the table as 40 months for FY 2000, the actual number was 39.68 months. Finally, the goal of 18 percent (8,200) for adoptions by relatives was met (7.1k). Two additional measures showed movement in the right direction. The adoption time difference between white and African-American children dropped from 19 months in FY 1999 to 14 months in FY 2000, only one month more than the target of 13 months (7.1i). In addition, the adoption time difference between white children and Hispanic children also dropped from 5 months to 4 months (7.1j).

Increasing the percentage of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement (7.1d) showed some minimal movement in the right direction, from 19 percent to 20 percent (2,500). This measure continues to be affected by the adoption of children who have been in the system for a long time. However, as longer-term cases are cleared out of the system and as the required ASFA review for appropriateness of termination of parental rights are implemented, it is expected that the percentage of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement will increase. Even with this expectation, we felt it necessary to reduce the FY 2002 goal from 28 percent to 25 percent to be more realistic.

Increase exits through guardianships (7.1e) is still plagued by weakness in the data. Guardianship, as a reason for discharge, has generally been under-reported and does not even exist as a discharge reason in some States. Therefore, the goals for this measure have been reduced for FY 2002 from 67 percent to 60 percent to be more realistic. However, we expect the reporting of guardianships to improve for a number of reasons. First, the use of guardianship as an exit strategy for relative foster care appears to be growing primarily for. children who may have been in a relative care placement for a long period of time and many States wish to track it. Second, AFCARS reviews have identified problems in the coding of guardianships in a limited number of States and those States have taken action to correct the problems. Third, the Data Profile component of the Statewide Assessment used in the Child and Family Services Reviews emphasizes discharge reasons. When a State identifies problems with the reporting of guardianships or other discharge reasons in their profile, they review their data and frequently re-submit it. Early indications are that this process has generated improved data for those States that underwent CFS reviews in FY 2001 and are in the process of undergoing CFS reviews in FY 2002. Finally, the ACF funded National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare is providing intensive technical assistance to States undergoing CFS reviews, particularly in relation to the Data Profile in the Statewide Assessment. We expect this technical assistance to result in an overall improvement in the reporting of discharge reasons.

Finally, because of the consistency in this measure over time, ACF believes that reducing the mean number of placement settings per episode to 2.0 is unrealistic (measure 7.1l). A new measure will be used in FY 2003 that is better able to capture the concern about child well-being while in foster care (measure 7.1m). The FY 2002 goal for that measure has been reduced from 74 percent to 60 percent to be more realistic given the historical data which we now have to use in setting the goal.

Measures Dropped in FY 2001

In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (PL 105-89). Among other provisions designed to improve the child welfare system and protect children, it directs the Secretary of DHHS to consult with governors, State legislatures, and State and local public officials responsible for administering child welfare programs and develop a set of outcome measures for rating the performance of States in operating child protection and child welfare programs. (See Section on Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues for a detailed description of the process.) Based on this consultation, additional close examination of each of the measures for methodological and programmatic soundness, the need to use the same measures when operationalizing the same concept in each of the major activities related to performance outcomes (the annual report, child and family services reviews, and GPRA), we made a number of changes in measures for FY (CY) 2001 as discussed below.

• Replaced measures 7.1b with 7.1a -- Methodologically, by using the six month time period all the data will come from one NCANDS report period resulting in usable data being available from more States. In addition, data will be available in a timelier manner. Programmatically, research has shown that most recurrences of substantiated maltreatment occur within six months following the first substantiated report of maltreatment. Finally, this measure will now be consistent in the three major activities using performance outcomes.
• Dropped measure 7.1h -- This measure is being dropped because another measure, measure 7.1d operationalizes the same concept, speeding up adoptions, and is used in the other two major performance outcome activities.
• Dropped measures 7.1i and 7.1j -- These measures are not programmatically sound because they can be used to justify policies that are inconsistent with the best interests of minority children and in conflict with a statutory requirement. The differences in median length of stay between white and minority children can be accounted for, in part, by the more extensive use of relative care for minority children in foster care which is directly related to the number of assisted guardianships by relatives and adoptions by relatives. Because children in relative care tend to have longer lengths of stay than children in non-relative care, failure to show improvement in these measures could result in advocating the placement of minority children in non-relative care. This would not be in the best interests of children and is inconsistent with the statutory requirement (section 471(a)(19) of title IV-E of the Social Security Act) for relative preference in foster care placement and adoption.
• Added measure 7.1k -- This measure was developed to asses the outcome of adoptions by relatives to be less affected by major changes in policy and practice by a few large states. An analysis of the change between FY 1998 and FY 1999 in this measure showed that 28 States either increased their proportion of adoptions by relatives or their number of adoptions by relatives. We are setting a goal of 20 states in FY 2003, because of the four-year lag time between what we currently know and FY 2003. We expect that during this period many relative foster care placements will become adoptions and may make the overall potential for relative adoptions decline slightly
• Replaced measure 7.1l with 7.1m -- Methodologically, using a mean to measure stability in foster care placement settings decreases the ability to detect change because the denominator is so large, above 800,000. The new measure should be more sensitive to change and is also the measure used in the other two performance outcome activities.

Data Issues

Both AFCARS and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) conduct extensive edit checks for internal reliability. For AFCARS, if a State's data fail certain edit checks, the State incurs a financial penalty. An additional 700-edit checks are conducted to improve data quality. All edit check programs are shared with the States. Compliance reviews for AFCARS are currently being piloted and State SACWIS systems are undergoing reviews to determine the status of their operation. As these reporting systems improve, the operationalization of various outcomes has become more refined. Furthermore, as the number of jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) reporting has increased from 32 in FY1995 to 49 in FY 2000 for foster care and from 29 in FY 1995 to 52 in FY 1999 for adoption, the values of the measures change and they more accurately reflect the total population. Because of this improvement in reporting, no data prior to FY 1998 (CY 1998 for measures 7.1.a-b) are being included in examining trends.

To speed improvement in these data, the agency has awarded funds to develop and implement the National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare. This Resource Center provides technical assistance to States to improve reporting to AFCARS and NCANDS, improve statewide information systems, and better utilize their data. These activities should result in further improvements in the data over the next few years.

Being able to report data in a timely manner is critical in guiding program improvement to achieve outcomes. The following summarizes why AFCARS foster care data are not available until eight months after the September 30 point-in-time date. AFCARS foster care data for September 30 of any year, under regulation, are reported by the States to ACF electronically by November 14. The data are processed, assessed for errors and compliance with regulatory standards and the results are transmitted back to the States. In order to avoid a financial penalty, States have until March 31 to re-submit their data. The resubmitted data are then processed and the data are made available to the statistical analysts in May. The analysts review the data to determine which States’ data are useable in this plan.

The AFCARS adoption data take a longer time to become available because States can submit data on any finalized adoption at anytime without incurring a financial penalty. Frequently, adoption data are not entered into State information systems for some time after the adoption because the entry does not occur until the final paperwork is received from the court. For example, over 3,800 adoptions finalized in FY 1999 were not reported until the first reporting period in FY 2000, or by May 15, 2000. Because of the requirement of the Adoption Incentive Program that only adoptions reported by the first reporting period in the following fiscal year can be counted for incentive awards, almost all adoptions are now reported within that timeframe, though there are still a small number which are reported in subsequent reporting periods. After data are received (in this case by May 15 of the following year), they still must be downloaded, converted to analytical files and cleaned before they can be included in the plan.

The NCANDS data take even longer to become available. First, NCANDS is a voluntary system, and, therefore, States do not incur penalties for not reporting or reporting data late. More important for this discussion, however, is that reporting only occurs once per year which delays the calculation of recurrence. For example for a 12-month recurrence rate, for FY 2000 a first report could occur as late as December 31, 2000. To count as a recurrence, a second report can be received as late as December 2001. The NCANDS data are then complied by the States, Transmitted to the contractor, converted to analytical files, de-duplicated and cleaned before they are available to include in the plan. By changing the measure to recurrence within six months, the timeline is shortened by one year because the first occurrence can occur during the first six months of the year and the second occurrence only has to occur during the second six months of the year of interest. This makes the data available in early fall of the subsequent year.

�

�

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

In collaboration with States, Tribes, advocacy groups, foundations and others, ACF has developed new program monitoring procedures that focus on the quality of child welfare services and the outcomes for children and families. These reviews will be implemented through Federal/State partnerships. Following these reviews, States will receive immediate feedback on the extent to which their programs are achieving the stated goals.

PROGRAM GOAL - SAFETY: Children are protected from abuse and neglect in their homes. The risk of harm to children will be minimized.

7.1b.FY 2002: Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeat substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 months from 8% in CY 1998 to 7% in CY 2002.

FY 2003: Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeat substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 months from 8% in CY 1998 to 7% in CY 2003.

Data Source: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

PROGRAM GOAL - PERMANENCY: Provide children foster care permanency and stability in their living situations.

7.1c.FY 2002: Of the children who exit the foster care system through reunification, maintain the percentage of children who do this within one year of placement at 67%.

FY 2003: Of the children who exit the foster care system through reunification, maintain the percentage of children who do this within one year of placement at 67%.

Data Source: AFCARS

7.1d.FY 2002: Of the children who exit foster care through adoption, increase the percentage who are adopted within two years of placement from 23% in FY 1998 to 25%.

FY 2003: Of the children who exit foster care through adoption, maintain the percentage that are adopted within two years of placement at 25%.

Data Source: AFCARS

These performance indicators (measures 7.1b-d and 7.1m) are reflective of a series of efforts to focus on outcomes in child welfare. They are being used in two places where they are having substantial impact on State practice. First they are being used in the Annual Child Welfare Outcomes report. This report required under section 479b of title IV-E of the Social Security Act contains data for each State on a variety of outcome measures. In addition, these measures are being used in the Child and Family Services Reviews and failure to meet the standards associated with them can result in a State's being found not to be in substantial conformity with the State plan requirements in title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The National Resource Centers funded by the Children's Bureau are offering technical assistance to States to help them improve the services they deliver to children and their families and to meet the State plan requirements.

7.1e.FY 2002: Of the children who exit foster care through guardianships, maintain the percentage of children who do this within 2 years at 60%.

FY 2003: Of the children who exit foster care through guardianships, maintain the percentage of children who do this within 2 years at 60%.

Data Source: AFCARS

This measure is being used in the Annual Child Welfare Outcomes report and technical assistance being provided in association with the Child and Family Services Reviews is focusing on all aspects of permanency, including guardianship. (See previous discussion under Program Activities, Strategies and Resources for more detail.) Note: Targets for both FY 2002 and 2003 are increases over actual FY 1999 performance. This measure continues to be affected by weaknesses in the data: guardianship, as a reason for discharge, has generally been under-reported and does not even exist as a discharge reason in some States.

7.1f.FY 2002: Make progress towards increasing the number of adoptions of children in the public foster care system between FY 1998 and FY 2002 by increasing adoptions from 36,000 in FY 1998 to 56,000.

FY 2003: Increase the number of adoptions to 58,500.

Data Source: Baselines from the Adoption Incentive Program and the Adoption 2002 Initiative for FY 1997 and AFCARS for all subsequent years.

The implementation of the termination of parental rights provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) is expected to increase the total number of adoptions of children from the foster care system. In addition, the statute created the Adoption Incentive Program that provides incentive funds to States that increase the number of finalized adoptions over the State's baseline. The National Resource Centers and Federal staff are providing technical assistance to States to help them implement both of these activities.

New - Developmental

7.1g.Twenty states will either increase the number of adoptions by relatives or the proportion of the adoptions by relatives over those in FY 2002.

Data Source: AFCARS.

Adoption by relatives is seen as a positive permanency outcome for children who cannot live with their parents. A previous measure of relative adoption was very sensitive to policy and practice changes in a few large States. This measure will more accurately measure the national trend in relative adoption.

PROGRAM GOAL - FAMILY AND CHILD WELL-BEING: Minimize the disruption to the continuity of family and other relationships.

7.1m.FY 2002: For those children who have been in care less than 12 months, increase the percentage who had no more than two placement settings to 60%.

FY 2003: For those children who have been in care less than 12 months, increase the percentage who had not more than two placement settings to 62%.

Data Source: AFCARS

PROGRAM GOAL - PREPARE FOSTER CARE YOUTH FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING: (a) enhance the education, employment and other skills of foster care youth to avoid dependency; and (b) expand opportunities for youth to achieve self-sufficiency while under the auspices of the public child welfare agency.

In FY 2000, Congress passed legislation authorizing a substantial increase in funds for independent living services for foster care youth under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. These services prepare them for independent living by enhancing their education, employment and other skills to avoid dependency; and by expanding opportunities for youth to live independently while under the auspices of the public child welfare agency. This legislation requires developing and implementing outcome measures and a data collection system for this program.

In FY 2001-2002, ACF will develop and implement the methodology to determine the baselines for the number of foster care youth receiving independent living services and/or living independently under the auspices of the public child welfare agency and develop preferred outcome measures for independent living programs. The baseline will be established for FY 2003 and the first target will be set for FY 2004.

7.2 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EDUCATION)

The DD education goal is: "Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Students with developmental disabilities have educational experiences based on their individual needs and goals and have access to an array of educational opportunities in their neighborhood schools. Parents know their rights regarding their children's education. Educators are prepared to educate all students and public policy supports appropriate education."

(See information under 1.2 Developmental Disabilities – General for description of partnerships, data issues, strategies and resources.)

Program-wide Performance

Performance for the measure "the number of students with developmental disabilities served in more integrated /inclusive educational settings" (measure 7.2a) has experienced significant increases and decreases in years prior to FY 1999. These fluctuations have been caused by the use of varying methodology from State to State and from year to year as States gained experience in making projections and collecting performance data. For that reason, FY 1999 has been selected for the baseline year. In FY 2000, Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems in all 56 States and Territories reported results (defined as 50 or more students) for a total of 10,054 students with developmental disabilities served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of P&A system intervention. This performance is consistent with FY 1999 results and exceeded the FY 2000 target by 1,254 students. P&A interventions included counseling parents on advocating for their children, negotiating better placements, counseling school systems on the rights of students with disabilities, administrative remedies, and, in extreme cases, litigation.

Summary Table

�

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Performance for this measure is affected by a number of factors including the impact of the economy on the cost of providing educational services to people with disabilities, the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for people with developmental disabilities to learn in the least restrictive environment, and funding priorities in individual States.

The above issues combined with data collection and interpretation difficulties continue to create instability in the data. ACF is providing technical assistance to State programs to improve data stability and programmatic outcomes. The fiscal year targets for this performance measure are provided by State P&As in January of that fiscal year.

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals.

Objective: Increase the number of students with disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings

7.2a FY 2002: Increase to 11,500 the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Increase to 11,600 the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention.

Data Source: P&A annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

Because the perceived cost of providing an education in less restrictive environments is high, we have limited ability to accurately project performance. Our efforts are focused on achieving gradual improvement for this measure.

To accomplish this goal, the States work with three different program delivery approaches. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) works to create systems change within the education systems, including demonstration of more desirable models. Educational and research efforts contribute to improving public and professional opinion on education for persons with developmental disabilities involving both the State Council and the Centers on Disabilities/University Affiliated Programs (UAPs). Protection and Advocacy Programs have worked to ensure that the rights of students with developmental disabilities to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment are protected.

7.3 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HEALTH)

The DD health care goal is: "Improve the health of people with developmental disabilities and increase their access to the full range of needed health care services." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Individuals with developmental disabilities and their families have access to the health care information they need to make choices. Health care for people with developmental disabilities is available, affordable, accessible, and equitable. Health care personnel are appropriately qualified to meet the health care needs of people with developmental disabilities."

(See information under 1.2 Developmental Disabilities – General for description of partnerships, data issues, strategies and resources.)

Program-wide Performance

There have been concerns with fluctuations in the data prior to FY 1998 for Performance Measure 7.3a due to varying methodology used by UCDs. Some of these fluctuations occurred as UCDs gained experience in making projections and collecting performance data. For that reason, FY 1998 has been selected as the baseline year. Performance for this measure is affected by a number of factors including the impact of the economy on the cost of providing health care generally, and especially to people with disabilities; the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for people with developmental disabilities to benefit from full access to health care and the attitudes of health care providers toward this special needs population.

The above issues combined with difficulties in data collection and interpretation have created instability in the performance data. ACF's technical assistance to University programs has helped to improve data stability and programmatic outcomes.In FY 1999, UCDs reported 4,100 health care providers trained to meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities, In FY 2000, UCDs reported 4,032 health care providers trained to meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities a decrease of 68 trained. This slight decrease may be due to increased costs facing UCDs.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Performance for this measure in FY 2002 is projected to increase from the actual level in FY 2000, but decrease from the target of 5,000 set for FY 2001. This decrease is based on the flat funding for core support of UCDs making it difficult to attract additional trainees. The lower targets for FY�2002 and FY�2003 are based on actual performance in FY�2000.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the health of people with developmental disabilities and increase their access to the full range of needed health care services.

Objective: Increase the number of health care providers trained to meet the health needs of people with developmental disabilities.

7.3a.FY 2002: Increase to 4,200 the number of health care providers trained to meet the health needs of people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Increase to 4,400 the number of health care providers trained to meet the health needs of people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

Data Source: UCD annual report

This measure focuses on the access to proper health care for persons with developmental disabilities. Because so few health care professionals are aware of the special health care needs of persons with developmental disabilities, there is a significant need for training. Actual performance remains unstable, largely due to changes in allocation of training resources, but we believe there is potential for gradual improvement.

Three programs in the States combine to provide a comprehensive approach to accomplishing this target. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) works to create systems change within the health care systems, including demonstration of more desirable models. Education and research efforts strive to improve public and professional opinion on health care, involving both the State Council and the Centers on Disabilities/University Affiliated Programs. The University Centers on Disabilities are the main providers of training to health care professionals. Protection and Advocacy Programs have worked to ensure that the rights of patients with developmental disabilities are protected.

�

7.1 CHILD WELFARE

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

ACF funds a number of programs that focus on preventing maltreatment of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes. Programs such as Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living provide stable environments for those children who cannot remain safely in their homes, assuring the child's safety and well-being while their parents attempt to resolve the problems that led to the out-of-home placement. When the family cannot be reunified, foster care provides a stable environment until the child can be placed permanently with an adoptive family. Adoption Assistance funds are available for a one-time payment for the costs of adopting a child as well as for monthly subsidies to adoptive families for care of the child.

The Adoption Incentives program was one of the innovative recommendations advanced in the "Adoption 2002 Initiative" and enacted into law by the bipartisan Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The passage of this incentive program along with state, local and private initiatives focusing attention on the needs of children in foster care awaiting permanent adoptive families, are resulting in unprecedented increases in the number of children adopted from foster care.

The Child Welfare Services program funds grants to States and Indian Tribes to provide services to children and their families without regard to income. Family Preservation and Support Services, renamed Promoting Safe and Stable Families, focuses on strengthening families, preventing abuse, and protecting children. These grants help States and Tribes operate preventive family preservation services and community-based family support services for families at risk or in crisis, family reunification and adoption support services.

The Child Abuse and Neglect program assists States to meet their responsibilities for preventing and intervening in cases of child abuse and neglect. Discretionary funds generate knowledge and research, improve services, collect data, facilitate information dissemination and exchange, and support policy development and the education of professionals in the field.

The President's proposal to increase funding in the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program from $305 to $505 million (an increase of $200 million over the 2001 level) will support preventive efforts to help families in crisis and improve the prospects for children to live in a permanent home. An additional $67 million increase will establish a "Mentoring Children of Prisoners" discretionary authority under Promoting Safe and Stable Families. Funds would go to States to provide competitive grants to faith-based and community-based organizations that help children through the time their parents are imprisoned, including efforts to keep children connected to a parent in prison, and increase the chances that the family can come together successfully when the parent is released.

ACF is placing increased emphasis on services for youth in foster care, particularly independent living services. Independent Living assists current or former foster care youths in the transition to independent living, education and employment assistance, training in daily living skills, and individual and group counseling. Nearly 16,000 young people leave foster care each year when they reach age 18 without an adoptive family or other guardian. Research indicates that these young people experience alarming rates of homelessness, early pregnancy, mental illness, unemployment and drug use in the first years after they leave the system. (This program should not be confused with the "Increase Independent Living" strategic 1.5 of this annual performance plan, 1.5 2, which focuses on achieving independence by helping developmentally disabled individuals rent or own their own homes in the mainstream community.) To help these children, a $60 million increase is being requested to provide education and training vouchers to youth who age out of foster care. Each voucher, worth up to $5,000, would be available to cover the costs of college tuition or vocational training to help these young people lead independent and productive lives.

Other ACF programs that address child welfare are: the Adoption Opportunities program, the Abandoned Infants Assistance program, special initiatives such as "Adoption 2002," enforcement of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Interethnic Adoption provisions of 1996, and State Child Welfare Reform Demonstrations (24 Demonstrations in 21 States and the District of Columbia, to date) to test innovative new ways to strengthen the child welfare system.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ACF has undertaken a number of activities designed to improve overall performance in child welfare. Most significant is the publication in January 2000 of final regulations pertaining to aspects of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), including regulations about foster care eligibility reviews and child and family services State plan reviews. Central and Regional Office staff have undertaken a major initiative to provide training and technical assistance to States regarding the regulatory requirements and improvement of their child welfare services systems.

As part of this training and technical assistance, ten Child Welfare Resource Center cooperative agreements focus on providing training and technical assistance to States and local agencies around issues pertaining to the implementation of ASFA. The Resource Centers focus on permanency planning, adoption, family-centered practice, youth development, legal issues, abandoned infants, organizational development, child maltreatment, community-based family resource services, and information technology.

On January 25, 2000, DHHS published a final rule in the Federal Register to establish new approaches to monitoring State child welfare programs. The rule focuses on results in the areas of safety, permanency and child and family well-being; strengthens the penalty and corrective action processes for the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA), as amended, regarding discrimination and adoptive and foster care placements; regulates provisions of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997, and the Federal foster care program; and updates the review process for the Federal foster care program. The new rule plays an important role in improving services to, and outcomes for, abused and neglected children, children in foster care, and children awaiting adoptive families. The focus on outcomes in the child and family service reviews builds on the outcome measures in section 203 of ASFA. It will promote increased safety for children who are maltreated; quicker movement to permanent homes and families for children in foster care; and enhanced well-being for families served by State agencies. The President's budget includes $2 million to expand monitoring efforts in FY 2002.

The rule addresses two monitoring activities: the Child and Family Services (CFS) review and the title IV-E eligibility review. The projects funded under a number of priority areas in this announcement are geared toward assisting States to prepare for and successfully meet the monitoring requirements. The CFS review will address two areas: (1) outcomes for children and families in the areas of safety, permanency, and child and family well-being; and (2) systemic factors that directly impact the State's capacity to deliver services leading to improved outcomes. Each outcome is evaluated by using specific performance indicators as follows:

Safety Outcomes:

Children are, first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect.

Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate.

Permanency Outcomes:

Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.

The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.

Child and Family Well-Being Outcomes:

Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.

Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.

Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.

The systemic factors being reviewed are related to the State's ability to deliver services leading to improved outcomes. The systemic factors include: 1) statewide information systems; 2) the case review system; 3) quality assurance system; 4) staff and provider training; 5) service array; 6) agency responsiveness to the community; and 7) foster and adoptive parent licensing, recruitment and retention.

The new CFS monitoring process is both a substantial improvement and a substantial challenge. While it is much more difficult to determine whether a child is safe than it is to determine, for example, that a date on a court order meets specified time frames, ACF believes the new monitoring process is better and more likely to yield findings that will help States improve those processes where needed.

In FY 2001-2003, ACF will emphasize the improvement of data systems and data reporting in child welfare. ACF plans to increase the number of States with operational Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS). ACF also plans to increase the number of States submitting penalty-free Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System (AFCARS) data from 25 to 35 through the provision of technical assistance. In addition, a number of SACWIS and AFCARS reviews will be completed. Finally, activities are underway for developing performance and outcome measures for the Independent Living Program.

To achieve the results embodied in the performance measures, ACF requires qualified staff knowledgeable about the child protection and child welfare system in the States; data systems, computers, communications technology; statistical staff to monitor progress towards the goals; and ACF regional and central office staff experienced in working with States as partners. Finally, ACF needs to work with the States to conduct various data verification, Title IV-E, and child and family services reviews.

States continue to substantially exceed performance expectations in the Adoption Incentive Program. This program, authorized by ASFA, provides incentive funds for each adoption finalized in a fiscal year beyond the established baseline number of adoptions. As they did in FY 1999, States qualified for more funds for the Adoption Incentive Program than were appropriated in FY 2000.

Finally, ACF is embarking on a set of activities that will make use of performance-based outcome measures. These include the incorporation of outcome measures into the CFS reviews to determine State compliance with statutory provisions; the publication of the annual report on Child Welfare Outcomes for the States; and the use of AFCARS data in sampling for both the CFS reviews and the title IV-E reviews.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues

Ultimately, decisions about placing children are made by judges in juvenile and family court systems throughout the nation. Improved judicial handling of child welfare cases will be essential to achieving permanency goals for children. Children in the child welfare system have many medical and mental health problems, while many of their parents are incapacitated by chronic substance abuse, mental health problems, homelessness, limited education, and other problems. The availability of services from other sectors to meet these needs is uneven. The expansion or contraction of services in various parts of the country will affect our performance. Major changes in assistance programs for low-income families as part of welfare reform will also have an unknown impact on the child welfare system over the next several years.

To insure that activities are coordinated with Federal partners which provide many of these services, ACF works closely on achieving its goals with the Department of Justice, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and other national agencies and organizations whose responsibilities overlap with child welfare services.

In developing the Adoption 2002 Initiative, developing and implementing the Family Preservation and Support Program (now reauthorized as the "Promoting Safe and Stable Families" program), and implementing ASFA, ACF conducted and continues to conduct a broad-based consultation process with a wide range of policy experts, advocates, foster and adoptive parents, and other interested individuals to ground its examination of strategies and issues in the daily experiences of participants in the child welfare system.

An example of the comprehensive approach ACF uses to obtain consultation in the child welfare area is the approach taken to develop performance outcome measures required by ASFA. In August 1998, ACF established a consultation group including representatives from State, Tribal, county, and municipal child welfare agencies; private non-profit child and family services agencies; State legislatures; Governors' offices; juvenile and family courts; local child advocacy organizations; and a national public employees' union. Also invited to serve as resources to the consultation group were representatives from several national organizations including the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, the American Public Human Services Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Child Advocates, the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the National Governors' Association.

Staff from ACF, the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (OASPE) were also included in the consultation process. Department staff participating were those with expertise in child welfare services, outcome measurement for assessing system performance, national child welfare databases, and performance-based incentive systems.

As a result of this consultative process, the Department published a preliminary list of child welfare outcomes and measures in the Federal Register for public comment on February 2, 1999. Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department made numerous changes to the preliminary list of outcomes and measures. On August 20, 1999, the Department published a final list of outcomes and measures in the Federal Register.

Program-wide Performance

State performance for the measures through FY 1999 (CY 1998 for measure 7.1a) appear to be mostly in the positive direction: the proportion of the children being reunified in less than one year is increasing (measure 7.1c); the total number of adoptions in FY 1999 reached the target set for FY 2000 (measure 7.1f); and the FY 2000 target for adoptions by relatives was achieved (measure 7.1k). These measures are directly related to the implementation of ASFA, which encourages speedier permanency decisions for children, particularly related to adoption.

However, the implementation of this legislation also resulted in some counter-intuitive trends in the following measures resulting from "good" rather than "bad" practice (measures 7.1d, 7.1h, 7.1i, and 7.1k). ACF is retaining (measure 7.1d) "increase the percentage of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement". Currently these percentages are decreasing. However, as longer-term cases are cleared out of the system and as the required ASFA review for appropriateness of termination of parental rights are implemented, it is expected that the percentage of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement will increase.

ACF is dropping three measures: measure 7.1h--"decrease the median length of time in care until adoption"(which is better captured by measure 7.1d-- "increase the % of children who exit care through adoption within two years of placement"); measure 7.1i--"decrease the adoption time difference between white and African-American children" and measure 7.1j--"decrease the adoption time difference between white and Hispanic children." These last two measures are being dropped because they are not programmatically sound. We believe that trends reported for the last two measures resulted from child welfare agencies' initial focus on the adoption of children who had been in the foster care system for a long time, particularly children in relative foster care which has notably longer lengths of stay and which affects a higher proportion of minority children. For further discussion of the programmatic soundness of these measures, please refer to pp. 107-108.

There are a small number of measures that continue to be affected by weaknesses in the data. These include the recurrence rate for maltreatment and exits through guardianships. Only nineteen States (1998) and 23 States (1999) reported adequate data to calculate the maltreatment recurrence rate, making that measure more likely to be unstable (measures 7.1a and b). In addition, guardianship, as a reason for discharge, has generally been under-reported and does not even exist as a discharge reason in some States (measure 7.1e).

Finally, because of the consistency in this measure over time, ACF believes that reducing the mean number of placement settings per episode to 2.0 is unrealistic (measure 7.1m). A new measure is being proposed which is better able to capture the concern about child well-being while in foster care (measure 7.1n).

Data Issues

Both AFCARS and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) conduct extensive edit checks for internal reliability. For AFCARS, if a State's data fail certain edit checks, the State incurs a financial penalty. An additional 700 edit checks are conducted to improve data quality. All edit check programs are shared with the States. Compliance reviews for AFCARS are currently being piloted and State SACWIS systems are undergoing reviews to determine the status of their operation. In FY 1999, the Department's Office of the Inspector General began auditing the child welfare GPRA measures. As these reporting systems improve, the operationalization of various outcomes has become more refined. Furthermore, as the number of jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) reporting has increased from 32 in FY1995 to 51 in FY 1999 for foster care and from 29 in FY 1995 to 52 in FY 1999 for adoption, the values of the measures change and they more accurately reflect the total population. Because of this improvement in reporting, no data prior to FY 1998 (CY 1998 for measures 7.1.a-b) is being included in examining trends.

To speed improvement in these data, the agency has awarded funds to develop and implement the National Resource Center for Information Technology in Child Welfare. This Resource Center provides technical assistance to States to improve reporting to AFCARS and NCANDS, improve statewide information systems, and better utilize their data. These activities should result in further improvements in the data over the next few years.

�

Summary Table

�

�

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (PL 105-89). Among other provisions designed to improve the child welfare system and protect children, it directs the Secretary of DHHS to consult with governors, State legislatures, and State and local public officials responsible for administering child welfare programs and develop a set of outcome measures for rating the performance of States in operating child protection and child welfare programs. (See Section on Program Coordination, Partnerships and Crosscutting Issues for a detailed description of the process.) Based on this consultation, additional close examination of each of the measures for methodological and programmatic soundness, the need to use the same measures when operationalizing the same concept in each of the major activities related to performance outcomes (the annual report, child and family services reviews, and GPRA), we made a number of changes in measures for FY (CY) 2001 as discussed below.

• Replace measures 7.1b with 7.1a--Methodologically, by using the six month time period all the data will come from one NCANDS report period resulting in usable data being available from more States. In addition, data will be available in a more timely manner. Programmatically, research has shown that most recurrences of substantiated maltreatment occurs within six months following the first substantiated report of maltreatment. Finally, this measure will now be consistent in the three major activities using performance outcomes.
• Drop measure 7.1h--This measure is being dropped because another measure, measure 7.1d operationalizes the same concept, speeding up adoptions, and is used in the other two major performance outcome activities.
• Drop measures 7.1i and 7.1j--These measures are not programmatically sound because they can be used to justify policies that are inconsistent with the best interests of minority children and in conflict with a statutory requirement. The differences in median length of stay between white and minority children can be accounted for, in part, by the more extensive use of relative care for minority children in foster care which is directly related to the number of assisted guardianships by relatives and adoptions by relatives. Because children in relative care tend to have longer lengths of stay than children in non-relative care, failure to show improvement in these measures could result in advocating the placement of minority children in non-relative care. This would not be in the best interests of children and is inconsistent with the statutory requirement (section 471(a)(19) of title IV-E of the Social Security Act) for relative preference in foster care placement and adoption.
• Drop measure 7.1k --This measure, focused on increasing adoptions by relatives, is being dropped because changing policies in several large States, including Illinois and New York, have made it less meaningful. There is wide variation among States in the use of relative foster care which is directly related to the rate of relative adoption within the public foster care system. In recent years, several large States that have heavily used relative foster care have come to recognize that many of the children in relative foster care did not need to be in foster care at all. To correct the situation, these States, which account for a large proportion of the number of children in relative foster care nationally, have simultaneously moved to encourage adoptions/guardianships by relatives and/or to prevent the inappropriate entry of children into relative care in the foster care system by providing services to children and their relative caretakers when they are not in the foster care system. Because these major changes are underway, realistic future targets for relative adoptions would be below current rates. The development of a new measure related to relative adoption that is less sensitive to policy changes in large States will be undertaken.
• Replace measure 7.1m with 7.1n--Methodologically, using a mean to measure stability in foster care placement settings decreases the ability to detect change because the denominator is so large, above 800,000. The new measure should be more sensitive to change and is also the measure used in the other two performance outcome activities.

In FY 2000, Congress passed legislation authorizing a substantial increase in funds for independent living services for foster care youth under title IV-E of the Social Security Act. These services prepare them for independent living by enhancing their education, employment and other skills to avoid dependency; and by expanding opportunities for youth to live independently while under the auspices of the public child welfare agency. This legislation requires developing and implementing outcome measures and a data collection system for this program.

Finally, in collaboration with States, Tribes, advocacy groups, foundations and others, ACF has developed new program monitoring procedures that focus on the quality of child welfare services and the outcomes for children and families. These reviews will be implemented through Federal/State partnerships. Following these reviews, States will receive immediate feedback on the extent to which their programs are achieving the stated 1.5s.

PROGRAM GOAL - SAFETY: Children are protected from abuse and neglect in their homes. The risk of harm to children will be minimized.

New

7.1b.FY 2002: Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeat substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 months from 8% in CY 1998 to 7% in CY 2002.

FY 2003: Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeat substantiated report of maltreatment within 6 months from 8% in CY 1998 to xx in CY 2003.

Data source: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

PROGRAM GOAL - PERMANENCY: Provide children foster care permanency and stability in their living situations.

7.1c.FY 2002: Of the children who exit the foster care system through reunification, maintain the percentage of children who do this within one year of placement at 67%.

FY 2003: Of the children who exit the foster care system through reunification, maintain the percentage of children who do this within one year of placement at 67%.

Data source: AFCARS

7.1d.FY 2002: Of the children who exit foster care through adoption, increase the percentage who are adopted within two years of placement from 23% in FY 1998 to 28%.

FY 2003: Of the children who exit foster care through adoption, maintain the percentage who are adopted within two years of placement at 28%.

Data source: AFCARS

These performance indicators (measures 7.1b-d and 7.1n) are reflective of a series of efforts to focus on outcomes in child welfare. They are being used in two places where they are having substantial impact on State practice. First they are being used in the Annual Child Welfare Outcomes report. This report, required under section 479b of title IV-E of the Social Security Act contains data for each State on a variety of outcome measures. In addition, these measures are being used in the Child and Family Services Reviews and failure to meet the standards associated with them can result in a State's being found not to be in substantial conformity with the State plan requirements in title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. The National Resource Centers funded by the Children's Bureau are offering technical assistance to States to help them improve the services they deliver to children and their families and to meet the State plan requirements.

7.1e.FY 2002: : Of the children who exit foster care through guardianships, maintain the percentage of children who do this within 2 years at 67%.

FY 2003: Of the children who exit foster care through guardianships, maintain the percentage of children who do this within 2 years at 67%.

Data source: AFCARS

This measure is being used in the Annual Child Welfare Outcomes report and technical assistance being provided in association with the Child and Family Services Reviews is focusing on all aspects of permanency, including guardianship. (See previous discussion under Program Activities, Strategies and Resources for more detail.) Note: Targets for both FY 2001 and 2002 are increases over actual FY 1999 performance. This measure continues to be affected by weaknesses in the data: guardianship, as a reason for discharge, has generally been under-reported and does not even exist as a discharge reason in some States.

7.1f.FY 2002: Make progress towards increasing the number of adoptions of children in the public foster care system between FY 1998 and FY 2002 by increasing adoptions from 36,000 in FY 1998 to 56,000.

FY 2003: Increase the number of adoptions to xxx.

Data source: Baselines from the Adoption Incentive Program and the Adoption 2002 Initiative for FY 1997 and AFCARS for all subsequent years.

The implementation of the termination of parental rights provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) is expected to increase the total number of adoptions of children from the foster care system. In addition, the statute created the Adoption Incentive Program that provides incentive funds to States that increase the number of finalized adoptions over the State's baseline. The National Resource Centers and Federal staff are providing technical assistance to States to help them implement both of these activities.

In FY 2001, ACF will develop a new measure for relative adoption that is not sensitive to policy changes in large States. Under specific consideration is a measure that reports the number of States that increase their relative adoptions each year. Either this measure or another that is not sensitive to policy changes in large States and that is methodologically and programmatically sound will be included in the FY 2003 performance plan. FY 2000 will be the baseline year.

PROGRAM GOAL - FAMILY AND CHILD WELL-BEING: Minimize the disruption to the continuity of family and other relationships.

New

7.1n.FY 2002: For those children who have been in care less than 12 months, increase the percentage who had no more than two placement settings from 70% in FY 1998 to 74%.

FY 2003: For those children who have been in care less than 12 months, increase the percentage who had not more than two placement settings from 70% in FY 1998 to xx%.

Data source: AFCARS

PROGRAM GOAL--PREPARE FOSTER CARE YOUTH FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING: (a) enhance the education, employment and other skills of foster care youth to avoid dependency; and (b) expand opportunities for youth to achieve self-sufficiency while under the auspices of the public child welfare agency.

In FY 2001, ACF will develop and implement the methodology to determine the baselines for the number of foster care youth receiving independent living services and/or living independently under the auspices of the public child welfare agency and develop preferred outcome measures for independent living programs. The baseline will be established for FY 2002 and the first target will be set for FY 2003.

7.2 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EDUCATION)

The DD education goal is: "Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Students with developmental disabilities have educational experiences based on their individual needs and goals and have access to an array of educational opportunities in their neighborhood schools. Parents know their rights regarding their children's education. Educators are prepared to educate all students and public policy supports appropriate education."

(See information on DD partnership process, data, and resources under Strategic 1.5 1.)

Program-wide Performance

Performance for the number of students with developmental disabilities served in more integrated /inclusive educational settings (measure 7.2a) has experienced significant increases and decreases in years prior to FY 1999. These fluctuations have been caused by the use of varying methodology from State to State and from year to year as States gained experience in making projections and collecting performance data. For that reason, FY 1999 has been selected for the baseline year. In FY 2000, Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems in all 56 States and Territories reported results (defined as 50 or more students) for a total of 10,054 students with developmental disabilities served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of P&A system intervention. This performance is consistent with FY 1999 results and exceeded the FY 2000 target by 1,300 students. P&A interventions included counseling parents on advocating for their children, negotiating better placements, counseling school systems on the rights of students with disabilities, administrative remedies, and, in extreme cases, litigation.

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Performance for this measure is affected by a number of factors including the impact of the economy on the cost of providing educational services to people with disabilities, the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for people with developmental disabilities to learn in the least restrictive environment, and funding priorities in individual States.

The above issues combined with data collection and interpretation difficulties continue to create instability in the data. ACF is providing technical assistance to State programs to improve data stability and programmatic outcomes.

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals.

Objective: Increase the number of students with disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings

7.2a FY 2002: Increase to 11,500 the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Increase to xxx the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention.

Data source: P&A annual Program Performance Report (PPR)

Because the perceived cost of providing an education in less restrictive environments is high, we have limited ability to accurately project performance. Our efforts are focused on achieving gradual improvement for this measure.

To accomplish this goal, the States work with three different program delivery approaches. The Council on Developmental Disabilities (CDD) works to create systems change within the education systems, including demonstration of more desirable models. Educational and research efforts contribute to improving public and professional opinion on education for persons with developmental disabilities involving both the Council and the Centers for Excellence/University Affiliated Programs (UAPs). Protection and Advocacy Programs have worked to ensure that the rights of students with developmental disabilities to a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment are protected.

7.3 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HEALTH)

The DD health care goal is: "Improve the health of people with developmental disabilities and increase their access to the full range of needed health care services." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Individuals with developmental disabilities and their families have access to the health care information they need to make choices. Health care for people with developmental disabilities is available, affordable, accessible, and equitable. Health care personnel are appropriately qualified to meet the health care needs of people with developmental disabilities."

(See information on DD partnership process, data, and resources under Strategic Objective 1.)

Program-wide Performance

There have been concerns with fluctuations in the data prior to FY 1998 for Performance Measure 7.3a caused by the use of varying methodology from UAP to UAP. Some of these fluctuations occurred as UAPs gained experience in making projections and collecting performance data. For that reason, FY 1998 has been selected as the baseline year. In FY 1999, UAPs reported 4,100 health care providers trained to meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities (measure 7.3a).

Summary Table

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

Performance for this measure is affected by a number of factors including the impact of the economy on the cost of providing health care generally, and especially to people with disabilities; the impact of social attitudes regarding the desirability and potential for people with developmental disabilities to benefit from full access to health care and the attitudes of health care providers toward this special needs population.

The above issues combined with difficulties in data collection and interpretation have created instability in the performance data. ACF's technical assistance to University programs has helped to improve data stability and programmatic outcomes. Performance for this measure in FY 2002 is projected to increase.

PROGRAM GOAL: Improve the health of people with developmental disabilities and increase their access to the full range of needed health care services.

Objective: Increase the number of health care providers trained to meet the health needs of people with developmental disabilities.

7.3a.FY 2002: Increase to 5,200 the number of health care providers trained to meet the health needs of people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

FY 2003: Increase to xxx the number of health care providers trained to meet the health needs of people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.

Data source: UAP annual report

This measure focuses on the access to proper health care for persons with developmental disabilities. Because so few health care professionals are aware of the special health care needs of persons with developmental disabilities, there is a significant need for training. Actual performance remains unstable, largely due to changes in allocation of training resources, but we believe there is potential for gradual improvement.

Three programs in the States combine to provide a comprehensive approach to accomplishing this target. The Council on Developmental Disabilities (CDD) works to create systems change within the health care systems, including demonstration of more desirable models. Education and research efforts strive to improve public and professional opinion on health care, involving both the Council and the Centers for Excellence/University Affiliated Programs. The University Affiliated Programs are the main providers of training to health care professionals. Protection and Advocacy Programs have worked to ensure that the rights of patients with developmental disabilities are protected.

7.4 YOUTH PROGRAMS

Program Description, Context, Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals

Legislative Intent and Broad Program Goals: The Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) Program began in 1974 in response to concern about increasing numbers of runaway youth exposed to exploitation and the dangers of street life. It has subsequently been expanded to assist homeless youth both on a short-term basis and in making the transition to independent living. Fundamental to ACF's approach to youth programs is the concept of positive youth development, which values the contributions young people can make, their strengths and abilities. This approach maintains that youth nurtured by caring adults, given opportunities to become involved in work or education that builds their skills, supported and protected during challenging times, and actively engaged in service to the community can become valuable contributors to the quality of community life.

The RHY Program, reauthorized under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1999, funds approximately 640 grants for three community-based service programs to help runaway and homeless youth: the Basic Center Program (BCP), the Transitional Living Program for Homeless Youth (TLP), and the Street Outreach Program (SOP - also known as Sexual Abuse Prevention Grants). The Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) administers the RHY programs.

In FY 2003, ACF is requesting $10 million to fund approximately 80 new Maternity Group Home applicants. These funds will provide young pregnant and parenting women with access to community-based maternity group homes through the use of targeted grants to local communities or faith-based organizations. Grantees will be providing a range of coordinated services such as childcare, education, job training, counseling and advice on parenting and life skills to young mothers. Funding for these maternity group homes will provide pregnant and parenting homeless youth access to transitional living opportunities, an alternative to the environments of violence and despair which many young pregnant mothers face and secure brighter futures for their children.

The FY 2002 appropriation for RHY programs is $88.1 million dollars. Under the statute, at least 90 percent of that amount must be spent on service grants. The balance supports a national hot line for runaways, an information clearinghouse, demonstration projects, data collection, on site program monitoring, and other support functions.

• BCP supports local youth shelters that provide emergency shelter, food, clothing, counseling, crisis intervention, and other services for runaway and homeless youth. The shelters try to help reunite youth with their families whenever appropriate and in the best interest of the youth, or arrange for alternative, appropriate and stable living situations.
• TLP was developed in response to the longer-term needs of older homeless youth (ages 16 to 21). The TLP helps such youth develop skills and resources to promote independence and prevent future dependency on social services. Housing and a range of services are provided for up to 18 months for youth unable to return to their homes.
• SOP awards additional resources to organizations serving runaway, homeless, and street youth so they may provide street-based outreach and education to support these young people and prevent their sexual abuse and exploitation.

Program Context:

The size and composition of the young homeless population varies with the economy, local and national demographics, community viability, school quality, family dynamics, and other factors. Many youth served in the RHY programs seek assistance because of problems with parental substance abuse, emotional, sexual and/or physical abuse and neglect, or other adolescent/parental relationship issues. Others are caught up in the turmoil of adolescence and need support in coping with the stresses in their lives. These factors complicate service delivery, aftercare follow-up, and achievement of desirable outcomes.

Estimates of the number of runaway and homeless youth in the U.S. vary, ranging from 500,000 to 1.5 million. The Research Triangle Institute projected that 2.8 million youth living in households in the United States reported a runaway experience during the prior year (1995). The RHY programs are able to shelter and provide face-to-face services to approximately 55,000 to 75,000 youth annually (as counted by formal enrollments in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System).

The three year RHY grants (See "Program-wide Performance" for typical amounts) generally provide only a small portion of the resources needed by grantee organizations, who blend or braid support from numerous public and private funding sources, including other federal programs. Many RHY grantees conduct fundraising among private individual, philanthropic and corporate supporters in the local community. Because these sources have their own rules and reporting requirements, this creates an administrative challenge for smaller agencies whose principal mission is service delivery. In particular, smaller RHY agencies may experience extensive professional staff turnover, have limited resources and rely primarily on volunteers.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources:

Positive Youth Development: While all too many young people are in high-risk situations such as homelessness, there is plenty of good news about America's youth. In recent years, overall trends in crime, risky behavior, drug use, and teen pregnancy have been significantly downward and trends in academic performance, volunteerism, employment, and healthy relationships with parents have been upward. (See "A Profile of America's Youth" at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/fysb/youthinfo/profile.htm.) These positive changes took place during strong economic growth and in a relatively smaller, post-baby-boom population of young people but will be difficult to sustain if the economic downturn continues straining resources, services and opportunities.

Over the past several years, FYSB has sponsored efforts to broaden and re-focus the agency's mission upon "positive youth development." This approach encourages communities to provide the settings and services needed for young persons' healthy growth and development. In many cases, problem behaviors are prevented where healthy alternatives and settings are available. The following "life and character components" are essential in the development of youth working toward a successful and productive adulthood:

• Safe and stable living situations, with access to necessities such as health promotion and treatment;
• A sense of usefulness, industry and competence, of being able to contribute and do something well;
• A sense of connectedness and belonging, of being part of a community and having relationships with caring adults; and
• A sense of power, of having control over one's fate and future.

These components are integrated into the structure of this performance plan (see "Summary Table").

If these factors are addressed at the same time as basic needs--such as safety, security, good nutrition and access to health care and other essential services--are fulfilled, young people can engage constructively in their communities and society. A brochure produced by FYSB and its partners, "Toward a Blueprint for Youth: Making Positive Youth Development a National Priority," defines positive youth development, addresses key elements, provides examples from Federal programs, and calls for a concerted effort by public and private agencies, communities, and individuals. (The brochure may be found at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/fysb/youthinfo/blueprint.htm.) For additional information, refer to the section "Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-Cutting Issues".

Program Support: The total amount of funding for FY 2001 was $84.1 million. In addition to administering (with regional office involvement) approximately $75.7 million in FY 2001 for the nationwide network of RHY grantees, soliciting and evaluating applications for funding and making awards accordingly, FYSB used another $8.4 million in FY 2001 to provide program support. The legislative formula mandates at least 90 percent of the appropriation for direct services.

FYSB's partners in the regional offices monitor RHY services to improve overall program quality and ensure the attainment of measurable results. This monitoring includes on-site visits by regional office staff (supported by trained peer reviewers) to each grantee every three years. Technical assistance and training to help improve the quality of services by grantees are provided through a network of ten organizations, one in each region operating under cooperative agreements. All grantees have access to their services.

FYSB funds the National Runaway Switchboard, a twenty-four hour, seven-day hotline staffed by trained multi-lingual counselors, who listen to and counsel youth in crisis situations and connect them with appropriate services (http://www.nrscrisisline.org/). The National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth (http://www.ncfy.com) provides extensive information and analytical resources to FYSB and the field, publishes newsletters and other documents, exhibits at conferences, and responds to inquiries. Information dissemination also takes place through websites maintained by FYSB, NCFY, the Switchboard, and the technical assistance providers.