LIHEAP Model Performance Measures--Final Version
THIS CONTAINS INFORMATION ISSUED BY THE U.S. ADMINISTRATION FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN LIHEAP INFORMATION MEMORANDUM TRANSMITTAL NO.
LIHEAP-IM-96-2, DATED 11/30/95
TO: LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP) GRANTEES
AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES
SUBJECT: LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures--Final Version
RELATED
REFERENCES: Section 2610 of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of
1981, title XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981, Public Law 97-35, as amended; the Human Services
Amendments of 1994, Public Law 103-252; Conference Report on
the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (H.Rpt. 103-497);
LIHEAP IM 95-1, dated 2/8/95, and AT-96-1, dated 10/16/95
PURPOSE: To transmit the finalized version of LIHEAP Model Performance
Goals and Measures
BACKGROUND: Under the provisions of Sec. 2605(b) of the LIHEAP statute as
amended by Sec. 311(b) of the Human Services Amendments of
1994 (Public Law 103-252), the Department of Health and Human
Services is to develop (in close consultation with state,
tribal, insular area, and local LIHEAP grantees) model LIHEAP
performance goals and measures that may be used to assess the
success of the states in achieving the purposes of LIHEAP.
The model performance goals and measurements are to be made
available by November 1995 to LIHEAP grantees to be
incorporated, at their option, into their LIHEAP plans for FY
1997.
LIHEAP IM-95-8 advised LIHEAP grantees and other interested
parties that the Office of Community Services established the
National Panel on the LIHEAP Model Performance Plan,
consisting of state, tribal, and local LIHEAP administrators
to identify possible model LIHEAP performance goals and
measures at the national level.
LIHEAP IM-95-8 also advised LIHEAP grantees and other
interested parties that the Office of Community Services
established the Local CAA LIHEAP Performance Work Group,
consisting of community action agency personnel with broad
national representation to develop and solidify a grassroots
community action perspective on performance and measurement
issues.
After substantial input from the National Panel on the LIHEAP
Model Performance Plan and the Local CAA LIHEAP Performance
Work Group and other interested parties, HHS issued LIHEAP
AT-96-1 to elicit comments from LIHEAP grantees and other
interested parties on a draft of LIHEAP model performance
goals and measures. Comments on the draft were sought prior
to HHS finalizing and making available the LIHEAP model
performance goals and measures in November 1995.
CONTENT: HHS has now finalized the LIHEAP model performance goals and
measures for use by LIHEAP grantees. The final version of
the LIHEAP model performance goals and measures is not
substantively different from the drafted version.
These model performance goals and measures are the product of
many months of work by many grantees and other individuals
and organizations involved in LIHEAP. We believe that, if
grantees select from this model the goals and measures that
best reflect the needs of their recipient populations, they
will help to ensure that their LIHEAP programs achieve
maximum effectiveness in meeting the needs of those
households which depend on them for assistance. We also
believe that using the appropriate performance measures will
allow grantees to show in concrete terms the accomplishments
that can be attributed to the LIHEAP program.
Although the use of the LIHEAP model performances goals and
measures are optional, not mandatory, at this time, the
Congress is becoming more interested in assessments of the
effectiveness of Federally-funded programs. It is important
that grantees look at the accomplishments of their programs.
In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA) and the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
(CFO), among others, also require Federal agencies to begin
to measure their performance in terms of the effects on
beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Administration strongly
supports results oriented management, and has directed
Federal agencies to increase their efforts to implement this
concept.
While the LIHEAP model performance goals and measures are
voluntary, GPRA requires OCS to report on the performance of
LIHEAP and other OCS programs by September 1997. At this
point, OCS is considering requiring LIHEAP grantees to
collect data on energy burden and possibly on percent of
recipient households with vulnerable members (i.e., the
elderly, disabled, young children) in order to comply with
GPRA.
Any questions about the LIHEAP model performance goals and
measures should be addressed to:
Leon Litow, Energy Assistance Program Specialist
Division of Energy Assistance
Office of Community Services
Administration for Children and Families, HHS
Aerospace Building - 5th Floor, West
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447
202-401-5304 (Voice)
202-401-5718 (Fax)
Internet e-mail address: llitow@acf.hhs.gov
We wish to thank those persons and organizations that
provided input and recommendations that helped us develop
these proposed model performance goals and measures. Special
thanks go out to the members of the National Panel on the
LIHEAP Model Performance Plan and the Local CAA LIHEAP
Performance Work Group, who willingly spent many long hours
laboring over these issues.
/s
Janet M. Fox
Director, Division of Energy Assistance
Office of Community Services
ATTACHMENTS: A LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures
B Glossary
C Development of LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures
D Comments on the Draft LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures ATTACHMENT A
LIHEAP Mission and Vision Statements
Mission
The mission of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is to
assist low income households, particularly those with the lowest incomes, that
pay a high proportion of household income for home energy, primarily in
meeting their immediate home energy needs. (As stated in section 2602(a) of
the LIHEAP statute.)
Vision for the Future
In assisting low income households in meeting their home energy needs, LIHEAP
will:
prevent and intervene in home energy crises through providing
energy payments, energy education, weatherization, and intervene
with energy vendors on behalf of low income households
protect health and safety
promote the highest possible level of energy self-sufficiency
facilitate the leveraging of community public and private
partnerships
assist those most in need to realize a better quality of life
through taking greater control of their lives, increasing choices,
and exercising wise management of household resources
LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures
Primary Goals
A. To target energy assistance to low income households with the
highest home energy needs, taking into account both energy burden
and vulnerable household members.
B. To increase energy affordability for LIHEAP recipient households.
Core Measures
1. The change in energy burden before and after LIHEAP assistance
within program elements (heating, cooling, crisis, and
weatherization) and, where possible, by fuel type.
2. Percent of households served which are "high need," shown on a
graduated scale.
3. Number of households for which LIHEAP assistance avoids a loss of
energy service.
4. Average LIHEAP benefit by target group (children, elderly,
disabled, and high burden), as shown on a graduated scale.
Additional Goal
C. To increase efficiency of energy usage by low-income households.
Core Measures
1. Number of LIHEAP recipient households weatherized, including
low/no-cost energy related home repair (with estimates of energy
savings to be extrapolated from units weatherized).
2. Number of LIHEAP recipient households receiving energy counseling
or education (with estimates of energy savings to be extrapolated
from households receiving energy counseling/education).
Ancillary LIHEAP Performance Measures for Primary Goal A
Primary Goal A
To target energy assistance to low income households with the highest energy
needs, taking into account both energy burden and vulnerable household
members.
Core Measures
1. The change in energy burden before and after LIHEAP assistance
within program elements (heating, cooling, crisis, and
weatherization) and, where possible, by fuel type.
2. Percent of households served which are "high need," shown on a
graduated scale.
3. Number of households for which LIHEAP assistance avoids a loss of
energy service.
4. Average LIHEAP benefit by target group (children, elderly,
disabled, and high burden), as shown on a graduated scale.
Ancillary Measures
1. Number of vulnerable households served, by program element
(heating, cooling, crisis, and weatherization).
2. Ratio of the percent of households served that are vulnerable to
the percent of eligible households that are vulnerable. To obtain
this, first divide the number of vulnerable households served by
the total number of households served. This gives the percent of
households served that were vulnerable. Second, divide the number
of eligible vulnerable households by the number of eligible
households, which gives the percent of eligible households that are
vulnerable. Finally, compare these numbers by dividing the first
number by the second number. In other words:
# vulnerable households served/# households served
# eligible vulnerable households/# eligible households
For example, if a program served 1,000 households (# households
served) last year, and 600 of them met the criteria for
vulnerability (# vulnerable)
Ancillary Measures for Primary Goal A - continued
households served), then the numerator, or top figure would be
600/1000, or 60% (represented as .60). This means that 60% of the
households served were vulnerable.
This number is then compared to the percent of the eligible
households that were vulnerable. For example, say there were 2,000
households eligible for assistance (# eligible households) last
year in an area, and that of them, 800 met the criteria for
vulnerability (# eligible vulnerable households). To find the
denominator (bottom number) of the ratio, divide 800 by 2000 and
find that 40% (represented as .40) of the eligible households were
vulnerable.
Finally, compare these two numbers by dividing the first by the
second, .60/.40, which produces a result of 1.5. Any figure
greater than 1 means that a greater proportion of those served were
vulnerable than in the eligible population, which means that a
program has effectively targeted vulnerable households.
3. Number of referrals to other programs/services.
4. Ratio of highest consumption units weatherized to all low-income
units weatherized.
5. Change in the number of LIHEAP recipients making regular payments
to energy suppliers (improved credit history).
6. Change in the number of repeat LIHEAP households requiring intense
targeting for regular assistance or crisis intervention.
7. Change in number of repeat requests for regular LIHEAP assistance
in consecutive years.
8. Change in rate of homelessness.
9. The number of LIHEAP recipients who consider their energy bills to
be affordable (as measured by participation in customer survey).
Ancillary LIHEAP Performance Measures for Primary Goal B
Primary Goal B
To increase energy affordability for LIHEAP recipient households.
Core Measures
1. The change in energy burden before and after LIHEAP assistance
within program elements (heating, cooling, crisis, and
weatherization) and, where possible, by fuel type.
2. Percent of households served which are "high need," shown on a
graduated scale.
3. Number of households for which LIHEAP assistance avoids a loss of
energy service.
4. Average LIHEAP benefit by target group (children, elderly,
disabled, and high burden), as shown on a graduated scale.
Ancillary Measures
1. Change in the number of LIHEAP recipient households in arrearage.
2. Average amount of arrearage of LIHEAP recipient households.
3. Change in energy consumption before and after LIHEAP conservation
assistance.
4. Number of referrals to other programs/services.
5. Value of energy assistance resources leveraged.
6. Change in the number of households participating in vendor
sponsored low-income programs.
7. Change in the number of increased fuel vendors' actively
participating in designing and implementing low-income fuel
assistance programs.
8. Change in the number of low-income advocacy groups participating in
the regulatory and rate setting process.
9. Change in the number of states requiring fuel companies benefiting
from LIHEAP to develop special low-income programs.
Ancillary Measures for Primary Goal B - continued
10. Change in the number of LIHEAP recipients making regular payments
to energy suppliers (improved credit history).
11. Change in the amount of collections costs for utilities.
12. Change in the number of repeat LIHEAP households requiring intense
targeting for regular assistance or crisis intervention.
13. Change in the number of repeat LIHEAP household requests for
regular assistance in consecutive years.
14. The number of LIHEAP recipients who consider their energy bills to
be affordable (as measured by participation in customer survey).
Ancillary Measures for Additional Goal C
Additional Goal C
To increase efficiency of energy usage by low-income households.
Core Measures
1. Number of LIHEAP recipient households weatherized, including
low/no-cost energy related home repair (with estimates of energy
savings to be extrapolated from units weatherized).
2. Number of LIHEAP recipient households receiving energy counseling
or education (with estimates of energy savings to be extrapolated
from households receiving energy counseling/education).
Ancillary Measures
1. Estimates of energy savings extrapolated from the number of units
weatherized.
2. Change in energy consumption before and after LIHEAP weatherization
and/or energy counseling assistance.
3. Number of referrals to other programs/services.
4. Number of energy education sessions and number of households
served.
5. Change in the number of LIHEAP clients practicing effective energy
conservation (obtained by client survey).
6. Ratio of highest consumption units weatherized to all low-income
units weatherized.
7. Change in energy burden (weather and income normalized).
8. Change in number of LIHEAP recipients making regular payments to
energy suppliers (improved credit history).
9. Change in the number of repeat LIHEAP households requiring intense
targeting for regular assistance or crisis intervention.
10. Change in the number of repeat LIHEAP household requests for
regular assistance in consecutive years.
11. The number of LIHEAP recipients who consider themselves to be more
self-sufficient (as measured by participation in customer survey).
ATTACHMENT B
Glossary
Affordability to have the financial capacity to meet an obligation.
CFO Act Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990
Energy Burden expenditures of the household for energy divided by the
income of the household.
Energy Education the process whereby individuals and households learn to make
choices to use energy efficiently, improve their indoor
comfort, and become aware of how their behavior affects
energy consumption, energy cost, and health and safety
within their homes.
Energy Need the home energy requirements of a household determined by
taking into account both the energy burden of such a
household and the unique situation of the household that
results from having members of vulnerable populations,
including very young children, individuals with disabilities
and frail older individuals.
Goal a statement of the broad results, outcomes or impacts sought
for program customers.
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
Home Energy a source of heating or cooling in residential dwellings.
Household any individual or group of individuals who are living
together as one economic unit for whom residential energy is
customarily purchased in common or who make undesignated
payments for energy in the form of rent.
Inputs the resources a program makes available to carry out its
activities (e.g., the amount of money spent on
weatherization of homes).
Leveraging obtaining additional non-federal resources to help
low-income households meet their energy assistance needs
Measure quantifiable information that is chosen to assess and
describe program success or failure.
Mission a statement of the purpose(s) for which a program was
created.
Outcome a measure of the program's result or effect on its
customers. Outcome measurements may cover activities that
are largely under the control of program managers, or they
may extend to an even broader set of measures (often called
measures of impact) representing results that the program
may influence but does not achieve on its own (e.g., a
reduction in the amount of energy used as a result of
weatherizing a home).
Output a measure of the product(s) and/or activities of a program
(e.g., the number of homes weatherized).
Panel the National Panel on the LIHEAP Model Performance Plan,
which was established to develop recommendations of possible
model LIHEAP program goals and performance measures at the
national level.
Performance a process for determining if a program is successful, as
Measurement measured by expected outcomes and/or outputs.
Targeting focusing assistance to households with the highest home
energy needs.
Vision a statement of a preferred future that spells out the
conditions and quality of life to be achieved by a program's
customers.
Vulnerable a sub-category of LIHEAP eligible households that includes
those with members who are disabled, are children, are
elderly, and/or have other characteristics that make them
especially subject to adverse effects resulting from heat or
cold.
Weatherization in the LIHEAP program, this refers to low-cost residential
weatherization and other cost-effective energy-related home
repair.
Work Group the Community Action Agency LIHEAP Performance Measures Work
Group, which was established to provide the Panel with a
grassroots community action perspective on LIHEAP
performance goals and measures.
ATTACHMENT C
Development of LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures
Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community Services
Administration for Children and Families, HHS
November 1995
Introduction
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), originally authorized
by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, is administered by the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and within HHS, through the
Administration for Children and Families' Office of Community Services (OCS).
Under 1994 amendments to the LIHEAP statute, HHS is required to develop LIHEAP
model performance goals and measures, after consultation with grantees and
subgrantees. Grantees may incorporate the model performance goals, at their
option, in their LIHEAP programs for fiscal year 1997, to measure their
success in achieving the purposes of the program.
In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and the
Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO), among others, also require Federal
agencies to begin to measure their performance in terms of the effects on
beneficiaries. Furthermore, the Administration strongly supports
results-oriented management, and has directed Federal agencies to increase
their efforts to implement this concept.
The LIHEAP statutory amendments specify that the performance goals and
measures are to be optional, not mandatory. During the development process,
it was decided to develop a model with an array of goals and measures in order
to cover several different program designs, while recognizing LIHEAP grantees
would not be expected to adopt all of the goals and measures for their
programs. Because LIHEAP is a block grant program, each grantee designs its
own program to meet the needs of its own citizens, within very broad Federal
guidelines. Each grantee's program tends to differ in at least some aspects
from other grantees. Accordingly, it is intended that grantees will select
those goals and measures that are relevant to their own program, possibly even
revising or adding to the goals and measures to meet their own needs.
We wish to thank those persons and organizations that provided input and
recommendations that helped us develop these proposed model performance goals
and measures. Special thanks go out to the members of the National Panel on
the LIHEAP Model Performance Plan and the Community Action Agency LIHEAP
Performance Measures Work Group, who willingly spent many long hours laboring
over these issues.
A summary of the statutory requirements and policy guidelines leading up to
the development of the LIHEAP model performance goals and measures and a
description of the process used to develop them follows.
Questions about the LIHEAP model performance goals and measures should be
addressed to:
Leon Litow, Energy Assistance Program Specialist
Division of Energy Assistance
Office of Community Services
Administration for Children and Families, HHS
Aerospace Building - 5th Floor, West
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20447
202-401-5304 (Voice)
202-401-5718 (Fax)
OCS BBS LIHEAP e-mail address: Llitow
Internet e-mail address: llitow@acf.hhs.gov
Statutory and Policy Basis for Results-Oriented Management
LIHEAP Statutory Requirements
Title III of the Human Services Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-252)
reauthorized LIHEAP through FY 1999. Under the provisions of Sec. 2605(b) of
the LIHEAP statute, as amended by Sec. 311(b) of the Human Services Amendments
of 1994, HHS is required to:
develop LIHEAP model performance goals and measures that LIHEAP grantees
may use to assess their success in achieving the purposes of LIHEAP;
consult closely with state, territorial, tribal, and local LIHEAP grantees
in developing the LIHEAP model performance goals and measures; and
make the model performance goals and measures available by November 1995
in order for LIHEAP grantees to incorporate any of the elements of the
model, at their option, into their LIHEAP plans for FY 1997.
Managing for Results
Two important management concepts are becoming increasingly prominent and will
affect the way public programs do business and measure their success in the
future - a focus on results (i.e., the effect or impact of a program on its
ultimate beneficiaries) and active involvement in program development and
assessment by the program's customers. These concepts are endorsed and
promoted by the Administration and are integral to several statutes, including
the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO) and the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).
In the past, much of the focus on measuring success has been on the effort
expended and resources dedicated to a program by a government agency (what are
known as "inputs") and on the number of beneficiaries assisted (the "output"),
rather than on the effect the program has on the beneficiaries (the "outcome"
or "impact"). Recently, consensus has been reached that input and output
measures do not necessarily indicate success, if the assistance offered is not
helpful to the person or entity receiving it. For this reason, there is
increased emphasis on looking at the effect programs have on their recipients
in order to measure their success.
Accordingly, there is now general agreement that programs must determine and
describe the outcomes they expect to achieve, i.e., they must manage for
results. Instead of focusing exclusively on inputs and program activities,
programs need to concentrate on the program's impact on people. As a
consequence, there is a growing emphasis on "customers" - defining who they
are, learning what their needs and expectations are, and using this
information to design and manage programs. Taken together, these priorities
require programs to state goals and objectives in term of outcomes - how
customers will be affected.
A key aspect of the CFO Act is the requirement that programs need to develop
results-oriented measures of success (or failure) and report each year on
progress achieved on those measures.
The GPRA applies to all Federally-funded programs, and the concept of
measuring and reporting on outcomes is integral to its requirements. Under
GPRA, by September 1997 all Federal programs will need to:
produce strategic plans which describe their long range, outcome-oriented
goals and objectives;
submit their first annual performance plan which indicates the performance
levels they expect to achieve in the coming fiscal year - that is, the
progress toward the long-range goals that are expected; and
submit, six months after the fiscal year, an annual report on performance
achieved during the fiscal year, compared to the expected levels.
Results-oriented management, as exemplified by the GPRA approach, is strongly
endorsed by Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR). The NPR
supports full implementation of GPRA and the immediate integration of
results-oriented performance measurement into program operations and budget
formulation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has initiated efforts
to have programs provide more performance information (i.e., goals,
objectives, performance indicators) with their budget requests. Although GPRA
requires that this be done as part of the FY 1999 budget process, OMB has
accelerated the process to the FY 1998 budget for most programs. (Agencies
generally must submit their proposed FY 1998 budget requests to OMB by
September 1996).
The Administration for Children and Families is currently moving forward to
establish performance measures and outcome-based accountability for many of
its programs. Within OCS, the National CSBG Monitoring and Assessment Task
Force was established in August 1994 to develop a results/outcome-oriented
monitoring and assessment approach for the Community Services Network. Task
Force members include a broad representation of state and local Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG) grantees, some of whom also administer the LIHEAP
program. The Task Force has developed six broad, results-oriented goals for
state and local agencies that administer the CSBG program. One goal involves
improving the conditions in which low-income people live. A LIHEAP
performance measure is to be included under this goal.
Development of LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures
Consultative Process
As previously noted, HHS is to develop LIHEAP model performance goals and
measures in close consultation with state, territorial, tribal, and local
LIHEAP grantees. OCS initiated the consultative process by presenting a
session on LIHEAP performance goals and measures at its National Workshop for
LIHEAP Grantees held on October 16-17, 1994. OCS then held a meeting with
members of the Performance Measures Work Group which was established by the
National Energy Assistance Directors' Association (NEADA - representing the
state LIHEAP directors) on October 18, 1994.
OCS already had made existing grants to the National Association for State
Community Services Programs (NASCSP) and the National Association of Community
Action Agencies (NACAA), in conjunction with the Economic Opportunity Research
Institute (EORI), to help develop a results/outcome-oriented monitoring and
assessment approach for the Community Services Network. OCS extended these
existing grants to provide assistance in getting input from grantees and
interested parties on the development of the LIHEAP model goals and measures.
Under the grant to NASCSP, a National Panel on the LIHEAP Model Performance
Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Panel") was established to develop
recommendations for model LIHEAP program goals and performance measures at the
national level. The 12-member Panel consisted of state and local LIHEAP
administrators who operate the program through the community action agencies,
as well as state and local LIHEAP administrators from programs operated
through welfare offices, and the Indian tribal organizations). The Panel met
on December 12, 1994 (see LIHEAP IM 95-8 for a summary of the meeting), April
10-11, 1995 (LIHEAP IM-95-18), and June 22-23, 1995 (LIHEAP IM-95-25). In
addition, NASCSP's grant funded the Economic Opportunity Research Institute
(EORI) to produce an in-depth evaluation of possible performance goals,
measures and resources available to state grantees and local agencies involved
with LIHEAP. EORI's work product included recommendations on data that are
readily available to measure progress under the goals and measures.
Under the grant to NACAA, a Community Action Agency LIHEAP Performance
Measures Work Group (hereafter referred to as the "Work Group") was also
established to provide the Panel with a grassroots community action
perspective on LIHEAP performance goals and measures. The Work Group
consisted of 10 local community action agency LIHEAP administrators. The Work
Group met on February 17, 1995 (see LIHEAP IM-95-13), March 31, 1995 (LIHEAP
IM-95-17), and May 12, 1995 (LIHEAP IM-95-19). In addition, NACAA's grant
funded regional training programs to orient and prepare local LIHEAP providers
in implementing performance measures and funded the development of a technical
assistance manual on performance measures.
The Panel and Work Group have shared with each other their work products from
their meetings. Also, several representatives of the Work Group met with the
Panel on June 22, 1995.
As part of its consultative process, OCS circulated the minutes and materials
from the meetings of the Panel and Work Group to LIHEAP grantees and other
interested parties for review and comment. Interested parties were invited to
make oral or written presentations to the Panel at its April 1995 meeting.
OCS also circulated several position papers prepared by NEADA in response to
the work of the Panel and letters sent by several state and local LIHEAP
administrators. Sessions on model LIHEAP performance measures and goals were
held at several conferences attended by OCS staff.
Panel and Work Group Recommendations
The Work Group reported its recommended LIHEAP model performance goals and
measures to HHS in May 1995. The Panel reported its recommendations to HHS in
August 1995. At the final meeting of the Panel in June, members of the Work
Group shared their perspectives on the model goals and measures with the Panel
prior to the Panel making its final recommendations to HHS.
For the most part, the two reports present similar recommendations as to the
mission statement and a number of goals and measures. However, there are some
differences. Specifically, the Work Group developed a broader vision
statement than the Panel. The Panel recommended a total of three goals, two
of which are entitled Primary Goals and one Additional Goal. The Panel felt
that the Primary Goals, dealing with targeting LIHEAP assistance to those most
in need and making energy more affordable, were the essence of the LIHEAP
program and were inherent characteristics of all LIHEAP programs. The Panel's
Additional Goal deal with increasing the efficiency of energy usage by low
income households. The Panel felt that this goal was more appropriate for
those LIHEAP grantees that operate weatherization or energy conservation
education programs, and that not all grantees do so. The Panel also
recommended "core measures" and "ancillary measures" for each of its goals.
The Work Group developed a broader vision statement and also two additional
goals covering the areas of health and safety and self-sufficiency, for a
total of five goals, with recommended measures for each. Although the Panel
initially developed goals similar to the two additional ones recommended by
the Work Group, the Panel decided to delete them due to limitations in LIHEAP
funding and to problems in measuring their results, especially in being able
to attribute the results to the effects of LIHEAP, rather than the effects of
other conditions such as the general economic outlook. Instead, the Panel
incorporated the two goals into its vision statement.
Throughout their deliberations, both the Panel and Work Group were very
concerned about the financial burden that would be put on grantees in
collecting, measuring and analyzing their performance. The goals and measures
they recommend reflect this concern. Many goals and measures that were
initially suggested were later dropped because it was felt that the data would
not be available at all or would only be available through costly data
collection efforts. Some of the ancillary measures recommended by the Panel
fit in this category. It was felt that many grantees would not have the data
or be able to collect it easily for some of the measures, while a few grantees
may have special circumstances that allow them to do so. For this reason, the
Panel decided not to make them core measures.
Overall, we believe the Panel's goals and measures address essentially the
same issues as the Work Group's goals and measures. The main differences are
in the way the goals are worded and structured. The Panel chose to combine
some goals that the Work Group decided to list separately. In addition, the
Work Group suggested some additional measures. In general, however, the
substance covered by both sets of recommendations are essentially the same,
with the exception that the Work Group focused on general self-sufficiency of
recipient households, while the Panel decided that LIHEAP should only be
expected to deal with energy self-sufficiency. Both the Panel and the Work
Group representatives who attended the first day of the Panel's meeting in
June agreed that they would like to see only one set of recommendations made
to HHS.
We greatly appreciate the efforts of the Panel and the Work Group in
identifying and describing the essential elements of model performance goals
and measures for the LIHEAP program. Their efforts made our work easier.
LIHEAP Model Performance Goals and Measures
OCS has relied upon the important input of the Panel and Work Group in
developing HHS' proposed model performance goals and measures. With some
wording modifications to improve clarity, OCS incorporates the Panel's primary
goals, its additional goal, and its core and ancillary measures. In addition,
we have incorporated under the ancillary measures for the Panel's recommended
goals, pertinent Work Group measures that did not appear to be covered by the
Panel's recommendations, including measures from the Work Group's two
additional goals on health and safety and self-sufficiency.
We retained the Panel's emphasis on energy self-sufficiency, rather than
adopting the Work Group's recommendation to deal with total self-sufficiency.
While we agree that self-sufficiency of a household in all aspects of its life
is desirable, it is not fair to expect LIHEAP to achieve that. To do so would
impose unrealistic expectations on LIHEAP in measuring its performance.
Finally, the Panel's vision statement has been expanded to incorporate
elements of the Work Group's vision statement.
We have specified two primary goals and one additional goal for LIHEAP.
Primary goals are those goals that appear to be central to the operation of
LIHEAP. The two primary goals relate to the targeting of energy assistance to
those most in need and to increasing energy affordability for LIHEAP
recipients. The third goal relates to increasing efficiency of energy usage.
Each of the three program goals include core measures that relate directly to
the goals and that we believe many grantees will be able to measure. In
addition, there are a number of ancillary measures for which data may not be
available for all households in all states, but which provide additional
pictures of program performance and for which data may be available.
The drafted model performance goals and measures were discussed at OCS'
National Workshop for LIHEAP Grantees held on October 30-31, 1995. In
addition, several written comments were received in response to OCS' request
of LIHEAP grantees and other interested parties for comments on the draft of
LIHEAP model performance goals and measures (LIHEAP AT-96-1).[1]
The final version of the LIHEAP model performance goals and measures is not
substantively different from the drafted version. After considering the
written comments and comments made at the October 1995 National LIHEAP
Workshop, we have made the following changes to the draft of the LIHEAP model
performance goals and measures:
---------------
[1] LIHEAP AT-96-1 transmitted the draft of this report along with
appendices which included the membership lists and final reports of the
National Panel and the Work Group.1. The vision statement on page A-1 has been clarified concerning
intervention with energy vendors and leveraging of community and private
partnerships.
2. Ancillary measure # 7 on page A-5 has been expanded to refer to low-income
fuel assistance programs.
Considerations
The recommended LIHEAP model performance goals and measures are based on the
following considerations:
1. The goals and measures are not mandatory. They are models that grantees
may use to assess their success in achieving the purposes of LIHEAP. At
their option, grantees may pick and choose which performance goals and
measures are applicable to their particular program.
2. HHS' approval will not be required of goals and measures incorporated into
a grantee's program plan.
3. The goals and measures are intentionally broad and flexible to accommodate
the wide variety of priorities and approaches found among the states,
Indian tribes, territories, and local administering agencies.
4. Grantees will have the flexibility to develop specific performance goals
and measures that best capture the impact of LIHEAP in their state or
locality.
5. Grantees will be able to establish benchmarks against which they can judge
their own success as a mechanism for self-evaluation.
6. A grantee's success in achieving a performance goal may be influenced by
factors beyond the grantee's control, e.g., an increase in the
unemployment rate or an unusually cold winter or hot summer. Grantees are
encouraged to report on such background factors in describing the
environment under which their programs are operating.
7. Additional data collection and analysis may present a burden for many
grantees as there are no federal funds specifically allocated for this
purpose.
8. Although a glossary of basic terms has been developed, some terms are not
defined, such as what constitutes "high" energy burden or energy
self-sufficiency. This allows grantees the flexibility under the block
grant to set their own standards.
9. HHS does not expect to aggregate the LIHEAP model performance measure
data, given that the performance goals and measures are optional and
definitions may not be uniform across grantees.
10. HHS recognizes that grantees may need to receive training and technical
assistance in implementing LIHEAP model performance goals and measures.
Implementation of GPRA
While the LIHEAP model performance goals and measures are voluntary, GPRA
requires OCS to report on the performance for LIHEAP and other OCS programs
for the FY 1999 process. As noted previously, OMB has accelerated this to the
FY 1998 budget process. At this point, we are considering requiring LIHEAP
grantees to collect data on LIHEAP recipient households' energy burden, and
possibly on the percent of LIHEAP recipient households with vulnerable members
(i.e., the elderly, disabled, or young children) in order to comply with GPRA.
Thank You
We again wish to express our deep appreciation for the help given to us in
developing these LIHEAP model performance goals and measures. We especially
wish to thank the members of the National Panel on the LIHEAP Model
Performance Plan and the members of the Community Action Agency LIHEAP
Performance Measures Work Group. These two groups spent many hours examining
the issues involved in developing the performance goals and measures. We
could not have done this without them. We also would like to thank all those
organizations and individuals who took the time to read the material we
circulated and to give us comments and suggestions. Your input made our
product much better than it would otherwise have been.
ATTACHMENT D
Written Comments Concerning the Drafted LIHEAP Model Mission
and Vision Statements, and Performance Goals and Measures
(Not Included in Electronic File)
Attached are written comments received from the following organizations:
1. Community Action Services
2. The Human Development Corporation
3. Virginia LIHEAP Office
4. National Energy Assistance Directors' Association
