Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

Part II: Program Description and Performance Analysis

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: INCREASE THE HEALTH AND PROSPERITY OF COMMUNITIES AND TRIBES

RATIONALE

Strong neighborhoods and communities provide positive, healthy environments for children and families. ACF achieves its goal of increasing the health and prosperity of communities and Tribes by strengthening local community partnerships, improving civic participation, and working with Tribes and Native American communities to build capacity and infrastructure for social and economic development.

ACF supports a variety of activities in its community-based programs. These include strategies to create jobs in economically disadvantaged communities, help communities develop comprehensive service networks for supporting local residents, empower residents to leverage local assets and to assist communities in their efforts to respond to energy emergencies, and prevent family violence.

An increase of $52.3 million for the compassion capital fund will provide increased funding to assist small, grassroots faith-based, and community organizations to access funding from varied sources.

An increase of $12 million will provide additional funding for LIHEAP grantees and facilitate the review of best practices, strengths, and areas for improvement.

OBJECTIVES AND MAJOR PROGRAM AREAS

7. Build healthy, safe and supportive communities and Tribes
   Community Services Block Grant
   Family Violence Prevention Program
   Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
   Native Americans Programs
   Developmental Disabilities Programs

7.      BUILD HEALTHY, SAFE, AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES AND TRIBES

Approach for the Strategic Objective: Strengthen local communities through community partnerships and improving civic participation; increase community development investments so that families can lead healthy, safe, and productive lives; and work with Tribes and Native American communities to develop strategies and programs to promote social and economic development and self-sufficiency.

Faith-based and Community Initiative: The Compassion Capital Fund, a key part of the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative, was established to provide funds targeted to assist small, grassroots faith-based and community organizations. In FY 2002, ACF awarded nearly $25 million to 21 intermediary organizations that will help smaller faith-based and grassroots organizations operate and manage their programs more effectively, access funding from varied sources, develop and train staff, expand the types and reach of social service programs in their communities, and replicate promising programs.

In addition to providing technical assistance, these intermediary groups will issue sub-awards directly to targeted faith- and community-based organizations to expand or fully implement promising or best practices. Priority for sub-awards is expected to be given to organizations that focus on homelessness, hunger, at-risk children, transition from welfare to work, and those in need of intensive rehabilitation, such as addicts or prisoners. To encourage organizations to work in partnership with the Federal government, intermediary organizations were expected to provide at least 50 percent of the amount of Federal funds requested (i.e., one-third of the proposed total budget).

Approximately $2 million was awarded to establish the Compassion Capital Fund National Resource Center. The National Resource Center is working with intermediary organizations to ensure that faith- and community-based organizations receive effective and appropriate technical assistance, and is developing a comprehensive plan to oversee and coordinate the work of intermediary organizations that receive Federal funding. In addition, the National Resource Center is developing and maintaining a clearinghouse and Website that provide a wide array of information useful to intermediary organizations and faith-based and community organizations, such as "best practices" on meeting the needs of individuals and families, and information on program outcomes and effectiveness. It is developing manuals on specific topics that will assist intermediary organizations and the faith-based and community organizations they serve.

Approximately $1.6 million was awarded to support research on the services and best practices of intermediary organizations and the faith-based and community organizations they serve. Approximately $1 million was awarded to four organizations to support short-term research projects that will contribute to the knowledge base regarding roles and promising approaches by diverse types of faith- and community-based organizations.

As part of the faith- and community-based management improvement initiative, ACF initially proposed tracking the number of applications received in FY 2002, increasing outreach efforts, assessing the quality of applications and providing a technical assistance plan for four discretionary grant programs in four program activity areas: Urban and Rural Community Economic Development, Assets for Independence, Adoption Opportunities, and Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs. Because ACF was unable to track increases in applications received from these organizations, ACF proposed establishing a baseline indicating the percent of grants approved in FY 2001 for faith- and community-based organizations (FBOs and CBOs) in four selected program areas.

PERFORMANCE MEASURE FOR FY 2001

Developmental Input Indicator	Programs	FY 2001 (baseline)
The percentage of faith- and community-based organizations funded by selected discretionary grant programs.	Urban/Rural Com. Econ. Dev.	100%*
	Assets for Independence	90%**
	Adoption Opportunities	50%***
	Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs	100%****
* Legislation requires that all grantees must be Community Development Corporations (CDCs). (back) ** Eight of the 81 grantees are county or city governments; the remainder are CBOs and FBOs. (back) *** Of the 67 grantees, 33 are faith-and community based; 32 are state, city, and county grantees; and 2 are university grantees. (back) **** All 634 grantees are faith-and community based. (back)

 

Since FBOs and CBOs are currently the primary (between 90 percent and 100 percent) recipients of discretionary grant funds in three of the four selected areas, ACF determined this was not a meaningful measure for improving performance. However, a voluntary survey instrument that would be an addendum to standard grant application forms and would provide additional information about applicant organizations has been developed and is under review at OMB. If approved by OMB and used by ACF, this instrument, the Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants, will allow ACF to obtain substantially more specific information about the types of organizations seeking funding, including whether or not the applicant is a faith-based/religious organization, the size of the organization, and whether the organization has received other government funding.

7.1      COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

Total Program Resources for Community Services Programs

Request, Full Costs, & Annual Measures ($ in millions)	FY 2003	FY 2004	FY 2005
Budget Request (Program Level)	$744.5	$754.3	$627.4
Estimated Full Cost	$750.0	$760.1	$633.6
Program Goal: Reduce poverty conditions Incorporates measure: FY 2003: 7.1b; FY 2004-2005: 7.1a	$525.0	$532.1	$443.5

* The distribution of full costs to performance measures may not equal the full cost of the performance program area.

ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY EXPLANATION: Performance measures represent 70% of full cost of program. Efforts related to achieving other national indicators of community action performance were not included.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT

The purpose of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program is to assist states and local communities to reduce poverty, revitalize low-income communities, and empower low-income families and individuals to become more self-sufficient. Ninety percent of the CSBG funds pass through states to local eligible entities, most of which are Community Action Agencies (CAAs). Based on local needs assessments, local agencies use CSBG funds to leverage resources to coordinate and develop programs filling gaps in their community service system with a wide variety of programs, services, and activities to address the causes and conditions of poverty.

CSBG provides the core funding to communities to plan, assess, and develop the capacity to address the local unique causes and conditions of poverty. The CSBG statute requires the broadening of the resource base of programs to influence the quantity and quality of opportunities and services for the poor. Therefore, important measures of the capacity of states and localities to carry out this program include their ability to increase the amount of non-Federal dollars that combat poverty and reduce the conditions of poverty for individuals and families.

Program Partnerships

ACF, in administering the community services program, works with its partners in the Community Services Network to develop plans and techniques based on a performance management model: the Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA). ROMA requires that measures of success be developed for a broad array of programs and include one or more of the national goals of the Community Services Network. The Community Services Network is comprised of community-based programs and partnerships including Community Action Agencies and other agencies eligible for funding under the CSBG that promote self-sufficiency and vibrant, healthy communities for low-income people.

The following are the ROMA goals, one of which deals specifically with partnerships:

• Low-income people become more self-sufficient;
• Conditions in which low-income people live are improved;
• Low-income people own a stake in their community;
• Partnerships among supporters and providers of services to low-income people are achieved;
• Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results; and
• Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and other supportive systems.

Program Performance Table

Performance Measures	Targets	Actual Performance	Reference (Relevant strategic goal in the HHS Strategic Plan)
STRATEGIC LONG-TERM GOAL: Reduce poverty conditions for low-income individuals, families and communities
7.1a. Reduce the number of conditions of poverty among low-income individuals, families, and communities as a result of community action interventions.(Developmental)[O] % of Full Costs FY 2004: 70% FY 2005: 70% OTHER: 30% (Includes efforts related to achieving other national indicators of community action performance.)	FY 05: FY 04: NA	FY 05: FY 04: Baseline	HHS 6.4
PROGRAM GOAL: Ensure that low-income people have a stake in their community
7.1b. Increase over the previous year the number of volunteer hours contributed by CSBG consumers in one or more community groups (in million of hours).	FY 04: Dropped FY 03: 30.07 FY 02: 29.48 FY 01: 27.7 FY 00: 28.9 FY 99: 28.6	FY 03: 7/04 FY 02: 40.51 FY 01: 32.00 FY 00: 30.7 FY 99: 27.46 FY 98: 26.86 FY 97: 27.0 FY 96: 28.06
PROGRAM GOAL: Community conditions in which low-income people live are improved.
7.1c. Increase in the amount of non-Federal dollars mobilized and coordinated to combat local conditions that keep people in poverty per $1,000 of CSBG block grant dollars expended to support core state and local CSBG network activities. [E]	FY 05: FY 04:	FY 05: FY 04:	HHS 6.4 EFFICIENCY MEASURE
Former Measure: Increase over the previous year’s target, the amount of non-Federal resources brought into low-income communities by the Community Services Network (in billions of leveraged non-Federal funds).	FY 03: $1.7 FY 02: $1.68 FY 01: $1.66 FY 00: $1.38 FY 99: $1.36	FY 03: 7/04 FY 02: $2.68 FY 01: $2.55 FY 00: $1.83 FY 99: $1.92 FY 98: $1.64 FY 97: $1.26 FY 96: $1.20
Total Funding for CSBG only (dollars in millions) See detailed Budget Linkage Table in Appendix A-12 for line items included in funding totals.	FY 05: $494.9 FY 04: $641.9 FY 03: $645.8 FY 02: $649.9 FY 01: $599.9 FY 00: $527.6 FY 99: $499.8

Data Issues

Data collected by the CSBG Information System (CSBG/IS) survey administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP) includes both statistical and performance data. OCS and NASCSP have worked to ensure that the survey captures the required information. The CSBG Block Grant allows states to have differing program years; this creates a substantial time lag in preparing annual reports. In order to improve the timeliness and accuracy of these reports, ASCSP and OCS are providing states better survey tools and reporting processes. Over the past two years, the time lag in reporting has decreased by six months.

Technology continues to be a major concern for states and local agencies in providing quality data collection and reporting. Some local small agencies, whose funds are primarily dedicated to providing services, view the development and investment in technology as a secondary concern. In order to track outcomes for families and clients over longer periods, much of the technical assistance provided by OCS and the states in the past several years has been directed to help states and agencies to meet this challenge.

Summary of Program Performance

Beginning in FY 1999, the CSBG program has successfully used leveraging resources and increasing volunteer hours as key measures. ACF exceeded the targets for both of these measures. Preliminary data for FY 2003 indicate that performance is increasing for both measures.

A four-year (1994-97) trend analysis of local networks' resources revealed a decline in non-CSBG resources, largely due to the elimination or reduction of Federal funding in discretionary domestic programs for low-income individuals and communities. Many programs, historically administered by CAAs and other community-based organizations, were eliminated while others were drastically reduced. The steady growth in resources in all other sectors kept the network from losing its capacity to respond to the needs of the low-income community. The Monitoring and Assessment Task Force selected non-Federal resources to indicate that these resources are critical for survival.

OCS began a ten-year strategy to revitalize service delivery through the use of outcome measurement. This effort began at the local level and included both state and Federal levels. Between FY 1999 and FY 2002, states and agencies developed and tested a menu of performance measures that assessed affects low-income families and communities. The ten-year plan included refinement of a menu of measures that would provide a comprehensive description of outcome results to be achieved. This resulted in the development of 13 national performance indicators which support the six national ROMA goals and will facilitate the 1,000 diverse community action agencies ability to present a more uniform and coherent national picture of their work and accomplishments.

Measure by Measure Presentation of Performance

STRATEGIC LONG TERM GOAL: Reduce poverty conditions for low-income individuals, families and communities

FY 2004-2005 Plan
7.1a.	Reduce the number of conditions of poverty among low-income individuals, families, and communities as a result of community action interventions. Data Source: State Annual CSBG Reports.

This new measure will track the impact of several of the thirteen national performance indicators on the lives low-income individuals, families, and communities. Each indicator includes specific quantifiable achievements (subcategories) that can be directly related to reducing conditions of poverty, e.g. gainful employment, obtaining safe and stable housing, and the creation of accessible “living wage” jobs in the community. To improve accountability and to help ensure that the national indicators are fully implemented, the Department is submitting legislative proposals for reauthorization of the CSBG Act that will strengthen a state’s ability to collect data for these indicators from local eligible entities and, replace an agency not sufficiently performing with a faith or community-based organization.

PROGRAM GOAL - Ensure that low-income people have a stake in their community.

FY 2003 Plan
7.1b.	Increase over the previous year the number of volunteer hours contributed by CSBG consumers in one or more community groups (in millions of hours). Data Source: State Annual CSBGeports.

This measure has been important because it is an indicator of the CSBG network's ability to increase its capacity to achieve results. Attracting volunteers builds the capacity of the network and is a sign of community support and investment. This measure is largely met through local CAA outreach and partnership efforts. The First Annual Report of Performance Outcomes from the Community Services Block Grant Program FY 2001 highlights accomplishments on volunteer contributions to the network. In FY 2001, 51 states reported information. In FY 2000, 48 states reported information, 45 states in FY 1999 and 43 for FY 1998.

Voluntary contributions have fluctuated over the years, declining from 28 million in FY 1996 to 27 million hours in FY 1997 and 26.8 million hours in FY 1998 and then rising to 27.4 million hours in FY 1999 and have continued to increase every year since FY 1999. In FY 2001, 32 million hours were contributed exceeding the target by more than 15% and 40.51 million hours were contributed in FY 2002 exceeding the target by more than 37%.

Contributions by volunteers will continue to increase as agencies develop new volunteer opportunities. Operations presently underway with the National Council on the Aginginvolve the use of volunteers to assist eligible seniors and persons with disabilities obtain public benefits. The Council and CAAs will be working with faith-based organizations, churches, older teenagers and the elderly to access public benefits via a web-based program. OCS and the Internal Revenue Services are working with the Community Services Network to train local volunteers to assist individuals to appropriately file EITC claims. This measure was dropped in FY 2004.

PROGRAM GOAL - Conditions in which low-income people live are improved.

FY 2004-2005 Plan
7.1c.	Increase the amount of non-Federal dollars mobilized and coordinated to combat local conditions that keep people in poverty per $1,000 of CSBG block grant dollars expended to support core state and local CSBG network activities. (Efficiency measure) (Modified).
FY 2003 Plan
	Increase over the previous year's target, the amount of non-Federal resources brought into low-income communities by the Community Services Network (in billions of leveraged non-Federal funds). Data Source: State Annual CSBG Reports

This measure has been important to the CSBG program because CSBG funds are the primary core funding for the network. Leveraging financial resources is essential to providing vital programs and the necessary services for improving the lives and conditions of low-income people. This measure is largely met through local agency capacity building efforts. The First Annual Report of Performance Outcomes from the Community Services Block Grant Program FY 2001 highlights accomplishments on leveraging other Federal as well as non-Federal financial resources.

Trend data for this measure has indicated continuous improvement. The level of non-Federal funding consistently exceeded the targets between FY 1996 and FY 1999. The amount leveraged increased from $1.20 billion in FY 1996 to $1.92 billion in FY 1999. In FY 2000, the non-Federal funding decreased to $1.83 billion because fewer states reported. However, in FY 2001, 51 states reported leveraging $2.55 billion in non-Federal resources and in FY 2002, 50 states reported leveraging $2.68 billion in non-Federal resources. We expect that CSBG funds will continue to leverage increases in non-Federal funds.

 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next